[Senate Hearing 106-745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-745
NOMINATIONS CONSIDERED DURING THE SECOND SESSION OF THE 106th CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
THE NOMINATION OF ERIC D. EBERHARD TO BE A MEMBER, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY FOUNDATION--FEBRUARY 3, 2000
THE NOMINATION OF W. MICHAEL McCABE TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--FEBRUARY 3, 2000
THE NOMINATION OF ELLA WONG-RUSKINKO TO BE AN ALTERNATE FEDERAL CO-
CHAIR, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION--JUNE 13, 2000
THE NOMINATION OF ARTHUR C. CAMPBELL TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE--JUNE 13, 2000
THE NOMINATION OF JAMES V. AIDALA TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY--JUNE 13, 2000
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-376 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 3, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 3
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 2
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 1
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 14
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 4
WITNESSES
Biden, Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware...... 4
Bracy, Terrence L., Chairman, Board of Trustees for the Morris K.
Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy Foundation.............................................. 16
Eberhard, Eric D., nominated by the President to serve as a
Member of the Board of Trustees for the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Foundation..................................................... 10
Committee questionnaire...................................... 54
Letters:
Senator John McCain...................................... 52
Terrence L. Bracy........................................ 53
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Response to additional question from Senator Graham.......... 51
McCabe, W. Michael, nominated by the President to serve as Deputy
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency........... 9
Committee questionnaire...................................... 35
Letter, Office of Government Ethics.......................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 26
Senator Graham........................................... 32
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 31
Senator Smith............................................ 21
Senator Thomas........................................... 34
Resume, W. Michael McCabe.................................... 47
------
JUNE 13, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 97
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 90
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 71
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 69
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 80
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 65
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio...83, 87
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 67
WITNESSES
Aidala, James V., nominated by the President to be Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency.............. 81
Committee questionnaire...................................... 135
Letter, Environmental Protection Agency...................... 144
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 130
Senator Graham........................................... 127
Senator Hutchison........................................ 133
Senator Smith..........................................126, 146
Campbell, Arthur C., nominated by the President to be Assistant
Secretary for Economic Development, Department of Commerce..... 77
Committee questionnaire...................................... 116
Prepared statement........................................... 114
Frist, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee....... 68
Robb, Hon. Charles, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia.......................................................
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas......... 70
Thompson, Hon. Bennie G., U.S. Representative from the State of
Mississippi.................................................... 72
Wamp, Hon. Zach, U.S. Representative from the State of Tennessee. 72
Wong-Rusinko, Ella, nominated by the President to be Alternate
Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission........ 74
Committee questionnaire...................................... 101
Letters:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 109
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth
of Kentucky............................................ 110
Wong-Ruskinko, Ella, to Senator McConnell................ 111
Nash, Bob, Assistant to the President and Director of
Presidential Personnel................................. 113
Prepared statement........................................... 97
NOMINATIONS OF ERIC D. EBERHARD AND W. MICHAEL McCABE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Robert Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Chafee, Baucus, Lautenberg, Wyden,
Thomas, and Chafee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. The hearing will come to order. Good
morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, Mr. McCabe and Mr.
Eberhard.
The purpose of the hearing this morning is to consider the
two nominations here in question. I apologize for the delay,
but we did have a vote on the Senate Floor on Alan Greenspan.
As the new Chairman of the committee, I plan to hold a
series of oversight hearings on the EPA budget, the
prioritization of resources, and overall performance, so I will
be looking forward to working with you gentlemen in that
regard. We do have some questions--some for the record, and
some may be here in person--and I hope we will be able to get
those answers resolved here this morning.
From my own point of view, I think both of these gentlemen
are very well qualified for their positions. I haven't heard of
any registered opposition at this point, so I welcome you both
today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire
Good morning. The purpose of today's hearing is to consider two
nominations.
The first nomination is that of W. Michael McCabe nominated to
serve as Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
As the new chairman of the committee, I plan to hold a series of
oversight hearings to examine EPA's budget, prioritization of
resources, and overall performance.
My colleagues and I have a number of questions for Mr. McCabe today
on EPA-related concerns that I hope he will be able to answer for us.
The second nomination is that of Eric D. Eberhard nominated to
serve as a Member of the Board of Trustees for the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation.
I am pleased to report that Mr. McCabe and Mr. Eberhard are well
qualified for their positions.
I welcome them today and I also welcome Senator Biden, who is here
today to introduce Mr. McCabe.
The President has nominated W. Michael McCabe to serve as Deputy
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Deputy
Administrator for EPA works with the Administrator to provide Agency
leadership and is the Acting Administrator in the Administrator's
absence.
Mr. McCabe has served as EPA's Acting Deputy Administrator since
last November.
Formerly, Mr. McCabe was Regional Administrator of the EPA's Region
3 where he lead the implementation of Federal environmental programs in
the Middle Atlantic states.
He also has worked for Senator Biden of Delaware as Communications
and Projects Director and advisor on Delaware issues, and as Staff
Director of the House Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee.
He received a B.A. from Duke University.
He is accompanied today by his wife, Maria.
The President has nominated Eric D. Eberhard to serve as a Member
of the Board of Trustees for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation.
Currently, Mr. Eberhard is a partner at Dorsey & Whitney where he
practices in the areas of Federal Indian Law, Environment and Natural
Resources, Gaming and legislation.
Formerly, he was Staff Director and Counsel on the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs and Minority Staff Director and Counsel for the
committee.
He served for 2 years as Legislative Counsel for Senator John
McCain of Arizona.
Mr. Eberhard received a B.S. in Political Science from Western
Reserve University, a J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of
Law, and a LL.M. from George Washington University National Law Center.
The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation was established by Congress in 1992 to
educate and prepare a new generation of Americans in effective
environmental public policy conflict resolution. Based in Tucson,
Arizona, the Foundation's activities are supported by the interest
accrued in a Federal trust fund and contributions from the private
sector.
Now we will hear the statements of other committee members. Then
Senator Biden will introduce Mr. McCabe and we will hear testimony from
our nominees.
Senator Smith. I understand that Senator Biden is coming,
Mr. McCabe, to introduce you formally, so let me just go a
little bit out of order. Actually, Mr. Biden is coming in right
now.
Joe, I have a little bit of a problem here on your side.
Frank needs to leave to go to Budget. Do you want to do your
introduction, and then I can call on Frank?
Senator Biden. Whatever suits you. I have all the time in
the world.
Senator Smith. All right. I'll call on Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. I was going to vote one way, but having
Senator Biden here has caused me to rethink my vote.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, and thanks, Senator
Biden.
I know that Michael McCabe has had a lot of contact with
Joe Biden, and he comes with exceptional qualifications, as
does Mr. Eberhard. I'm sorry I can't stay, but the position of
the EPA Deputy Administrator is one of the great ``unsung
hero'' jobs, and it's the Deputy who brings order to the far-
flung Agency of 18,000 employees. It is the Deputy who oversees
work on the several major statutes we have passed, and if the
Deputy doesn't do his or her job properly, EPA can't help but
fall short of our expectations.
That's why I am so pleased and excited about the nomination
of Michael McCabe. As Regional Administrator for EPA's Mid-
Atlantic Region since 1995, Mr. McCabe has managed a unit that
is a microcosm of the whole Agency. He has managed air, water,
waste, Superfund, right to know programs, and he served as a
bridge between the Mid-Atlantic States and the EPA
Headquarters. From all accounts he has done a terrific job.
As we know, Mr. McCabe has worked with our colleague and
friend from Delaware--it should not be held against him----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. It's very good experience
for anyone in line for the job of Deputy Administrator. He has
proved that he has broad shoulders, because if he can take
working with Senator Biden like that, he had to have broad
shoulders.
So we are pleased at the prospect that Mr. McCabe is going
to be in that position and that he will do an outstanding job
in a very important and demanding post, and I look forward to
working with him on bipartisan legislation.
I know that we will move some things this year, Mr.
Chairman, and also I want to congratulate Mr. Eberhard on
bringing the qualifications that he does to the Morris K. Udall
Foundation.
I thank all of my colleagues for letting me interrupt the
process, particularly the Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey
Mr. Chairman, the EPA Deputy Administrator is one of the great
unsung heroes. It is the Deputy who brings order to a far-flung Agency
of 10,000 employees. It is the Deputy who oversees work on the several
major statutes we have passed.
If the Deputy is not doing his or her job right, EPA can't help but
fall short of our expectations.
That is exactly why am so excited about the nomination of Michael
McCabe. As Regional Administrator for EPA's Mid-Atlantic Region since
1995, Mr. McCabe has managed a unit that is a microcosm of the whole
Agency.
He has managed air, water, waste, Superfund, and Right-to-Know
programs. He has served as a bridge between the mid-Atlantic states and
EPA headquarters. From all accounts, he has done a terrific job.
And as we have heard, Mr. McCabe has worked with our friend and
colleague from Delaware--again, very good experience for anyone in line
for the job of Deputy Administrator.
I believe Mr. McCabe will do outstanding work in a very important
and demanding job. look forward to working with him on the bipartisan
legislation know we will move this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
being so quick to move his nomination through our committee. I hope we
can keep that momentum going, and put this good man to work.
Senator Smith. All right, thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Baucus, do you have any opening remarks?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Yes, Mr. Chairman, first to congratulate
you on your first DC hearing with this committee. I know you
had a hearing in Florida which I was unable to attend, but this
is your first hearing as Chairman, and I look forward to a
good, prosperous year working with you, and I congratulate you.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Also I congratulate these nominees and
thank them for their dedicated service in the past, and their
continued service in their new positions.
You have a lot of work ahead of you. You are not going to
be thanked very much by people, but--as with all of us--the
gratitude and fulfillment comes from doing the best we can. We
think that we are helping to make life better for a lot of
people. I compliment you on that. This is interesting, that you
are here for the Chairman's first hearing. You will be
confirmed, and I hope very quickly. I hope that is a harbinger
of how this committee is going to operate and how the Senate is
going to operate.
Congratulations and good luck, and if you have any
questions, just let us know how we can help you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator.
Does anyone else have an opening statement prior to turning
to the witnesses? Hold your questions if you have them, but if
you have an opening comment?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief as well. I
don't want to turn this into a bouquet-tossing contest, but I,
too, want to join in extending good will, and thank you for the
opportunity to work with you. We've worked on a whole host of
issues--Federal facilities, the streamlining of the ISTEA
permitting process where you win in terms of both the
environment and in terms of the economy.
Mike McCabe is a terrific guy. I have some questions that
are important for my State in a minute or two, but we had a
chance to work closely with him in the House when he was at the
Energy and Commerce Committee. So I think he's going to be a
tremendous asset to the Federal Government and will continue
the kind of bipartisan approach that we've tried to follow,
first with Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus, which you've
told me you want to continue. So it's going to be an exciting
time, and I look forward to working with you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
Why don't we start with you, Senator Biden, to introduce
Mr. McCabe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH BIDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My congratulations
to you as well. You and I are always characterized as being on
opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. I don't want to
ruin your reputation, but we've been friends and I have great
respect for you. I appreciate your having this hearing in as
timely fashion as you have.
