Save Our Environment

Continuing Resolution Bulletins

H.R. 1 Meat-Ax Bulletin:
Costing Jobs, Risking Lives, Moving America Backward

Americans agree fiscal discipline is a must. But special interest giveaways and legislative earmarks to protect big polluters won’t balance our checkbook. Putting health protection on the chopping block means dirtier air, dirtier water, and more children’s and seniors’ lives at risk. Running rough-shod over our national parks, wildlife, and natural heritage means impoverishing future generations. Gutting investments in the clean energy technologies of tomorrow increases our dependence on foreign sources of oil while exporting clean energy jobs overseas, not creating them here at home. Congress should be investing in America’s future, not moving backwards.

Amendments Dirty Air – Bad Business

Attack: EPA Stop Work Order on Standards to Cut Industrial Toxic Pollution

Congressman Labrador has filed an amendment (No. 201) to H.R. 1 that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing standards to cut toxic air pollution–including mercury, lead, dioxin and acid gases–from industrial boilers and incinerators.

This proposal is a grossly irresponsible policy earmark that will block these long-overdue standards to protect the health of our communities and prevent thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and other health-threatening impacts.

Thirty-six million Americans live within three miles of an industrial plant and the toxic air pollution emitted by boilers. The standards will significantly reduce toxic emissions from these boilers and are based on the best available and affordable control technologies.

Cutting this life-threatening pollution means avoiding up to 5,000 premature deaths, 33,000 acute asthma cases, 250,000 lost work days and 1,500,000 acute respiratory symptoms. It also means $12 billion to $34 billion per year to our economy. Health benefits will outweigh any costs of the standards by at least $14 billion every year.

Putting a stop work order on these standards at the bidding of polluters and industry lobbyists will put our health at serious risk – threatening the lives and welfare of our communities.

Lost work days. More Asthma. Premature Death. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: EPA Stop Work Order on Standards to Cut Industrial Toxic Pollution

Rep. Carter's Amendment (#165) blocks EPA health protections that would control mercury and other toxic pollutants emitted by cement plants, some of the worst industrial polluters of any kind.

Controlling cement plants' toxic pollution will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths, 1,000 heart attacks, 1,500 emergency room visits, and over 100,000 missed work days every year.

These health protections are easily affordable by the cement industry and would yield at least $7 in health benefits for every $1 that they cost.

More air pollution. More hospital visits. Premature Death. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Blocking Essential Climate Information for Businesses

Amendment #378 to H.R. 1, offered by Mr. Hall of Texas, would prohibit the funding of a Climate Services program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Every state in America is sensitive to changes in climate and weather.

One-third of U.S. GDP is concentrated in weather-sensitive industries. Climate variability will compel changes from the local to global scale, and having accurate information is vital to families, businesses and communities. As public and private sectors grapple with complex climate-sensitive decisions – such as planning for crops that could be impacted by El Nino or La Nina years, mitigating losses from floods, guiding wise investments in developments – a NOAA Climate Service will meet the demand for such information based on the best science. A comprehensive Climate Services program would integrate and orient these services to best meet the demands for this information.

NOAA's Climate Services means that people and property can be better protected, businesses can minimize risk and increase productivity, and resources can be managed more efficiently.

Impeding smarter government. Prohibiting better services. Stifling information crucial for American jobs. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Key Amendments and Slashes

Index of Contents

Attack: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Attack: Dirty Air Legislative Earmarks

Attack: Prohibiting EPA from Studying Impacts of Toxic Pesticides

Attack: Amendment Defunding Land and Water Conservation

Attack: Advanced Energy Research Funding

Attack: Energy Star

Attack: U.S. Investments in Innovation--DOE’s Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Attack: State Energy Program

Attack: No wolves for you--H.R.1 Allows 80% of Wolves in the West to Be Killed

Attack: Legacy Roads and Trails

Attack: Global Responsibility

Attack: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

H.R.1 would cut the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by $547 million. This is a program that provides low and no-interest loans to states to fund drinking water infrastructure improvement projects. Leaking pipes and deteriorating mains can lead to bacteria contamination of the water or disruptive breaks that flood streets and homes. We need more than $16 billion per year to maintain our country's drinking water infrastructure.

For example, in Town of Schodack, New York, the water utility needs $3.7 million from the SRF to fix their problems with E. coli in their tap water, which comes from human and animal waste.

