House appropriators assure Pruitt that EPA budget cuts are not going to fly

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, expressed concern over the cuts the budget proposes for the agency’s flagship cleanup program called Superfund.

The proposed fiscal 2018 budget for EPA slashes its funding by a historic 31.4 percent, zeroing out a number of key programs for regulating hazardous chemicals, protecting lakes and waterways, cleaning up contaminated industrial sites through Superfund while clipping its wings on climate change programs.

Even though he shares some of the “frustration” when it comes to the EPA, the chairman said, “I also come from the nation’s most densely populated state, New Jersey, and we are home to an historical background which shows us to have more Superfund sites than any state in the nation.”

He advised that Pruitt move with “caution before you take too many dramatic steps,” said Frelinghuysen, noting that most of the cost of the cleanup program is funded by the industry that owns the site being cleaned up. And only 30 percent of the cost of the program comes from the taxpayer.

Pruitt responded by saying that the program is “absolutely a priority” for the administration while admitting that “funding could be an issue.” He said he is open to working with the Congress to address funding and lawmakers’ concerns.

He said the program has been plagued by a lack of leadership. Many of the several hundred sites under the program have been languishing for nearly three decades without a focus on resolution, and finally restoring the areas, which typically have been sites used by industry like mining and steel works. The administrator said they want to renew the program’s focus and direction.

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, chairman of the Appropriation Committee’s energy panel, questioned cutting funding to EPA’s pesticide program under the proposed budget, which could pose problems for potato farmers in his state. “The president’s proposal plans to cut well below the congressionally mandated minimum,” and with that would not lend to farmers the necessary crop protection tools they need to maintain production and jobs, Simpson said.

Simpson, however, did praise the administration for taking steps to roll back restrictive regulations such as the Water of the U.S. Rule, overreaching standards for arsenic and regional haze standards, which are major concerns in western states.

Nevertheless, Rep. Tom Cole, a Republican from Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma, assured him that he will not see the cuts that his budget is proposing. “I can assure you that you are going to be the first EPA administrator that has come before this committee in the last eight years and actually gets more money then they ask for,” Cole said.

“That doesn’t mean you’ll get as much as you’ve had, but you will do better than you’ve asked for,” he added to laughter among committee members. Cole said the cuts that EPA’s proposal makes to programs that support Native American tribes in his state are concerns and he will work to see increased.

“I remind you … , these are treaty obligations, they aren’t generous grants, we’ve maintained certain commitments, so maintaining those and advancing them as this committee has is something we are awful serious about,” Cole said.

Democrats also prodded Pruitt over a number of program cuts. Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said she was surprised that Pruitt didn’t propose to eliminate the agency altogether while prodding him for denying the realities of climate change.

“The vast majority of Americans agree, manmade climate change is real and it poses a threat to our planet,” Lowey said. “I do hope that this Congress will reject in a bipartisan way this dangerous budget, and instead adopt spending bills that would invest in combating climate change, keeping our air an water clean, and creating jobs for the 21st century economy.”