Let me say that although I am here to speak for Mike
McCabe, Mr. Eberhard, from what I know of his record, is
completely suited for the job. It makes me feel very old,
though, to realize that I served with Morris K. Udall, and now
you are about to become a Board Member of a foundation named
after him and all that he has done.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for
allowing me the opportunity to be here today to introduce Mike
McCabe as we move forward with his nomination to become Deputy
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I have
known Mike for almost 30 years, starting in 1972 when he
volunteered to work with me as a 29-year-old kid--I was 29, and
he was younger than that--in a campaign for the Senate. His
work during that campaign distinguished him immediately. After
my election, while still a student at Duke University, I asked
Mike to join me as one of my first interns--that's dating you,
Mike, but I think you may have been the first, if not one of
the first.
Not surprisingly, Mike's first project as a young intern in
my office was to research the environmental impacts of the
construction of a proposed project along the Delaware River.
That's in the beginning when we had a Republican Governor who
did a very fine thing, in my view, who set up a thing called
the Coastal Zone Act. It was very controversial, but now it is
totally embraced by everyone, including business, in my State.
From the start, Mike's interest and dedication in the
preservation and restoration and improvement of our environment
was clear, compelling, and deeply rooted--deeply rooted traits
that would come to define his entire career. In 1976, while
working as a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate, Mike was
instrumental in expanding the Bipartisan Congressional--and I
emphasize ``Bipartisan''--the Bipartisan Congressional
Environmental and Energy Study Conference, designed to provide
timely information to Congress on environmental and energy
legislation and issues at a time when I was originally on this
committee, Mr. Chairman, as the Public Works Committee. I
remember one of the first things that I said to then-Chairman
Randolph was, ``Maybe we should call it the Public Works and
Environment Committee.'' And he said, ``Son, how long do you
want to stay on this committee?''
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. That's a true story.
But at any rate, under Senator Chafee's direction, Mike
served as Staff Director for the Conference for 3 years. He
acted as the National Director for the 10th anniversary of
Earth Day in 1980; served as Director on the U.S. House of
Representatives Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee, and
under his leadership, the first national program to deal with
the safe disposal of nuclear waste was enacted by Congress.
In 1987, Mike returned to Delaware to become my
Communications Director, and later my Projects Director. And
whether he was advising me on issues of national significance
or working to help revitalize, in a parochial sense for us, the
Christina River waterfront in Wilmington, Delaware, or
assisting me in an effort to return over 1,000 acres of land to
the State of Delaware from the Federal Government that now is
preserved in perpetuity--and hopefully all of you can take
advantage of it--and that is Cape Henlopen State Park, Mike's
counsel and contribution to my office and to me personally was
invaluable. Few people understand so many issues so well,
articulate them coherently to a wide array of audiences, and
have developed solutions with significant results, and do it in
a way that everyone feels like they're a part of it.
By 1995, Mike's knowledge of the issues, his strength in
managing staff, and his savvy in dealing with government on a
local, State, and Federal level impressed so many of us in and
outside of the State of Delaware that it would prepare him well
for his next--and most recent--position as Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency for Region III.
As you know, Region III covers Delaware, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia. Mike has the distinction of working as the Region's
longest-serving Administrator. Bias aside--which is hard to do,
I acknowledge--Mike is the best Administrator ever to serve the
Environmental Protection Agency, directing a staff of 1,000
people and turning it into a more well-rounded, efficient, and
well-respected organization. As we all know, and you all know
better than any of us who do not serve on this committee, there
is--Mike did something fairly remarkable, I think, at least in
my region. Mike gained the confidence of business. Mike gained
the confidence of the corporate community who, generally
speaking, in my area view the EPA as ``whatever it is, it's
going to cost me money; it's going to be a problem.'' It has
been remarkable, and I might add in part because--and Mike will
not like my saying this--Mike's nonprofessional background is
that he has a working social and first-hand relationship with
the CEOs of many of the Fortune 30 companies that are in my
region. It is not merely that they know Mike; Mike used every
one of his assets, including his ability to socially interact
with those people, as well, and by talking to people, by
talking to these folks whose immediate reaction was, ``whatever
the hell he's going to do about the water or the air or the
environment''--you're going to laugh; you all kid us about this
in Delaware--``chicken manure,'' that is hundreds of thousands
of tons of it that is having an impact on the other major
industry in our State, recreation, Mike is able to sit down
with these folks as an equal, not merely as the guy who ran the
Agency.
It has been remarkable in my State. During his tenure, Mike
was successful in restoring the District of Columbia's drinking
water supply; streamlining permitting and pollution control
measures; to achieve outstanding environmental performance in
the printing industry; and directing EPA's approach to managing
poultry waste in Delaware and other States.
I just point this out to you again, just to tell you how
this guy comes at this job, and I predict--I say to my friend
from Wyoming--he is result-oriented. Instead of going down and
insisting that the industry, the multi-billion dollar industry
in my home State--I must tell you, I was holding my breath,
because everybody knows that ``Mike was my guy, I recommended
him,'' right? Well, the industry in my State is a little bit
like the mining industry in your State or the cattle industry
in your State or the recreation industry in your State or the
high-tech industry in your State, and so on. It is the deal.
And here we have this gigantic problem that Maryland is in an
uproar over. The legislature is absolutely having great
difficulty. And Mike, calmly, over a 4-month period, gained the
confidence of the producers; got them to enter into voluntary
restraints on how they dealt with this problem; and set it in
place.
That's my idea, Mr. Chairman, of what a maturing of the EPA
should be. It shouldn't be, ``We're the Government, we're the
authority, this is the deal, this is what you do,'' because it
won't get done. It won't get done.
It is a unique talent--I shouldn't say ``unique''--it is a
talent that is not always found among very bright, committed
people who want to protect the environment. He has the ability
to cross over and get people who are reluctant to take on the
responsibility that they are required to take on under the law,
and understand their own interest in it happening.
I don't want to make it more than it is, but it was near
miraculous in my State, politically, the way in which he got it
done. And it's a big deal, in my view. His efforts on this last
round led to a workable, common-sense solution based on
individual States' needs and resources, not ``one size fits
all'' solutions that we see so often in Government or major
bureaucracies and corporations.
In addition to his achievements on the environmental front,
Mike is a very strong supporter of the community and serves on
the Board of Directors of the Delaware Arts Council and
Delaware's Futures, an organization that provides at-risk youth
with scholarships for colleges in our area.
Mike is the father of two young girls, Morgan and Alex, and
is joined here today by his wife Maria, and I feel privileged
to call them both my friends and I am very proud Mike, and the
State of Delaware is proud of Mike.
As Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, I know Mike will continue to serve to the best of his
ability and provide our Nation with the considerable leadership
and expertise and talent that he has.
I will close, if I may--and I apologize for trespassing on
the time of the committee--I told you a story yesterday, Mr.
Chairman, on the Floor of the Senate. Mike was Communications
Director at a time was a pretty low ebb in my career at home,
when I had been accused of--my wife says I should never use the
word again--accused of plagiarizing in a Presidential campaign.
It bothered me more than anything that ever happened to me in
my life, so I did something strange, and against the
recommendation of everyone. I sued myself in the Delaware
Supreme Court, our court of highest jurisdiction, because there
was a question on the bar application, number 42, that you
swear to under the penalty of perjury. And it said, ``Is there
anything else in your background that would negatively reflect
on your background?'' And I wrote, ``No.'' Now, obviously, if I
had been accused of plagiarizing in law school, if I had
plagiarized, I had committed perjury and not only should be
disbarred, but a criminal penalty should pertain. And I
initiated a suit with bar counsel, as we are able to do in most
State bars, to have this proceeding, a formal complaint against
myself.
After 8 or 9 months, when they went back and interviewed
every single, solitary professor that I ever had--only one had
passed away--they, on four levels, concluded unanimously,
including the Court itself, that I never did plagiarize in law
school, and no one ever said I did in law school.
Now, I was sitting down here one day when this happened,
and as I said, it was the most important thing in my life at
the time. And a headline in the morning paper, our statewide
paper, said, ``Supreme Court Clears Biden of Plagiarism.'' I
was so excited, it was like someone gave me a billion dollars.
So I called up to Wilmington and I got one of Mike's
assistants, a young woman, and I said, ``Send that reporter,''
whom I never had dealt with, really, in this thing, a woman
named Robin Burns, ``send her two dozen long-stemmed roses.''
So this kid, taking me literally, goes and gets two dozen long-
stemmed roses, at 2:30 in the afternoon, walks into the
newsroom, and hands them to her, from me, in front of everyone,
obviously ruining her credibility and mine.
So I called Mike, and I said, ``Mike, how could this
happen?'' I was crazy. I said, ``I assumed''--and this is what
talent he has, he said, ``Joe, we have an expression in my
family''--I'll not tell you literally what it was--he said,
``In my family we have an expression: Assumption is the mother
of all screwups.''
The point I want to make is this. This thing that he has
that we need in Government, Mr. Chairman, is that he has the
ability and understanding that we should not assume anything
about our constituencies, and we should explain to them. This
is not a matter of the guy in my church, after church he
directs traffic and all of a sudden--he preaches all the
Christian virtues when he's in church, and out there becomes a
little dictator, directing traffic. This is a guy who
understands his role. His role is that he works for the various
people he is regulating. He doesn't back off on what should be
done, but he makes the first effort to try very hard for them
to understand why they have to act; and if they don't, he is
prepared to act.
I think that, in my observation, Mr. Chairman, including an
Agency that I love--and I'm a strong supporter of the EPA--that
is not always the case.
So I hope that if you confirm him, and I hope that you
will, you will be proud of the fact, based on his record, that
he will serve us well, serve the law well, but make us proud of
the way in which he goes about doing it.
I thank you all for your indulgence, and I hope my support
of him will not in any way diminish his prospects.
Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Does any member have a question of Senator Biden before he
leaves?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Mr. McCabe, why don't we start with you, if you wish to
make any opening comments? Your written statement will be made
part of the record, as will yours, Mr. Eberhard, but I would
like, if either one of you has an opening statement, why don't
we do them both right now?
We will start with you, Mr. McCabe.
STATEMENT OF W. MICHAEL McCABE, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
SERVE AS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. McCabe. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Biden, for that extraordinary introduction. I feel that
any statement that I may make will pale in comparison to what
the Senator said.
I just would like to make a personal comment on that. In
Washington, the Senator is known for his expertise on foreign
policy and authorizing the crime bill and the Violence Against
Women Act. He is known for those things, too, in Delaware, but
he is also known for protecting Cape Henlopen State Seashore,
and protecting the White Clay Preserve. I think that when we
look at his legacy as a member of this important body, people
will look to those issues, as well as some of the outstanding
contributions that he has made to the State of Delaware. I am
honored that he would introduce me today.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, it is an honor to have
been nominated by the President to serve as Deputy
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and to
appear before this committee today. I greatly appreciate the
confidence shown in me by the President and Administrator
Browner. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
scheduling this hearing so soon after my nomination.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to introduce my wife,
Maria, who is here with me today. I think that, as many of you
know, the public often underestimates the sacrifices that
spouses make on our behalf to fill these important positions. I
know that I couldn't be doing this without the support of my
wife, particularly given that I'm going to be living down in
Washington and she's still going to be up on the Pennsylvania-
Delaware border. So I am pleased that she can be with me today.
