<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:32207.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-843
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
32-207 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 9, 2005
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 8
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 6
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 13
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 4
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 38
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...... 14
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota.... 15
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 11
WITNESSES
Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Acting Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Accompanied by: Charles E.
Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Tom Dunne, Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ann Klee,
General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jeff
Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Susan B.
Hazen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 52
Senator Inhofe........................................... 41
Senator Jeffords......................................... 50
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 133
Senator Vitter........................................... 70
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Environmental Protection Agency:
Brownfields program expectations and supporting budget
documentation.............................................. 135
Funding requested for leaking underground storage tanks...... 136
General Information on EPA enforcement....................... 137
Guidance and a proposed rule clarifying: Pesticides and the
Clean Water Act............................................ 138
National Academy of Science study on perchlorate............. 139
Number of potential Brownfield sites......................... 140
Sites ranked by the National Prioritization Panel that
received funding in fiscal year (FY) 2004.................. 141
Spill prevention control and countermeasure program.......... 143
State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF).............................. 144
Superfund Budget............................................. 146
Wastewater Security.......................................... 147
Why clear skies is the right approach........................ 148
Letter from Kathleen C. Callahan, acting regional administrator,
to Senator Lautenberg, in response to inquiry on Ringwood, NJ
site........................................................... 149
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe, (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Carper, Clinton, Isakson,
Jeffords, Lautenberg, Murkowski, Obama, Thune, and Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The committee will come to order. We
welcome Administrator Johnson. I am pleased to have you testify
before the committee on the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency.
I expect that each Senator on the committee will wish to
make an opening statement, as well as your opening statement
and then 5-minute questioning, so we are going to confine
opening statements to 5 minutes, and we would like you to
confine yours to 5 minutes. However, your entire statement will
be made a part of the record.
Our Tar Creek Superfund site in northeastern Oklahoma has
been a top priority for me for quite some time, as well as for
the EPA. Administrator Leavitt visited, and I think that is the
first time that someone at that level has actually visited a
site, the first Cabinet-level official to tour it. Tar Creek is
a 40 square-mile disaster that we now can see the light at the
end of the tunnel. The cooperation of the EPA, as well as the
Corps of Engineers, the State of Oklahoma, the University of
Oklahoma, and our consortium, it looks like it is going to be
successful.
The Administration considers the ultra-low sulfur diesel
rule as one of its premier environmental successes, and they
are right that once successfully implemented, the ULSD rule
will have benefits. However, I remain as concerned today as I
was some 5 years ago when I first questioned the EPA on the
rule's potential supply and deliverability impacts.
Refiners and engine manufacturers have spent billions of
dollars to develop technologies to meet the stringent 15 ppm
sulfur standard, yet challenges still remain regarding the
sufficiently accurate inline testing procedures and potential
contamination in the pipelines and transportation
infrastructure. So you have the pipelines with some problems,
and others are complying with its intent. Millions of dollars
have been invested, and yet that is a problem that we will want
to discuss.
I have already been working with the Agency on grants
management for the past year, and it remains one of my top
priorities. Each year over $4 billion, amounting to at least
half the EPA's annual budget, is awarded in nondiscretionary
and discretionary grants. Last year, the committee received
testimony concerning a lack of competition in grant awards, a
lack of demonstrable results from grants, and a general lack of
oversight.
In fact, the EPA IG included in her testimony the results
of an audit of a nonprofit group where the EPA was giving
taxpayers' dollars directly to a lobbying organization, that is
a 501(c)(4) organization, which is illegal and certainly
improper. This is the type of thing that we are going after.
The EPA is competing grants, rather than freely awarding funds
to groups that regularly engage in politics and to undermine
this President's environmental record.
The EPA has also developed new policies to measure
environmental results and provide closer oversight of nonprofit
groups. However, new policies are not enough. They must be
followed. Real reform of grants management requires the
attention of the highest levels of the Administration within
the EPA and its program officers to establish a consistent and
transparent system of awarding and monitoring grants. This
committee will continue to take its oversight responsibility in
regards to grants management very seriously. I am pleased that
the EPA is working with the committee to ensure new grants
management that protects human health and the environment.
The Government has a role in safeguarding the Nation's
infrastructure, which includes the roads on which we drive and
the pipes from which we receive our water. I, like many of my
colleagues on the committee, continue to be troubled by the
Administration's and its predecessor's history of cuts to the
Clean Water SRF, State revolving funds, the primary Federal
clean water mechanism. We conducted a field hearing in my city
of Tulsa last year during which 8 communities testified to
struggles with both drinking water and clean water regulations.
Just as I have tackled grants management, I intend to use this
committee's oversight role to continue examining the costs
imposed on our local communities by Federal water regulations.
Not only do we need to ensure these costs are necessary
because they are addressing legitimate public health and
environmental threats, but evidently we also need to convince
some that Congress and the EPA have a role in this escalating
cost crisis.
I look forward to next week's committee passage of the
President's Clear Skies proposal. As my colleagues know, this
has been one of our priorities for a long time. It is the
largest mandatory reduction in pollutants ever proposed by any
President. Our goal is to expand the Acid Rain Program to
achieve greater emissions reductions, without the endless
lawsuits that have resulted under the Clean Air Act. I look
forward to working with the Administration to get this bill
signed into law.
It is going to be a difficult budget year. Budgets are
tight and the Nation is at war. The Administration is proposing
a 5 percent cut to the EPA's budget. I would encourage my
colleagues who are tempted to criticize this alleged cut to
look very closely at what has been proposed. Aside from cuts to
the programs the Agency knows that Congress will put back, a
few programs are given significant decreases.
So Administrator Johnson, we are looking forward to your
testimony, and we welcome you also Mr. Johnson, both Johnsons.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from
the State of Oklahoma
Welcome Administrator Johnson. I am pleased to have you testify
before the Committee today on President Bush's Fiscal Year 2006 budget
proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency.
I expect that each Senator on the Committee will wish to make an
opening statement and will have several questions for the
Administrator. Therefore, I am asking that opening statements be kept
short under 5 minutes.
The Tar Creek Superfund Site in northeastern Oklahoma has been a
top priority for me and the EPA. When Administrator Leavitt visited the
site with me, he became the first Cabinet level official to tour Tar
Creek and see what we are dealing with there. Tar Creek is a 40 square-
mile site that is the No. 1 listed site on the National Priorities
List. While, much work has been done and much credit goes to the EPA
and specifically the Region 6 Administrator, Richard Greene, there is
more work left to do. I want to take this opportunity to get the EPA's
continued commitment to protect human health at Tar Creek and get this
site cleaned up.
The Administration considers the ultra-low sulfur diesel rule as
one of its premiere environmental successes, and they are right that
once successfully implemented, the ULSD rule will have benefits.
However, I remain as concerned today as I was some 5 years ago when I
first questioned EPA on the rule's potential supply and deliverability
impacts. Refiners and engine manufacturers have spent billions of
dollars to develop technologies to meet the stringent 15 ppm sulfur
standard. Yet, challenges still remain regarding sufficiently accurate
inline testing procedures and potential contamination in the pipeline
and transportation infrastructure. EPA projected that the rule will
increase diesel prices 4 or 5 cents per gallon at the pump. Given some
of the concerns raised about contamination and inadequate testing, I
imagine that those initial cost projections will certainly change. I
look forward to working with EPA to ensure that the rule is implemented
effectively while guarding against supply shortfalls and price
increases.
I have already been working with the Agency on grants management
for the past year and it remains one of my top priorities. Each year
over $4 billion, amounting to at least half the EPA's annual budget, is
awarded in non-discretionary and discretionary grants. Last year, this
Committee received testimony concerning a lack of competition in grant
awards, a lack of demonstrable results from grants, and a general lack
of oversight. In fact, the EPA IG included in her testimony the results
of an audit of a non-profit group where EPA was giving taxpayer dollars
directly to a lobbying organization for over 5 years. The EPA has
responded positively to oversight in this area. By the end of this
month, EPA will have finalized a new Web site with the most publicly
available information ever offered on awarded grants. EPA is competing
grants rather than freely awarding funds to groups that regularly
engage in politics to undermine this President's environmental record.
EPA has also developed new policies to measure environmental results
and provide closer oversight of non-profit groups. However, new
policies are not enough. They must be followed. Real reform of grants
management requires the attention of the highest levels of
administration within the EPA and its program offices to establish a
consistent and transparent system of awarding and monitoring grants.
This Committee will continue to take its oversight responsibility in
regards to grants management very seriously, and I am pleased that the
EPA is working with this Committee to ensure new grants management that
protects human health and the environment.
The government has a role in safeguarding the nation's
infrastructure which includes the roads on which we drive and pipes
from which we receive our water. I, like many of my colleagues on the
Committee, continue to be troubled by the Administration's and its
predecessor's history of cuts to the Clean Water SRF, the primary
Federal clean water mechanism. We conducted a field hearing in Tulsa,
OK last year during which 8 communities testified to struggles with
both drinking water and clean water regulations. Just as I have tackled
grants management, I intend to use this committee's oversight role to
continue examining the costs imposed on our local communities by
Federal water regulations. Not only do we need to ensure these costs
are necessary because they are addressing legitimate public health and
environmental threats but evidently we also need to convince some that
Congress and the EPA have a role in this escalating cost crisis.
I look forward to next week's Committee passage of the President's
Clear Skies proposal. As my colleagues know, this is the largest
reduction in utility emissions ever called for by an American
President. The success of the Acid Rain program is the reason the
President, Senator Voinovich and myself believe that Clear Skies is the
best approach to reducing utility emissions. It will do so faster,
cheaper and more efficiently than the Clean Air Act. Our goal is to
expand the Acid Rain program to achieve greater emissions reductions
without the endless lawsuits that have resulted under the Clean Air
Act. I look forward to working with the Administration to get this bill
signed into law.
This is going to be a difficult budget year. Budgets are tight and
the Nation is at war. The Administration is proposing a 5 percent cut
to the EPA's budget. I would encourage my colleagues who are tempted to
criticize this alleged cut to look very closely at what has been
proposed. Aside from cuts to programs the Agency knows Congress will
put back, very few programs are given significant decreases.
Administrator Johnson, I look forward to your testimony. I again
urge my colleagues to keep their statements brief.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Administrator Johnson, it is a pleasure to welcome
you here today. I look forward to working with you and whoever
is named your successor, in these challenging budgetary moments
and times. I am very concerned about this Nation's fiscal
constraints, but a budget that is about priorities and
environmental protection must be a priority.
Let me say right off the bat that the Administration's
proposed cuts to programs that protect our Nation's environment
go too far. If enacted, the EPA's budget would decline 5.6
percent compared with last year's enacted levels, and in real
terms another 2.3 percent if inflation is taken into account.
In the past 4 years, these serve as a guide. It would appear
that there is no end in sight for cuts in EPA's programs. Last
year, the program that funds clean water infrastructure in the
States was cut 19 percent. This year, the proposed cut is
another 33 percent, or $361 million.
The nationwide need for infrastructure dollars continues to
far outplace the amount of funding that is available from all
levels of government. In 2002, an EPA study assessed the
spending for wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs
nationwide to be $390 billion over 20 years. EPA has also
estimated that the funding needs for operation and maintenance,
which are not currently eligible for Federal aid, are an
additional $148 billion.
This dramatic reduction to the Clean Water Revolving Fund
will unfairly shift the financial burden to the States,
municipalities, and the public. For examples, States located in
the northeast will see an approximate reduction of $106 million
compared to last year. In Vermont alone, we will see a
reduction of close to $2 million. In this and other programs,
the spending austerity so evident in the President's budget is
accomplished by passing down costs to other levels of
government. States and localities will be faced with a stark
choice of either curtailing services or increasing their own
taxes to compensate for the declining Federal funds.
On the air front, I am interested in a full accounting of
how the Agency's proposed mercury pollution standards become so
compromised that a recent report by the Agency's own inspector
general alleges that the health effects of mercury on children
were overlooked.
On related fronts, I hope we will learn why the
Administration is moving so slowly on new source review
enforcement actions, and on implementing a new rule for fine
particulates. I am extremely concerned about a drastic cut in
the budget of the program that phases out ozone depleting
substances, and about the levels of funding for air pollution
monitoring programs. We cannot afford to compromise on air
quality.
I know many members here are interested in the growing
backlog of the Superfund cleanups. Last year, EPA candidly
acknowledged that funding was insufficient to start work on 34
priority projects in 19 States. The needed resources to protect
human health and the environment. The President requested $126
million less than last year for Superfund remediation.
For the third year in a row, inadequate funds have
prevented EPA from starting to clean up the Elizabeth Mine in
Strafford, VT. Similarly, the Eli Copper Mine in Vershire, VT
and the Pike Hill Copper Mine in Corinth, VT are waiting for
funds for a full remedial investigation and feasibility study.
