Although senators yesterday agreed on the need to rein in an annual deficit that is now measured in trillions, they were critical of cuts U.S. EPA proposed to shrink its budget by $1.3 billion.

Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee told EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson they dislike many of the ways the Obama administration wants to chop the agency's 2012 budget.

Ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called President Obama's budget request a "fiscal bait-and-switch," predicting that many of his suggested cuts would be restored by Congress because there is bipartisan support for the programs.

Inhofe pointed to the administration's plan to slash $950 million in grants for state and local water projects, which are popular with lawmakers who want water infrastructure upgrades back home. He also cited the proposal to zero out the $60 million budget for new grants under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which was reauthorized at the end of last Congress with support from both Inhofe and Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

"You can bet these cuts will be restored," Inhofe said.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), normally an outspoken supporter of the agency, also questioned the proposal to eliminate new funding for the diesel grant program, which he co-sponsored last Congress. The public health benefits provided by upgrading and replacing the oldest, dirtiest trucks on the road make the program a "no-brainer," he said in a statement, vowing to find a way to keep the money flowing.

Though committee Democrats said EPA has good intentions behind its efforts to spend less money, several said the agency is not the best place to cut the federal budget. Among them was Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who compared pulling EPA's funding to a family failing to replace the batteries in its smoke detector or putting off buying new brakes for its car.

"I agree -- we've got to fix the nation's budget challenges, but no American would try to balance their household budget by skimping on their kids' safety, and just the same, Congress should not be putting austerity ahead of public health," he said.

Jackson reaffirmed her support for the president's request, which would shrink the agency's funding by 13 percent but said more severe cuts would cause more Americans to be exposed to pollution and harmful chemicals. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) asked her if more people would die if Congress were to cut 25 percent of EPA's funding, or even 30 percent, as the House-passed continuing resolution funding the government for the rest of fiscal 2011 would do.

She declined to comment on specific amounts, but added, "The president's proposed budget does make cuts, but it makes them with a thoughtfulness that is intended to ensure that we preserve the fundamental core programs that ensure clean air and clean water for Americans."

Climate debate

During the hearing, senators spent more time debating the agency's climate change rules and other divisive programs than questioning Jackson about her funding request. She fielded questions on her agency's greenhouse gas regulations and other programs that have drawn criticism from industry.

Johanns pressed her on farming regulations, while Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) asked whether the agency is planning to set a total maximum daily load on pollution into the Mississippi River, as it did with the Chesapeake Bay.

Jackson said it is not.

Inhofe, the Senate's most vocal skeptic of climate science, yesterday said he would like to pull funding from EPA's climate program, which under the president's 2012 proposal would get a $56 million boost to $252.9 million. But doing so would be "more complicated than it seems," he said.

In the continuing resolution, House Republicans added a measure that would block EPA from using its funding on various climate programs. But a standalone bill will be necessary, Inhofe said, sounding a note of caution about trying to legislate through the appropriations process.

"The problem is that EPA, states and regulated entities have legal obligations stemming from the existing greenhouse gas regulations," Inhofe said. "We have to ensure, therefore, that our cuts don't have unintended consequences."