Protecting the Nation's public health and natural resources
is one of the most important legacies that we can leave for our
children. As a father of two daughters, ages three and seven,
who both have a better chance of living to be 100 than at any
time in human history, I am acutely aware of the responsibility
we have to leave them an environment better than the one we
inherited. Protecting the air they breathe, ensuring that their
drinking water is safe and clean and that they can swim and
fish in our lakes and streams, managing the pesticide residues
on the foods they eat, and storing and disposing of solid
wastes in ways that prevent harm to their health is critical
not only to my daughters' futures, but to all of us. Protecting
all of us is the Agency's mission.
In the year ahead I hope to put my skills and experience to
work pursuing the Agency's mission. Helping to lead this Agency
is a daunting responsibility, but I think it provides me with a
real good opportunity to use my regional experience to help
shape policy and to help forge coalitions and collaborate with
groups outside of the Agency.
I will work hard to keep that regional perspective. As I
mentioned, I am still living on the Pennsylvania-Delaware
border, and I will be returning home on weekends. I am sure
that you understand better than most the importance of staying
grounded in our own State and of maintaining that common-sense
perspective.
I am sure that I'll be getting into details about the
accomplishments that I hope to have over the coming year. I
think that my background and experience in the environmental
area and in management suit me well for this position. I would
like particularly to note, as Senator Biden mentioned,
something that I am very proud of, and that is the work that I
did very early in my career. My first management experience 24
years ago was to be Staff Director of the Environmental and
Energy Study Conference, and it happened at a time in the
1970's when many of the Nation's laws were being developed. It
was a time of extraordinary bipartisan cooperation and
collaboration in building the foundation of the environmental
laws which have served us so well over the last 30 years.
The Environmental and Energy Study Conference was unique in
Congress. It was an ad hoc Congressional caucus. It had
rotating Chairs between Republicans and Democrats, and the
Senate expansion included Senator Gary Hart, who was my former
boss, and Senator Chafee. As it turned out, after the third
year of the Senate expansion, Senator Chafee took over as the
Senate Chair, and I was able to serve under him as Staff
Director. It is an experience that I valued, and I mourn the
loss of such a great advocate of environmental protection and
the bipartisan cooperation and spirit which built our
environmental laws.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the
rest of the committee in that spirit, and I hope that together
we can help better protect public health and the environment.
Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. McCabe.
Mr. Eberhard, why don't you make your comments, and then
we'll go to questions?
STATEMENT OF ERIC D. EBERHARD, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE MORRIS K.
UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY FOUNDATION
Mr. Eberhard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is a privilege and an honor to be here today and
have potentially an opportunity to assist the Udall Foundation,
should the committee and the Senate confirm my nomination to
the Board of Trustees.
In the very short life of the Udall Foundation, it has
already built a record of solid accomplishment in its primary
missions of providing scholarships and internships to Indians
and Native American students, and in conducting research and in
assisting in the development and implementation of Federal
environmental policy. I think one measure of its success is the
recent mandate from the Congress to expand its functions to
include the establishment of a U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution, a true vote of confidence in the work that
the Board of Trustees is carrying out.
With the leadership of the Board of Trustees and its able
Chairman, who is here with us this morning, Mr. Bracy, the
Foundation is financially and programmatically sound and poised
for even greater success in the years ahead, and I hope to be
able to contribute in some way to that success as the
Foundation moves into the new millennium.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
There are a couple of perfunctory questions that we are
required to ask, under committee rules, of each witness, so let
me just ask you both these questions. Just answer yes or no.
Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted
committee of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a
witness?
Mr. McCabe. Yes.
Mr. Eberhard. Yes.
Senator Smith. And second, do you know of any matters which
you may or may not have thus far disclosed which might place
you in conflict of interest if you are to be confirmed in this
position?
Mr. McCabe. No.
Mr. Eberhard. No.
Senator Smith. All right, thank you.
Mr. McCabe, in our conversation yesterday I had indicated
that I intended to move forward on an effort which is called,
basically, the EPA authorization, which would give us a chance
to look at more of a wide range of issues and priorities at one
time, rather than the ``rifle bore'' of each piece of
legislation, to take a big picture look. My idea is to look
across programs, to help you set priorities, to help the
Congress do more oversight--the Senate, in this case, do more
oversight, and essentially to make sure that taxpayers are
getting the most cleanup and risk reduction out of their
dollars. We do it in the Armed Services Committee and we do it
in the other committees.
I would like just a brief reaction from you on that
approach.
Mr. McCabe. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this year EPA
celebrates its 30th anniversary in December, and a lot has
happened since EPA was first established 30 years ago. A number
of the laws that we operate under, obviously, were passed in
that first decade. We think that taking a look at where we are
now, how we function under all the different laws, and how we
really have grown into much more of a multimedia Agency is
something that would be very beneficial, and I think that
looking at the Agency from that overall authorization
perspective would be something that we would be willing to work
with you on.
Senator Smith. I appreciate that response, and we look
forward to working with you in this effort. I just want to make
sure that the word is out among the EPA Assistant
Administrators and the rest of the organization that that is
the goal here, to try to have this committee look at cross-
program decisions rather than into--not one tunnel, but to look
at cross-program decisions to help all of us in the oversight
and you in the implementation of the programs to try to see
where we can do a better job, perhaps save some in one area and
put it in another area, or whatever.
One issue that just comes to mind off the top of my head is
that EPA over the past several years has continually decreased
the number of Superfund sites in America; more and more are
coming off the list, yet the program expenditures are actually
pretty steady, and in some cases--in 1 or 2 years--may even
have gone up in expenditure. That's just the kind of thing that
we would like to look at in terms of explanation. That's just
one example.
Let me turn to Senator Wyden for any questions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I say, we know Mike McCabe well, and I think he's going
to be a great addition at EPA.
Mr. McCabe, I need to go over with you a couple of issues
that have been of longstanding concern in my home State. The
first is Portland Harbor. As you know, we are trying now,
through a very creative kind of partnership between the Oregon
State government and a variety of business and community
interests at home, to clean up the harbor, looking at a
homegrown, locally driven approach rather than simply
designating it as a Superfund site and having all of the hubbub
that is associated with that. We are very proud of what we have
tried to do with these kinds of approaches in the past that the
Administration knows a lot about--the Coho salmon, and, of
course, we think the Oregon environmental record leads the
country in terms of saving beaches, land use, and the like.
My first question to you is, can you support the concept of
a State leading major environmental projects like the Portland
Harbor cleanup, assuming that there are these strong assurances
in place so that there is an adherence to Federal standards?
Mr. McCabe. Well, Senator Wyden, I appreciate your interest
in this matter, and your involvement in it as well. I think
that EPA should work closely with local communities and State
government when addressing the cleanup of sites like this. We
are working with the State of Oregon in an attempt to reach an
agreement for Portland Harbor. I think, as you mentioned, it
needs to be done within our objectives and guidelines, but it
is something that we are pursuing and hope that we can achieve.
Senator Wyden. So in a case like this, EPA is open to some
flexibility in allowing a local plan to proceed as long as it
does adhere carefully to the kind of guidelines that are
appropriate?
Mr. McCabe. For Portland Harbor and other sites like this,
we will be as flexible as we possibly can within our
established guidelines, and we look forward to working toward a
local solution. When you have that local involvement, it makes
these projects go forward better, with stronger support, and
generally you can get them done faster. So we encourage that
kind of participation and activity.
Senator Wyden. Well, I appreciate that.
The other area that I wanted to ask about, as we talked
about in the office, is Jackson and Klamath Counties in my
State. In 1990 they were classified as ``not meeting'' the
requirements with respect to Federal air quality, and they went
out and did the heavy lifting, the hard work necessary to get
in compliance, and they now have monitoring data to show that
they have been meeting EPA standards for the past 5 years. They
haven't, however, been formally redesignated by EPA because it
is a costly and time-consuming exercise to be involved in
preparing this application. EPA's continued classification of
these areas as nonattainment is now creating some very serious
obstacles to economic development.
Our understanding is that you all are working on what's
called a ``limited maintenance guideline'' that would make it
easier to redesignate like Klamath and Jackson Counties that
have the data to show that they are in fact meeting Federal
standards.
My question to you is, when can we anticipate EPA issuing
this guidance so that areas like mine--and I assume there will
be others in the country, as well--can get formally
redesignated without going through what seems like, to a lot of
them, a lot of costly red tape and bureaucracy?
Mr. McCabe. Well, we hope to have this guidance final in
the next month. The guidance is designed to apply to moderate
PM10 areas that have few PM sources involved, and
where the PM10 problem is very well understood.
The delay in issuing this guidance has been because we
wanted to make sure that we didn't create any additional
loopholes for those parts of the country where you didn't have
that situation, where there were few sources and where the area
understood the problem.
Senator Wyden. Well, we certainly are not interested in
setting up loopholes; that's important. And at the same time, I
think you know that we are just concerned that good actors out
there, when they are told they are not in compliance and are
willing then to go out and do the--I call it ``heavy lifting,''
the hard work to make sure that they are making significant
improvements--they ought to quickly be eligible for
redesignation and not have to go through all of what they see
as just costly and unnecessary bureaucratic rigmarole. We want
their hard work recognized by EPA, and it sounds like we can
anticipate shortly a policy that will do that and that is
helpful.
My only other question, Mr. Chairman, is that there are
many of us on this committee--Senator Baucus, in particular,
has done some very good work on this--we have a lot of concerns
about the impact that various environmental regulations have on
farmers. This is important, given the fact that we have a lot
of difficult problems in the farm economy right now in my State
and throughout the country. Region III has many agricultural
areas, of course, Virginia and Pennsylvania and Maryland.
What has been your experience in terms of working with
folks in the agricultural sector, food producers and those
communities?
Mr. McCabe. Well, one of my biggest projects when I was
Regional Administrator was working with the poultry industry to
try to deal with the issue of runoff of poultry waste,
agricultural waste, which was impairing our waterways. And as
Senator Biden kindly mentioned, it was an initiative that not
only I took on a regional basis, but I also worked with poultry
producers, poultry growers, and the industry in general to have
a ``national poultry dialog,'' as it was called, where we
invited the poultry industry to address the problem and come up
with solutions on their own. I think that it was a successful
dialog. The industry has set out standards for itself, and they
are now following those standards. They work well with our
regulatory approach to controlling poultry waste.
Senator Wyden. Well, we look forward to working with you.
As I say, remembering our days at the Energy and Commerce
Committee where we had a lot of these debates, which weren't
exactly for the fainthearted, under Chairman Dingell's
leadership, I know that you are going to work in a bipartisan
way and an effective way. I look forward to your service there.
