Newt Gingrich Wants To Abolish The EPA & Any Govt. Regulations That Get In His Way

In June 2011, House Republicans passed the Agriculture Appropriations bill, cutting $87 million from the FDA and $35 million from the USDA food inspection program. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) defended the legislation, claiming that the private sector was capable of self-policing and ensuring the safety of the US food supply. However, recent outbreaks of e-coli and salmonella across the country have cast doubt on the effectiveness of this approach. It is estimated that one out of every six people in the US get sick from food contamination each year, and 3,000 people eventually die from a food-borne illness. In September, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) argued that government “over-regulation” was standing in the way of job growth, citing proposed EPA rules on boiler emissions. The EPA subsequently released a statement claiming that greenhouse gasses put the environment and public health at risk, and that the agency was moving towards regulating these gasses in order to combat climate change. It remains to be seen whether this will have a positive or negative effect on job growth.

From 2001 through June 2011, the
fracking industry gave $20.5 million to
current members of Congress and
spent $726 million on lobbying.

Republican leaders swiftly reacted to the EPA’s decision to move forward with the Endangerment Finding, expressing their disappointment. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa criticized the EPA, arguing that the decision was based on political calculations rather than on science. Indiana’s Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, suggested that the EPA’s move would lead to job losses.

The natural gas industry’s fight against regulation has gotten important help at the state
level from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). As documented in an
August 2011 Common Cause report, ALEC generates and lobbies for hundreds of model
bills every year despite its status as a tax-exempt 501 (c)(3) organization. Prominent
financial backers of ALEC’s activities include the American Petroleum Institute,
ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries, owner of the largest network of natural gas transmitting pipelines in the country.

At a December news conference, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson discussed and defended the EPA’s decision to implement regulations to combat climate change. Jackson argued that the “overwhelming amount of scientific studies” demonstrate the threat of climate change, citing evidence such as melting polar ice caps, changing animal migratory patterns, and more powerful storms. She also noted that the US would be in danger of suffering from environmental disasters similar to those seen in Nigeria and Ecuador if the EPA’s regulations were not in place. Shell Oil Company has accepted responsibility for oil spills dating back to 2008, however, their initial reports grossly underestimated the amount of damage caused. This raises questions about the Republican Party’s haste to abolish government regulatory agencies, as it could be motivated by pressure from the oil and gas industries, which fund their elections.

When the EPA announced in 2000 that it was designing a study to investigate the
potential for groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing, the United States
Department of Energy warned that regulations could hinder economic growth
in the industry.

I am skeptical that the motivations of those in power are rooted in genuine care for the American people and their desire to ensure that all citizens are employed, healthy, and secure.

When released in 2004, the EPA study concluded that the process is
environmentally harmless, and then-Vice President Dick Cheney and his former
employer Halliburton used this finding to insert language into the 2005 Energy Policy
Act to exempt fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Current
members of Congress who voted for this bill have received an average of $73,433 from
industry, while current members who voted against the bill have received an average of
$10,894.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *