BREAKING: House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 source

By Andrew Restuccia – 02/11/11 07:33 PM ET

A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.

The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.

The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.

“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”

The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.

Full report here: House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Lance

Its a start!!!

Jason Joice

Can ANYONE explain to me why the EPA needs roughly $10 billion for their budget anyway? I would think $1 billion would be too much. No wonder the US is drowning in debt.

Jeremy

The justifications for voting against it might be fun to read.

What Lance said.

R. Shearer

But won’t these cuts hurt the porn industry? For example: http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/01/28/government-porn/

Tom_R

Whoo Hoo !

tokyoboy

Let me send you, over the big basin, my heartfelt congratularions on your cultural enlightenment!

Baa Humbug

EPA budget goes backwards.
Jackson does moonwalk.
Obama sez thinking of (heads of) families, he’ll Vito Corleone the Bill

Bob Barker

Excellent news!

John Whitman

Open debate! Nice.
John

FergalR

Money talks.
The oil companies with loads of money backed the CO2 horse – which they owned and doped to high heaven by funding the weak, misguided researchers they wanted.
Three hard Northern Hemispheres later nobody believes their BS except those who were brainwashed by reading Hansen et al‘s science fiction.
The developed world needs to build coal-to-liquid plants as soon as possible.
Carbon indulgences are properly losing their fake credibility:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-10/ice-applies-bigger-haircuts-on-emission-permits-used-as-collateral.html?cmpid=msnmoney
Turning cheap and plentiful coal into the liquid fuel we use will be a disaster for “Big Oil” which is why they’re pushing the climate change nonsense.

Ted

Thank you Rep. Fred Upton, Mike Simpson and the House Republicans.
This is good news, it’s a start, sanity is starting the slow and steady creep back into America and hopefully the rest of the world.

PJB

While I have never thought much of the Republicans since Ike, I am starting to like what I see.

Douglas

Best news I’ve heard for years! Thank gof for the US – now all we need is for the UK to wake up – fat chance!
Cheers
Douglas

John Whitman

Whatever side of the AGW controversy anyone is on, would we all agree it is most appropriate that congress is in the critical detailed chain of command . . . not replaced by a self-reinforcing bureaucracy like the EPA? Does anyone think the EPA hires skeptical thinkers?
John

Douglas DC

I want Waxman, Pelosi,and Hoyer on the record. On this the engineers of Cap’n tax.
Now. Good for the Pubbies, bring it on!

P.G. Sharrow

The house wants to cut EPA 29% and the PROTUS will veto? Sounds good to me, no funding is better then some! pg

RACookPE1978

Big oil brought on the CO2 limits and funded the CO2 hysteria?
Utter hogwash!
Oil is used for less than 2% of electric power generation, over 68% is coal – the “fixed plants” that this legislation refers removes EPA CO2 limits from.
Pelosi’s oil exploration limits and her anti-CO2 policies and laws beginning in 2007 brought the recession that led to Obama’s Nov 2008 election. This is only a very small step in the right direction of a full recovery of a reasonable energy policy.

Frank K.

BBBut…who’s going to fund the IPCC? NASA-GISS? Trips to Bali and Cancun? The hysterical, manic climate press releases? Big pay raises and benefits packages for the climate elites? RealClimate’s website…oops that’s already covered by George Soros.

bubbagyro

Let’s thank Sen. Inhofe for never once relenting or compromising, during times when it seemed he was the only voice in the Congressional wilderness.

Ted

Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
I just read Steve Milloy, at Green hell blog and he has his pulse on this EPA and the Obama administration determination to shut down the economy.
Steve writes:
Does the GOP have a secret strategy? Has it forgotten the election? Or is it afraid of the EPA?
Senate and House Republicans just announced plans to introduce legislation stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). That sounds encouraging?
But the reality is that even if such a bill winds up on President Obama’s desk, he’ll veto it, and there aren’t enough Republicans to override a veto.
At best, these bills are political theater intended for impact in 2012. But the EPA isn’t waiting until then.
Its best (and really only) shot at reeling in the arrogant Obama EPA is to cut the agency’s funding. Without House approval, the EPA has no budget. A great opportunity to choke off EPA funding arrives early next month when last December’s deal to fund the federal government until March 4 expires.
Read more @ http://greenhellblog.com/2011/02/09/defund-the-epa/
or Article in The Washington Times @ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/9/defund-the-epa/
We need to push this at a political level.

hotrod (Larry L)

Good move!!
Regulators should not have a blank check to write back door laws by regulation.
Enabling legislation for regulatory agencies like the EPA need to include a mandatory periodic review of regulations by the legislative branch, and re-affirmation of their regulatory authority and the regulations that they write.
No matter how well intentioned a group is, over time, unlimited authority to issue regulations will be abused as the regulations slowly morph into more and more restrictive versions with more and more unintended consequences and intentionally planted back doors to further regulation.
Keep regulatory agencies on a short leash and a tight budget. Make them prove they server a useful purpose on a periodic audit of their authority, regulations and methods.
To do otherwise is to leave the cookie jar unattended in a room of hungry kids.
Larry

R. Gates

Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

CodeTech

FergalR says:

Turning cheap and plentiful coal into the liquid fuel we use will be a disaster for “Big Oil” which is why they’re pushing the climate change nonsense.