I don't have any questions for your associate there in the
Udall Foundation. It's a fine program, and he will be a real
valuable addition, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
Senator Thomas?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen. I am glad you are here.
I am not familiar, Mr. McCabe, with you and your
activities, as everyone else seems to be, but at any rate I am
very much interested, of course.
Also, I would have to observe that if you came from Mars
and listened to this, you would think that the EPA and
everybody was just right in step, and of course that's not the
case. There are substantial conflicts out there in terms of
what the States are doing, and the conflicts that arise there,
and I suppose we will always have them. But it isn't as if
there are no controversies, because there are.
For example, what is your view on the statutory authority
for EPA and the nonpoint source and the TMDL situation?
Mr. McCabe. We believe that the Agency does have the
statutory authority to include nonpoint sources in
consideration of improving water quality. We think that the
Clean Water Act provides us with that authority, and we have a
number of programs that do address nonpoint pollution sources.
Senator Thomas. We have asked for several designations from
your Agency to say where that is and point it out, other than
just that it isn't mentioned.
Mr. McCabe. I would be glad to provide you with information
on that, Senator.
Senator Thomas. I wish you would. Do you have any concern
about USDA's conflicts with the TMDL activities that you have?
Mr. McCabe. I think that we're working closely with USDA to
address the TMDL issue. In fact, just within the last 24 hours
I had a conversation with Deputy Secretary Rominger on this
subject. I know that Administrator Browner--and I believe Mr.
Rominger, or perhaps Secretary Glickman--will be appearing
before a committee to discuss that issue, I think it's the
Agriculture Committee, later in February.
But importantly, I asked Mr. Rominger whether the letter
that had been sent out recently explaining USDA's position from
Secretary Lyons was a true reflection of USDA's position, and
he said that in fact that letter was not a true reflection and
that would be clarified at the upcoming hearing.
Senator Thomas. Secretary Lyons said that it was not? It
was his letter, I believe.
Mr. McCabe. I believe that it was his letter, but it was
signed for him, and the individual did not check up the chain.
Senator Thomas. Well, that will be interesting. You know,
the last time I was here, when Ms. Browner was here, for
example, the Court had ruled that you exceeded your statutory
authority in some areas, and I think that's a very real concern
to others. For instance--well, I don't know about that part of
it, but ``TMDL Proposal: Ambient Water Standards Must Meet
Drinking Water Standards.'' Is that a reasonable suggestion?
Mr. McCabe. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
Senator Thomas. Under the TMDL proposal, ambient water
needs to meet drinking water standards.
Mr. McCabe. I'm not familiar with that part of the proposed
rule. If that is a question that you have, Senator, I will
respond for the record.
Senator Thomas. I wish you would, because that's pretty
difficult to deal with ambient water when you're comparing it
to water that's been through treatment.
Well, I won't take more time, but I have to tell you that
the Clean Water Action Plan, for example, is quite
controversial; as a matter of fact, it's in the Court at the
moment. In terms of that, I think you spoke glowingly about
your relationships with the States. That isn't always the case
in terms of who has, you know, other responsibility of doing
this.
So I just would say to you that everyone agrees with the
idea that we need to move forward; that's not really the issue.
The issue is how we do this in relation to communities, in
relation to States, including having people have input into
what's happening there. And I'm sorry, but from my point of
view and my State, I can't accept the idea that this is just a
big love-in, because it isn't. And I think we have to find some
ways to be able to recognize differences in regions,
differences in the kinds of things we're dealing with, and
hopefully to allow for a little more involvement on the part of
States and communities.
One of them, of course, is the confined animal feeding
thing, which could be interpreted to be a corral with a couple
horses in it. That needs to be made more clear and needs to be
made more realistic, it seems to me.
So if your experience is in Delaware, I hope you'll come
out west and share a little bit of the differences that exist
there, as well. So thank you for being here. We want to work
with you, but I just don't want you to go away--I'm sure you
don't--thinking that everything is just a big happy family
situation, because it isn't, and there is a considerable amount
of conflict there.
Mr. Eberhard, I'm interested in what you're doing. We have
a foundation in Wyoming that deals with conflict resolution and
some of those things.
I didn't understand that this was substantially toward
tribal scholarships.
Mr. Eberhard. The Foundation charter, which is embodied in
Federal law, specifically sets out as one of the Foundation's
responsibilities, providing scholarships and internships to
Native American and Indian college students and graduate
students.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Eberhard. I believe last year the Foundation had about
200 scholarships and several hundred internships over the past
several years here in the Congress and in the executive branch.
Senator Thomas. Good. Where are the scholarships?
Mr. Eberhard. I would have to defer to Mr. Bracy on that as
the Chairman----
Senator Thomas. I would hope they're not all at the
University of Arizona.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF TERRENCE L. BRACY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BRACY WILLIAMS & COMPANY
Mr. Bracy. Senator, I'm Terry Bracy, and I have the
privilege of chairing the Foundation Board.
Our scholarship program is a national program. I believe
that last year 46 States sent scholars to perhaps as many as 38
institutions.
Senator Thomas. I see.
This conflict resolution is a challenging issue.
Mr. Bracy. Yes, it is, and it's interesting--this
committee, of course, gave birth to the legislation, and we're
in our first year. I am aware of an excellent program at the
University of Wyoming. We are dealing with all the various
programs around the country, trying to bring in the best minds,
and are trying to deal regionally with the conflicts, not
simply where our headquarters is. But we are involved now, I
believe, in 35 or 36 conflicts in different regions around the
country.
Senator Thomas. I'm not sure we've limited ours to the best
minds. I'm on the Board, as well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
Mr. Eberhard, it seems to me--one more time, your name,
sir?
Mr. Bracy. Terry Bracy.
Senator Smith. Bracy?
Mr. Bracy. Yes, sir.
Senator Smith. In terms of conflict resolution, it seems
like one of the tools to resolve some of these conflicts might
be the area of risk assessment, and even priorities, in terms
of what we do. Can you just shed a little light on that in
terms of what your thoughts are, in the Foundation?
Mr. Eberhard. I can't speak for the Foundation from my
personal experience because I haven't served on the Board yet.
But from my personal experience, I would agree that risk
assessment is a key part of trying to figure out what the
parties bring to the table, what the issues are that need to be
resolved, and what the range of possible solutions would be.
In my work over the past 30 years I've had a fair amount of
experience in just those kinds of negotiations and discussions.
I think people of good will can resolve almost any dispute, if
that is what they are interested in doing, and part of that
process has to involve understanding the universe of the issue
that is under discussion so that everybody comes to the table
with the same understanding about what it is that is in
dispute.
Risk assessment and risk allocation are key parts of that
process.
Senator Smith. A lot of times the conflict is between
Federal agencies. For example--and I want to ask you a question
about that in a moment, Mr. McCabe--at Yucca Mountain, where
you have the NRC and the EPA both in dispute over who should
rule on the regulations for storage of nuclear waste. I think
when it gets frustrating is when certain entities, such as a
State or somebody in the private sector or the Army Corps--
there are so many agencies out there that are in conflict--it
gets frustrating when you're building a road and you get four
or five different Federal agencies and nobody can make a
decision as to who rules here and who the top Agency is. I'm
sure you've seen that.
Well, I don't know too much about the Foundation, but I did
know the gentleman that it was named after very well. I served
with him in the House, and he was loved and respected by
everybody that I knew. A book that he wrote, ``Too Funny to be
President,'' is a laugh-out-loud funny book, and I would
recommend it to anyone, whether you want to run for President
or not. It was of particular interest to me since I did, and I
had the same fate that he did.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. But it is a great book.
Let me just ask two final questions of you, Mr. McCabe, and
then we'll be finished.
I want to come to that issue that I just mentioned, the
conflict between the NRC and the EPA. Would it make more sense
for each of you, the two respective agencies here, to work with
each other rather than against each other to develop some kind
of joint regulation for Yucca Mountain?
Mr. McCabe. Mr. Chairman, I think that working with the NRC
and other Federal agencies, working cooperatively with other
agencies, is very important from a standpoint of not only being
as efficient as possible, but effectively using the skills and
experiences of each of the agencies.
With Yucca Mountain, EPA is required to establish
protections for groundwater from possible contamination by
radioactive material, and our position has been that the
protections to groundwater should be the same as we protect any
groundwater system from any hazardous waste, not more, not
less. And in fact what we have proposed is exactly that, to
protect groundwater in the same way that we would protect it if
there were a nearby Superfund site.
Senator Smith. Well, who should be responsible for issuing
the environmental health and safety standards for the nuclear
waste repository at Yucca Mountain? Should it be EPA?
Mr. McCabe. We believe that EPA should be, because it is
our responsibility to protect public health, and we have
expertise and experience in this area.
Senator Smith. Is it your position that the NRC should not
have a co-equal role, but that you should have the lead role?
Is that your position?
Mr. McCabe. Our position is that we should have the lead
role on establishing these standards.
Senator Smith. There is a substantial amount of expertise,
however, with the NRC on the storage and disposal of
radioactive waste.
Mr. McCabe. And I am aware of that from my past experience
with the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Senator Smith. As I understand it, the NRC at this point in
time still sets standards for facilities that accept low-level
radioactive waste, is that correct?
Mr. McCabe. I'm not sure about low-level waste, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Smith. Well, some of the rules, regulations, and
standards developed by the NRC over the years are standards for
protection against radiation; occupational dose limits for
adults; dose limits for individual members of the public, and
so forth. So there are a lot of regulations and requirements
that are set there, and I think that it would expedite things
and perhaps be more productive if there were some way that that
could be worked out on a co-equal basis, at last trying to
partake of each other's expertise rather than feuding about it.
And I would just ask you to take a look at that.
Mr. McCabe. Mr. Chairman, we will, and I'm sure we will be
communicating with the committee on this issue.
Senator Smith. One other issue that was kind of alluded to
in Senator Thomas' question, in that there is frequently
conflict that does occur between the Federal Government and the
States. In the 1998 Integrity Act report, EPA identified the
NPDES permit backlog as a major weakness, and the records from
EPA basically show that they had not reissued 38 percent of the
permits for major facilities, and 76 percent of the permits for
minor facilities. And then the comparable State backlog was 26
percent for major and 40 percent for minor.
I understand that EPA's goal is to eliminate the backlog by
about 2004. That's 6 years after the problem was identified.
And then, using Texas as an example, I am told that Texas was
able to eliminate the backlog completely within a year or a
little over, receiving authority from EPA to run the permit
program.
Can we learn some lessons here from the Texas example, that
maybe the State can do it fine, thank you, if you give them the
authority to do it, to get rid of the backlog?
Mr. McCabe. Well, we are committed to removing the backlog,
and I think that we're well on our way to doing that.
As far as your broader question is concerned, I think that
we can learn from the States. We have learned from the States,
and I know that, based on my experience as a Regional
Administrator, it's an important partnership. We couldn't
effectively clean up the environment without the participation
of the States, without their capacity, without their expertise.
I hope that as Deputy Administrator I will be able to build on
those relationships and strengthen the EPA-State dialog and
cooperation.
