Like parents trying to control a wild teenager by canceling the credit card, Congress has moved to rein in the EPA by cutting its funding. It’s no secret that the EPA has been increasingly testing the limits of its congressional mandate of late. Some argue that its latest carbon regulations, for example, essentially institute a cap and trade regime on the nation despite the fact that Congress defeated similar legislation in 2010.

In response to the agency’s overreach, the House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies approved legislation last week to cut EPA funding by 9 percent, or about $717 million, to $7.5 billion–still bigger than the entire annual budgets of 10 states. The bill particularly targets administrative funding, cutting Gina McCarthy’s Office of the Administrator, the Office of Congressional Affairs, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer by 50 percent.

In addition to the spending cuts, the bill includes several legislative riders that aim to restrict the Agency’s regulatory power. One rider, for example, would stop it from moving forward with its carbon regulations – widely considered to be among the costliest in American history. It would also stop earlier regulations on new power plants and a rule to redefine the government’s jurisdiction over bodies of water.

These congressional measures should serve as a shot across the bow of the EPA’s regulatory agenda. But given the Agency’s vast regulatory arsenal, a simple shot likely will do little to impede its activism – not to mention its waste, fraud, and abuse.