How much longer are these communities going to have to wait to
get the acid mine drainage from these sites cleaned up?
Last but not least, I am tired of the kabuki dance the
Administration and the Congress are playing with Lake
Champlain.
Senator Inhofe. What kind of dance?
Senator Jeffords. Kabuki.
Senator Inhofe. Kabuki.
Senator Jeffords. Maybe kaduki. I am not sure.
Senator Inhofe. Demonstrate it.
Senator Jeffords. Yes, right. I will if necessary.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. The problems facing Lake Champlain are
important and deserving of resources. Rest assured, I intend to
find a way to adequately fund the EPA's Lake Champlain program.
Again, thank you for being here today, Acting Administrator
Johnson. I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from
the State of Vermont
Acting Administrator Johnson, it is a pleasure to welcome you here
today. I look forward to working with you and whoever is named your
successor in these challenging budgetary times.
Let me say right off the bat, that the administration's proposed
cuts to programs that protect our nation's environment go to far. If
enacted, the EPA's budget would decline 5.6 percent compared with last
year's enacted levels, and in real terms, another 2.3 percent if
inflation is taken into account.
If the past 4 years serve as a guide, it would appear that there is
no end in sight for cuts to EPA's programs. Last year the program that
funds clean water infrastructure in the States was cut 19 percent. This
year the proposed cut is another 33 percent or $361 million.
The nationwide need for infrastructure dollars continues to far
outpace the amount of funding that is available from all levels of
government. In 2002, an EPA study assessed the spending for wastewater
infrastructure and total funding needs nationwide to be $390 billion
over 20 years. EPA also estimated that the funding needs for operation
and maintenance, which are not currently eligible for Federal aid, are
an additional $148 billion.
This dramatic reduction to the clean water revolving fund will
unfairly shift the financial burden to the States, municipalities, and
the public. For example, States located in the Northeast will see an
approximate reduction of $106 million compared to last year, and
Vermont alone will see a reduction of close to $2 million.
In this and other programs, the spending austerity so evident in
the President's budget is accomplished by passing down costs to other
levels of government. States and localities will now be faced with the
stark choice of either curtailing services or increasing their own
taxes to compensate for declining Federal funds.
On the air front, I am interested in a full accounting of how the
Agency's proposed mercury pollution standards became so compromised
that a recent report by the Agency's own Inspector General alleges that
the health effects of mercury on children were overlooked.
On related fronts, I hope we will learn why the Administration is
moving so slowly on New Source Review Enforcement Actions and on
implementing a new rule for fine particulates. I am extremely concerned
about a drastic cut in the budget of the program that phases out ozone-
depleting substances, and about the levels of funding for air pollution
monitoring programs. We cannot afford to compromise on air quality.
I know many members here are interested in the growing backlog of
Superfund cleanups. Last year, EPA candidly acknowledged that funding
was insufficient to start work on 34 priority projects in 19 States.
Rather than request more money to provide EPA the needed resources to
protect human health and the environment, the President requested $126
million less than last year for Superfund remediation.
For the third year in a row, inadequate funds have prevented EPA
from starting to clean up the Elizabeth Mine in Strafford, VT.
Similarly, the Ely Copper Mine in Vershire, Vermont, and the Pike Hill
Copper Mine in Corinth, VT, are waiting for funds for a full remedial
investigation and feasibility study. How much longer are these
communities going to have to wait to get the acid mine drainage from
these sites cleaned up?
Last but not least, I am tired of the kabuki dance the
Administration and the Congress are playing with Lake Champlain. The
problems facing Lake Champlain are important and deserving of
resources. Rest assured, I intend to find a way to adequately fund the
EPA's Lake Champlain program.
Again thank you for being here today Acting Administrator Johnson.
I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
for having a hearing, and our thanks to our witnesses for being
with us today.
We are working on class action reform legislation on the
floor, which is something that is of strong interest to me. I
am going to be in and out fairly briefly, so I apologize for
that. I hope you will understand.
There are many parts of the EPA budget for 2006 that do
concern me. I am glad we have the opportunity to consider some
of the proposals before us and how they might affect our
environment. I also look forward to hearing from our Acting
Administrator. What is it like being an Acting Administrator of
EPA? Is it everything it is talked up to be?
Mr. Johnson. It is a wonderful opportunity.
Senator Carper. A wonderful opportunity.
[Laugher.]
Senator Carper. For the record, that is good. I talked to
Governor Leavitt from time to time, and I think he is pleased
to have his new opportunity and to give you this opportunity to
fill the breach for a while.
I would like to take a moment or two to just address a
couple of fronts. One of those deals with the mercury rule.
There has been some discussion of the mercury rule of late, and
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Again, we appreciate your
being here to speak and to respond to some of our questions. I
will probably ask to submit some questions in writing for the
record.
Last week, I believe the EPA inspector general issued a
report. I am sure you heard about it. It is one that I, along
with a number of members of this committee, requested. It is a
fairly lengthy report, and I will just quote from one passage.
It says, ``Evidence indicates that EPA's senior management
instructed EPA staff to develop a maximum achievable control
technology standard for mercury that would result in a national
emission of 34 tons annually, instead of basing the standard on
an unbiased determination.'' The report also said that the
EPA's cap and trade proposal could be strengthened to better
ensure that anticipated emissions reductions would be achieved.
It went on to state that the proposal does not adequately
address the potential for hot spots.
The EPA's response to the draft report merely raised
concerns about certain aspects of this report. Considering the
fact that nearly every State in our country has issued,
including my own, fish consumption advisories due at least in
part to mercury-poisoned waters, I just believe the EPA needs
to do more than say they simply disagree with the inspector
general, and maybe you will have an opportunity today to say
more than that.
The inspector general recommended that EPA re-analyze much
of their data and analysis, and strengthen the cap and trade
proposal by more fully addressing the potential for hot spots,
which, if you look at the legislation that Senator Jeffords,
legislation that I have introduced for pollutant bills, we both
speak to the need to do that.
Moving ahead with the current mercury rule, in my view,
would be foolish politically and scientifically, because the
rule, I feel, has little credibility. Switching gears, if I
could, in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal, the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund is dramatically cut. This
important program helps fund wastewater infrastructure projects
such as sewer rehabilitation and treatment plant expansion. The
budget proposal suggests $730 million for this program in
fiscal year 2006. That is a reduction of about one-third from
the current level. The current level, in my view, was
inadequate.
This proposal will hurt cities, big cities. Our biggest
city is Wilmington. It will hurt Wilmington. It will hurt
little cities as well, little towns, as they try to meet their
clean water infrastructure needs, that I believe nationwide are
about $200 billion. I feel that the longer we put this off, the
worse the problem gets.
Overall, the cuts in the EPA budget and the budget in its
entirety represent, in my view, misplaced priorities. No one
has fought harder for fiscal responsibility than some of us who
serve on this committee. I, for one, would be prepared to
support an austere plan if I thought it was a serious attempt
to really balance the budget. This budget cuts spending for
small, actually successful programs like the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund in the name of deficit reduction, while
indulging in huge new expenditures to privatize Social Security
and to further extend tax cuts. We just need to come up with a
more realistic plan that better reflects American priorities.
One of those is a cleaner environment.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this
opportunity to be here with you and my colleagues, and to
comment on the budget that has been submitted.
Mr. Chairman, EPA's mission is to protect human health and
the environment. I have always believed, and the people of
California have always believed, it is critically important,
perhaps one of the most important things that we do as a
government. I think that EPA's proposed budget sends a very
different message. That message is not one that I think is
welcomed by the people of my State.
We are looking here at a 6 percent overall cut. If we go
back to 2004, it is actually a 10 percent cut from 2004. That
is less funding than when President Bush came into office, less
funding on the environment. Without going back and checking on
this, which I will do, I really believe this would be the first
time in history that would be the case.
I do not see the commitment to the resources that are
necessary to assure the quality of life and clean environment
that the American people deserve. It is hard for me to see how
in times of rising rates of childhood cancer and asthma and
neurological and developmental disorders, decreasing funding to
public health and the environment is justified.
As a Ranking Member for the Superfund and Waste Management
Committee, I am very concerned about the growing backlog of
toxic sites. Internal EPA documents have projected that if
funding for Superfund construction projects continues at the
current levels, the unmet need will be between $750 million and
$1 billion by next fiscal year. The resulting hardship suffered
by communities waiting for cleanup dollars is real. Ten million
children, Mr. Chairman, live within 4 miles of a Superfund
site. Their health and welfare are at risk until they get those
toxic sites in their neighborhoods cleaned up.
EPA has admitted that there are unmet needs. In a January
18 response to a letter I sent EPA, Tom Dunne, the Acting Head
of the Superfund Program, confirmed that funding was
insufficient to start work at 19 projects that were 100 percent
ready to go. This is the first Administration that I am aware
of that has opposed the polluter fee. What is happening is we
see a very small increase in funding over last year, which is
insufficient for the backlog, and we see that taxpayers are now
picking up the whole freight here, which is wrong. I think
polluter-pay is an American value. I certainly know that it is
in my State.
Why should Superfund be a priority? I think we have to look
at the consequences of failing to fund these sites. The
Washington Post this last Thanksgiving wrote about one example,
a site in Omaha, NE, that is heavily contaminated with lead and
on a very slow cleanup track. At the Omaha lead site, there are
9,400 children under age 7 living in the affected area of the
site and threatened with lead poisoning. Whole neighborhoods
were contaminated, so the problem is in thousands of backyards
due to a smelter that deposited lead throughout the area.
One of the consequences of the slow pace of cleanup is that
several thousand children have high lead levels at the site
today. The Washington Post story talks about one child in
particular, who lost his ability to talk after exposure to the
site. Obviously, this is a tragedy, but we have the power to do
something about it. We should make cleanup of these sites a
priority, and fund the Superfund program, not fund it at an
anemic level, but go out there for the sake of the children and
get it done.
Mike Leavitt visited the Omaha site in October while he was
Administrator of EPA. He said at the time, ``The problem is our
pocketbook. Our pocketbook does not stretch across all the
places that our heart responds to.'' Well, if we can have an
open checkbook for a foreign war, we ought to have at least a
sufficient checkbook when it comes to our children. That is
really why I chose to be on this committee, because it is the
children who suffer, really. We adults do not have the same
impacts from these toxins and these pollutants.
So I would ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my
statement be placed in the record. Mr. Chairman, it deals with
the cut in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is 83
percent. It is a disaster for my people. The underfunding of
the leaking underground storage tanks, which is directly
responsible for the MTBE poisoning that is going on, and the
pattern that I see here which makes me really question the
commitment of this Administration to the public health and the
environment.
I certainly hope that we on this committee under the
leadership of our Chairman, can work in a bipartisan way to
perhaps reverse some of these, let us call it, misplaced
priorities.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from
the State of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EPA's mission, to protect human health and
the environment, is critically important. Unfortunately, EPA's proposed
fiscal year 2006--budget along with the Bush administration's never-
ending attempts to roll back decades of environmental and public health
protections--demonstrates yet again that this administration is not
committed to protecting public health and the environment.
The President's 2006 budget request would decrease EPA's funding
$452 million, 6 percent, from fiscal year 2005 amounts. This is an $804
million, or 10 percent, cut from fiscal year 2004 amounts. This is less
funding than when Bush came into office.
EPA's overall 2006 budget does not commit the resources necessary
to assure the quality of life and clean environment that Americans
expect and deserve. I do not see how, in times of rising rates of
childhood cancer, asthma, and neurological and developmental disorders,
decreasing funding to public health and environment programs can be
justified.
As ranking member for the Superfund and Waste Management
Subcommittee, I am particularly concerned about the growing backlog of
toxic sites waiting for cleanup in the Superfund program. Internal EPA
documents have projected that if funding for Superfund construction
projects continues at current levels--the unmet need will be between
$750 million and $1 billion by next fiscal year, fiscal year 2007.
The resulting hardship suffered by communities throughout the
country waiting for cleanup dollars is real. Ten million children live
within 4 miles of a Superfund site and their health and welfare are at
risk until they get the toxic sites in their neighborhoods cleaned up.
EPA has admitted that there are unmet needs. In a January 18th
response to a letter I sent to EPA last October, Tom Dunne, the Acting
head of the Superfund program, confirmed that funding was insufficient
to start work at 19 projects that were 100 percent ready to go.
Yet despite the growing backlog, the President has substantially
scaled back the budget request for fiscal year 06--compared to his
requests in fiscal year 05 and fiscal year 04. The President's request
has actually dropped by over $100 million compared to last year's
request. The need is growing and the request is shrinking--which tells
us something about the President's priorities.
Why should Superfund be a priority? I think the answer comes from a
look at the consequences of failing to fund these sites. The Washington
Post this past Thanksgiving wrote about one example, a site in Omaha
that is heavily contaminated with lead and on a slow cleanup track.