Senator Smith. Finally, we talked yesterday about the
Corrective Action Management Unit lawsuit. We've been working
together for the past couple of years with EPA for legislation
on this. I think we can address this in a bipartisan way and a
cooperative way. I hope we can work together to finish this
process; we've developed a bill here that I believe is
consistent with that settlement and we'd like to complete it
soon, so I would just urge you to support us in the process
here of trying to get this legislation moving and to get this
out of the way.
Mr. McCabe. Well, the CAMU issue is one that is very
important to the EPA from the standpoint of efficiently and
quickly cleaning up the RCRA corrective sites. We are right now
at a very sensitive point in the settlement of that litigation,
and as soon as that settlement is reached I am sure we will be
talking to the committee, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. All right. We've had some problems in the
past in getting information on this issue in a timely manner. I
did send a letter to the Administrator in December, so if you
can help us in this regard when you get on the job, we would
appreciate it.
Mr. McCabe. I will look into that.
Senator Smith. Well, I don't have any more questions and I
don't see anybody else here to ask any, but I will leave the
record open.
The questions that were submitted to you for the record, or
that you indicated you would respond to for the record, should
be answered by the 9th. It is my intention, unless something
happens that I don't know about, to bring your nominations to
the committee on the 9th. That's the intention right now;
things could change, but that's the intention. So try to get
those responses in by the 9th, and I will leave the record open
until the close of business Friday for any Senators who may
wish to submit questions to you, but the same response for
either one of you would be to answer them by the 9th.
Well, thank you very much, gentlemen, and good luck. We
look forward to working with you.
The hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Michael McCabe, Nominated by the President to be Deputy
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an
honor to have been nominated by the President to serve as Deputy
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and to appear
before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today. I
greatly appreciate the confidence shown in me by the President and
Administrator Carol Browner to fill this position.
Protecting the nation's public health and natural resources is one
of the most important legacies that we can leave for our children. As a
father of two daughters, aged three and seven, who both have a better
chance of living to be 100 than at any time in human history--living to
the end of this century--I am acutely aware of the responsibility we
have to leave them an environment better than the one we inherited.
Protecting the air they breathe, ensuring that their drinking water is
safe and clean and that they can swim and fish in our lakes and
streams, managing the pesticide residues on the foods they eat, and
storing and disposing of solid wastes in ways that prevent harm to
their health is critical not only to my daughters' futures, but to all
of us. Protecting all of us is the Agency's mission.
Helping lead this Agency is a daunting responsibility, but it also
provides me with an opportunity to use my regional experience to help
shape national policy. I will work hard to keep that regional
perspective. I am still living on the Pennsylvania/Delaware border and
return home on weekends. I am sure the committee understands better
than most the value of keeping active links beyond the beltway in order
to stay grounded and maintain common sense.
I have agreed to undertake this job in the eighth year of this
Administration because I am committed to seeing the environmental
programs and initiatives launched by the President and Administrator
Browner brought to fruition. It is an important year also because it
marks the 30th anniversary of Earth Day and the 30th anniversary of the
EPA when we should look back on our accomplishments in the area of
environmental protection and chart the course for the future.
I plan to focus on a number of areas throughout the year. First and
foremost will be the day-to-day administration of the Agency itself.
This includes meeting our budget obligations under GPRA and managing
the work force targets set by Congress. Another area will be
implementing the Administrator's consolidation and redirection of
Agency information programs under the new Environmental Information
Office. This will include working with States to establish common
information and data systems that promote better communication about
environmental results and reduce reporting paperwork.
The Food Quality Protection Act, one of the most significant new
environmental laws passed by Congress in recent years, also will be an
area of focus. The extensive reassessment required by the law of the
pesticides used in agricultural production and pest management requires
tremendous resources and extensive scientific review.
I also plan to continue my involvement in assuring environmentally
protective permitting of surface mines in Appalachia. This issue is one
which could have important consequences for water quality in
conjunction with mining practices nationwide.
For most of the past 25 years, I have devoted my career to public
service in the field of environmental protection and natural resources
management. From my earliest professional experience in the 1970s, when
many of the nation's environmental laws were being written, I have
brought new ideas and leadership to strategies to control pollution and
to use our natural resources wisely. I am steadfastly committed to
promoting innovative, common sense approaches to environmental
protection by building partnerships at all levels of government, with
the private sector, and by involving stakeholders.
In addition to a solid foundation in environmental policy, I have
extensive experience in managing organizations including the Energy
Conservation and Power Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee,
Senator Biden's project staff, the bipartisan Congressional
Environmental and Energy Study Conference, and the Mid-Atlantic
regional office.
While serving as director of the U.S. House of Representatives
Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee, of the House Commerce
Committee, in the early 1980's, we led the debate in promoting utility
deregulation which is now sweeping through the industry. We also
tackled a persistent problem facing nuclear power--how to safely
dispose of spent fuel--and we enacted the nation's first program for
the disposal of nuclear waste.
I am particularly proud of my leadership of the Study Conference--
my first management position 24 years ago. You may be familiar with the
Study Conference and its ``green sheets'' which provided members of
Congress and their staffs with background information on key
environmental and energy legislation and issues.
Shortly after it was founded in the House by former Representative
Richard Ottinger and then Representative Jim Jeffords, a group of
Senators led by my former boss Senator Gary Hart and Senator Chafee,
expanded it into the Senate. The Conference was an organization based
on the belief that environmental protection knows no party affiliation
and that the foundation of this nation's environmental laws was built
through bipartisan collaboration. To underscore this, the Chairmanship
of the organization shifted between Democrats and Republicans in the
House and Senate at a time when Democrats controlled both Houses.
Senator Chafee became the Senate Chairman in 1979 and I was proud
to serve under him as staff director. I greatly admired the Senator and
mourn the loss of this great advocate of the bipartisan spirit that
established our nation's environmental policies.
That was a long time ago. My most recent management experience as
Regional Administrator of the Mid Atlantic States has provided me with
experience vital to the role of Deputy Administrator.
As the longest-serving Regional Administrator, I managed and
directed a staff of approximately 1,000 employees with a budget
exceeding $700 million. In this position, I took an active interest in
the efficient operation of the regional office, and conducted an
internal assessment of regional management and personnel practices to
make the region work better, and to make ours a better place to for
employees work. For example, I led the effort to restore the District
of Columbia's drinking water system and directed EPA's national
approach to managing poultry waste from factory farms. I co-chaired a
subcommittee of the Agency's Common Sense Initiative that succeeded in
streamlining permitting and pollution control measures to achieve
superior environmental performance for the printing industry.
As Regional Administrator, I worked with EPA's senior management
team on national strategic planning, budget priority setting, and
public outreach. This provided me with the ability to implement the
Agency's national priorities into a regional context. It also provided
me with an opportunity to bring the perspective I gained from my day-
to-day work with the States to bear on national policies and
priorities. Working closely with my colleagues around the country gave
me a greater appreciation for the regional variations in environmental
problems and unique approaches used in resolving complex issues.
In summary, my environmental policy expertise, management skills,
and strong commitment to public service provide me with qualifications
to do the work of the Deputy Administrator. I look forward to working
with the committee, the members and your staff in our efforts to
protect the environment and make a healthy environment for our children
and grandchildren.
______
Responses by Michael McCabe to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
Question 1. Considering the magnitude of the Comprehensive Plan,
does EPA plan to dedicate full-time staff to work this vital issue?
Response. The EPA is firmly committed to providing the necessary
resources to assist in implementing the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan. Currently, EPA's Office of Water, Region IV and the
South Florida office of Region IV provide scientific, legal, and
technical expertise to the Everglades restoration effort. EPA also
provides a full time staff person at the Army Corps of Engineers'
Jacksonville Mississippi office to assist in the restoration effort.
Question 2. The Comprehensive Plan proposes the construction of two
wastewater reuse facilities for the superior, advanced treatment of
wastewater to augment the freshwater flows to the natural system. At
the field hearing, the Administrator testified that these wastewater
reuse facilities would be eligible for SRF funding, even though the
plants are designed to provide water directly to the natural system and
not for municipal use. Could EPA clarify this statement?
Response. Generally, the costs of capital upgrades for wastewater
treatment are eligible for loans under the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund. It is important to note, however, that local communities
typically are responsible for both repaying SRF loans and covering the
costs of annual operation/ maintenance for treatment plants. In this
case, other sources of funding are necessary because Miami-Dade County
is under no obligation to apply for loans or to improve treatment to a
level suitable for Biscayne National Park or the Bird Drive-Everglades
Basin wetlands. The purpose of the facilities is to provide clean
freshwater to the environment during the dry season when the other
restudy components will not have enough extra water available for the
restoration effort.
Arsenic Rule (Drinking Water)
Question 3. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
includes a statutory requirement for the Administrator to propose a
national drinking water standard for arsenic by January 1, 2000. Now a
month past the deadline, the arsenic rule must still go through a 90-
day OMB review process before release, which could be 3-6 months from
now. Can you explain the delay?
Response. Developing a new proposed regulation for arsenic in
drinking water has been an extremely challenging undertaking, requiring
evaluation of an array of complex scientific and technical information.
As the Agency has developed the new proposed standard, we have
considered a range of points of view from both internal and external
stakeholders. This diversity of views is understandable, considering
that arsenic is a widely occurring contaminant with a number of adverse
health impacts of concern. This process has been somewhat more time-
consuming than expected, but we're hopeful of initiating OMB review of
the proposed rule very soon and publishing the rule for comment this
Spring. We intend to meet the January 1, 2001 deadline for promulgation
of the final rule, despite this delay in issuing a proposal.
Question 4. We've heard that there are disagreements within the
Agency about the benefits of the proposed standards versus the costs?
Can you elaborate on this?
Response. The SDWA (Section 1412(b)(6)) requires an evaluation of
the costs and benefits of a proposed rule and a determination of
whether or not the benefits of the rule justify the costs. Assessing
the costs of a new proposed standard is a somewhat more straightforward
exercise than evaluating benefits but complicated, involving estimates
of the total national costs that will be incurred by water utilities to
comply with a new standard. Estimating the benefits of a proposed rule
involves gaining an understanding of the health effects attributable to
various levels of the contaminant and the benefits of reducing these
risks.
EPA charged the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) with providing
expert advice on the health impacts of arsenic based upon a
comprehensive assessment of national and international studies. The NAS
provided quantitative (numerical) recommendations concerning the risk
of bladder cancer to consumers of drinking water containing arsenic.
The NAS also provided qualitative (non-numeric) recommendations
concerning a number of other potential adverse health effects of
concern, the most significant of which is lung cancer. In evaluating
the benefits of a new, more protective arsenic standard in drinking
water, the Agency has examined both quantitative and qualitative
benefits. Ascribing values to such benefits is a challenging exercise
that involves an element of judgment, based on an array of data and
information. Discussion and resolution of these issues has been an
important part of this process--and, as is the case in any such
complicated undertaking, experts can and often do differ in their
respective evaluations. While there has been internal debate on these
cost-benefit issues, this is not unusual in a significant rulemaking.
