House approves bill cutting EPA budget by 40%.
The House Approves Deep Cuts in Interior-Environmental Budget
In a partisan floor vote on November 3, the House adopted a $25.4 billion Interior-Environmental appropriations package, slashing more than 35 percent from this year’s budget. The package includes a nearly 40 percent reduction in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This move is part of the House’s approval of seven out of the 12 appropriations packages that make up the annual federal budget.
During a 10-hour, two-day debate, the House passed several amendments aimed at rescinding Biden administration policies, such as public lands oil/gas royalties and lease rate hikes, “environmental justice” initiatives, and executive orders on climate change. Democrats argued that these amendments are ideological and will likely be rejected by the Democrat-led Senate.
While the bill has no chance of becoming law, House Republicans hope to leverage it in negotiations with the Senate regarding government funding.
Deep Cuts in the Proposed Budget
The House’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 allocates $25.4 billion, which is $13.4 billion (35 percent) less than the previous year’s funding. The Department of the Interior (DOI) would receive $14.3 billion, $677 million below the previous year’s levels and $3.4 billion less than President Biden’s budget request.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would face a significant cut, receiving nearly $6.2 billion, a 39-percent reduction from the previous year’s budget and only half of the amount requested by the Biden administration. This would be the EPA’s smallest budget in about three decades.
Representative Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) criticized Republicans for sending budget bills to the Senate that they know will not be adopted. He called it irresponsible, especially considering the looming government shutdown.
On the other hand, Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.), Chair of the Rules Committee, defended the House’s budget, stating that it reflects the needs of the people rather than the government. He emphasized the focus on fiscal restraint and essential resources for clean water, public safety, and domestic energy production.
The House engaged in two days of floor debates, discussing proposed amendments to the DOI budget. Among the most contentious amendments was one by Representative Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) to rescind the Biden administration’s increases in federal public land oil/gas royalty and per-acre lease rates.
Fierce Debate Over Amendments
Representative Ogles argued that the royalty and lease hikes mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act do not address inflation and instead raise energy costs for consumers. He criticized the act for offering substantial subsidies for renewable energy development while burdening the oil and gas industry.
In response, Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) expressed disbelief that Republicans oppose modernizing public lands royalty and lease rates for the first time since the 1920s. She accused them of catering to oil and gas interests and called the amendments terrible.
In addition to the DOI-environmental budget, the House also advanced the proposed Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development budget. The transportation spending plan will be debated on the floor starting November 6.
The House’s strategy of approving bills with spending cuts aims to negotiate from a position of strength with the Senate. Republicans argue that fiscal responsibility is crucial, given the nation’s $33.6 trillion debt.
How do House Republicans justify the budget cuts to agencies like the EPA and what are the potential implications of these cuts on environmental protection efforts, clean energy transition, and public health?
Te that are “dead on arrival.” He argued that these deep cuts to the Interior-Environmental budget would have detrimental effects on programs and initiatives that protect our natural resources and address climate change. Neguse emphasized the importance of adequately funding agencies like the EPA to ensure a healthy environment for current and future generations.
Republican Arguments and Potential Implications
House Republicans defended the budget cuts as necessary to rein in government spending and reduce the deficit. They argued that agencies like the EPA have become bloated and inefficient, and that reducing their funding would encourage them to operate more efficiently and prioritize their resources better.
However, critics argue that these cuts would undermine critical environmental protection efforts, hinder the transition to clean energy, and threaten public health. The EPA plays a crucial role in enforcing environmental regulations, combating climate change, and safeguarding the quality of our air, water, and land.
Furthermore, cutting the budget of the Department of the Interior would limit its ability to manage and protect public lands and wildlife, preserve cultural and historical sites, and promote outdoor recreation. These reductions could result in negative consequences for conservation efforts and the economic benefits that come from tourism and outdoor activities.
Impact on Negotiations with the Senate
Although the House’s proposed budget is unlikely to become law, House Republicans hope to use it as a bargaining tool in negotiations with the Senate regarding government funding. The Senate, controlled by the Democrats, is likely to push for higher funding levels for environmental and conservation programs.
These negotiations will be crucial in determining the final budget allocation for the upcoming fiscal year. While compromise and bipartisan cooperation are necessary to reach a consensus, the significant disparities between the House and Senate proposals may pose challenges.
Ultimately, the outcome of these negotiations will not only impact the funding of important environmental agencies and programs but also shape the policies and initiatives aimed at addressing climate change, protecting natural resources, and promoting sustainable development.
Conclusion
The House’s approval of deep cuts in the Interior-Environmental budget raises concerns about the potential consequences for environmental protection, conservation efforts, and public health. While House Republicans argue for reducing government spending, critics view these cuts as a threat to vital initiatives combating climate change and safeguarding our natural resources.
As negotiations with the Senate ensue, finding common ground and prioritizing the well-being of our environment and future generations will be essential. Balancing fiscal responsibility and the need for adequate funding to address pressing environmental challenges should be at the forefront of these discussions.
Ultimately, the decisions made regarding the budget will have far-reaching implications, shaping the trajectory of environmental policies and determining our commitment to creating a sustainable and resilient future.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