At the Omaha lead site there are 9,400 children under 7 living in
the affected area of the site and threatened with lead poisoning. Whole
neighborhoods were contaminated so the problem is in thousands of
backyards due to a smelter that deposited lead throughout the area.
One of the consequences of the slow pace of cleanup is that several
thousand children have high lead levels at the site today. The
Washington Post story talks about one child in particular who lost his
ability to talk after exposure to the site. Obviously, this is a
tragedy, but we have the power to do something about it. We should make
cleanup of these sites a priority and fund the Superfund program.
Mike Leavitt visited the Omaha site in October while he was
Administrator of EPA and he said at the time ``the problem is our
pocketbook does not stretch across all the places our heart responds
to.''
I do not believe that we have reached the point, despite our fiscal
problems, where we have to allow this kind of threat to continue for
years and years. We need to adequately fund Superfund--because the
consequences of failing to fund this program are simply not consistent
with our values.
Superfund is not the only EPA program to be underfunded.
Overall clean water programs are slashed a drastic $693 million, or
42 percent at a time when EPA estimates that these programs will need
$388 billion through 2019. This decrease includes a 33 percent cut for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and an 83 percent cut in funding
targeted to specific projects. This means that money going to local
governments to clean up water is gone with no alternative source for
funding in sight. This means no funding for critical projects, such as
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements; watershed
management plans; and combined sewer systems.
Requested funding for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, which can
hold extremely toxic chemicals that can contaminate the ground,
aquifers, streams and other water bodies, is at $73 million. Although
this is $3 million above fiscal year 2005 funding levels, it is $3
million below 2004 levels, and it is insufficient to address the
backlog of 130,000 sites awaiting cleanup. MTBE, which has wrecked
havoc with water supplies across the country, has come from leaking
underground storage tanks. There are approximately 675,000 tanks across
the United States, and more than 445,000 confirmed releases from these
tanks as of September 2004, nearly 43,000 of them in California.
I see a pattern here--of decreasing funding to critical water
quality and infrastructure programs, as well as decreasing funding to
programs that can help prevent the contamination in the first place.
This calls into question this administration's commitment to clean and
healthy water for all Americans.
A budget that decreases funding for public health and the
environment, stops funding local water quality projects, drastically
slows Superfund clean-ups, and transfers the burden of cleanups to
taxpayers forces me to continue to question this administration's
commitment to public health and the environment.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Mr.
Johnson for your visit and testimony today. Certainly, the work
of the EPA is vitally important to Louisiana, as it is to all
other States. It is one of the prime reasons I worked very hard
to get on this committee. I am very excited to be here.
That certainly includes all of the macro issues, some of
which previous speakers have focused on. I would also include
some very specific Louisiana issues that I would like to follow
up on after today. I will mention just a few for your
information, to help you focus on it.
Actually, the first bill I passed as a member of the House,
which I am very excited about continuing, is Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Restoration Program. Lake Pontchartrain is the largest
lake in Louisiana. It is the second-largest body of water in
the United States after the Great Lakes. It was a major
pollution problem in Louisiana for very many years. Through a
lot of work, really at the grassroots level, we began to turn
the corner on that, through real grassroots community
involvement initiatives.
When I came to the House in 1999, I helped us take the next
step by sponsoring this legislation, which became law. It set
up a specific program within EPA to really get us to the next
level through voluntary, proactive cleanup programs that bring
all of the stakeholders together, again in a voluntary
consensual proactive way, to rally around cleanup programs that
help cleanup the lake and the entire Lake Pontchartrain Basin,
which is 16 parishes in Louisiana, plus 3 counties in
Mississippi.
I am excited about it, first of all, because it obviously
affects a big part of Louisiana, but also it is I think a new,
positive model for addressing these sorts of concerns around
the country, rather than simply dropping tons and mountains of
regulation on communities that are an enormous burden, not just
for the private sector, but increasingly for the public sector.
It brings all the stakeholders together and forms consensus
around proactive, voluntary cleanup initiatives. So I commend
that to your attention as we reauthorize that and follow up on
that.
Another key Louisiana concern I have is Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment. This certainly goes to the Clear Skies
initiative as well. Baton Rouge is a severe ozone nonattainment
area even as we move from a 1-hour standard to a more stringent
8-hour standard, actually for reasons I am not sure I fully
understand, that moves Baton Rouge from marginal nonattainment
to severe nonattainment. So that is one of the quirks in
present law and present regulations that we all want to help
work through. Right now, there is a court-imposed stay in that
case, and we all want to work toward a permanent solution that
makes sense for citizens in Baton Rouge and for our policy
nationwide.
There are other issues, too. Just recently, I read reports
that the town of El Dorado, AK has asked EPA to allow a project
that would actually allow the dumping of millions of gallons of
wastewater into the Washtar River in Louisiana that clearly has
a major Louisiana impact. So if that project is approved, it
would mean that every day, 20 million gallons would be dumped
into a river that flows through central Louisiana into the
Atchafalaya Basin.
So I look forward to working with the Agency on all of the
macro issues, as well as specific Louisiana concerns like these
three I mentioned. Mr. Chairman, I will submit the rest of my
statement, along with some specific questions about those 3
areas of concern, for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]
Statement of David Vitter, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing, and, Mr. Johnson,
we appreciate your being here today. The work of the EPA is very
important in Louisiana, and I look forward to continuing to build on
that work.
One of the best examples of the EPA's work in Louisiana is the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin
is a 5,000 square mile watershed encompassing 16 parishes in Louisiana
and 4 counties in Mississippi. Lake Pontchartrain is the second largest
lake in the United States after the Great Lakes and its 1.5 million
residents make it the most populated area in the state of Louisiana.
In 2000, Congress passed the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration
Act, which was my first bill to pass Congress. This program puts Lake
Pontchartrain's restoration on the same status as other the restoration
of other environmentally sensitive areas in our Nation, such as the
Great Lakes and Florida Everglades restoration efforts. In addition,
this program also created a partnership between the Federal Government
and local stakeholders to further efforts to clean up the lake. The EPA
is an active member of the Lake Pontchartrain Stakeholders' Conference
and is the chief Federal agency involved in the program.
A great deal has been accomplished since the program began. There
has been significant improvement in the water clarity in Lake
Pontchartrain. We have seen the return of manatees, pelicans, oysters,
clams and blue crabs to the lake. ``NO SWIMMING'' signs are coming down
and beaches are being reopened. There has been an improvement in water
quality on the south shore, however the same cannot yet be said of the
north shore and the upper basin. Growing suburbs and inconsistent urban
planning has dramatically increased pollution as well as affected some
sensitive habitats.
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program has made great
progress in cleaning up Lake Pontchartrain. We have come so far, but
there is still much to be done. Various water-quality studies within
the Lake Pontchartrain Basin have been conducted in recent years. While
these studies have helped provide solutions to clean the Lake, we must
move to the next phase: construction.
I intend to introduce legislation soon that will not only
reauthorize this important program but also allow funding to be used
for construction much needed watershed projects. I am working with
Senator Lott, because Mississippi is an important part of the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin, and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu,
to draft this legislation. I look forward to working with the Chairman
and the rest of the committee to reauthorize this important program.
I wanted to bring up another issue important to Louisiana: ozone
non-attainment in Baton Rouge. As we move from a 1-hour ozone standard
to a more stringent 8-hour standard, Baton Rouge's classification could
move from severe to marginal. Yet, under current law, even as that
improvement happens, Baton Rouge will still be held to the existing
severe restrictions under the old 1-hour standard.
This situation seems inconsistent with the goal of cleaner air and
nonsensical. Also, it creates litigation, which is ongoing and
continuing to add costs and more delays in work to actually cleaning
the air. I think this example proves that there is need for increased
flexibility and for more efficiency and cost-effectiveness in cleaning
up our air and meeting more stringent standards.
Also, I have read recent reports that the town of El Dorado, AK,
has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to allow a project that
will dump millions of gallons of wastewater into the Ouachita River in
Louisiana.
If this proposed project is approved as proposed, it would mean
that, everyday, 20 million gallons would be dumped into a river that
flows through central Louisiana and into the Atchafalaya Basin. To have
that much waste flowing into this river--a river that is vital to
Louisiana's environment, economy, and culture--is unacceptable to us in
Louisiana.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by saying that there are a few bright spots
in this budget. I am pleased, for example, that funding for
building decontamination research has been restored. That had
been zeroed out last year. The request for the Clean School Bus
USA Program is up from the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. I
think that is a very good sign, because this program does help
school districts retrofit old buses or purchase new ones, in
order to reduce children's exposure to harmful particulates.
From a macro perspective, I have to say this budget is
disappointing and inadequate. Like my colleagues, I am dismayed
about the very deep cuts for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund by $360 million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels,
to $730 million. If Congress passes this amount, it would be a
cut of more than $600 million from the average historical
funding level of $1.37 billion per year for the program.
For New York alone, this reduction would mean a cut of $40
million. We know that the water infrastructure gap for the next
20 years is in the hundreds of billions. In New York, we have
an aging infrastructure. From the 1990 to 2000 census, we had
an increase in population in New York City. This is an
incredibly short-sighted cut. On the other end of our State, we
have problems with the decision to zero out funding for the
Rural Water Programs, which are critical to hundreds and
hundreds of small rural systems in New York, and certainly
thousands across the country, to help these small communities
comply with the law and protect their drinking water. We have
to find a way to provide that assistance as well.
I join my colleagues' concerns about some of the policy
decisions embedded in this budget document, because after all
budgets are value statements, as well as including numbers and
statistics. I join my colleague, Senator Boxer, with concerns
about the Superfund. I join my colleague, Senator Carper, with
concerns about mercury. It really, I have to say, is shocking
that the EPA inspector general's report that was requested by
Senator Jeffords, I and others, concerning the mercury
proposal, found that EPA management ignored the Clean Air Act's
requirements. We do not have any other law at this time. There
are lots of proposals floating around, but the law is the law,
and that is the Clean Air Act.
The direction by the EPA management to the staff to
essentially game the mercury analysis so that the reductions
would mesh with the expected co-benefits of the clean air
interstate rule is absolutely outrageous. It is a slap in the
face to Congress. It is a slap in the face to the American
public. It is a real detriment to the 1 in 12 American women
who already have dangerous levels of mercury in their
bloodstream.
It is very troubling, because we need unbiased analysis. We
can have arguments about what the best thing to do is.
Obviously, the Chairman and I do not agree about what we should
do to clean our air. We cannot permit government agencies to
provide false and misleading information. If there were any
oversight in this Congress, which there is very little of, we
would get answers to this. It is wrong and it is unacceptable.
Let me just mention two other issues very quickly. I worked
with the White House in the fall of 2003 to secure an agreement
to establish the World Trade Center Expert Technical Review
Panel to address continuing concerns about contamination
resulting from the collapse of the World Trade Center on
September 11. I then worked very successfully with Governor
Leavitt to implement that agreement. The panel got underway
last March under the chairmanship of Dr. Paul Gilman of the
Office of Research and Development. Dr. Gilman did an excellent
job, but he has left the Agency and the panel has been without
a chairman. I hope, Mr. Johnson, that you will name a new chair
of this panel expeditiously, because this is a success story.
This is one of those issues where everybody has worked
together.
Finally, with respect to the Deutsche Bank demolition, I
want to thank the EPA for stepping in and making clear that
there were aspects of this demolition that were totally
unacceptable. I would hope that the EPA has followed up with
the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to ensure that the
suggested changes are made, and that you will continue to work
to ensure that any demolition going on in Lower Manhattan is
done to the highest standards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Senator Obama.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to indicate my concurrence with the
statements of Senator Clinton and some of the previous
speakers. I think there are good elements of this budget, but I
am disappointed that we seem to be going backwards instead of
forwards in terms of at least our financial commitment to
protecting the environment.
I think if there are arguments to be made that some
programs are inefficient, as I have already heard from the
brief time that I have been on this committee, I am happy to
consider how we can make them more efficient. I am not wedded
to one particular way of skinning the cat. I am not interested
in wasting taxpayer money on programs that do not work.
It strikes me, though, given the magnitude of some of the
things that were mentioned by Senator Boxer and Senator
Clinton, the notion that we are cutting back on our resources
to not only enforce, but also cleanup some of these sites, is
troubling to say the least.
I do want to say that I am pleased to see an additional
almost $50 million going into Brownfields programs. I think
that is something that will benefit communities all across the
country. I will be interested in seeing how this program is
managed and how it affects areas in the Midwest in particular
that I think have been neglected.
I am also happy that the Great Lakes is going to be
receiving some additional money to clean up sediment there. I
am going to be interested in finding out from the EPA how
Illinois is participating in that, how EPA is making decisions
about those sites that receive the highest priority. I will
take just one example. Waukegan Harbor is an area which used to
have a Johns Mansville plant there. There have been consistent
reports of asbestos washing up on the beach, big chunks of it.