Discussion has been encouraged and development of the rule has
benefited. When it is proposed, we will solicit comment on our
estimates of the costs and benefits of the rule and on the underlying
issues of concern.
MTBE
Question 5. I am concerned about MTBE in our groundwater. State
officials in New Hampshire say that as many as 7,000 private wells
could be contaminated with unsafe levels of MTBE and as many as 33,330
could be contaminated with lower trace levels. It seems that we didn't
use good science when we decided to put MTBE in our gasoline and now it
has created another even bigger problem. What is EPA doing to address
MTBE in groundwater?
Response. In response to the growing concerns regarding MTBE, in
early 1999 Administrator Browner appointed an independent Blue Ribbon
Panel to investigate the use of oxygenates in gasoline. On July 27,
1999, the Panel issued its recommendations. Specifically the Panel:
Recommended improvements to the nation's water protection
programs, including over 20 specific actions to enhance underground
storage tank, source water and drinking water, and private well
protection programs.--Agreed broadly that use of MTBE should be reduced
substantially and that Congress should act to provide clear Federal and
state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of MTBE and other
gasoline additives that threaten water supplies.--Recommended that
Congress act to remove the current Clean Air Act requirement--that 2
percent of RFG, by weight, consist of oxygen--to ensure that adequate
fuel supplies can be blended in a cost-effective manner while reducing
usage of MTBE; and--Recommended that EPA seek mechanisms to ensure that
there is no loss of current air quality benefits.
EPA is working with Congress, the states and the regulated
community to implement the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations and
address the problem of MTBE in groundwater:
We will work with Congress to quickly phaseout MTBE while
preserving a market for renewable fuels and maintaining clean air
benefits.
EPA is currently evaluating all of its regulatory options
under existing statutory authorities for addressing the contamination
of groundwater from MTBE.
A new drinking water standard for MTBE will be proposed
within the next year.
MTBE is included in the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule. This rule requires all large and a representative
sample of small public water systems to monitor for MTBE in ground
water and surface water beginning in 2001. EPA is strongly encouraging
water systems to begin monitoring as soon as possible.
EPA is developing maps of State Underground Storage Tanks
(USTs) that can be compared with water source locations to help assess
the actual risk of potential leaking USTs to public water supplies.
EPA is working with States to develop an operation and
maintenance manual that will help improve the safety of UST systems and
is conducting workshops around the country with State water program
officials for UST owners and operators.
EPA allocated $1 million for demonstration projects to
determine the most effective approach to MTBE remediation. MTBE
remediation research efforts also currently are underway by other
organizations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and the
University of California at Davis.
Prior to MTBE's use in Federal RFG, a consent agreement under the
Toxic Substances Control Act required industry to conduct extensive
research of MTBE. The MTBE research included short and long term animal
inhalation studies that did not point to any exceptional acute or
chronic toxicity. In the early 1990's, human chamber studies on acute
exposure to pure MTBE were completed by EPA, the Centers for Disease
Control, and industry. The studies provided strong evidence that MTBE
alone was not likely to cause acute health effects in the vast majority
of the general population. Additional inhalation research that includes
testing of baseline conventional gasoline and nonbaseline groups
including gasolines with MTBE and other oxygen additives is underway.
It is hoped that the results of this inhalation research can be
extrapolated and allow a greater understanding of MTBE ingestion health
risks.
While additional research will add to our understanding of the
health effects of MTBE, action to prevent further MTBE contamination of
water supplies should not await the results of this research. Due to
its persistence and mobility in water, MTBE is more likely to
contaminate ground and surface water than other components of gasoline.
Indeed, according to EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel, MTBE has already been
found in up to 10 percent of drinking water supplies in RFG areas. To
prevent the escalation of a larger problem, EPA believes the use of
MTBE should be quickly phased out.
UST
Question 6. What is the status of EPA's enforcement of the 1998
deadline for compliance with the UST regulations?
Response. EPA and the states worked together to coordinate our
enforcement strategy following the December 1998 deadline. As the
primary implementing agencies, states pursued the majority of the
inspections and enforcement actions related to the deadline. In the
first 6 months immediately following the deadline, EPA focused its
enforcement resources on facilities that posed a threat to drinking
water or sensitive ecosystems; Federal facilities; large, multiple UST
facilities; and owners and operators with multiple facilities.
Thereafter, EPA broadened its enforcement efforts to all facilities
that remained in noncompliance.
At the end of fiscal year 1999, 85 percent of the approximately
760,000 active federally regulated underground storage tanks (USTs)
were in compliance with the 1998 deadline requirements. We expect the
compliance rate will be 90 percent by the end of fiscal year 2000.
Question 7. Do you know the percent of people (who) are in
compliance with the 1998 regulations?
Response. We do not have data on compliance rates by facility
owner, only by UST system. As you may know, an owner or operator may
have multiple UST tanks. Almost all states are the primary implementing
agencies for the UST program, and the states maintain the data bases
that contain the notification and compliance information. The
compliance data reported by the states is for UST systems, not for
facility owners.
Question 8. Where is EPA targeting enforcement resources?
Response. Since the states are the primary implementing agencies
for the UST program, they perform the vast majority of inspection/
enforcement work in the program. States use a wide variety of methods
for targeting their resources, often focusing on wellhead protection
areas or other sensitive environmental areas. In addition, EPA also
targets facilities in areas where a state can not provide an active
enforcement presence as well as facilities referred to us by the
states.
In the first 6 months immediately following the 1998 deadline, EPA
focused its enforcement resources on facilities that threatened sources
of drinking water or sensitive ecosystems; federally owned facilities;
large, multiple UST facilities; and owners and operators with multiple
facilities. Although these facilities remain an enforcement priority,
EPA has since broadened its enforcement efforts to all facilities that
remain in noncompliance.
Question 9. Have you looked at the extent of leaking in those tanks
that have come into compliance with the 1998 regulations?
Response. Assessing the performance of compliant UST systems is one
of the highest priorities for the Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST). This includes measuring the effectiveness of our leak detection
requirements, as well as studying the release rate from compliant
tanks, and identifying the cause of those releases (e.g., faulty
installation, failed overfill device, release from piping). A number of
states and EPA regions are beginning to record this data at all new
release sites. In addition, EPA is funding a study with the University
of California at Davis to assess the effectiveness of various leak
detection methods.
However, based on anecdotal data from the states we know that
petroleum releases have occurred from UST systems that had met the
requirements of the 1998 deadline. In addition, a preliminary
assessment of California's UST data base by the University of
California at Davis indicates that the annual leak rate for UST systems
that comply with upgrading requirements was 0.07 percent per year,
compared to approximately 3 percent per year for all active tanks. It
is reasonable to assume that a certain number of releases will continue
to occur from systems with new or upgraded UST systems due to improper
installation, improper operation and maintenance, or accidents.
Ensuring proper operation and maintenance is another of OUST's highest
priorities.
High Production Volume Chemical Testing Program
Question 10. In October 1999 an agreement was reached between EPA
and animal rights groups to address many of the concerns raised
regarding the EPA High Production Volume Chemical Testing Program
(``HPV Program''). Although an agreement has been reached, I am
concerned about how the program will be implemented in a manner
consistent with the agreement. In December 1999 animal rights groups
petitioned EPA to issue two rules which would require chemical
companies to file existing data and information on HPV chemicals prior
to initiating new testing under the HPV program. Has the October
agreement been embodied in.the Inventory Update Rule?
Response. The animal welfare principles outlined in the October 14
letter from EPA to HPV Challenge participants are incorporated, to the
fullest extent possible, in the proposed High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemical Test Rule currently under review at OMB. EPA encourages the
fullest possible use of existing data in order to minimize the need for
new testing. Once this proposed rule is promulgated, the public will
have an opportunity to comment on all aspects of the rulemaking
including issues related to animal welfare. The Inventory Update Rule
(IUR) is a separate rulemaking unrelated to the HPV Challenge Program
and was not addressed by the October 14 letter. The recently proposed
IUR amendments do not require any testing. The IUR Amendments, which
were proposed on August 26,1999(64 FR 46771), would call upon companies
to assemble and report existing exposure and use data for their
chemicals under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Question 11. If the purpose of the program was to gather toxicity
data on those chemicals most commonly used in our country, why does a
citizen group need to petition EPA to issue rules to carry out the
primary purpose of the program?
Response. In the HPV Challenge Program, the Agency has worked
successfully in partnership with industry to establish a voluntary
program to make this information available to the public. To date, this
voluntary approach has yielded commitments from industry to provide the
needed data on nearly 2100 of 2800 high production volume chemicals. As
part of this program, EPA has intended to pursue a TSCA test rule for
those chemicals which are not voluntarily sponsored by industry. Under
Section 21 of the TSCA, citizens may petition EPA to initiate a
proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under
various other sections of TSCA. In this instance, the petitioners
assert that a voluntary approach to collecting basic screening level
toxicity information on HPV chemicals will not be effective in bringing
forward all relevant existing data. They have thus called for a
rulemaking approach to compel the disclosure of that information.
Question 12. Does EPA intend to issue such rules?
Response. EPA published a Federal Register notice (65 FR 2164,
January 13, 2000) reporting that the petition had been filed and
solicited public comments by February 3, 2000. Under Section 21 of
TSCA, EPA must respond to the petition by March 28, 2000. The Agency is
currently evaluating the petition and the comments received, and has
not yet responded to the petition.
MTBE
Question 13. The EPA is currently considering a waiver of the Clean
Air Act's 2 percent oxygen mandate for the State of California. We are
working on legislation to address this issue, but I want to encourage
the EPA to give the California waiver full consideration. California
uses more gasoline containing MTBE than any other state and they are
quite concerned with the effect this might have on water supplies. Can
you give this committee any sense of the status of the California
waiver petition?
Response. We share California's desire to keep the State's drinking
water free of MTBE and other contaminants. EPA's goal is to protect
public health and the environment by ensuring Americans have both
cleaner air and cleaner water--and never one at the expense of the
other. On December 24, 1999, California officials provided EPA initial
documents in support of the state's waiver request. EPA is reviewing
this initial information and stands ready to receive additional data
the state is gathering that is necessary to complete its request.
On January 25, 2000, staff from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) and the EPA met to discuss the additional data and analysis
necessary for a waiver to be considered. CARB has indicated that it
will supply this additional information to EPA. Once EPA receives this
information from CARB, EPA will be able to perform the technical
analysis of California's waiver request required under the Clean Air
Act. If the statutory requirements to receive the waiver are met, EPA
is required to provide public notice of our decision. Such procedures
include a public comment period of a minimum of 30 days.
Utilities Emissions Bill
Question 14. Recently, I announced the start of a process to
develop legislation to improve how the Clean Air Act addresses
pollution from the electric utility sector. Developing a bill on this
topic that will have broad bipartisan support is going to be an
enormous challenge. I would hope that the EPA will work with my staff
in an open and creative way as we all search for a more efficient
system to deal with these pollutants. If we can build on the Acid Rain
model, I believe that we can improve the environmental results of our
efforts--while at the same time lowering the implementation costs for
industry, the economy, and the government.