The City of Lathrop, California is out of compliance with the federal drinking water standard for arsenic, which can cause nausea, paralysis, or blindness. It needs $25 million from the SRF to construct treatment and proper filtration systems.

The water supply for Concho, McCulloch, Runnels, and Tom Green Counties in Texas has problems with radionuclides in its water, which increases the risk of developing cancer, along with problems with line breaks, equipment failure, and storage capacity. They received $10 million in SRF funding to make these needed improvements.

All of these different projects mean jobs and improved health. This cut means a loss of 12,000 construction jobs. If these projects received funding, these Americans would be working.

More diarrhea and other health problems from contaminated drinking water. More unemployment. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Dirty Air Legislative Earmarks

Amendment 165 (Hall): this special interest gift irresponsibly blocks EPA's ability to cut toxic mercury and other toxic air pollution from cement plants, interfering with health protections that will prevent up to 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 2,500 premature deaths every year.

Amendment 201 (Labrador): this legislative earmark irresponsibly blocks adoption, implementation and enforcement of long-overdue EPA standards to cut toxic air pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators, interfering with health protections that will prevent up to 3,000 heart attacks, 33,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 5,000 premature deaths every year.

Amendment 563 (Noem): blocks EPA's legal obligation and scientific process to adopt health standards defining how much coarse particulate pollution is unhealthy for Americans to breathe; the earmark forces EPA to stick with outdated, unhealthy standards and means Americans will be forced to breathe unhealthy air.

Amendment 407 (Hall): this giveaway cynically tries to delay forthcoming EPA air toxics standards for power plants and industrial boilers by wasting money and time to study toxic pollution like arsenic, lead, heavy metals and acid gases that are well-known hazards. Toxic air pollution from these industries have gone unregulated for nearly 20 years and this proposal irresponsibly seeks to extend that free pass for big polluters.

Dirty air. Toxic pollution. More illness and death. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Prohibiting EPA from Studying Impacts of Toxic Pesticides

Amendment by Rep. Schock (R-IL), would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from spending any funds to evaluate the safety of the pesticide atrazine, one of the most commonly used herbicides in the United States.

Atrazine is often transported in runoff from fields to nearby surface waters. Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in U.S. waters and is detected in more than 75% of stream samples and 40% of shallow groundwater samples in agriculture areas across the United States.

In recent years, the scientific evidence that atrazine can have serious effects on both public health and the environment has grown. For example, studies have indicated that prenatal atrazine exposure may increase risk of poor birth outcomes and birth defects in infants; others have linked atrazine urine levels in farm workers and rural men to reproductive effects, such as low sperm count and motility.

Even if EPA decided to reduce atrazine use, it likely would have very little economic impact. In fact, one study that found that, despite a ban on the use of atrazine in Italy and Germany (both corn-producing nations) since 1991, neither country has recorded any economic effects on corn crops or production.

More water pollution. Unexamined health impacts. No economic benefit. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Amendment Defunding Land and Water Conservation

Amendments 139, 350, 352, 354, 356, 358, 359, 361, and 556 (Pearce and Lummis): Would represent a complete elimination of a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years. This proposal prevents revenues deposited in the LWCF account from being used for their authorized purposes, and makes them disappear forever. These funds were a promise made to the American people in 1964. This Congress should not be breaking this long-standing commitment.

The amendment would exacerbate an already-draconian cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that is ALREADY PAID FOR using a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts. These are not taxpayer dollars.

Among the willing sellers who would be unfairly thrown to the curb are owners who are partway through these contracted sales and are counting on LWCF funding to complete them. Many landowners – ranging from elderly widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners – have pressing financial needs that now depend on completion of these ongoing LWCF conservation projects.

Eviscerating LWCF will have severe impacts on many others as well, including school children in the state of Wyoming. The amendment will bring to an immediate halt the negotiated agreement between the State and the National Park Service to transfer $107 million of school trust lands to Grand Teton National Park. Without LWCF, the State cannot meet its mandate to sell those lands and generate revenue to support its educational system.

Stopped work. Wasted dollars. Unprotected natural resources. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Advanced Energy Research Funding

HR. 1 would cut the DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) funding by $250 million or about 64 percent from current recovery act appropriations and 83 percent from the FY 2011 request. This program funds specific high-risk and high-payoff game – changing research and development projects to meet the nation's long-term energy challenges. Because venture capitalists are much more likely to fund projects that have received ARPA-E's review, one indication of the program's success is that 6 ARPA-E reviewed companies received four times the initial ARPA funds from the venture capital community – making ARPA-E a huge research bargain.