Right now, Illinois EPA has had the beach closed down, but
there does not seem to be a clear strategy in terms of how we
are going to clean it up. So I am going to be interested in
finding out how this Agency intends to work with the EPA, work
with the State government to make sure that facility is cleaned
up.
With respect to clean water wastewater treatment, I will be
interested in an explanation as to why we are cutting this
money back. Is this just a matter of every agency having to
meet its quota of cuts relative to the overall Federal budget?
Or is there some legitimate rationale for these cuts? I have
not heard those rationales as well. I will be interested in
seeing if there is any good reason for it.
Let me just end by saying this. I really want to emphasize
the point that Senator Clinton just made about getting good
information. We cannot do our job on either side unless we have
good information. It seems as if there may be a trend or a
tendency for us to manipulate numbers in order to make
political points. It seems to me that there is no room to do
that, especially when we are talking about environmental issues
in which our children's lives are at stake. So I hope you have
some direct response in terms of how we are approaching that,
and whether there is something in this budget that reflects
some institutional mechanism to prevent that kind of stuff from
occurring again.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Obama.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being late. I apologize sincerely for
missing the testimony. I will defer my questions until later,
if that is possible, so I can get caught up.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Thune.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, would wait until the question-answer time.
Senator Inhofe. That is fine. What I think we will do, we
will close our opening statements now for any other members
that come, in accordance with our rules. Since we are only
going to have one round, Senator Jeffords, without objection
why don't we give 6-minute rounds instead of 5-minute rounds.
Senator Jeffords. Fine.
Senator Inhofe. That would be all right? All right. We will
do that, and we will go back to the early bird rule.
Senator Boxer. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Could I just ask
you a question?
Senator Inhofe. First of all, we have to get the testimony.
Senator Boxer. I know, but you were talking about one 6-
minute round, and that is the end of the questions?
Senator Inhofe. That is what I am talking about, yes.
Senator Boxer. Could I suggest 10-minute rounds, because I
think it is kind of hard, if you are going to have a give-and-
take, to do it in 6 minutes.
Senator Inhofe. All right. We will have 7.5-minute rounds.
We will split the difference.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, you are so generous.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Your cup runneth over. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. We work well together. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, you have heard a lot of the comments. You will
have a lot of questions to answer, I am sure. We will recognize
you at this time to make your statement. Try to stay within
your 5 minutes, say 6 minutes. OK?
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY: CHARLES E.
JOHNSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY; BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; TOM DUNNE, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ANN KLEE,
GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JEFF
HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND
RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; SUSAN B.
HAZEN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss
President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget request for the
Environmental Protection Agency. I am accompanied by Mr.
Charlie Johnson, the Agency's Chief Financial Officer, and the
rest of EPA's leadership team. We would be pleased to respond
to your questions after my brief remarks.
Mr. Chairman, if it would please the committee, I would
request that my full written statement be included for the
record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the President has
requested a budget of $7.6 billion for EPA and its partners for
fiscal year 2006. We are all well aware of the need for
discipline in our Federal budget, and this budget request
reflects the need to be a good steward of the taxpayers'
dollars. At the same time, I am certain that the President's
budget will allow us to continue the progress we have made in
protecting public health and the environment.
This budget engages the full range of partners, not just
Federal, State, tribal and local partners, but also businesses,
interest groups and educational institutions, to help leverage
Federal moneys. Let me give you an example. The President's
budget contains a request for $15 million for the Clean Diesel
Initiative. These funds will be used to expand the retrofitting
of diesel engines in new sectors of the economy, such as
construction, agriculture, mass transit and the Nation's ports,
and in fire and emergency response. These funds are expected to
leverage significant additional investments from businesses and
other sources to replace older, dirtier equipment, thereby
accelerating our efforts to make that black puff of diesel
smoke a thing of the past.
The national Clean Diesel Initiative is expected to reduce
particulate matter by 1,200 tons, achieving an estimated $360
million in health benefits by reducing premature deaths, heart
attacks, chronic bronchitis, and asthma episodes. In fact,
through numerous other collaborative networks and partnerships,
EPA will be able to leverage millions of additional dollars to
improve the Nation's environment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight just a few programs
that illustrate the strong commitment the President is making
to a clean and healthier America. First, President Bush is
requesting $210 million for the National Brownfields Program,
an increase of $46.9 million over the enacted 2005 funding. EPA
is working with its State, tribal and local partners to meet
its objective to clean up, restore, and revitalize contaminated
properties and abandoned sites. These funds, together with the
extension of the Brownfields tax incentive, will allow EPA to
assess over 1,000 Brownfield properties, and cleanup 60
properties using Brownfields funding. Federal dollars will also
leverage 5,000 cleanup and redevelopment jobs, as well as $1
billion in cleanup and redevelopment.
With respect to the Great Lakes, we are proud of our
efforts in the Great Lakes region over the past year, including
implementation of the President's Executive order calling for a
regional collaboration of national significance. As you know,
we helped initiate the collaboration with the conveners meeting
in Chicago last December, and our work is continuing to develop
a plan for protecting and preserving the Great Lakes.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget increases funding
for Great Lakes programs and the regional collaboration to $72
million. That amount includes $50 million for the Great Lakes
Legacy Act Program to remediate the contaminated sediment in
areas of concern, such as the Black Lagoon close to Detroit,
MI.
To help support sustainable wastewater infrastructure, the
President's budget provides $730 million to continue
capitalization of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds. This
investment will allow EPA to meet the Administration's Federal
capitalization target of $6.8 billion for 2004 through 2011,
and it will enable the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to
revolve over time at a level of $3.4 billion per year.
To further address wastewater needs, EPA is supporting a
range of voluntary efforts to achieve sustainable
infrastructure, such as management improvements, full cost
pricing, water conservation, and restoration through our
watershed approach. To help ensure that water is safe to drink,
the fiscal year 2006 President's budget requests $850 million
for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
The President's budget request also reflects a strong
commitment to safeguard human health and the environment, with
funds to ensure that EPA's critical role in homeland security
remains a top priority. EPA's request includes $79 million in
new resources for homeland security efforts. Among priority
activities, $44 million will provide tools and training for our
largest drinking water systems, and will launch in selected
cities a pilot program of monitoring and surveillance to
provide early warning of contamination.
Environmental decontamination research and preparedness
increases by $19.4 million, with an additional $4 million
requested for the Safe Buildings Research Program. Over $11.6
million in new resources will support preparedness for our
environmental laboratories.
In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the
goals and objectives as set forth in our strategic plan, to
meet new challenges, to move forward EPA's core programs as
reflected in the Nation's environmental statutes, to protect
our homeland, and to identify new and better ways to carry out
EPA's mission, while maintaining national competitiveness.
Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just take
a moment to thank you and Senator Voinovich for your work on
the Clear Skies legislation, which is currently pending in the
committee, and to pledge to you and other members of the
committee the Administration's best efforts to help you move
the legislation forward. The President continues to believe
that Clear Skies legislation is vital and we know that States
and localities are anxious to have Federal and regional tools
to meet the standards we have established under the Clean Air
Act.
Of course, EPA will continue to meet its obligations under
existing authorities and agreements, but I want to be certain
that we are providing the committee with all the assistance
necessary to facilitate consideration of this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
discuss EPA's budget proposal for fiscal year 2006. At this
time, I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I will go ahead and
start the 7.5-minute rounds.
Let me first of all thank you for responding yesterday to
my call. I think Senator Jeffords and I had asked for quite
some time for the enacted levels of 2005 so that we could look
at that with the 2006 budget. It should not have taken as long
as it did, but we do have it now, and we do appreciate finally
getting it.
Let me get to just one opening question, because every year
we go through this same thing. I know the intentions are good,
but in terms of polluter-pays, I would suggest to you that the
polluter does pay. We have a system, if we can identify who a
polluter is, that polluter pays. I do not know of any exception
to that, and I have asked this question before, so maybe
something has happened in the last year that has changed this,
but I will ask you the question. Can you identify any Superfund
site in the past, in the present, or in the pipeline now, when
an identifiable and viable polluter has not been held liable,
consistent with the law, for their share of the contamination?
Can you just identify one?
Mr. Johnson. I am not aware of any one at all, Mr.
Chairman. In fact, our policy and our practice is that the
polluter pays. That is who we go after. If we can identify a
liable party, we go after them. In fact, over 70 percent of the
sites are undertaken by the polluter, not by the Federal
Government, but by the polluter. That is the person we go
after.
Senator Inhofe. I just wanted to get that in the record and
clarify that nothing has changed, and that has always happened.
Now, you are going to be grilled by a lot of my colleagues,
including myself on some shortfalls in the budget. I would like
to talked about reducing the overall budget by $450 million, I
would argue a different point here, because it seems like every
year, and it happened in the previous administration, the
Clinton administration. It has happened every time I have been
up here, that there are cuts in programs that you know in your
heart are going to be put back in. One is the congressional
projects; the other is the State revolving fund. They cut them
every year, and they put them back, so you know they are going
to be put back.
I would prefer that the Agency go and start making cuts in
areas where I think there could be general agreement. We have
reams of studies that really have not produced anything at all.
One is the Accidental Injury and Inclement Weather: Defining
the Relationship and Anticipating the Effects of Climate
Change, and an epidemiological study, the Effects of
Temperature on Violent Crime. These are things that I think
most normal people would say you do not need to be wasting your
money on.
So why don't you go out, and I think maybe you need to have
the cuts in overall programs, but cut in areas that are serious
cuts that you know are not going to be reinstated.
Any thoughts about that?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree. The EPA is
always looking for opportunities to streamline and to take
appropriate cuts. In fact, we have identified programs that are
both not meeting their intent and not producing results. There
is at least one example where one of the programs, the Alaska
Native Villages, where there are needs, but through our own
assessment, through the performance assessment rating tool that
the government is using to evaluate programs, and through the
State's own investigation, it was determined that it was an
ineffective program, both financially and programmatic. So the
budget reflects those kind of cuts.
Second is that certainly with your encouragement, Mr.
Chairman, we have made great progress on our grant programs.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, you have.
Mr. Johnson. But we have work to do. A part of that work is
to take a very close look at all grant funds, particularly the
discretionary grant funds, to make sure that those moneys are
used for the highest priority activities for the Agency. I
think that as we look at those kind of things, we will see
additional savings.
Senator Inhofe. Along that line, I would encourage you, and
I would like to have your response like now, your willingness
to do it, to continue, as I think you just said, that program.
We had so many discretionary grants that we discovered that
actually were going straight into 501(c)(4) operations, totally
outrageous, as I mentioned in my opening statement.
So there are a lot of areas where we can do it, but I do
see this, and again this is not the Republicans or the
Democrats. It is everybody. They will cut things that they know
are going to come back in. That is not confined to this
committee, I might add.
There is something that is important to my State I want to
just share with you. The Agency recently proposed a second
extension in the compliance deadline for the small oil and
natural gas producers to comply with the stormwater rule. What
does the Agency plan to do during the new extension period?
Further, the Department of Energy recently released a report
detailing the underlying costs to the oil and natural gas
sector and the Nation as a whole if the EPA goes forward with
its rule to require them to have clean water permits for all
their stormwater runoff, instead of just contaminated runoff as
Congress intended when it passed the 1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act. What is your intention on that?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, on January 18 of this year, we
proposed to postpone the requirements for NPDES permits for
stormwater phase II oil and gas construction activities until
June 12, 2006. This will provide us with an opportunity to
better study the economic, the legal, and procedural issues
associated with oil and gas construction activities and NPDES
permits.
We have stated that we do intend to propose a rule by the
end of September of this year that would lay out what approach
we believe we should be taking for these types of activities
and these types of facilities. We believe that it is
appropriate for us to postpone the requirements while we sort
this out.
Senator Inhofe. All right, Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Yes, I would like to turn your attention
to an issue that has raised deep concerns over this country,
but most particularly right where we are here in Washington,
DC. We are well aware of the damaging impact that mercury can
have on human health and environment. According to the EPA
inspector general's recent report, during the writing of the
mercury reduction rule, EPA senior management purposely ignored
the law to benefit the industry.
Let me quote you last week's inspector general's report,
``EPA senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a
maximum achievable control technology, a MACT, standard for
mercury that would result in national emissions of 34 tons
annually instead of basing the standard on an unbiased
determination of what the top-performing units were achieving
in practice as required by the law in section 112.''
Do you find this behavior acceptable, and what is the
Agency doing to correct this problem and prevent such abuse of
the law in the future?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jeffords, first of all let me state that,
as you well know, having confirmed me as the Assistant
Administrator for the Pesticides and Toxics Program, I was not
in the position that I am either as the permanent deputy or as
the acting. So I, too, had the inspector general's report, and
several comments.