Excuse me? Do you actually believe this???
Who else has the capital to build these processing plants, who else has the transportation and distribution systems to exploit them?
Big Oil.
It used to be that people thought the Oil Sands here were going to be developed by “someone else”, shutting down “Big Oil”. Not even remotely close. A few startups worked on developing extraction technology, then sold it to Big Oil and walked away wealthy.
Big Oil will always be Big Oil. And instead of ranting against them, any sane individual will have Big Oil front and center in their portfolio.

GregO

Go go go GOP! Makes me proud to be a Republican again!

Douglas DC

Ah-we are forgetting congress provides the budget. The funds have to come from congress. No funding, no programs. When the Dems sold out the South Vietnamese
in 1974,-a good example and the Executive couldn’t do a thing about it. Also I wouldn’t count out a override from the Senate if it comes to that. There are scared Dems out there, and some do not want to see the economy crash and burn…
Well maybe the ones from California, which is crashing and burning…

bubbagyro

I suggest today that any and all companies impacted by CO2 rulings just refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of EPA at all, pending current legislation and court cases federally and in California. EPA were never authorized to make laws to begin with, that is the purview of Congress. Besides, the Obama administration set the precedent by remaining in contempt of the courts by not overruling the Gulf drilling ban as they were so ordered. Nor do they respond to FOIA requests as so required.
What goes around…

Theo Goodwin

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
Not at all!!! Keep the heat on the Prez!!! Job-killing Prez.
Good Work, Republicans. Take every opportunity to deprive the EPA of its resources. And make sure you spend a lot of time on national TV doing it.

John Whitman

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
– – – – – – – – – –
R. Gates,
A (presidential veto) would just greatly enhance the probability that our current president is a one term president!
It is a win-win-win situation for the Republicans no matter if the bill is passed or not passed or vetoed. Think of the simple elegance of the overall Republican strategy. : )
The democratic Achilles heel is they think they are more intelligent than there political opponents . . . . a fatal assumption.
NOTE: Come to think of it, it sort of mirrors the fatal assumption of the elitist scientists (dare I say ‘the Team”) supporting the ideological AGW movement of the biased IPCC.
NOTE 2: And I am not even a political party endorsing US citizen.
John

Tom_R

>> R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh? <<
Hopefully it will. Then there will ne ZERO funding for the EPA.

wayne Job

R. Gates says:
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
Too bad indeed sir, for it is the senate that must pass appropriation bills.
What a terrible shame it would be if the senate had to with hold all funding to the EPA, because of a recalcitrant President. This is the beginning of a game politicians play, the outcome of which is likely to be a return to common sense.

TomRude

And Hoggan will “expose” a mere $21 million from Exxon on few years funding… LOL

SunSword

The president vetoes it? Oh please, please don’t throw us into that brier patch! As has been pointed out, if the president vetoes a spending bill — well there is no funding then at all. So the agency can pack up and go home.

David Davidovics

Veto was the first word that popped into my head too. However anything to get this out into the open is worth while in my mind. Now instead of being able to hind behind the EPA, people in Washington will have to put their names on one side or the other for this issue in a very open and public manner.
Reading the rest of the article, there are a few “politically incorrect” ideas in there. Definitely throwing down the gauntlet!

bubbagyro

House will pass it.
Senate has to renew the operting budget which expires in a couple of weeks. Perfect timing, with the greatest overall leverage.
Sen. Inhofe will not compromise on this, and he has high seniority. The result will be a withering game of chicken in the Senate. Get ready for some fun.
Looking good—let’s see whether it will be gambit denied or gambit accepted.

Werner Brozek

As a Canadian, I know that Prime Minister Harper does not want to harm our economy with this sort of thing. And when the opposition wants to press our federal government to do something about CO2, the standard reply is that we have to be in sync with the U.S. So I wish you success against the EPA!

bubbagyro

[I meant gambit declined}

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

Looks like R. Gates didn’t read the article. You see this bill isn’t just for funding the EPA, it’s to fund the entire government:

The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

So if Obama Vetos the bill or the Senate Dems kill it they just cut all funding for the government, you know the whole shut down the government thing that the Dems and the MSM have been saying for weeks would be political suicide for the GOP to do.