By any measure, DOE's ARPA-E program has been a huge success. For example, in October, 2009, DOE awarded 37 grants totaling $151 million that mostly went to small businesses and educational institutions. For example:

  • Researchers at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus who are working on developing an organism that uses sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into sugars and another that converts the sugars to gasoline and diesel;

  • A group led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that is trying to develop an all-liquid metal battery;

  • Research by United Technologies to use enzymes to capture carbon dioxide from the stacks of power plants.

In February, 2011, DOE announced that six high-tech wind and solar projects it had awarded a total of $24 million. That money, in turn, attracted $108 million in private venture capital financing – about four private dollars for every dollar that the taxpayers spent to get them rolling.

Throttling Innovation. Stifling investment. Losing the clean energy race. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Energy Star

H.R. 1 would slash the Energy Star program budget by over 15 percent, putting the program's benefits and proven track record of success at serious risk. This will cut consumer savings and decrease private sector investment in more energy-efficient products and increase air pollution that harms human health and the environment.

Energy Star has earned great consumer recognition and credibility. It has provided consumers with significant savings on their energy bills – more than $17 billion in utility bill savings in 2009 alone. Many consumers look for and rely on the Energy Star logo when buying household appliances and products. And there is strong business support for the program as well, with more than 3,000 manufacturing partners, 1,500 retailer partners with over 40,000 stores and 700 utilities and other energy efficiency sponsors.

Consumer and business trust in the program is there for good reason. According to the EPA, for every federal dollar spent under the program, the private sector invests more than $15 and American consumers and businesses save more than $60. Energy Star has also decreased air pollution that harms human health and the environment by reducing national electricity demand and avoiding carbon pollution.

Raising household energy bills. Stifling innovation. Increasing air pollution. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: U.S. Investments in Innovation – DOE's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

H.R. 1 proposes deep cuts in federal investments in research and development for innovative technologies – slashing critical funds for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science by 18%, the National Science Foundation (NSF) by 5%, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by 19%. These cuts would decimate U.S. scientific enterprise and innovation, including development of clean energy technologies, reduce our energy security and weaken our competitive edge in the global marketplace.

DOE's Office of Science plays an essential role in driving U.S. innovation providing nearly 40% of funding for basic research in physical sciences, overseeing our national laboratories, and driving science education. NSF, an independent federal agency, provides funding for nearly 20% of federally supported basic research at U.S. universities. NIST, within the Department of Commerce, advances U.S. innovation and industrial competiveness though its labs, technical and business assistance programs, and cost-shared research awards.

We need to be investing more, not less in scientific research and technology development. These proposed cuts are a huge step backwards in our nation's ability to recover economically and compete globally and will result in 1) layoffs of highly-skilled scientists, engineers, and support personnel across the country; 2) severe impacts to cutting-edge research; 3) elimination of support for hundreds of PhDs and graduate students and 500 fewer research awards, supporting 5,000 fewer researchers, students and technical support personnel; and 4) impaired science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs at K-12, undergraduate, and graduate levels.

Gutting scientific research. Weakening our education system. Exporting jobs overseas. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: State Energy Program

H.R. 1 proposes to eliminate all funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE) State Energy Program (SEP). At a time when we need to be investing more, not less, in energy efficiency and clean energy, this proposed cut would be a severe step backwards in terms of securing our energy independence and building a strong clean energy economy.

SEP is a 30-year-old, cost-shared program that provides resources and grants directly to the states to enhance our national security and strengthen our country's competitive edge through support of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative energy demonstration projects.

According to analysis by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL):

  • For each dollar of SEP funds that is spent, we gain $7.22 in cost savings. In addition, each dollar of SEP funds leverages $10.71 of state and private funds, increasing the impact and reach of the program. – SEP provides annual energy savings of 42.3 million MBtu and annual cost savings of $256 million.

SEP also secures significant reductions in air pollution – reducing carbon pollution by as much as 710,000 metric tons each year (equivalent to the carbon pollution from more than 130,000 cars), and other toxic pollutants that harm human health, such as NOx, SO2, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter.