One is that there is no disagreement that mercury is a
toxic material that must be dealt with. Also, there appears to
be no science disagreement that the exposure that we all need
to be concerned about for mercury is through the diet, and
specifically through fish.
So while there may be aspects of the IG report of process,
where there are differences of opinion and that the Agency does
disagree with the way the IG has characterized the process, the
point is that we are going to be regulating mercury from coal-
fired power plants for the first time in U.S. history.
Currently, mercury is not regulated, so we are taking steps to
make that happen.
Of course, the IG report was issued while we were in the
midst of the process of final rulemaking. So for the IG report
to say what we will or will not do is certainly premature
because we are in the midst of regulating mercury for the first
time in U.S. history. So I am sure that there are always
process improvements. I have been dealing with regulations of
EPA for almost 25 years now, and I always look for those
opportunities to improve our process. It is clear that we need
to move forward with regulating mercury from power plants, and
that is what our focus is and what our final rulemaking is a
part of.
Senator Jeffords. Do you have any time schedule for trying
to get that implemented?
Mr. Johnson. Our plan is to by mid-March move forward with
our regulation. Of course, our preferred approach, as I
commented in my opening remarks, is to see the passage of Clear
Skies legislation. We believe that is a much more preferable
approach for a number of reasons, not the least of which is
certainty and the fact that it applies nationwide. So that is
why we are certainly doing anything that we can to help
Chairman Inhofe and the committee see Clear Skies passed.
Senator Jeffords. Can you explain how a cut of $361 million
in clean water infrastructure funds will lead to an improvement
in water infrastructure? How will it reduce the spending gap as
identified by EPA's gap analysis?
Mr. Johnson. Senator Jeffords, you appropriately point out,
and it has been commented on by a number of Senators this
afternoon that there is a significant gap dealing with clean
water across America and aging infrastructure. The
Administration made a commitment that we would achieve a
Federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion in 2011. When you
look at the funds that have already gone into the Clean Water
SRF, and then you couple that with what the President's request
is for 2006 of $730 million, that meets the Administration's
commitment for Federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion in
2011.
You can look at it a number of ways. It also equates to
that over time it will evolve at about $3.4 billion per year.
In addition to those moneys, obviously Federal moneys, States,
local communities, rate-payers, as well as additional voluntary
programs that we at the Federal level and a number of Federal
agencies and States and local communities also need to support,
help to try to achieve a better sustainable infrastructure than
what we have.
Senator Jeffords. On Monday, December 13, when the
President nominated Michael Leavitt for Secretary of HHS, Mr.
Leavitt recorded a voice mail that was distributed to EPA
employees. That message said that he had a meeting with
President Bush where he personally made the decision to move
forward on clean air interstate rule, and that the President
had made the decision to finalize that rule by March. Is that
still the schedule?
Mr. Johnson. We are still moving toward that target to
finalize the rule. Again, our preferred approach is to see the
Clear Skies legislation passed for the reasons I have already
stated, sir.
Senator Jeffords. The EPA budget contains documents that
indicate that the agency intends to reduce its personnel level
by 273 employees. Could you explain why this is necessary,
whether any parts of the agency have instituted hiring freezes,
and whether reductions in force or buyouts will be necessary in
the upcoming fiscal year?
Mr. Johnson. The approximately 300 FTE reduction that you
refer to is over 2 years, both this fiscal year as well as next
fiscal year. When I look at what our current FTE level of
employees is, we are right where we need to be. There certainly
is no agency-wide freeze. I am not aware of any local freezes,
if you will, but I certainly would expect that all the managers
across all our programs and regions would manage their
resources accordingly. So as they hire up to their ceiling,
they need to manage to that ceiling.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just for the 2 Mr. Johnsons. When I say Mr. Johnson,
everybody is going to jump.
Mr. Johnson. We are unrelated, sir.
Senator Isakson. I thank you for coming. Thank you for your
testimony. You made a comment with regard to mercury in
answering the question from Senator Jeffords. Clear Skies is
the first time that we have established targeted goals, I
believe a 70 percent reduction, of mercury. That is correct. I
applaud the President for his recommendation and you for the
encouragement of that, because there is no question that
mercury is something that we have got to regulate, and that
Clear Skies is clearly an opportunity to have a significant
reduction in that over a meaningful period of time.
The second thing, in your written statement, and I am not
sure you said this, because you were leaving some of it out,
there is a sentence that says, this funding provides additional
resources to States in order for them to contribute to the
development of this baseline of water conditions across our
country, and what you were referring to I believe is a $24
million program in terms of monitoring of water and clean
water.
My State of Georgia, and this may be unique only to my
State, has more counties than any State in the country except
the State of Texas. We have more incorporated municipalities
than anybody I think in the world. So we have a lot of
governments. Throughout your written testimony, you refer to
watershed, rather than government, because water does not pay
attention to political boundaries.
Are there any incentive moneys to encourage multi-
jurisdictional participation in storm water management, soil
sediment erosion control and other water quality issues at the
department?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, there are. If it pleases the Senator, I
would like to invite our Assistant Administrator, Ben Grumbles,
who heads up our water program, to give you some specifics.
Ben?
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, you have hit the nail right on the
head in terms of one of the greatest challenges and
opportunities, and that is if we truly want to manage our water
resources on a watershed basis, it has to be based on both
voluntary approaches and incentives, and also working together.
The monitoring initiative that you pointed out, the $24 million
which is additional funding being requested in the budget, is
for States to develop tools to better monitor their water.
It also complements the whole targeted watershed approach
that we are trying to achieve. There is a $15 million request
in the President's budget, Senator, for collaborations,
voluntary innovative approaches to respond to nutrients or
invasive species or whatever the challenge is in a particular
watershed to try to provide incentives for local groups,
governments, local governments, watershed organizations to work
together. That includes stormwater, as well as other types of
water challenges.
Senator Isakson. I commend you for doing that. I was hoping
that is what it meant, because in our particular State and in
my personal experience, we can move light-years ahead in terms
of water quality if we get multi-jurisdictional cooperation
within watersheds and have a team approach, rather than some of
the problems we have in other areas where one community is
directly hurting another community because of an absence of
attention and cooperation.
My other comment would not be a question, but it would be
to thank the department. How long have you been there, Mr.
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Almost 25 years, sir.
Senator Isakson. You were there, then. I will thank you,
and I will thank you, Mr. Johnson, on general principles as
well. Five years ago, we came to the department to ask for a
waiver. The city of Atlanta, as you know, has been a poster
child for nonattainment, and we have had significant clean air
difficulties. We also had probably one of the dirtiest cleanup
jobs known to man, known as the Atlantic Steel plant right
downtown. We came to the department and asked for a waiver to
allow us to construct a bridge across the dual Interstates 75
and 85 that go through the center of town, to open up that
property to development. The department, and Secretary Browner,
I think, at the time was the head of the department, granted
that waiver.
I would like to tell you what the result of that is today.
The bridge is built. Traffic on the Interstate is reduced
significantly because it now flows with people going from one
destination to another downtown who do not have to get on the
Interstate to go there. The dirtiest cleanup site in the State,
in fact Atlantic Steel kept a skeleton crew employed and kept
the plant open so as not to ever have to clean it up. The new
buyers came in, completely replaced all the soil, completely
cleaned the entire area up. It has now been redeveloped into
one of the most successful residential, commercial, office,
retail and entertainment mixed-use developments in the country.
Five years ago, it was a wasteland and it was regulation
that prohibited the cleanup. You all were open-minded, willing
to grant that waiver, and I just want to let you know next time
you are in Atlanta if you will drive by that, you will be very
glad you did it, and we are very appreciative that you did it.
My principle has always been in environmental management
that there are best management practices and sometimes what
someone might fight is sending a waiver, but it actually can
take us to a period of time with far cleaner air and far
cleaner water. That is a shining example of it, and we are
grateful to you for your work on that.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Speaking of cleaning up the environment as Senator Isakson
did, one of the greatest programs has been the Superfund
program. Signed by Jimmy Carter, and actually the fund, the fee
was expanded by Ronald Reagan, supported by George Bush's dad,
and very strongly supported by President Clinton. This is the
first President in history since Superfund not to support the
fee.
Now, the fact is for one-third of the sites, you cannot
find a responsible party. That is from EPA themselves. So there
are polluters who are not paying at all. That is why it is very
disturbing to see that the load is falling on the taxpayers,
whether they are in Georgia or California or New York or
anywhere.
So it is a sad day for us. Of course, we have not seen a
slowdown of the cleanups to 40. Under Bill Clinton, it was an
average of 80 sites cleaned. There are many of these sites all
over the country. New Jersey has most of them, but California,
New York and other places all have them.
So this is a serious issue, and one that I am not going to
belabor. Obviously, the President does not support the fee, and
that is the way it goes. There is bipartisan support for the
fee in this committee, not with everyone, but we will be
pushing that issue.
My question for you is, one of the problems we have had
recently with the Bush administration is that we cannot get the
list of the sites. We cannot get the list of what are your
priorities, what are the most dangerous sites. Would you make
that information available to Senators who may want that
information?
Mr. Johnson. I am happy to provide information on the sites
as we go through our ranking and evaluation.
[The referenced information can be found on page 141.]
Senator Boxer. When will that be?
Mr. Johnson. I do not know how quickly we can do this, but
let me ask our acting assistant administrator.
Senator Boxer. That would be wonderful.
Mr. Johnson. This is Tom Dunne.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Dunne, thank you, because I have had
problems with getting information out of EPA on your priority
list, and what the most dangerous projects are.
Mr. Dunne. Senator, what we have is a number of career
people, one from each regional office who sits on a risk panel.
Every year, generally in the summer, they rank the projects
based on health risk.
Senator Boxer. Right. That is what I am interested in.
Mr. Dunne. That can change from year to year, because as
new sites are added, you can fall down the list if you do not
have as high a risk. We do not keep a list on a day-to-day
basis, but I guarantee you all our decisions have been made.
Senator Boxer. Can you send me your most recent list, then?
Mr. Dunne. I think we can show you what we have from the
last fiscal year.
Senator Boxer. That would be very helpful. What we are
interested in, of course, is that your list is going forward.
When will that be done? This summer?
Mr. Dunne. Sometime in the late spring or early summer.
Senator Boxer. Will you make a commitment to get that list
to those Senators who want it?
Mr. Dunne. Sure.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. That would be very
helpful.
Mr. Chairman, on the Brownfields question. I think all of
us really applaud that legislation. I worked on it with
Senators Chafee and Smith, and Senator Jeffords and others.
What we see is that 490 out of the 755 projects were not funded
by EPA. Eleven of those were from my State. So we have many
sites that remain idle and dirty, blighting neighborhoods and
hampering local development, which is very important. I started
out as a county supervisor. We want to be able to utilize these
sites. Generally, they are infill. They are close to the cities
and they are important economic potential.
My question to you is, how many sites will remain unfunded
under your particular proposal, which is a very small increase
in this program?
Mr. Dunne. That is hard to tell. It depends on how many
applications we get. Right now, there is a competitive process
that is going on for local communities, and organizations have
sent in applications. We expect that there will be a few
hundred that will not be funded. The list has gone down in the
last couple of years as community groups and developers
understand the complexities of dealing with contaminated land.
While it started out 2 years ago, in the first year of
Brownfields, with over 1,000 applications. Last year, I believe
it fell to about 700. The last figure I heard was it is falling
further this year.
Senator Boxer. How many sites are not going to be cleaned
up?
Mr. Dunne. Sites, we could take a look at the number of
sites.
Senator Boxer. Could you get me that information, please,
as soon as possible?
Mr. Dunne. We have issued actually a market report that
came out in the last couple of months that is a very frank
analysis of all contaminated sites as best as we can estimate.
That is underground source, Brownfields.
Senator Boxer. So you can get me that information?
Mr. Dunne. It is a book that we will be happy to send your
staff.
[The referenced information can be found on page 140.]
Senator Boxer. Please, if you would do that right away.
My other question on leaking underground storage tanks, one
of the most serious threats to the nation's groundwater. It can
hold extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through
soil. We know that MTBE, that presents a substantial risk to
health and environment and economic growth. There are 670,000
underground storage tanks in the United States and 160,000 in
California; 437,000 are leaking; 42,000 in California. Cleanups
have slowed down by over 20 percent in recent years.
I am concerned. Since there is, in my understanding, a
trust fund for the cleanup of these tanks, and my understanding
of the information I have, looking at the unspent money, it is
over $2 billion. So in face of the 130,000 needed cleanups, why
did the Administration fail to request additional funding from
this special reserve, which is collected specifically to clean
up leaking underground storage tanks?