House of Representatives
Battle Over Budget Cuts Raises Specter of Federal Government Shutdown

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/11/battle-budget-cuts-raises-specter-federal-government-shutdown/#ixzz1DiSym1LR
So there is Obama’s and the Dems choices cut the EPA funding (and the other 97 Billion in cuts ) or shutdown the government. Imagine what his approval rating will then be on handling the economy, the debt and the deficit. He’s already at 27% approval on handling the debt, 30% on the deficit and 37% on the economy. I guess he thinks the first to 0 approval wins!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110209/pl_yblog_theticket/obamas-approval-rating-on-the-deficit-hits-new-low

FergalR

racookpe1978 says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Big oil brought on the CO2 limits and funded the CO2 hysteria?
Utter hogwash!
[…]
————————————–
Is it really hogwash racookpe1978?
Did BP and Shell Oil not fund CRU’s research?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Is ExxonMobil not giving $10 million-odd to the late Dr. Stephen Schneiders’ Stanford every year for climate-related research?
http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/sponsors.html
Didn’t the late Dr. Schneider always bang on about an imaginary “big oil” conspiracy like that discredited buffoon Mann still does?
Observation continues to prove your cause wrong.
At today’s oil prices coal-to-liquid fuel would be dirt cheap. But the process emits that horrific life-giving gas: carbon dioxide.
Here’s what the late Dr. Schneider thought:
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination […] So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts […] Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
These people are paid huge money to convince us all that we’re fools.
They failed.
Sadly, public confidence in all science has been damaged by their big-oil funded denial of reality.

R. Gates

More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

Harold Pierce Jr

Mother Nature has just put the Okies into a deep freeze and given Sen. Inhofe one really big pile of snowballs to hurl at Lisa J and her crowd at the EPA.

crosspatch

It’s about time the US Government learns that the Earth’s climate is outside its jurisdiction.

bubbagyro

The Republicans are united on this, and the Democrats are fragmented. I cannot see any upside for the Dems on this; therefore the reasonable people of the country have the upper hand, at least at this point.

johnb

It’s not enough, we need to cut far more out of the federal budget and the EPA. I ran across this video earlier today that shows just how much our current overrun is.

Dave Springer

This is where the fun starts. Political Science 101: Congress controls the purse strings.
Discretionary spending, such as that authorized for the EPA, is “appropriated” annually in an amount determined by congress. Once congress, through a couple of dozen committees each responsible for sub-groups of appropriations, approves an appropriation bill it goes the president for signing. The president can either sign it, not sign it, or veto it. If he signs it then it authorizes the spending. If he doesn’t sign it within 10 days it is automatically authorized. If he vetos it then no spending at all is authorized.
One wonders how gung-ho Lisa Jackson will be for CO2 emission controls when her paychecks stop because the EPA’s 29% reduced appropriation was cut to $0 by a presidential veto. $0 sounds good to me. I hope the president DOES veto it. Let’s hear it for a presidential veto – hip hip hooray!

Konrad

The proposed bill HR.97 (The Free Industry Act) section 3 reads –
“Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.”
If Obama chooses stall all appropriations for the Eco-thieves Paralysing America by vetoing HR.97, he will also be reassociating himself with the words “global warming”. After he was laughed at in his first SOTU address when he used the term I am sure Obama is aware that the original name for the hoax is politically toxic. A veto comes with a bonus prize, a colourful neck tie with an interesting dead sea bird motif.

savethesharks

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
=========================================
Nobody gives a rat’s patooty on that one.
His power is fast fast waning. And not a minute too soon.
So your point [as always] is moot.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm
More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.
==================================
Keep talking it down, R. More likely it is your (and the others you support in the current Establishment’s….such as Lisa Jackson et.al’s) sideshow.
But thanks for your comments. You make responding to them “fun.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

GregO

Just wrote a nice long email to my (republican) representative. He now knows just exactly where this voter stands.
I’m really glad the EPA is on the radar screen and ideally (IMHO) it would be a positive development if this became a political litmus-test issue. For me, it already is. Climategate did more to politicize me than any issue to date.
The public face of government supported alarmism just isn’t pretty: Holdren, (a Malthusian crackpot), Hansen (mildly psychotic), Gore (thoroughly corrupt), Obama (an incompetent puppet out of his league), all the poodle publications and MSM and it appears to me the public is getting ever more sick of their puerile nonsense each passing day.
CAGW could become a huge wedge issue; and it would if more of the public knew how it is being “played” by insiders. Just bringing up this legislation could start the ball rolling.

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm
More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

First showing he didn’t read the article, Mr. Gates shows that he doesn’t understand the legislative process. You see Mr. Gates the Senate doesn’t have final say. You should read up on the Budget Process here first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process
Pay particular attention to this part:

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

So first you are counting on every Dem in the Senate to side with removing that from the bill (not likely with 23 up for re-election and one already known Dem, Joe Manchin, who opposes the EPA regulation of CO2 or a Cap and trade bill) and second even if the Senate removes it from the bill they have to negotiate with the House GOP over the final bill and it has to re pass the House. So then you are counting on the GOP to reverse course in the reconciliation process and if that happens you need a third step: The House to pass it without the cuts. Good luck trying to get the Trifecta, you have better odds down at Santa Anita then that happening in the Congress.
So I can see the headlines now if the Senate kills the bill by removing the cuts:
Senate Dems kill Funding bill, shut down government:
Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats would not pass the funding bill over a 3 billion dollar cut to the EPA. In a move of cut your nose off to spite your face the Senate shut the entire EPA down by removing funding for the entire federal government in an effort to keep 3 billion in other spending for it….
Just replace the Senate Dems with Obama if the cuts remain and he vetos it.