For all their talk about the 'job-killing' EPA, Republicans have a dirty little secret. The GOP's secret EPA love

Republicans have spent a lot of time this year criticizing the EPA, so one would think that President Barack Obama’s proposal to cut $1.3 billion from its budget would be well-received.

Not quite.


For all their talk about the “job-killing” EPA, Republicans have a dirty little secret: They actually like many of the agency’s efforts, particularly bread-and-butter programs aimed at cleaning up drinking water and air pollution in their districts.

It’s in those areas where Obama has suggested the most budget pain, putting Republicans in the position of defending EPA and accusing the White House of playing politics.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Washington’s top climate skeptic and most vocal opponent of EPA regulations, took issue with the proposal to slash nearly $1 billion from state revolving loan funds — cash that gets doled out to local drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects.

“You can bet these cuts will be restored, because many of my colleagues believe these are worthwhile programs,” Inhofe told EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at a hearing Wednesday.

Inhofe also accused the administration of performing a “fiscal bait and switch” by proposing cuts to those well-liked programs instead of slashing programs “that don’t deserve funding.”

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee that includes EPA, said Obama is “either playing politics with his budget or this further illustrates that the EPA is simply out of touch.”

The White House proposed cutting state revolving funds for clean water and drinking water projects by $950 million from fiscal 2010 levels, which still would leave the EPA with $2.5 billion to fund state and tribal infrastructure projects. Republicans proposed to cut nearly twice as much as the Obama administration — about $2 billion — in the continuing resolution that passed the House last month.

That Obama might seek to dare lawmakers to cut programs they like is no surprise. Previous administrations often called for cuts to water infrastructure programs — which used to be highly earmarked — with confidence Congress wouldn’t go along.

“In terms of voting records and public support, investments in water infrastructure are something that is able to rise above the traditional partisan discourse,” said John Krohn, manager of legislative affairs at the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. That’s in part because lawmakers get a lot of pressure from state regulators, local communities, conservation groups and others to keep the funds flowing home, he added.

Obama also took aim at one of Simpson’s favorite programs — calling to cut $60 million from an initiative that seeks to reduce diesel emissions from older vehicles.

“I question the rationale for some of the 2012 proposals, most notably eliminating diesel emissions reductions grants to retrofit old diesel engines while proposing to start new programs to regulate greenhouse gases,” Simpson said at a hearing Thursday with Jackson.

The diesel program had “clear, proven, quantifiable benefits” and “broad bipartisan support,” Simpson added.

Inhofe, too, had some kind words for the diesel program. “When it comes to real pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, EPA's budget falls short,” he said. He added that the diesel program has broad bipartisan support and would help reduce “real” pollutants.

The White House budget would also cut the interagency Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by $125 million to $350 million. The program — championed by Great Lakes lawmakers — is aimed at fighting invasive species and reducing pollution in the lakes.

Another one of the EPA’s vocal critics in the House, Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) lavished praise Thursday upon the agency’s cleanup activities in the Great Lakes.

“On the issue of the Great Lakes, I want to commend the president,” LaTourette said, going on to applaud the administration’s efforts to “put real money behind the Great Lakes cleanup initiatives” through the interagency restoration program aimed at targeting invasive species and cleaning up pollution.

Democrats haven’t embraced the cuts either, and Jackson had a tough time this week defending the proposals, telling House and Senate lawmakers the budget is a “tough, tough budget full of tough choices.”

She noted that both the water infrastructure programs and the diesel retrofit program received funding under the stimulus program that’s still being doled out.

Simpson wasn’t thrilled with her response, however, noting that Republicans came under fire for proposing to cut funding to water infrastructure programs back to the 2008 funding level — a cut of about $2 billion — in the 2011 continuing resolution.

“We were criticized as undermining and destroying the state revolving loan funds,” he said, asking Jackson whether the EPA’s fiscal 2012 proposal — which aims to cut those funds by about $1 billion — would “destroy” the programs.

“Half as much as you,” she joked, to general laughter in the hearing room.

“Is that your answer, so you are destroying it?” Simpson said.

“Destroying, I don’t know what that word means,” Jackson said, adding that the cuts were a “tough decision,” but that the programs had been bolstered by the economic stimulus bill.