Mr. Johnson. Senator Boxer, we will have to get back to you
for the record.
[The referenced information can be found on page 136.]
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving
me 7.5 minutes. I am glad, because the fact is I am not getting
answers to these questions, and they are very important to me.
So please, as soon as we can, this is key to economic
development. It is key to the health of our people, the health
of our kids. We will work closely with you.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for this opportunity.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate
the testimony of the Johnsons. I feel very at home, being from
South Dakota, being surrounded by Johnsons.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. I appreciate your testimony and your
responses to these questions. I am also interested in a number
of the programs that are under this committee's jurisdiction. I
would point out, and correct me if I am wrong, that when the
Superfund tax or fee expired in 1995, that there was not a
request for it to be reinstated under the Clinton
administration at a time when the Democrats controlled both the
House and the Senate. Actually, that would be prior to 1995. I
guess that is right. We had the Congress by then. In any event,
the point being that the Clinton administration did not request
an increase or the reinstatement of that fee.
The other thing I guess I would point out, and I think it
is important, is that we have some issues in South Dakota with
respect to Superfund sites, too, sites that have been for the
most part cleaned up, almost complete, anyway. We have received
a considerable amount of funding, and in most cases there are
situations where you cannot identify a responsible party. That
was the case with one of the mines in South Dakota. I think it
is a program that has been used effectively to do some very
successful cleanup sites.
The same thing is true with respect to Brownfields. I was
just noting the increase, as I understand the numbers here, in
Brownfields funding, the Administration has requested $210
million for the Brownfields Program, an increase of $46.9
million over the enacted 2005 funding level, which is, if my
arithmetic is correct, about a 28 percent increase in funding
for that program, which I do not think is inconsequential in
light of where the overall budget numbers are this year and the
constraints that we have to live under.
I look forward to working on these issues. These are issues
that will fall under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee, and
I look forward to working with the Senator from California, who
I think has since left, on these issues that are important to
her State as well.
A couple of points with respect to issues that I have
particular concerns with in South Dakota, one being, and I
appreciate your agency's help regarding the tier II sulfur
issue. I am hopeful that we can work together to find a
solution to the issue in Pierre and Fort Pierre, SD. That is a
community that is divided by a river, but because of
complications that have come up regarding the geographic phase-
in area, fall under different regulations and different
standards, which does not really make any sense if you
understand at all the geography of South Dakota. So I look
forward to working with you, and would appreciate your
assistance on that matter.
The other concern I would like to express is having to do
with the clean water SRF program. Based on my calculations,
South Dakota would lose roughly $3 million compared to the
funding that it received last year. Clearly, Congress continues
to fund this program at a higher level than the Administration
supports. I think that has been demonstrated historically,
largely due to the overwhelming needs not only in my home State
of South Dakota, but across the country.
If you look at South Dakota, 50 percent of the assessed
rivers and 84 percent of the assessed lakes are designated as
having impaired water quality. The leading sources of water
pollution include erosion, agricultural runoff and non-point
source pollution.
Now, having said that, we did I think some significant good
work in the Farm Bill in 2002 in improving. In fact, there was
a piece of legislation I introduced on the House side which was
incorporated in the Farm Bill called the Conservation Security
Program, which is designed to provide incentives for farmers on
farmable lands to practice conservation. It is an incentive-
based program. I hope that we can continue to move incentive-
based approaches when it comes to cleaning up our groundwater
in places like South Dakota.
Of course, the CRP program has been very successful, not
only with respect to erosion, but also in wildlife production,
something that is also important in my State. The EQI Program,
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, is also something
that has been fluffed up significantly in the 2002 Farm Bill.
Those programs are all I think having a very positive impact.
What we are talking about here is the Clear Skies legislation,
and I am hopeful that we can continue to make progress toward
cleaning up our water and cleaning up our air.
In coming back to the whole question of the SRF, that is a
program that has been used significantly by a lot of States.
South Dakota, I know in my experience, has made considerable
good use of that program. I guess I am just curious to get your
reaction about what the rationale was for the reduction in that
particular area of the budget.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. As we looked at the Clean Water SRF
and looked at the funding that was provided in 2004 and 2005,
we reflected on the Administration's commitment to, one, have a
revolving fund that would both have a Federal capitalization
target of $6.8 billion in 2011, and achieve around a $3.4
billion per year revolving amount. As we calculated those
numbers to achieve that commitment, in light of the commitments
made last year and the year before--this year, the number is
$730 million.
So when you take and calculate that out through now and
2011, it honors that commitment. Obviously, we are in a
fiscally restrained budget, but it was important, because this
is an important area for States and local communities, but it
was also important to honor our commitment.
Senator Thune. I expect I am going to be hearing from my
Governor, as well as our Department of Environment and Natural
Resources in South Dakota as they begin to pore over this
budget. As I said earlier, Congress has demonstrated an
inclination, a willingness in the past to plus-up the
Administration's budget in that regard. It is a program that
has been very well used by the States, and I think done some
very good things with respect to cleaning up the environment.
On that note, thank you again for your testimony and I look
forward to working with you and this committee as this process
moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, just 2 points to clarify the record. Every
Clinton budget post-1995 assumed the reinstatement of the
polluter-pay tax, and in fact the Administration consistently
supported reinstating the polluter-pay tax. Unfortunately,
there was not much appetite for doing that in the Congress.
Second, with respect to Senator Isakson's point, it is my
understanding that EPA does control mercury coming out of
incinerators. We have had recognition of the control of mercury
for quite some time. We have just never taken it to the stage
it needs to be moved foward, which is to control the emissions
from dirty power plants.
Mr. Johnson, let me ask you specifically, when do you think
a new Chair will be named for the World Trade Center panel?
Mr. Johnson. Senator Clinton, first of all, thank you for
your kind remarks with regard to the effort by Dr. Gilman and
others on the World Trade Center, an important topic for all of
us, and to do what we all need to do to address that situation.
Since we are in the midst of the President looking for an
Administrator for EPA, and also there are several key positions
that we are actively looking for highly qualified individuals,
including the Assistant Administrator for our Office of
Research and Development, while that process is going on, I
have asked Tim Oppelt, who is the director of our Cincinnati
lab who oversees all of our research in homeland security, if
he would serve as an interim Chair for this upcoming meeting,
and then report back to me directly so that the important
progress that we have made thus far will continue.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson. I also made a conscious decision that rather
than waiting for people to be in positions, that I thought it
was important for us to move forward with having our next panel
meeting. So we have announced that we are having our next panel
meeting on February 23. Mr. Oppelt will be filling in to chair
that for me, reporting directly back to me, so that we can move
forward with the important progress.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much. I know that my
constituents appreciate that as well.
Mr. Johnson, with respect to the Deutsche Bank Building,
has the EPA followed up with the Lower Manhattan Development
Corporation to ensure that the suggested changes that EPA made
with respect to the technical considerations about the
demolition, has that been followed up with the Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation?
Mr. Johnson. Our Region II office out of New York, as you
are well aware, was following this and in fact were the ones
who were instrumental in achieving what you had said. I am not
sure whether that follow-up has or has not occurred.
Senator Clinton. Could you get back to me on that?
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to get back to you for the
record.
Senator Clinton. I think it is important. There was a great
cheer that went up from Lower Manhattan when the EPA set forth
its concerns. I would like to keep getting you good press in
Manhattan.
Last August, I wrote to the EPA to ask for attention to a
Title VI claim that had been filed by the Syracuse University
public interest law firm on behalf of a group called the
Partnership for Onondaga Creek, a grassroots community group
including neighborhood residents from blocks where Onondaga
County plans to build an above-ground sewage plant. I was very
pleased to learn, after I sent my letter, that EPA contacted
the claimants to indicate that a review of the claim had begun.
Can you tell me when the review of this claim will be
completed? Can you get back to me with that information? I see
someone nodding who looks very knowledgeable back there.
Mr. Johnson. We have Ann Klee, who is our General Counsel.
Since she was the one who was nodding, come up to the table.
Ann.
Ms. Klee. Senator Clinton, we are reviewing the document.
We just received it and we expect to have it finalized, I would
say, shortly, probably within a month. I think the deadline is
March 17, but I could be wrong on that.
Senator Clinton. Great. Thank you. That will also be good
news to my constituents.
Mr. Johnson, usually we have expected in the Congress every
4 years a report on the reduction and deposition rates of acid
rain, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
report. The last report was in 1998. When can we expect this
report to be delivered to the Congress?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, let me ask Jeff Holmstead, who is our
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
Mr. Holmstead. Senator, what I can tell you is that there
is a draft of that report that is undergoing review right now.
I think it is actually produced by the Office of Science and
Technology, and we have been one of the agencies that have been
reviewing it. It is actually the subject of pretty intense
scrutiny by a lot of science agencies. So what I can say is
that it is undergoing review. I do not know exactly what the
timeframe is, because it is not our document, but I do know
that folks in my office have been looking at it, so I would
assume it would be out relatively soon.
Senator Clinton. It would be helpful to have it on a fast
track since it is somewhat overdue, if we were to keep the 4-
year schedule. I appreciate that.
Finally, Mr. Johnson, last week when CEQ Chairman
Connaughton testified before this committee about Clear Skies,
he said at that time that the Administration had not taken a
position with respect to S. 131. You have made several
references in your testimony today to Clear Skies. Are you
indicating that the Administration has made a decision to
endorse and support S. 131?
Mr. Johnson. No, do not misunderstand from my comments.
Obviously, the President submitted Clear Skies legislation now
2 years ago, and we know through Chairman Inhofe's leadership
that markup is next week.
Senator Clinton. So you were using that as a sort of
generic?
Mr. Johnson. I was using that as a generic, that certainly
we support Clear Skies legislation. The President put a
proposal on the table. I know that there will be a markup next
week and we look forward to seeing the results.
Senator Clinton. Could I ask you specifically, with respect
to the fact that we are having a markup next week, section
407(J) of S. 131 includes a provision that carves out
exemptions from current Clean Air Act requirements for 4 entire
source categories, more than 70,000 units. This removes these
units from Clean Air Act regulations for hazardous air
pollutants, including carcinogens like benzine, probably
carcinogens like formaldehyde and other nasty things like
arsenic. I asked Mr. Connaughton whether the Administration
specifically supported that provision and whether the EPA had
produced estimates of how many facilities would qualify for
exemptions under this provision, and whether there had been any
modeling about potential health impacts of those exemptions.
Mr. Connaughton said he would get back to me with answers,
which he has not yet done, but I think the committee needs
answers to those questions. I do not see how we can proceed
with a markup next week on a piece of legislation that creates
such a big carve-out that could have deleterious health
impacts. So could we expect to get answers before our markup
next week?
Mr. Johnson. I will have an answer for you, yes.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. I will also point out that the analysis for
the air program activities, particularly as we get into
modeling particulate and all the rest, are very intensive, and
in fact take weeks to accomplish.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, it is budget time, and I have been since Monday, I
think, humming that Rolling Stones tune, You Don't Always Get
What You Want, but if you try real hard you just might get what
you need.
I want to talk about something that we need in Alaska. The
proposal before us now is a two-thirds cut in the EPA funding
to bring safe water and wastewater disposal to Native villages
in the State. In fiscal year 2005, we funded this program at
$45 million, but for 2006 we are looking to set this funding at
just $15 million. I guess if we had, with regard to this
program, received a small increase or no increase at all, like
so many of the other domestic discretionary programs have, I
could understand, but the two-thirds cut of the money that EPA
is spending to really alleviate third-world conditions that
remain in so many of our Native villages I think is something
that we really need to closely scrutinize.
As we look at what we have been able to accomplish up in
the State through the construction of the sanitation villages,
we know for a fact that it reduces infant mortality. We know
for a fact that it reduces the incidence of disease. The Indian
Health Service makes this point every year to the Committee on
Indian Affairs on which I sit. The section of the President's
budget on Indian Health Service again reiterates the importance
of this.
What we have seen with this program over the years, we have
in terms of the percentages of homes in rural Alaska now with
running water and sewer, we have seen an increase. In 1995, we
were at 51 percent of the homes in our villages that had
running water and sewer, up to 77 percent in 2003. That is the
latest year for which the data is available. As we look to the
contributions in terms of the communities, these are not
sizable communities. These are villages. We are at
approximately 135 villages now with active projects. This is
135 out of the 231 federally recognized Alaska Native villages
that are currently receiving the funding. So we have over 200
of our villages that have received funding under this program,
the benefits extending to close to 95,000 Alaskans.
As I understand the reason for this cut was not necessarily
to help with the deficit, but it was more out of a controversy
between EPA and the State of Alaska in terms of a disagreement
about how well the program is operating, a concern that may
have been presented before this previous Administration at the
State level, concerns relating to deficiencies in EPA's
management. I can understand why some in OMB might think that
this program is ineffective, but when it comes right down to
the individuals and to the communities, the people in rural
Alaska do not believe it is ineffective.
