GOP Congressman Warns That EPA Could Be On The Chopping Block After 2012 Elections

Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL) told an internet-based radio program earlier this week that if the GOP is able to sweep the 2012 elections, government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could be on the chopping block. Citing the erroneous fact that the EPA didn’t exist until after the Carter Administration, Rogers said that a new Republican administration would “look closely” at whether or not certain government programs were necessary, and if not, they would be “discontinued.”

Think Progress provided a transcript of Rogers’ statement:

ROGERS: You know the fact is, if in fact I think the American people do next November what they started last November, that is, cleaning house, and we do get a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican president, I think you going to see some dramatic structural changes in this country because we can’t continue to support this infrastructure we have. And I’m not talking about just changes to the trust funds and the entitlement programs. You know, we gotta look at what we really need to be doing, and what we don’t need to be doing. For example, we didn’t have an EPA under Jimmy Carter. Who says the federal government has to have an EPA. Every state has their own environmental protection agency. Why does the federal government need to be doing that? Department of Education: I’m a big believer that education is a state and local matter, why do we need a federal department of education? I think we’ll have to look at a lot of things that we’re doing at the federal level and ask ourselves, ‘is this really what the federal role?’ And if not, discontinue it.

Think Progress reporter Lee Fang pointed out that Rogers’ statement about Carter not having an EPA was entirely false, as the agency had been started by the Nixon administration and was never discontinued during the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush Jr. years. Fang also points out in his article that, when questioned by the interviewer about toxic substances being found in Alabama soil and waterways as a result of energy company dumping, Rogers responded by saying that he was disgusted by “the EPA sticking its oppressive…tentacles into the lives of businesses and individuals, making it next to impossible for companies to survive in this country.”

Rogers has pulled in more than $400,000 from the Energy and Natural Resources sector during his 9 years in federal office, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This includes $190,000 from electric utilities and another $115,000 from the oil and gas industry. His single largest contributor was energy giant Southern Co., which has given Rogers more than $140,000 over the course of his political career.

Rogers also has a history of voting in favor of energy companies: He has supported increased offshore oil drilling; he voted against allowing the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions; and he voted against the offshore oil drilling moratorium.

While Rogers’ idea of doing away with the EPA hinges on the Republican Party sweeping the 2012 elections, his recent statements are just the latest in a long line of Republican-led attacks on the EPA. In the midst of the debt ceiling debacle currently gripping Washington, D.C., the EPA has taken a severe hit by receiving an 18% cut in their funding. Additionally, House Republicans are actively working to make sure the EPA does not have the authority or the money to rule on issues like coal ash toxicity, mercury, and various air pollutants.

If the current trends continue, there might not be an EPA left to dismantle after the 2012 elections.


Climate Change: Another Iraq War of Climate WMD’s, Fear Mongering and Lying. Bush is smiling.
The CO2 blunder, mistake and tragic exaggeration had done to science, progressivism and journalism what abusive priests did for the Catholic Church. REAL PLANET LOVERS ARE HAPPY A CRISIS WAS AVERTED.
I’m not the only former believer urging prosecutors to lay criminal chargers to the leading scientists and news editors for knowingly inciting this needless panic of CO2 climate crisis. Besides condemning billions of children to a CO2 death, the UN had allowed carbon trading markets that were run by corporations and politicians, to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate CONTROL rather than the obviously needed POPULATION control.
The UN watched as thousands of scientists presented their own personal and unique papers on climate change and called it scientific “consensus”. Yes all 3000 scientists are wrong because they all disagree with each other, not agree with each other. Tell me how that is consensus when every single scientist on board and every science organization has a unique view of climate change? That was a consultant’s w & t dream. Climate change was a lab coat consultant’s w&t dream, and criminal exaggeration, but worst case scenarios have a longer life than just simple exaggeration and “lying”. Fear always is unsustainable. What they DID agree on however, was that there “would” be effects, so studying effects of something that hasn’t happened yet presumes climate change to be real. Did you notice after tropical fossils were found under the melting ice that all research suddenly went totally into effects, not causes? When this is all said and done with scientist and news editors convicted, only then will we see what climate change was; modern day omen worship.

“making it next to impossible for companies to survive in this country.”

no concern about living things having a hard time surviving of course.

For the liberal Americans reading and commenting here, understand one thing. A political sea change occurred last November. It is being manifest in reviews of the many programs that have been expanded due to liberal over reach. Env. Prot. Agcy, Dept of Energy, Dept of Educ. , portions of Agric, Interior, NASA, etc will be reviewed and compared to how far they have moved away from their core functions.

Every spending bill will have some study/hearing and concomitant cuts returning the various Federal Department/Agencies/Services to their core functions.

The next elections may see a completion of the conservative shift in US Federal Govt functions. EPA watch out for what you push!

I think anthropogenic climate change alarmism is the greatest threat to our country and our freedoms in decades, but even I, as a full blown rabid climate denialist, would not want the dismanlting of the EPA. Id say this talk of getting rid of the EPA is BS.

Anon, not to fear, even if EPA, and others, were dismantled, many parts would continue. Those parts considered core or essential would migrate to another more appropriate Federal Agency.

We desperately need this kind of review to identify and remove redundant functions. Non-core and non-essential functions deserve to be reviewed, prioritized and those below the line removed during these economic times.

” Fang also points out in his article that, when questioned by the interviewer about toxic substances being found in Alabama soil and waterways as a result of energy company dumping…” more proof that the epa is ineffective. leave it to the states. kind of like the dept of education, urban housing and planning,of agriculture, of transportation, of labor and on and on and on and on and billions and billions

mememine, anonymous2, pray to god we keep jackasses like you from controlling our gov’t, our world. Ant brains like you once told us scientists were wrong about air pollution. Numbnutz such as yourselves once were saying claims of tainted, undrinkable water were lies, we watched rivers burning. Flatearthers of your ilk once told us we could slash and burn all we wanted to, that strip malls were after all more important than old growth forests. You’re going to be surprised at the next elections.

Next election? You think environmental or climate concerns are playing any role at all in upcoming elections?

You are dreaming. It’s all about economics. Nothing else will even be talked about. Green is over.

Play a part? No, buy since democrats are most likely going to take back the house, given that most people blame republicans for almost pushing us over the edge, then more environmentally friendly policies will follow.