Stifling innovation. Increasing air pollution. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: No wolves for you – H.R.1 Allows 80% of Wolves in the West to Be Killed

Under H.R. 1 (section 1713) wolves will lose all of their Endangered Species Act protection in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The bill reinstates a plan that would legally allow states to kill all but 300 wolves in the Northern Rockies, a number that is not sufficient to sustain wolves over the long term. That means those who support this provision are content to see as much as 82% of the population wiped out.

Wolves were totally eradicated from the American West by the 1930s. But following some migration from Canada into northwest Montana in the 1980s and a successful reintroduction into Yellowstone and central Idaho in the mid-1990s, more than 1,700 wolves now roam the Northern Rockies and have brought economic and ecological benefits. The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone brings in about $35 million annually in tourist revenue to the Greater Yellowstone area. And the presence of the wolf has restored balance to the Yellowstone ecosystem – recovering willow and aspen stands, songbirds, beavers, ponds, fish and pronghorn antelope. It's one of America's greatest conservation success stories, and we want to see it last.

This attack has nothing to do with saving money. It's just another legislative earmark for special-interests. It just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Legacy Roads and Trails

H. R, 1 slashes 44% of the Forest Service’s Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation program, cutting this critical forest restoration program nearly in half (down to $50.37 million from $90 million in FY10). This cut promises to cost jobs across rural America, while leaving our public lands crumbling in disrepair.

Legacy Roads has been referred to in the press as a "legislative trifecta – the opportunity for Congress to put more unemployed Americans back to work, provide cleaner water for millions of people, and help reduce the nation's long-term budget deficit" (Independent Record of Helena, Montana, Sept. 5, 2010). It has also been highlighted as responsible for keeping small business employees working (The News Tribune of Seattle-Tacoma, Washington, August 25, 2010).

Just one project on the chopping block illustrates the folly. The cooperative project with the Stillaguamish Tribe is leveraging several hundred thousand dollars of non-federal funding. This project will replace culverts and build new bridges on Canyon Creek Road in the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest near Seattle in order to fix repeated road failures that are endangering public access and smothering a critical salmon spawning area with sediment pollution. This spawning ground is critical for the survival of the South Fork Stillaguamish Chinook population, which is at an extreme risk of extinction. The project is already underway, but needs $580,000 in Legacy Roads funding over the next two years in order to be completed.

Lost jobs. Crumbling roads. Spoiled streams. Degraded lands. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Attack: Global Responsibility

H.R. 1 would completely eliminate essential US programs, including all multilateral climate investment funds, and reduce the Global Environment Fund (GEF) by 63%. These investments are vital to protecting our national security and promoting global stability. As recognized in the Quadrennial Defense Review, climate change "will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." As a result, climate impacts were recognized as "an accelerant of instability or conflict," which would increase already heavy burdens on the U.S. military. Climate change will have a disproportionate impact on the world's poorest people, often those who live in the most volatile regions of the world and have the fewest resources to adapt. Eliminating the programs that enable the U.S. to make good on its promises and to demonstrate its global leadership will undermine our standing in the world and threaten our long-term security.

In a December 3, 2010 letter to Secretary Clinton 13 Generals stated: "Providing financing for international climate preparedness and adaptation programs is a vital component of reducing global security threats. Building climate preparedness in the most vulnerable nations around the globe is among the most effective ways to promote U.S. national and international security from climate-related disasters. Taking this action will also save our country significant resources and assets."

Eliminating U.S. these investments and defaulting on our international commitments will erode our country's standing in the world, contribute to global instability and cost the U.S. even more in dollars and lives over time. Eroding U.S. standing. Exacerbating International stability. This attack just doesn't make sense.

This Edition: Clean Air; High Speed Rail; Clean Water; Spotlight on Amendments

Attack: EPA Stop Work Order

H.R.#1 would require EPA to stop all work on limiting life-threatening carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, refineries and other large sources. Without hearing from a single scientist about the consequences, H.R.1 would prevent EPA from doing its job of protecting public health and would allow big polluters to continue dumping unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.

The consequences of H.R. 1’s earmark to gut the Clean Air Act are sweeping, including blocking new construction, tampering with the clean car peace treaty; and stopping the renewable fuels standard in its tracks. For more details on the cascade of impacts to our health and economy, follow this link.

Americans want their representatives in Congress to stand up for the health of their families, not for the profit-driven agenda of big polluters. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Attack: High Speed Rail Investments

H.R. 1 would start by cutting $2.5 billion in approved high-speed rail funding. But it would go a step further was well, taking back $2.475 billion that has already been sent out to rail projects in 23 states around the country.

