Posted on 05/10/2011 7:06:04 AM PDT by wbill
WASHINGTON (MCT) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy would merge under a bill introduced last week by U.S. Sen. Richard Burr.
The merged agency would be called the Department of Energy and Environment.
Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said the merger would result in $3 billion in savings next year. Critics counter that such a move would weaken the government's role in protecting the environment.
Burr introduced the bill Thursday. It has 16 co-sponsors, all Republicans. Burr acknowledged Monday that the bill doesn't have a good chance being heard in committee, a required for step for it to reach the full Senate. The best chance for the bill would be for someone in the House to propose a similar bill, he said.
Burr said he filed the bill in response to a report from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's recommendation to shrink the size of the federal workforce.
A report from the commission — which is chaired by Erskine Bowles, a Democrat and the former head of the University of North Carolina system, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican — calls for reducing the size of the federal workforce by about 10 percent, or 200,000 workers. The report recommends that most of those cuts be achieved by attrition.
Burr said he didn't know exactly how many jobs would be eliminated if the agencies merged but said the list would include half the top administrators because of duplication.
The fate of the EPA has been a subject of debate since the Republicans took control of the House. Former House Speaker and 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich this year called for the elimination of the agency.
In March, William D. Ruckelshaus and Christine Todd Whitman — both Republicans and former EPA chiefs — argued against that idea in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, saying America's air and waterways are cleaner as a result of the agency's efforts.
"It has taken four decades to put in place the infrastructure to ensure that pollution is controlled through limitations on corporate, municipal and individual conduct," they wrote. "Dismantle that infrastructure today, and a new one would have to be created tomorrow at great expense and at great sacrifice to America's public health and environment."
Burr said although he believes the EPA can sometimes be overzealous, he's not opposed to the agency's mission of protecting the environment. He said he just sees similarities between the two agencies and thinks it would save money if they were combined.
"The EPA has some important functions," he said. "I'd like to make sure we have the right checks and balances."
Yadkin Riverkeeper Dean Naujoks said Burr is trying to use a back-door method to gut the EPA.
"He's not worried about public health in North Carolina but in the corporate polluters who would undermine the EPA," he said. "We seem to forget just how important these regulations are in protecting the public health."
On the Yadkin River, for example, there are over 600 sewage discharge permits that regulate how much pollution can be released into the water. Without the EPA, there would be no oversight on those discharges to ensure they comply with the permits, Naujoks said.
And, that fool "Dean Naujoks" (what the hell is a 'riverkeeper', exactly?) can be counted on for a quotable liberal comment on the environment - the local news outlets use him all of the time. I'd say he's sort of the local version of Algore - a self-proclaimed environmental expert.
I’d rather abolish it outright.
It would be hard to abolish Energy. And if you transfer the responsibilities of EPA to Energy, then all the EPA nastiness stays.
ABOLISH THE EPA.
Bulldoze them both then salt the earth.
Pray for America
I have a better idea....ELIMINATE BOTH!
Sounds right....and then we’ll appoint Sarah Palin to head it. Best position in the world for her....IMHO
Instead of getting rid of one or the other, we could very easily dump them both. :-)
Riverkeepers are environmentalist in a non profit working to protect waterways.
Two useless money sponges merged into one.
Yes, both departments need to be eliminated completely.
Cut the waste, cut the waste!
After they merge it might be easier to get rid of the new agency instead of two.
And while we’re at it eliminate every other cabinet level department except for Treasury, Justice and Defense. Save lots more money.
Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said the merger would result in $3 billion in savings next year. Critics counter that such a move would weaken the government’s role in protecting the environment.
Oh joy three billion in savings, and two false premises. I’m with you, neither one is worth saving. States can do the job if they deem it worth it.
They should throw Interior in there as well. Too much duplication. Although this is intentional, if Interior doesn’t stop progress, then Energy or EPA will.
Veterans Affairs should be rolled back into Defense as well.
Bulldoze them both then salt the earth.
Bingo
We don’t need either of them.
Merge them and then shut it down.
I think both should be abolished, but consider:
With a Democrat controlled Senate, this bill is going no where anyway. I think the idea is to take two awful departments and shrink them to one. That would be the same as eliminating one NET and would be much easier to pass and save 3 billion at the same time.
Burr is not the greatest conservative in the senate by any means, but this shows some creativity at least.
I think both should be abolished, but consider:
With a Democrat controlled Senate, this bill is going no where anyway. I think the idea is to take two awful departments and shrink them to one. That would be the same as eliminating one NET and would be much easier to pass and save 3 billion at the same time.
Burr is not the greatest conservative in the senate by any means, but this shows some creativity at least.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.