We view this as a program that will eliminate the honey
bucket, and for people that do not know what honey buckets are,
they are five-gallon buckets where people put their waste. The
only way that you can dispose of that waste is to walk out your
front door and walk down to a community central disposal, or
down to the lagoon. You slop the stuff on the ground, amungst
the kids and the dogs. This is happening in this century in the
United States, in my State. We need to continue the progress
that we have had.
If EPA and the State have differences or disagreements as
to how we operate the program, let's work that out, but let's
not penalize the Alaska Natives that are living in this
village.
I want to know that we can work with you on this. I do not
know if you have had an opportunity to come and visit the
State. Secretary Thompson when he was the Secretary, really
made an effort every single summer to come up to the State and
visit some of the most remote places in the State to really get
a sense of what is going on. I would invite you to do the same.
I want to make sure that we are able to truly eliminate the
issues of disease, of infant mortality, that come about when we
in this very primitive way are disposing of our waste. If we
could even continue the village safe water funding that we had
at the 1995 levels, we would be able to complete the agreed-
upon State EPA project list in 3 years. If we do not, we are
going to wait for at least an additional 8 years to get minimal
water and sewer in to these villages.
So I wanted to take this time to stress to you that it is
not an experimental program that does not have clear results.
It is not fancy. In most of these villages, people get their
water by going to a central well somewhere, and again taking
their five-gallon bucket, hopefully not the same one that has
been used for other things, but it is a very primitive system.
It is the best we have at this point in time, and we want to be
able to continue that progress.
So I am asking for a receptive ear. I am asking for you to
work with us on this.
The other portion of our funding is coming from USDA and we
are seeing cuts there as well, so these are very real issues
for us in the State. I hope that you are going to work with us.
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. Senator, I certainly look forward
to working with you and certainly have our commitment. There is
real need there, and so we certainly want to help you and
certainly help the Alaska Native villages in whatever way we
can. I think, as you have already said, as we look through a
number of important budget issues, we were faced with in this
case, and we have an IG report. We also have a program
assessment rating tool or an evaluation of the performance. In
spite of some of the good progress that has been made, it was
not matching up and we were not able to fully demonstrate the
results. So I certainly look forward to, and you have my
commitment for the agency to work with you so that we can
strengthen the program, get the kind of results and most
importantly, meet the needs.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate that
commitment.
Let me advise my colleagues that we have 10 minutes left on
the first of several roll-call votes. I will stay here until
they have concluded their questioning, but if you can cut it
short we can all three make these votes.
Let me go ahead though and get something in the record I
think is important. It is my understanding that the IG report
on mercury spoken of earlier was extremely poor quality, and
the IG's office criticized the FACA process for failure to even
ask a cross-section of members whether they agreed with the
IG's conclusion, which apparently they did not. I wanted to
have that into the record.
We will recognize Senator Obama.
Senator Obama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, I am going to have to be quick. I understand I
have 4 minutes, so if we could keep the responses brief.
Something very specific to Illinois, and that is Waukegan
Harbor, I mentioned earlier. Can you tell me how the decision
making with respect to the Great Lakes Legacy money is going to
be allocated, and what do we need to do as members of the
Illinois delegation to make sure that the case is made with
respect to Waukegan? How can we make sure, and then how can we
get an assurance from you that Waukegan is going to get its
fair share of those dollars?
Mr. Johnson. You certainly have my commitment that
everybody will have the opportunity to get its fair share.
There is a priority-setting mechanism. Let me ask Ben Grumbles,
who is very familiar with that system.
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, what we are going to do is follow
the statutory criteria that are laid out in the Great Lakes
Legacy Act. The focus is on, I think we have about 14 proposals
so far, but the focus is on a couple things. One is areas of
concern, of which there are 31 areas of concern in the Great
Lakes. Another one is risk. What is the risk-benefit analysis,
what can we do working with our partners to reduce the risk and
to get environmental results?
Another important criterion is the statutory cost-sharing,
65 percent Federal, 35 percent non-Federal. So those are some
of the factors, but it is spelled out and our Great Lakes
National Program office is tracking it far more closely than I
can. I can certainly commit to work with you and your interests
in Waukegan Harbor.
Senator Obama. I would appreciate that.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Thune is presiding. Excuse me.
Senator Obama. OK. If you can ensure that your office
contacts whoever it is that our office needs to talk to to make
sure that this is moving down the pipeline, I would appreciate
that very much.
The second question, which is related, has to do with
homeland security and protecting our water supply. I know that
it has not been discussed yet, but my understanding is there is
a substantial boost in funding for protecting the water supply.
Obviously, there are cities like New York and Chicago that are
of particular concern as targets generally with respect to
homeland security. When I met with the upcoming Secretary of
Homeland Security, I talked to him about that.
How is the selection process going to work with respect to
these pilot programs? Are you in the process of making
guidelines for that?
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, we are in the process of developing
guidelines. My understanding is that we will be selecting
several cities. We will not publicly disclose the identity of
those cities, similar to the BioWatch Program.
Senator Obama. I understand.
Mr. Grumbles. The points you are making about population
and risk in largely populated areas are very much a part of the
discussions about the guidelines for this new Water Sentinel
Program to monitor for contaminants in distribution systems.
Senator Obama. I recognize the need to not fully disclose
the approach here, but is there going to be any means by which
Senators, Congressmen, legislators have some sense of how this
money is being spent?
Mr. Grumbles. Since this is a new program and funding is
being requested for the first time in the fiscal year 2006
President's Budget, there will be a lot of opportunity for us
to provide guidance that explains our thoughts to you and all
members of this committee as well as the appropriations
committees.
Senator Obama. I would be interested in follow-up from your
office on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thune. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks.
Mr. Chairman, first the unanimous consent request that my
opening statement be put in the record as if read.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from
the State of New Jersey
I have significant concerns about the President's budget request
for the Environmental Protection Agency. I understand the difficult
choices we have to make, but from my perspective, the President's EPA
budget will not meet our responsibility to protect human health and the
environment.
Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than the President's
request for the Superfund Program, which would be cut by $100 million.
Superfund is already strapped for cash. The cut in next year's budget
comes on top of a 35 percent cut in funding over the last decade.
Mr. Chairman, Superfund is not just about a few select States. It
affects the entire country. One out of every 4 Americans lives within 4
miles of a Superfund site and 10 million of those are children. The
Washington Post ran an article a few months ago reporting on a visit by
former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt to a Superfund site in Omaha, NE.
As with so many others, that clean-up is barely moving. At a news
conference, Samantha Bradley, a feisty 8-year-old, confronted
Administrator Leavitt. She felt the government was ignoring her and her
family and the health risks they faced. Samantha said, ``If the
president or the mayor lived in this neighborhood, they'd probably get
it cleaned up like that.'' The President's EPA budget leaves Samantha
and many other children across the county behind.
Mr. Chairman, I have many other concerns about this budget request.
For instance, there isn't sufficient funding for the nation's water
infrastructure, which is overwhelmed and allows billions of gallons of
untreated sewage to flow directly into our rivers. This is a serious
public health issue and now is not the time to be cutting back on this
program. Given the current rate of sewer overflows, within the decade
our rivers will resemble the cesspools many of them were in the 1970's.
We must stop this backward slide.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop here to stay within my allotted
time. It looks like we have a lot of hard work to do to restore
adequate funding for crucial programs that protect the health of our
children and the environment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Since there is very little time available, I will try to
get to a couple of things that are of particular interest. I
would again ask that the record be kept open, Mr. Chairman, so
we can submit questions in writing and that the witnesses will
be instructed to respond to those.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
Senator Lautenberg. On a local problem, Mr. Johnson, and I
thank both of you, the Johnsons, for being here and for
testifying. Mr. Johnson, you have been a long-time EPA person,
and I was a long-time EPA person, but I graduated to freshman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Over 2 weeks ago, I wrote a letter
asking that the agency help break a deadlock between Ringwood,
NJ and EPA over how many properties to test for toxic
contamination. This small community of a few hundred resident
properties in Ringwood. Can we be assured that all of these
sites will be tested so that we can get on an assessment and a
decision about how we get this community cleaned up?
Mr. Johnson. If I could ask Tom Dunne to quickly come to
the microphone and give you a status update.
Mr. Dunne. Senator, I have not seen that particular letter
on that particular community, I don't believe. We are planning
on in fiscal year 2006, as we are in 2005, to continue to do
the preliminary assessment site investigations on all sites
that come to our attention. That has fluctuated over the years.
Currently, it is 500 for this year, and I believe it is going
to be 500 for 2006. So I will talk with the Region II office
and reply to your letter.
[The referenced document can be found on page 149.]
Senator Lautenberg. This has been lingering for some time,
and I would ask that you proceed with it as quickly as
possible. I am anxious to get a response to that.
Mr. Johnson, I do not know whether to refer to you as
Johnson I or Johnson II.
Senator Lautenberg. Anyway, the question was discussed here
briefly about Superfund and how we would continue cleanup
programs. It is pretty hard to see quite how we do it. You did
respond to the Chairman, Senator Inhofe, about his interest in
making certain that no polluters were let off the hook and so
forth. However, isn't it true that before a decision has been
made, finalized, to identify a polluter and get on with this
work, that there are often lots of lawsuits that those
technically responsible get into, trying to direct blame
elsewhere or delay the process? Is that so?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly, that is my experience, but that is
also the life at EPA.
Senator Lautenberg. We do not want life at EPA to be cut
short.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. I think in fairness, that there are some
responsible parties who acknowledge that they are, and they
step up to the plate and they do the appropriate thing,
obviously working through. Then there are others that want to
take the litigation route.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. So as a consequence, we wind up
with these orphan sites and they have to be treated out of the
trust fund, and that is diminishing, the pace for cleanup has
slowed down considerably. Would you acknowledge that?
Mr. Johnson. The pace has slowed down in one sense, but
also the sites have significantly changed over the years, from
the early days of Superfund where the sites were fairly small,
were fairly circumscribed. The contaminants maybe were 1 or 2
chemicals. Now, they are multiple, multiple acres and very
complex.
Senator Lautenberg. But there is also a question of
funding, is there not?
Mr. Johnson. Well, for each of our issues there is always a
question of funding. Again, as we look at----
Senator Lautenberg. Could we cleanup more sites if we had
more money? Do we have the capacity to do it?
Mr. Dunne. Yes, I think so, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. I don't mean to cut you short.
Mr. Dunne. We have been open for 2 years in terms of what
has not been funded by site. Last year, I went public very
early in the year, as soon as we knew what our limitations
were, and there were 19 sites that were ready for construction
that could not make it, and we saw another 15 coming down the
pipeline that were in some kind of a design phase that we
thought would be eligible. So I think that is a fair statement.
Senator Lautenberg. Because time has run out and red lights
here mean what they do on the street, and that is you speed up
when you see a red light.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. In 2004, 265 Brownfield sites were
granted funding. It is estimated that are somewhere over
500,000 sites. I expect to have a long life. I am just getting
started with things, so if we divide 265 into 500,000, it could
take a long time, and by then I should probably be back to my
senior status on the committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Thune. I thank the Senator.
I thank our witnesses. I would also make one point of
clarification for the record. I had said earlier that President
Clinton did not seek to reinstate the Superfund fee. The
Senator from New York, who would know, correctly pointed out
that he did in his budgets include that proposal to reinstate
the fee. She was right and I was wrong, so I thought I would
point that out for the record.
Thank you all very much. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
Statement of Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to
be here to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 budget request for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The President's
fiscal year 2006 budget request of $7.6 billion reflects a
strong commitment to protect human health and safeguard the
environment. This includes moving forward EPA's core programs
as reflected in the nation's environmental statutes. This
request will also ensure that EPA's critical role in homeland
security is made a top priority.
Mr. Chairman, the Agency has accomplished a great deal. We
have cleaned the water, improved our air and protected and
restored our lands. While the nation's environmental well being
has shown a steady improvement, there is more to do. Much of
what remains is enormously complex and more expensive.
Bringing a healthy environment to our communities is a
responsibility we all share. Engaging the full range of
partners--not just Federal, State, tribal, and local but also
businesses, interest groups, international and regional
authorities and educational institutions--leverages our Federal
moneys through collaboration. New science, innovation and
technology development, regulation, and market-based solutions
that support these efforts are all a part of this budget
request.
This budget, Mr. Chairman, will enable us to carry out our
goals and objectives as set forth in our Strategic Plan and
help us to meet our challenges. It supports the
Administration's commitment to environmental results by
identifying new and better ways to carry out EPA's mission
while protecting our national competitiveness.
