EPA under fire over handling of billions in new funds

By CASEY HARPER THE CENTER SQUARE

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in hot water after regulators seemed to suggest they had more money than they could spend but needed to spend it anyway. That funding came in part from the Inflation Reduction Act, and now lawmakers are pointing to watchdog reports showing rampant waste, fraud and abuse could become a major issue for the environmental agency.

Morgan Griffith, R-Va., led a hearing Wednesday where lawmakers heard from several experts, including Sean O’Donnell, the inspector general for the EPA. Griffith pointed to the national deficit, raising questions about how the EPA is using federal funds in a time of rising debt.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Griffith and Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, sent a letter to the EPA Tuesday raising concerns about EPA’s use of funds after controversial comments on the EPA website.

The lawmakers argue that rush to spend can lead to rampant waste, fraud and abuse.

“For example, GAO examined lessons learned from grant management of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding and noted that President Obama’s push to spend funds quickly created a ‘large spike in spending’ for some agencies, and that this law required an accelerated rollout of funding,” the letter said. “As a result, GAO concluded that some federal agencies encountered oversight challenges.”

The questions come as Congressional Republicans also work to roll back the EPA Waters of the United States rule, which gives the federal government broad power over even small local ponds.

The lawmakers called for documents and answers about how funding will be used, pointing out the EPA does not have a perfect track record. Federal watchdogs have raised similar concerns.

Estimate: About 1 million people worldwide seek asylum per year

Asylum

Continued from Page A2

Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

The coalition noted that if asylum is improperly restricted, it will limit the ability of asylum seekers to integrate into state workforces and potentially strain state-funded services and the proposed rule would unfairly harm many asylum seekers, particularly those with fewer resources. They are also of the view that the provisions of the current proposal conflict with the more expansive protections guaranteed under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Mr. Bonta said, “Our nation has long been a beacon of hope to immigrants from around the world seeking safety and a better life. I urge the federal government to carefully consider the potential impacts of this proposal on the fundamental right to seek asylum in the United States.”

It is estimated that annually there are about 1 million asylum seekers around the world. By the end of 2021 there were approximately 4.6 million individuals awaiting asylum claim decisions globally.