Response. As you examine this issue, EPA will, as always, be happy
to work with you and your staff.
Yucca Mountain
Question 15. NAS and NRC have recommended that standards for Yucca
Mountain be based on sound radiation protection science (i.e., do not
use old ICRP 2 dose methods in setting standards). NRC has an overall
approach for setting regulatory limits that involves: 1) setting an
overall goal for protection applicable to all regulated activities
(i.e., 100 mrem public dose limit); 2) developing dose limits for
particular activities (e.g., waste disposal) that are consistent with
the overall goal; and 3) updating dose limits, as necessary, to make
use of scientific improvements for estimating dose. EPA's approach for
setting radiation standards is not as clear. Although, EPA generally
uses an overall risk goal (i.e., lifetime risk between one chance in
10,000 and one chance in 1,000,000), EPA has and continues to set
radiation limits that have little relationship to this overall goal
(i.e., MCLs) and have recently proposed standards for Yucca Mountain
(40 CFR 197) based on outdated methods for estimating dose.
Can EPA explain, what appears to be, significant inconsistencies
and weaknesses in their approach for setting radiation standards? What
interactions has EPA had with the NRC and NAS to address their
comments?
Response. The EPA's proposed Yucca Mountain standards are entirely
consistent with other standards the Agency has established and, in
almost every respect, are consistent with the recommendations of the
NAS. In all its regulatory programs, the Agency typically establishes
risk in the 10-6 to 10-4 range (1 chance in a 1,000,000 to 1 chance in
10,000). This is the Agency's guideline for establishing radiation
regulations for involuntary risks over and above background levels.
EPA's generic standards for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste and
the Agency's proposed standards for Yucca Mountain assure protection of
at least 15 millirem/year. The lifetime fatal cancer risk associated
with this dose is approximately 3 chances in 10,000.
With respect to EPA's proposed standards for drinking water, EPA
proposed to adopt the Agency's 4 millirem/yr dose limit for Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The lifetime fatal cancer risk associated with this dose is 1 chance in
10,000.
For Yucca Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
suggested a risk level equivalent to an annual dose in the range of 2
to 20 millirem/yr. The annual risk associated with EPA's proposed 15
millirem standard and 4 millirem standard for drinking water fall
within this range. The 25 millirem/yr dose limit proposed by the NRC
would allow greater risk than that recommended by NAS. NAS has
supported EPA's proposed 15 millirem standard. In its November 26, 1999
comments on the 15 millirem standard, NAS stated that ``the magnitude
of the proposed numeric value of the individual-protection standard is
consistent with the recommendations in the [NAS] report.''
We realize that science has improved in the 20 years since the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards for drinking water were
established and we are working to update them based on current
scientific understanding and legislative direction under the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendment. All changes will be incorporated by
reference in EPA's final Yucca Mountain standards.
We have made and will continue to make every effort to consider all
of the issues which have been brought to our attention by the NRC, NAS,
and other interested parties. Both NRC and NAS have submitted written
comments on EPA's proposed standards. EPA will work closely with NRC
and NAS to address their comments in EPA's final standards.
______
Responses by Michael McCabe to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Yucca Mountain/Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Question 1. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have promulgated radiation exposure
standards for a geologic repository, better known as Yucca Mountain,
for the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. The
establishment of a permanent repository is of paramount importance to
the ability of the Department of Energy and Department of Navy in
meeting a court-ordered agreement with the State of Idaho. Legislation
currently in the Senate, S.1287, would identify the NRC as the
standard-setting Agency for a geologic repository, not the EPA. This
proposal recognizes that the NRC is the nation's expert in dealing with
radiation and is supported widely and bipartisanly in Congress. Is
there any reason to expect that the NRC would not be capable of setting
standards for the geologic repository that will protect public health
and the environment?
Response. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave EPA responsibility for
setting the standards for a repository at Yucca Mountain and NRC
responsibility for determining whether or not the repository meets the
standards through a licensing process. This arrangement of having EPA
set the standards and NRC implement them is how nuclear facilities have
been regulated for the past 30 years. This is the system of checks and
balances that was established when EPA was formed in 1970.
While NRC is expert in the licensing of nuclear power plants, EPA
was designated by Congress to set the safety standards for Yucca
Mountain. EPA has the expertise to set appropriate health and safety
standards for the disposal of radioactive waste and has done so for
decades. EPA also has expertise in implementing such standards
successfully. In fact, EPA set the safety standards for, and certified,
the only operating geologic repository for permanent disposal of
radioactive waste in the United States--the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
in New Mexico.
In addition, EPA has a wealth of experience in setting standards
for, and licensing, hazardous waste facilities. This has informed our
proposed Yucca Mountain standard. Our Yucca Mountain proposal was
designed to achieve the same level of protectiveness, an increased risk
in the 10-6 to 10-4 range (1 chance in a million to 1 chance in
10,000), as all these other Agency standards.
NRC has issued draft standards for Yucca Mountain. These draft NRC
standards do not include specific protections for potable groundwater
and would allow a greater risk to individual members of the public (25
millirem/yr dose limit vs. EPA's proposed 15 millirem/yr dose limit).
Based on these draft standards and NRC comments and statements of
intent, EPA believes that EPA's standards will more adequately protect
public health and the environment than NRC standards.
Question 2. The EPA has been criticized for dragging its feet on
issuing radiation standards for the geologic repository. The Agency
finally issued radiation standards on August 19, 1999. The EPA does not
appear to be promulgating needed standards in the timeframe that is
needed to make the repository a reality. Why did it take the EPA so
long to issue these standards? If the EPA remains the standard-setting
organization for the repository, what changes will you make to ensure
the EPA is responsive to necessary standards development?
Response. EPA recognizes that these standards are very important
for assuring the safety of any repository at Yucca Mountain. This
project involves a unique facility with many complex technical issues.
EPA has made every effort to consider all of the issues which have been
brought to our attention. This includes meetings with interested
parties and discussions within the Administration. A significant amount
of this time was spent addressing scientific issues in coordination
with the National Academy of Sciences, the Administration's Office of
Science Technology and Policy, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. EPA has worked diligently to resolve the
many complex issues. Additional time taken was necessary to ensure that
we prepared standards that were technically sound, legally defensible,
could be reasonably implemented, and were protective of public health
and the environment.
As you know, we already have proposed the standards and the public
comment period has closed. We are now in the process of assessing
comments received. We plan to finalize the standards this year and, as
we work to finalize the standards, we will continue to make every
effort to be responsive to the comments and concerns of interested
parties. Our current schedule will not delay DOE's plans for licensing
the repository.
Question 3. For Yucca Mountain, the EPA proposed an annual dose
limit to the reasonably maximally exposed individual of 15 millirem
with an additional 4 millirem dose limit for groundwater. Why did the
EPA feel it was necessary to establish different, pathway-specific
standards, as opposed to one comprehensive standard as recommended by
the National Academy of Sciences?
Response. It is the Administration's policy to apply existing
environmental laws to protect all current and potential sources of
drinking water. It is also the Administration's policy that it is the
responsibility of potential polluters to keep groundwater clean--not
for users to treat water once it is polluted.
Yucca Mountain sits on a large, clean aquifer capable of supplying
drinking water to thousands of people. It already is being used as a
source of drinking water by local inhabitants and likely will be used
as drinking water for Las Vegas--the fastest growing metropolitan area
in the country. EPA has proposed a ground-water protection standard to
prevent contamination of this valuable drinking water aquifer. Failure
to do so could result in additional economic and health burdens to
future generations and it is more prudent to prevent contamination than
to rely on clean-up. EPA applies ground-water standards to every
hazardous waste site in the country. In addition, EPA already has
successfully applied ground-water protection standards at the only
operating geologic repository for disposal of radioactive waste--the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. EPA believes that the people
of Nevada and their drinking water resources deserve the same level of
protection that is applied to the rest of the country.
Question 4. The EPA has been criticized for establishing standards
for Yucca Mountain that are more stringent than occurs in nature. Given
the risk-based approach to individual exposure advocated by the
National Academy of Sciences in August 1995, is the EPA ``more
stringent than nature'' standard appropriate?
Response. The EPA's proposed Yucca Mountain standards govern the
incremental risk associated with the presence of a nuclear waste
repository at the site, not the background risk associated with
naturally occurring radiation at the site. Knowing that individuals can
be exposed to radiation risks from a variety of both man-made and
naturally occurring sources, EPA's aim in promulgating standards is to
minimize the risk to individuals from any one source; in this case,
EPA's goal is to minimize the risk to individuals from any disposal of
radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain.
EPA's proposed standards for Yucca Mountain assure protection of at
least 15 millirem/year. The lifetime fatal cancer risk associated with
this dose is approximately 3 chances in 10,000.
For Yucca Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
suggested a risk level equivalent to an annual dose in the range of 2
to 20 millirem/yr. The annual risk associated with EPA's proposed 15
millirem standard falls within this range. The 25 millirem/yr dose
limit proposed by the NRC would allow greater risk than that
recommended by NAS. NAS has supported EPA's proposed 15 millirem
standard. In its November 26, 1999 comments on the 15 millirem
standard, NAS stated that ``the magnitude of the proposed numeric value
of the individual-protection standard is consistent with the
recommendations in the [NAS] report.''
North Idaho/Coeur d'Alene River Basin
Question 5. Idaho is currently listed on the Clean Water Act
National Toxics Rule (NTR). This status precludes Idaho from
establishing site-specific water quality criteria and forces so-called
Gold Book Standards, developed without the benefit of knowledge of
unique conditions and problems in Idaho. These standards will make it
particularly difficult for dischargers in the Coeur d'Alene Basin,
including the EPA's own Bunker Hill Superfund Site, to meet. In order
to proceed with removing Idaho from the NTR, the EPA has requested
consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. I
understand that the biological assessment submitted by the EPA in
accordance with the request for removing Idaho from the NTR may be
inadequate and there may be some delay in completing the consultations.
Does the EPA believe it has the authority to temporarily exempt the
Coeur d'Alene River Basin from the NTR and Gold Book Standards while
consultations are underway?
Response. EPA does have the authority to remove Idaho from the
National Toxics Rule, despite the fact that EPA is still consulting
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service on Idaho's water quality standards pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Given the fact that Idaho has adopted
water quality criteria as stringent as the NTR criteria, EPA believes
that removing Idaho from the NTR will not have any detrimental effects
on endangered or threatened species pending our completion of
consultation and will not prejudice our ability to act on the results
of the consultation. We are approving Idaho's standards under the Clean
Water Act, subject to Endangered Species Act consultation, and will be
removing Idaho from the NTR within the next 60 to 90 days.
EPA's removal of Idaho from the National Toxics Rule (NTR) would
provide the state more flexibility in implementing various provisions
of the Clean Water Act, including development of site-specific criteria
wherever appropriate within the state. With respect to the Coeur
d'Alene River Basin, EPA and the State of Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality have been examining various tools available to
the state to provide regulatory relief, where appropriate, once NTR
removal occurs. These tools include site-specific criteria and permit
variances.