HOMELAND SECURITY
Three years ago we took on significant new responsibilities
in homeland security work that was necessary to protect human
health and the environment from intentional harm. In fiscal
year 2006 we are taking another big step toward filling the
gaps we've identified. EPA's request includes $79 million in
new resources for critical homeland security efforts. EPA plays
a lead role for addressing the decontamination of deadly
chemical, biological and radiological contaminants. The nation
must have the tools and procedures in place to respond
effectively and swiftly to another terrorist event.
One of our most important homeland security
responsibilities is to protect our drinking water supply. Forty
Four million dollars will launch pilots in cities of various
sizes to explore technology and systems that detect
contamination before it causes large scale harm. The program
includes resources to create the Water Alliance for Threat
Reduction to train and prepare our nation's drinking water
systems operators throughout the country.
Response to terrorist events may call for decontamination
from many new hazards. Environmental decontamination research
and preparedness increases by $19.4 million, and an additional
$4 million is requested for the Safe Buildings research
program. Over $11 million in new resources will support
preparedness in our environmental laboratories. Working with
Federal partners in Homeland Security, EPA will plan for
certain fundamental laboratory network needs, such as
appropriate connectivity between member labs and standardized
methods and measurements for environmental samples of
terrorism-related agents of concern. Resources also support
training and continuing education for member laboratories, as
well as accreditation and accountability.
CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CHANGE
The fiscal year 2006 President's Budget requests $969
million to implement EPA's Clean Air and Global Climate Change
goal through national programs designed to provide healthier
outdoor and indoor air for all Americans, protect the
stratospheric ozone layer, minimize the risks from radiation
releases, reduce greenhouse gas intensity, and enhance science
and research. EPA's key clean air programs particulate matter,
ozone, acid rain, air toxics, indoor air, radiation and
stratospheric ozone depletion address some of the highest
health and environmental risks faced by the Agency. Also in
this area, I look forward to working with you Mr. Chairman, in
passing Clear Skies legislation.
Clean fuels and clean technologies are also an integral
part of reducing emissions from mobile sources. The fiscal year
2006 President's Budget provides $15 million for the Clean
Diesel Initiative. EPA and a coalition of clean diesel
interests will work together to expand the retrofitting of
diesel engines into new sectors by adopting a risk-based
strategy, targeting key places and working with specific use
sectors to identify opportunities to accelerate the adoption of
cleaner technologies and fuels. The $15 million proposed for
this program will be leveraged significantly by working with
our partners. Reducing the level of sulfur in the fuel used by
existing diesel engines will provide additional immediate
public health benefits by reducing particulate matter from
these engines.
EPA's Climate Protection Programs will continue to
contribute to the President's 18 percent greenhouse gas
intensity reduction goal by 2012. A fiscal year 2006 funding
initiative for the Climate Change Program is the Methane to
Markets Partnership a United States led international
initiative that promotes cost-effective, near-term methane
recovery and use as a clean energy source. The program provides
for the development and implementation of methane projects in
developing countries and countries experiencing economic
transition. This initiative also has the opportunity to
significantly leverage our proposed funding.
CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
In fiscal year 2006, the budget requests $2.8 billion to
implement the Clean and Safe Water goal through programs
designed to provide improvements in the quality of surface
waters and drinking water. In fiscal year 2006, EPA will work
with States and tribes to continue to accomplish measurable
improvements in the safety of the nation's drinking water, and
in the conditions of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. With
the help of these partners, EPA expects to make significant
progress in these areas, as well as support a few more focused
water initiatives.
In fiscal year 2006, EPA will work with States to make
continued progress toward the clean water goals through
implementation of core clean water programs and acceleration of
efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis. Efforts
include innovative programs spanning entire watersheds. To
protect and improve water quality, a top priority is to
continue to support water quality monitoring to strengthen
water quality data and increase the number of waterbodies
assessed. The Agency's request includes $24 million to build on
the monitoring initiative begun in fiscal year 2005 by
establishing a nationwide monitoring network and expanding the
baseline water quality assessment to include lakes and streams.
The initiative will allow EPA to establish scientifically
defensible water quality data and information essential for
cleaning up and protecting the Nation's waters. The funding
provides additional resources to States in order for them to
contribute to the development of this baseline of water
conditions across our country.
To support sustainable wastewater infrastructure, EPA will
continue to provide significant annual capitalization to the
Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF). The budget provides
$730 million for the CWSRF, which will allow EPA to meet the
Administration's Federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion
total for 2004--2011 and enable the CWSRF to eventually revolve
at a level of $3.4 billion.
During fiscal year 2006, EPA, the States, and community
water systems will build on past successes while working toward
the fiscal year 2008 goal of assuring that 95 percent of the
population served by community water systems receives drinking
water that meets all applicable standards. To help ensure that
water is safe to drink, the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget
requests $850 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund.
LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
$1.7 billion of the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget
will help to implement the Land Preservation and Restoration
goal through continued promotion of the Land Revitalization
Initiative, first established in 2003. Revitalized land can be
used in many beneficial ways, including the creation of public
parks, the restoration of ecological systems, the establishment
of multi-purpose developments, and the establishment of new
businesses. Regardless of whether a property is an abandoned
industrial facility, a waste disposal area, a former gas
station, or a Superfund site, this initiative helps to ensure
that reuse considerations are fully integrated into all EPA
cleanup decisions and programs. Through the One Clean-up
Program, the Agency will also work with its partners and
stakeholders to enhance coordination, planning and
communication across the full range of Federal, State, tribal
and local clean-up programs to promote consistency and enhanced
effectiveness at site cleanups.
The fiscal year 2006 President's Budget funds the Superfund
Appropriation at $1.3 billion. Within this total, the Superfund
Remedial Program provides significant resources in EPA's effort
to preserve and restore land to productive use. In fiscal year
2006, the Superfund Remedial Program will continue its clean-up
and response work to achieve risk reduction, construction
completion and restoration of contaminated sites to productive
use. In fiscal year 2006, the Remedial Program anticipates
completing construction of remedies at 40 Superfund sites.
Enforcement programs are also critical to the agency's
ability to clean up the vast majority of the nation's worst
hazardous sites by securing funding from Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs). The Agency will continue to
encourage the establishment and use of Special Accounts within
the Superfund Trust Fund to finance cleanups. These accounts
segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible parties
that complete settlement agreements with EPA and total a
cumulative $1.5 billion. These funds can create an incentive
for other PRPs to perform work they might not be willing to
perform or used by the Agency to fund cleanup. As a result, the
Agency can cleanup more sites and preserve appropriated Trust
Fund dollars for sites without viable PRPs.
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
The fiscal year 2006 President's Budget requests $1.3
billion to implement national multi-media, multi-stakeholder
efforts needed to sustain and restore healthy communities and
ecosystems, which are impacted by the full range of air, water
and land issues. Programs such as Brownfields, the Great Lakes
collaboration and the targeted watersheds work must reflect
local priorities and local stakeholder involvement to be
effective.
Proper use and careful selection of chemicals and
pesticides influence air quality, clean water and the health of
the land. Carefully targeted research is necessary to keep the
Agency at the forefront of the science that will point to
tomorrow's concerns as well as tomorrow's solutions.
Fiscal year 2006 will be a key year for the chemicals and
pesticides programs. The High Volume Production chemicals
program will move from data collection to first-time screening
for possible risks. Many of these chemicals entered the
marketplace before the Toxics Substances Control Act was passed
and EPA's screening process was put in place. Fiscal year 2006
also marks the final milestone in the 10-year pesticide
tolerance reassessment program, which ensures older food-use
pesticides meet the latest scientific standards for safety.
The Brownfields program is a top environmental priority for
the Administration. EPA is working with its State, Tribal and
local partners to meet its objective to sustain, cleanup and
restore contaminated properties and abandoned sites. Together
with the extension of the Brownfields tax credit, EPA expects
to achieve the following in fiscal year 2006: assess 1,000
Brownfields properties; cleanup 60 properties using Brownfields
funding; leverage an additional $1 billion in cleanup and
redevelopment funding; create 5,000 jobs; and train 200
participants, placing 65 percent in jobs related to the
Brownfields efforts.
There is great population and industrial pressure on the
areas surrounding our large water bodies--the Great Lakes, the
Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and our wetlands in
general. EPA has established special programs to protect and
restore these unique resources by addressing the
vulnerabilities of each.
The Great Lakes program will build on collaborative
networks to remedy pollution, with a budget proposal to
increase funding for the Great Lakes Legacy program to $50
million in order to remediate sediment that was contaminated by
improperly managed old industrial chemicals. Chesapeake Bay
resources in this budget total over $20 million. EPA's work in
the Chesapeake Bay is based on a regional partnership whose
members have committed to specific actions aimed at reducing
both nutrient and sediment pollution. Wetlands and estuaries
are increasingly stressed as coastal population density grows.
The fiscal year 2006 budget provides over $40 million for our
work to protect these ecosystems. Again, effective
collaboration is key to protecting these primary habitats for
fish, waterfowl and wildlife. Our work with the Corps of
Engineers will be instrumental in protecting these valuable
natural resources.
Toxic chemicals reduction is also the emphasis of Community
Action for a Renewed Environment project. The requested
increase of $7 million will offer many more communities the
opportunity to improve their environment through voluntary
action. EPA expects to establish 80 CARE programs across the
Nation in fiscal year 2006, building on experience gained from
10 projects started in 2005.
In the research area, over $5 million is requested for the
Advanced Monitoring Initiative. This initiative will combine
information technology with remote sensing capabilities, to
allow faster, more efficient response to changing environmental
conditions such as forest fires or storm events, as well as
current ecosystems stressors in sensitive areas such as the
Great Lakes or the Everglades. EPA also continues to make
progress in the area of computational toxicology. In fiscal
year 2006, the program expects to deliver the first alternative
assay for animal testing of environmental toxicants, a major
milestone toward the long-term goal of reducing the need for
animal testing. Other major research efforts include human
health risk assessments, which will inform agency regulatory
and policy decisions, and research for ecosystems, which will
emphasize evaluating the effectiveness of restoration options.
The President's Budget also includes $23 million for a new
competitive State and Tribal Performance Fund. The Performance
Grant Fund will support projects that include tangible,
performance-based environmental and health outcomes--and that
can serve as measurement and results-oriented models for
implementation across the Nation.
COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
The fiscal year 2006 President's Budget requests $761
million to implement national programs to promote and enforce
compliance with our environmental laws, and to foster pollution
prevention and tribal stewardship. The Agency will employ a
mixture of effective inspection, enforcement and compliance
assistance strategies. Also within this goal, EPA will protect
human health and the environment by encouraging innovation and
providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the
public to promote environmental stewardship. In addition, EPA
will assist federally recognized tribes in assessing
environmental conditions in Indian Country, and will help build
their capacity to implement environmental programs.
The Agency's enforcement program works with States, tribes,
local governments and other Federal agencies to identify the
most significant risks to human health and the environment,
address patterns of non-compliance, and work to ensure
communities or neighborhoods are not disproportionately exposed
to pollutants. This flexible, strategic use of EPA's and our
State and tribal partners' resources brought over 1 billion
pounds of pollution reduction in fiscal year 2004, and helps to
ensure consistent and fair enforcement.
EPA also strives to foster a culture of creative
environmental problem-solving, not only with our State, tribal
and Federal partners but also with industry, universities and
others. The result is a high capacity for implementing
collaborative results-driven innovations and the organizational
systems to support them. One hundred forty two million dollars
supports pollution prevention and other efforts to improve
environmental performance, looking at the full range of
possible interventions that would reduce waste created, reduce
highly toxic materials in use, and reduce the energy or water
resources used. These changes also make good business sense,
often improving ``the bottom line'' for participating
companies.
Agency resources for tribal programs support their
environmental stewardship through a variety of means in every
major program: air, water, land and others. In the Compliance
and Environmental Stewardship goal, General Assistance Grants
develop tribal capacity to implement environmental programs in
Indian Country in line with local priorities. In fiscal year
2006, EPA will support approximately 510 federally recognized
tribes through these grants.
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
Throughout its operations, EPA is working to maximize
effectiveness and efficiency, implementing new information
technology solutions and streamlining operations. The research
and development areas, for example, will see changes geared
toward maximizing the effectiveness and relevance of applied
research throughout the Agency. Continuing to improve internal
controls and accountability is another priority. Fiscal year
2006 marks the next phase in our financial systems replacement
which will enhance our internal systems. For our work with
external partners, the Exchange Network and the Integrated
Portal will provide the foundation for States, tribes, the
public, regulated community and EPA to increase data
availability, collect better data and enhance the security of
sensitive data.
Finally, EPA is making our grant programs work better. We
are using new tools to help us achieve our goals: increasing
competition for discretionary grant awards, making grants more
outcome-oriented to meet Agency performance goals,
strengthening oversight and accountability and providing more
transparency to promote an open process.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
<all>