House Republican Plan for EPA would Hurt Public Health

Environmental Working Group (EWG) reaction to both the House Republican and Obama administration budget proposals for the Environmental Protection Agency.

EWG reaction to House Republicans' proposed budget cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2011:

"The Neanderthal cuts presented in the so-called Republican budget would make even James G. Watt and Anne Gorsuch Burford blush," Environmental Working Group (EWG) president Ken Cook said. "This proposal nearly abolishes EPA. It would jeopardize the safety and quality of our air, water, and public lands for generations to come."

"The Republican's draconian cuts would leave more Americans susceptible to cancer, asthma, lung disease and other debilitating health problems," Cook said. "America's most vulnerable populations, including children, would take the brunt of this assault. This proposal could have been written in the boardrooms of BP and Exxon, but it actually came from those who were elected by the people to look out for their interests."

EWG reaction to the President's proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2012:

"There's no question that we're in tough fiscal times and that all federal agencies have to reduce expenditures, "EWG president Ken Cook said. "However, now is not the time to slash investments in government programs for important projects and water infrastructure improvements that deliver clean, safe tap water to the public. Cutting nearly a billion dollars from the State Revolving Funds program would set us back years in achieving that goal."

"The president and EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson have clearly proved their commitment to protecting the public from toxic chemicals," Cook said. "The proposed funding increase for these efforts is very encouraging. This aspect of the budget reflects the Obama administration's unwavering commitment to chemical safety."