Washington
While White House officials have already indicated that they plan to increase defense spending at the expense of other discretionary funding, the new document spells out exactly how this new approach will affect long-standing federal programs that have a direct impact on Americans’ everyday lives.
“The administration’s 2018 budget blueprint will prioritize rebuilding the military and making critical investments in the nation’s security. It will also identify the savings and efficiencies needed to keep the nation on a responsible fiscal path,” it reads. “Your (funding) level highlights the trade-offs and choices inherent in pursuing these goals.”
Acknowledging that the steep cuts “will create many challenges,” the document adds, “it also can serve as catalyst for how the agency functions in the next 10 or 20 years or beyond. By looking ahead and focusing on clean water, clean air and other core responsibilities, rather than activities that are not required by law, EPA will be able to effectively achieve its mission.”
During his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Donald Trump said he was determined “to promote clean air and clear water” while in office.
The plan to slash EPA’s staff from its current level of 15,000 to 12,000, which could be accomplished in part through a buyout offer as well as layoffs, is one of several changes for which the new administration has asked agency staff for comment by close of business Wednesday. Multiple individuals briefed on the plan confirmed the request by OMB, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The proposal also dictates cutting the agency’s grants to states, including its air and water programs, by 30 percent, and eliminating 38 separate programs in their entirety. Programs designated for zero funding include grants to clean up brownfields, or abandoned industrial sites; a national electronic manifest system for hazardous waste; environmental justice programs; climate-change initiatives; and funding for native Alaskan villages.
The agency’s Office of Research and Development could face a cut of up to 42 percent, according to an individual apprised of the administration’s plans. The document eliminates funding altogether for the office’s “contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program,” a climate initiative that then-President George H.W. Bush launched in 1989.
S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in an email that the proposed cuts would devastate critical federal financial support for communities across the country.
“These cuts, if enacted by Congress, will rip the heart and soul out of the national air pollution control program and jeopardize the health and welfare of tens of millions of people around the country,” Becker said.
Craig Kenworthy, who serves as executive director of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and co-president of NACAA, said in an interview that air officials across the United States would not be able to meet their statutory responsibilities if their funding were cut that deeply. He noted that the Benton Clean Air Agency in central Washington has five staff members responsible for duties including monitoring air quality, issuing permits and letting local farmers know when they can burn fields.
“It’s basically saying to the local agencies, ‘So you still have to meet all the federal requirements, and then you’re going to lose a quarter to a third of your budgets,’ ” Kenworthy said, noting that he worries that environmental groups could sue them if they don’t fulfill their legal responsibilities. “I understand there may be some people in the new administration who may not like some of the current Clean Air Act requirements … but we still have to meet them.”
Any such cuts would have to be codified through the congressional appropriations process and would likely face resistance from some lawmakers. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who used to be chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, said he did not think Congress would approve such a steep drop in funding.
“There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud,” Simpson said, noting that he and other Republicans had already reduced the agency’s budget dramatically in recent years. “But if the goal is, we’re going to cut 15,000 employees down to 2,000 — OK, why 2,000? Why not 2,700? Why not 1,500? You know?”
Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., who succeeded Simpson as chairman of the subcommittee, said he could not comment because he had not seen numbers come out of the White House. But he added, “Obviously, you can’t pick up $54 billion out of EPA.”
Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee, declined to comment Wednesday on the proposed EPA cuts but said in an email that the panel “will carefully look at the budget proposal once it is sent to Congress.”
“The chairman strongly agrees that more investment in our national defense is needed, and that all federal programs should be reviewed as to their worth and value,” Hing added. “As always, the power of the purse lies with Congress, and any budget decisions will go through the regular budget and appropriations process.”
Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., the top Democrat on the Interior appropriations subcommittee, said the proposal to cut the EPA’s budget has gotten Americans’ attention
“People are waking up to this,” McCollum said, adding that she has expressed her concerns to Calvert but is unsure how much he will do to resist Trump’s plans. “It’s going to be up to him to get his caucus in line.”
Regardless of the final budget numbers, the instructions to EPA serve as a blueprint for how the new administration plans to delegate many responsibilities to the states even as it cuts the money they will receive from the federal government.
It tells the agency that it should get states “to assume more active enforcement roles” when it comes to enforcing federal environmental standards and it should curtail its compliance-monitoring activities.
“EPA is to evaluate ways to reduce federal enforcement inspections while keeping a consistent and effective enforcement program,” the document reads.