Congress Is Forcing Team Obama to Withhold Funding From the South

The administration has a plan to give more money to Southern states for clean-air protection, but lawmakers block it every year.

WASHINGTON - JANUARY 12: U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) (R) speaks as Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (L) listens during a news conference on Capitol Hill January 12, 2010 in Washington, DC. The Republican legislators briefed the media on a recent Congressional delegation to Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
2010 Getty Images
Jason Plautz
March 27, 2014, 1 a.m.

Ro­ger Wick­er has a bone to pick with the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion.

The South­east — the re­gion that the Mis­sis­sippi Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­or calls home — has 20 per­cent of the na­tion’s people. But when it comes time for the ad­min­is­tra­tion to dole out cash for a clean-air pro­gram, the South­east only gets 12 per­cent of the pro­gram’s fund­ing, Wick­er said.

And so, when En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency head Gina Mc­Carthy came be­fore Con­gress to testi­fy Wed­nes­day, Wick­er fi­nally got a chance to vent his frus­tra­tion. “How can EPA con­tin­ue to de­vel­op strict new rules and stand­ards while at the same time lim­it­ing ac­cess to re­sources for the states to get their fair share?,” Wick­er asked.

Grilling ad­min­is­tra­tion wit­nesses is stand­ard fare for op­pos­i­tion party sen­at­ors, but this time, Wick­er’s in­ter­rog­a­tion didn’t go as planned.

Asked why the ad­min­is­tra­tion is giv­ing EPA the short end of the stick, Mc­Carthy’s an­swer was simple: Be­cause you are mak­ing us do it that way.

The re­gion-by-re­gion dis­tri­bu­tion of the “State and Tri­bal As­sist­ance Grants” pro­gram is set by a dec­ades-old for­mula, but lan­guage in Con­gres­sion­al budgets has blocked the ad­min­is­tra­tion from mak­ing any changes. EPA couldn’t change the grants around even if it wanted to, Mc­Carthy said.

“We have been look­ing to do that over a peri­od of time. Con­gress has ac­tu­ally provided lan­guage in our budget that did not al­low us to do that last year,” Mc­Carthy said.

If Con­gress wants a new dis­tri­bu­tion, Mc­Carthy said, law­makers will have to change the way they con­tinu­ally write her agency’s budget. “We’ll see what hap­pens in fisc­al year ‘15,” she said.

The for­mula was de­veloped un­der the 1990 Clean Air Act amend­ments, but it hasn’t been up­dated to ac­count for pop­u­la­tion shifts, emis­sion dis­tri­bu­tions, or oth­er factors. That means that states like Wick­er’s are giv­en fund­ing based on their pop­u­la­tion dec­ades ago, while states in the North­east are col­lect­ing more money be­cause they had more ser­i­ous pol­lu­tion prob­lems that have since been ad­dressed.

EPA pro­posed an up­dated fund­ing ap­proach in 2010 that factored in pop­u­la­tion changes and gave it more flex­ib­il­ity, but Con­gress spe­cific­ally blocked the change in the agency’s budget. And they’ve kept that change from be­ing made every year since.

And so, for Wick­er, the is­sue has come full circle. An aide to the sen­at­or said he would work with “his col­leagues, and the EPA, to ad­dress this fund­ing dis­crep­ancy” as they work on the fed­er­al budget.

But chan­ging the for­mula won’t be easy — it would re­quire some law­makers to sur­render fund­ing their states cur­rently en­joy.

Bill Beck­er, pres­id­ent of the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation for Clean Air Agen­cies, said that the new for­mula has proven con­tro­ver­sial be­cause it will mean that some states would end up los­ing money at a time when over­all grant fund­ing is dwind­ling.

“They would be hit twice,” said Beck­er, whose group rep­res­ents air of­fices in 45 states. “The con­verse is those states who would come out as ‘win­ners’ un­der a new for­mula feel they have been ‘los­ing’ over the past 20 years due to an out­dated for­mula. They keep los­ing un­til the for­mula is re­vised.”

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
18 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×