Even now, it's still Scott Pruitt vs. the EPA
- Author: Zachary Reyes Mar 17, 2017,
Mar 17, 2017, 3:23
Congressman Patrick Meehan, R-7, of Upper Darby, said that while he liked some parts of the overall budget proposal, including half a billion to combat the opioid crisis, he had "serious concerns" about "significant cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, which may hamper its ability to protect our air and drinking water".
In 1990, digital cameras came to the United States, smoking was banned on cross-country flights, the state's first Wal-Mart opened in York, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency's budget was about $5.5 billion. This would mean a 31-percent reduction from 2017 funding levels - the biggest proposed cut for any government agency. The Office of Research and Development monitors water quality and harmful algal blooms in lakes, researches the role of black carbon on climate change and assesses the risk to public health from asbestos. The Sierra Club, the nation's largest grassroots environmental organization, found the comments so egregious that it filed a formal complaint with the Inspector General of the EPA on Wednesday, alleging that Pruitt's comments violate the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy.
The EPA itself also contradicts Konkus' statement.
The gouging of the EPA budget announced Thursday goes deeper still. Environmental justice activists have long argued that the revitalization of any poor community must include commitments to improve air quality and ensure access to safe water.
"How are you going to prioritize and cut funding at the same time?" And a $20,000 EPA grant to clean up a contaminated site in Spartanburg, South Carolina, eventually blossomed into a $270 million investment in economic revitalization, job training, environmental cleanup, infrastructure and the establishment of a local health services center. Its goal, then and still now, is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to their health and the environment where they live, learn and work. "It is our understanding that an initial budget blueprint only included $10 million for the Initiative, which if accurate, would be 97 percent below the $300 million Congress appropriated in FY 2016 and in previous fiscal years". "He thinks they overreach, and the budget reflects that", Mick Mulvaney said.
"President Trump's budget is dirty and risky and fails to protect our health or our planet".
During both Republican and Democratic administrations, Ali said considerable progress was made on remediating and protecting these vulnerable communities. "They'll have to make a choice of whether they're going to be loyal to their party ... or their constituents".