House Budget Bill Cuts EPA and Interior Funds

The budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2012, includes some heavy budget slashing, which could threaten wildlife and clean air programs.

The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Act of 2012, which details the budgets of the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2012, includes some heavy budget slashing, which could threaten wildlife and clean air programs.

Related agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would receive a 21 percent cut compared to last year’s budget. The exact figures include the agency receiving $1.2 billion dollars for the next fiscal year, which is $315 million less than the previous fiscal year’s budget. Many programs under this agency like the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund are taking a substantial cut (65 percent and 95 percent respectively).

One of the leading agencies that will feel the budget crunch is the EPA with an 18 percent cut. The agency will receive $7.1 billion, $1.5 billion less than in the previous budget.

According to the National Wildlife Federation these budget restrictions would limit control of the carbon produced from coal-fired power plants and limit reporting of greenhouse gases from other sources like manure.

Additionally, the Department of the Interior would receive an overall 7 percent cut while receiving $9.9 billion, which is $720 million less than the last fiscal year. Significant cuts include a $30 million dollar cut to the U.S. Geological Survey in which the majority of this program’s cuts are in climate change and satellite imaging.

More cuts under the Interior include an 80 percent cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, creating the smallest budget in the fund’s history. This project buys land to protect land and water. Additionally, the National Wildlife Refuge System will receive a 21 percent cut, which threatens to put many biologists and operators out of work.

“The bill is riddled with special interest policy riders, pet provisions, and unprecedented cuts to virtually every program that protects the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the public lands and wildlife that we cherish,” said National Wildlife Federation’s Senior Director of Congressional and Federal Affairs Adam Kolton in a NWF press release.

Many on the opposing political side see this bill as Congress simply doing its job under a severe federal deficit. The House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee is headed by Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson, who holds firmly that the act provides a responsible level of funding for the agencies while saving taxpayers and the federal government $2.1 billion dollars.

“We are living at a time when the federal government borrows over 40 cents for each dollar that it spends. We are also living at a time of record deficits and debts. This committee is taking meaningful steps to help put our country’s fiscal house in order. While reductions in discretionary spending alone will not erase the deficit, the bill before us this morning is a step forward in that direction,” said Simpson during the subcommittee markup.

Presently, the bill will cost taxpayers $27.5 billion, which is 12 percent less than President Obama’s budget request. The act, according to Simpson’s press release, is aimed at shifting spending away from expensive programs with unproven results to core mission essentials. For example, various climate change programs received a 22 percent cut while Native American community programs seem virtually untouched.

“Some naysayers will no doubt try to portray Republicans as not supporting clean water, clean air, and a clean environment, but such assertions are simply untrue,” said Simpson in a press release on his Web page. “The reality is that the EPA has received unprecedented and unsustainable increases in recent years. In an environment of historic budget deficits and reduced spending, it should come as no surprise that the agency that saw the greatest increases will inevitably see the greatest cuts.”