The President’s initiative to connect 80 percent of the country by high-speed rail isn’t just going to relieve crowded airports and gridlocked highways, reducing our dependence on oil. It will also create jobs nationwide by supporting significant economic development along rail routes. Rail investments create construction jobs, service and small business jobs, and more opportunities for U.S. manufacturing.

State transportation departments report that $1 billion in investment in high speed rail capital and operations can create between 24,000 and 41,000 jobs in construction, manufacturing, operations, and maintenance. In fact, the Apollo Alliance found that high speed rail investments, paired with similar investment in rail and bus transit, could generate up to 60,000 jobs in the manufacturing sectors alone.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors commissioned an analysis of the potential of high speed rail investments to create economic growth in 4 diverse US cities. Overall, the report found that the president’s high speed rail investment plan could create up to 150,000 jobs over the next 25 years in just four of the dozens of U.S. cities to be connected by high-speed rail. This includes $2.9 billion a year in new business sales in Orlando, 21,000 jobs in Albany, $360 million in new consumer activity in Los Angeles, and $2.5 billion in new wages in Chicago. All of this will significantly add to the gross-product of each region, making them wealthier and more competitive in the global marketplace. And it will offer travelers a less-polluting transportation option that can improve the convenience and quality of their life.

The elimination of the high speed rail initiative would not only sacrifice future jobs and the potential economic growth, but also eliminate the jobs of workers on the ground and economic impacts that are already taking place.

More congestion. More pollution. Less growth. Lost jobs. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Attack: Holding Clean Water Act Protections Hostage

H.R.1 contains an earmark provision to limit the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act. Today, thanks to some confusing court decisions, numerous streams and wetlands are not being protected under the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that roughly 117 million Americans get at least some drinking water from systems that rely headwater and other critical streams for all or part of their supply. Many of those streams are at risk of being denied Clean Water Act protections today.

EPA is in the process of clarifying which bodies of water are covered by the Clean Water Act. Greater clarity would provide certainty that the law protects many waterways that were thrown into limbo by the confusion created by the court decisions. H.R. 1 would put a halt to that work and could leave countless waters that serve our communities open for dumping.

Giving a free pass to more water pollution. Dirtying drinking water supplies. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Spotlight on Amendments:

Latest Attack: Prohibiting Safety Reviews of Pesticides in Our Waters

An Amendment to H.R. 1, filed by Rep. Schock (R-IL), would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from spending any funds to reevaluate the safety of the pesticide atrazine, one of the most commonly used herbicides in the United States. Atrazine is often transported in runoff from fields to nearby surface waters. Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in U.S. waters and is detected in more than 75% of stream samples and 40% of shallow groundwater samples in agriculture areas across the United States.

In recent years, the scientific evidence that atrazine can have serious effects on both public health and the environment has grown. For examples, studies have indicated that prenatal atrazine exposure may increase risk of poor birth outcomes and birth defects in infants; others have linked atrazine urine levels in farm workers and rural men to reproductive effects, such as low sperm count and motility. Another recent study reported that 10% of male frogs that were born and raised in water contaminated with 2.5 parts per billion (ppb) of atrazine grew up with female sex characteristics, had reduced levels of male testosterone hormone, reduced sperm levels, and decreased fertility. Representative Schock’s amendment would prevent EPA from even asking questions about these studies.

Even if EPA decided to reduce atrazine use, it likely would have very little economic impact. In fact, one study that found that, despite a ban on the use of atrazine in Italy and Germany (both corn-producing nations) since 1991, neither country has recorded any economic effects on corn crops or production.

More water pollution. Unexamined health impacts to infants. No economic benefit. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Latest Attack: Prevent EPA from Regulating Toxic Coal Ash

The Sterns (R-FL)Amendment 10 to H.R. 1 will restrict EPA’s ability to require utilities to properly dispose of Toxic Coal Ash.

All hazardous waste as dangerous as coal ash is regulated today except for waste from the nation’s utilities. Across the country, hundreds of millions of tons of coal ash are being stored in precarious waste ponds, pits, landfills and mines, putting human health at risk from large scale disasters and gradual –yet equally dangerous –contamination as toxins in coal ash seep into drinking water sources.

In December 2008, a poorly regulated coal ash pond collapsed in Kingston, Tennessee, releasing 5.4 million tons of toxic sludge- more than 100 times the volume of the Exxon Valdez spill. Amendment 10 would prevent EPA from requiring phase-out of these extremely dangerous waste ponds. Yet the requirement to place coal ash in lined landfills and phase out deadly ponds will create jobs, foster innovation and increase recycling- as well as protect public health.

The utility industry has enjoyed a free pass for dumping this toxic waste for decades. It is time that the polluters pay for safe disposal of ash in engineered landfills- and the American public stop paying the price with increased cancer rates, asthma and blighted communities.

Uncontrolled toxic waste. Poisoned waters. Dangerous dams. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Latest Attack: Repeal of Light Bulb Energy Efficiency Standards

Congressman Akin’s H.R. 1 Amendment No. 181 would withhold funding from the Department of Energy to implement the energy efficient light bulb standards that go into effect next year. Some opponents falsely claim that these standards ban the incandescent light bulb, but the facts show that consumers will still have a wide range of bulbs to choose from, including new and improved incandescent bulbs, and save considerably on their energy bills each year. Several manufacturers already sell the new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that use halogen technology. These bulbs meet the 2012 standards and will soon be available at stores throughout the country.

The light bulb efficiency standards were enacted with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2007. The standards are also unanimously supported by the lighting industry.

A repeal of these standards would increase household energy bills, stifle innovation that is creating U.S. jobs, and increase air pollution that harms human health and the environment. Thwarting these standards would also create uncertainty for many lighting manufacturers that have already shifted significant investments and resources– including retooling factories–to research, develop and produce more efficient bulbs.

According to analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the light bulb standards: 1) save each household $100 to $200 plus per year in the form of lower electric bills, 2) reduce US energy bills overall by more than $10 billion per year, and 3) achieve energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants. The standards are also creating jobs throughout the country with companies such as Cree in North Carolina, Osram Sylvania in Pennsylvania, and Lighting Sciences Group Corporation in Florida.

Costing consumers money. Stifling jobs. Increasing pollution. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Latest Attack: Weather Forecasting and Our Oceans

H.R. #1 would cut the budget of our nation's ocean agency - NOAA - by 22%, directly affecting essential government services upon which all our families rely. One program NOAA runs is weather forecasting that warns us of coming storms and is critical for agricultural planning.

NOAA keeps our oceans and beaches clean and safe and protects endangered ocean life, like whales and sea turtles.

NOAA also manages our ocean fisheries – a staple of the American diet – that is key to jobs throughout the nation’s food industry.

Crippling weather warnings. Jeopardizing seafood. Hurting the economy. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Latest Attack: New Starts Transit Grants

H.R. 1 would entirely eliminate federal investment in new public transportation systems. Public transit programs don’t just clear up traffic congestion, curb pollution, and save taxpayers money, they also create jobs.

According to the American Public Transportation Association, the proposed cuts to these key public transportation and passenger rail programs could put tens of thousands of jobs at risk. Moreover, transit projects have historically generated 31 percent more jobs per dollar than new construction of roads and bridges.

There are dozens of cities – small and large, urban, suburbs, and rural – in states across the country that want to invest in new transit systems, including bus systems, for their residents and businesses through the New Starts program. States and cities must contribute up to half the cost of a project, making the New Starts program a true partnership that requires everyone to put money in the game.

Transit construction is smart fiscal policy. And the public agrees. In fact, in a recent nationwide survey by Hart Associates, 4 in 5 agreed that transportation investments to improve and modernize roads, rails, and runways in America would spur local economic growth and create jobs.

More traffic. More pollution. Lost jobs. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Latest Attack: Food Safety Inspection

H.R.1 would cut the Food Safety and Inspection Services budget by about 9% (compared to FY10 enacted), hobbling its ability to ensure safe food for consumers, despite last year’s egg recall due to salmonella and ongoing concerns about E-coli in beef and spinach.

Families should be able to trust the groceries they buy won’t make their kids sick. This attack just doesn’t make sense.

Not every organization in the coalition works on each issue addressed in the bulletin.

Join the Network  |  Login to Your Personal Action Center  |  Tell a Friend  |  Who We Are  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us

Copyright © 2006. All rights reserved.

While all the organizations participating in the Save Our Environment Action Center share the common goal of
protecting the environment, individual groups can, and sometimes do, differ in their approaches to specific issues.