Removal from the NTR, however, is simply one step in reaching final
decisions about appropriate requirements to protect water quality in
the Coeur d'Alene Basin. Actual decisions about site specific criteria
to protect endangered species still must be made, first by Idaho, and
then by EPA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service also still have critical decisions to make regarding
requirements to protect endangered species.
Question 6. Reacting to strong opposition in the Coeur d'Alene
River Basin community and the proposed state-led settlement
negotiations, in December, 1999, the EPA agreed to delay its ongoing
efforts to designate additional areas as Superfund sites. Under what
understanding is the Agency proceeding in this matter?
Response. EPA supports the State's efforts to find a solution for
the Basin that includes bringing all involved parties into a settlement
discussion. You are correct that EPA has agreed to delay proposing
further National Priorities List (NPL) listing in the Basin until the
end of June, 2000. Please note however, that EPA is arguing in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that all
contaminated areas of the Basin are already on the NPL.
The State's effort to initiate settlement discussions holds the
promise of resolving current litigation in a manner which will further
our mutual goals of funding and implementing long-term cleanup and
restoration of the Basin. Achieving a binding and workable cleanup plan
remains EPA's first priority. EPA also supports Idaho's participation
in this effort to help develop a cleanup plan that meets the needs of
the citizens in the Coeur d'Alene Basin, including the Coeur d'Alene
Tribe and all the interested parties involved in the Basin.
Question 7. The original estimate for the current Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process in the Coeur d'Alene
Basin was approximately $2 million. How much money has the EPA spent to
date on the RI/FS and what is the projected final total?
Response. In the Spring and Summer of 1998, EPA conducted a series
of public meetings related to the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). In response to public inquiry at those public meetings,
EPA reported that the Agency had spent, to date, roughly $2 million to
initiate the RI/FS in the Basin. At that point in time the Region did
not yet have an clear estimate of what the costs would be to perform
the entire RI/FS.
To date, EPA has incurred approximately $10.4 million in costs
(incurred by EPA contractors) associated with conducting RI/FS work in
the Basin. In addition, EPA has provided and will continue to provide
funds to the States, the Tribes and other Agencies through Cooperative
Agreements and Inter Agency Agreements (JAGS) related to RI/FS
activities. Under these vehicles, to date, EPA has provided
approximately $4.2 million in funds, over $1 million to the State of
Idaho alone. EPA projects that the total RI/FS costs (EPA's contractor
costs) will be approximately $16.5 million, plus costs associated with
Cooperative Agreements and JAGS.
Question 8. The EPA has announced it will be issuing a ROD for the
RI/FS by December, 2000. State of Idaho officials have suggested that
the ROD will be too general because the EPA's schedule provides
insufficient time to review the science to develop a detailed ROD. The
State of Idaho is currently participating in the RI/FS process to try
to address this short coming. If the State of Idaho continues to raise
concerns about the sufficiency of the science used in the EPA's RI/FS
process, will the EPA choose to release the ROD on schedule with
insufficient data or will the Agency delay releasing the ROD until all
parties are confident in the sufficiency of the data?
Response. EPA is committed to completing a Record of Decision for
the Coeur d'Alene Basin by December, 2000. The Agency is conducting the
RI/FS in a manner that will enable us to select an overall remedial
approach to address the contamination in the Basin. By working closely
with the State of Idaho during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study and Record of Decision development, Region 10 will attempt to
address the State's concerns. It is also important to note that details
associated with cleaning up specific areas will be developed during the
Remedial Design stage. The State and local governments and community
members will be critical partners during that stage. There is always
the possibility that if circumstances warrant, the remedy may be
modified through ROD Amendments or Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESDs) or additional RODs may also be required.
Question 9. The EPA has been involved with the cleanup of the
Silver Valley in North Idaho for over 15 years. During this time, the
EPA has taken actions that have engendered serious local opposition and
distrust within the community. This relationship clearly does not help
in the ultimate goal of promoting locally supported environmental
activities. At the same time, the community appears increasingly to
favor the State of Idaho in the search for solutions to environmental
problems within the state. Will the EPA support State of Idaho having
the lead role in cleaning up areas outside the boundaries of the Bunker
Hill Superfund Site ``box''?
Response. EPA places a strong emphasis on state and local
government involvement in Superfund actions. In fact, the cleanup at
Bunker Hill is an example of a successful Federal, state and local
partnership. As you may know, the State of Idaho's Division of
Environmental Quality has the lead role on a substantial portion of the
Bunker Hill ``box'' cleanup (design, implementation, and community
relations), including: the Smelterville Flats; Bunker Creek; Gulch
removals and restoration; residential yard cleanup oversight; Union
Pacific Railroad Right-of-way cleanup oversight; and Stauffer cleanup
oversight. In addition, the Panhandle Health District manages the
Institutional Controls Program (ICP) which many believe will serve as a
catalyst for economic redevelopment in the Silver Valley.
Outside the Bunker Hill Superfund Site ``box,'' EPA is very aware
that people in the Coeur d'Alene Basin want the State of Idaho to have
a leadership role in both the current study and future cleanup actions.
Through two Cooperative Agreements, Region 10 is supporting the State's
involvement in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The Region
is also committed to working actively with the State on a comprehensive
cleanup plan for the Basin.
TMDLs
Question 10. Does your interpretation of Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act permit anyone other than states (or in the case of
disapproved state submissions, the Administrator) from establishing
total maximum daily loads in impaired waters?
Response. Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act provides that
``[e]ach State shall establish . . . the total maximum daily load . .
.'', and section 303(d)(2) provides that, if EPA disapproves a State's
TMDL, ``the Administrator'' shall establish one. Section 303(d)(2) also
provides that, from time to time, ``[e]ach State shall submit'' TMDLs
to EPA. Because the statute specifically says that States submit TMDLs
and that States and the Administrator establish them, EPA believes that
other parties may not ``submit'' TMDLs to EPA for review or
``establish'' TMDLs.
EPA does not interpret the statute, however, as preventing other
entities, such as local governments, interstate commissions, or citizen
and industry stakeholder groups, from assisting States or EPA in the
development of TMDLs. Indeed, such participation is to be encouraged
and these groups may, if the State or EPA desire, do a significant
portion of the TMDL development work. The developed TMDL, however, must
be ``established'' by the State and ``submitted'' by the State to EPA
for review, or ``established'' by EPA in the case of a disapproved
State submission.
Clean Water Act
Question 11. Because Idaho has not been delegated authority to
issue NPDES permits, the EPA is responsible in our state for those
applications. In the establishment of a draft permit, the EPA recently
sought to enforce a standard that the State of Idaho suspects is
inappropriately stringent because it suggests a temperature level that
may be lower than the range of natural temperature of the river. If
true, the permit holder would be required to spend money on cooling
systems that may not ultimately be successful. Do you believe it is
appropriate for the EPA to seek to enforce a temperature standard that
is not supported by scientific evidence?
Response. The temperature standard in question was adopted by the
State of Idaho. Section 301 (b)(l)(C) of the Clean Water Act and EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44 require that permits contain limits that
will ensure compliance with State water quality standards.
The question of whether current Idaho temperature standards are
appropriate is a highly controversial one. A similar debate over
temperature standards in neighboring Oregon resulted in an agreement by
EPA to pursue further scientific review of the issue of appropriate
temperature standards in the Northwest. This review, just now getting
underway, includes participation by Idaho.
In the meantime, EPA is working with the State of Idaho and the
discharger in question to explore options such as variances, total
maximum daily loads, or other means to provide a workable solution.
Clean Air Act
Question 12. Could you provide me with a detailed schedule of past
and future involvement of EPA officials in matters surrounding Northern
Ada County designation under the Clean Air Act?
Response. The schedule below identifies the major relevant events
surrounding the Northern Ada County/Boise area designation:
November 1990--The Northern Ada County/Boise area in
Idaho designated nonattainment for particulate matter
(PM10).
May 30, 1996--EPA approves Idaho's State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the Northern Ada County/Boise area.
? July 1997--Following extensive scientific review, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revises the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter to more accurately
reflect observed health effects. Both the previous PM10
standards and the revised standards were to remain in effect until the
previous standards were formally revoked for a given area.
July 1998--The State of Idaho requests revocation of the
previous PM10 standards and the associated ``nonattainment''
designation for the Northern Ada County/Boise area. Air quality
monitoring data show no violations of the standards in the area since
1991.
January 8, 1999--The Northern Ada County/Boise area falls
out of compliance with the Clean Air Act's air quality/transportation
``conformity'' requirements because the State has not demonstrated that
transportation projects are consistent with its approved air quality
SIP.
March 12, 1999--EPA revokes the previous PM10
standards for the Northern Ada County/Boise area. The revocation also
removes other Clean Air Act requirements associated with the earlier
standards, including the nonattainment designation, new-source review
and air quality/transportation conformity requirements.
March 18, 1999--Environmental organizations file a
petition for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit challenging EPA's revocation of the PM10 standards.
May 14, 1999--The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia vacates EPA's revised coarse particle (PM10)
standards.
September 9, 1999--The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
files a motion with the 9th Circuit court on EPA's behalf for a
voluntary remand of our decision to revoke the previous PM10
standard in the Northern Ada County/Boise area. The motion asks that
the court remand the decision without vacating it, and that it hold all
proceedings in the consolidated cases in abeyance while EPA undertakes
a rulemaking to reconsider the decision. The motion states that EPA
intends to initiate a rulemaking proposing to reinstate the previous
PM10 standard, during which the public, including the State,
can comment, and issue a final rulemaking within 4-6 months.
Environmental groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) file a
reply opposing EPA's motion for voluntary remand. EDF asks the Court to
vacate and remand EPA's revocation action as their primary request for
relief.
November 19, 1999--The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
denies the EPA motion for a voluntary remand.
December 17, 1999--EPA files brief opposing petitioners'
challenge and argues that their primary claims, which are directed at
issues decided by EPA in the 1997 rule promulgating the NAAQS, were
untimely and, consequently, the Court lacked jurisdiction to reach the
decision on the merits. EPA also reiterates its request that the Court
remand the matter to the Agency so that the Agency can propose to
reinstate the previous PM10 standard in Boise.
February 1, 2000--Petitioners file a reply to EPA's brief
and again ask the Court to vacate and remand EPA's revocation action.
Since September 1999--EPA continues to have discussions
with the State and local officials and with EDF to try and find a fair
and reasonable solution to the situation.
Question 13. Has the EPA committed to seeking a solution to the
current dispute that is agreeable to the State of Idaho and the local
development planning authority?
Response. EPA is committed to and has worked diligently to seek a
solution to the current dispute that is agreeable to all parties
concerned. The State and local planning authorities are currently
engaged in settlement discussions with the environmental litigants. The
EPA has been supportive of these discussions and has been and remains
available for consultation.
Clean Air Act
Question 14. In the rural West, Federal land management agencies
take actions that have significant consequences in our air quality.
Prescribed burns in forest areas are undertaken by the U.S. Forest
Service to ensure the health and viability of forests. Nonetheless,
communities that are adjacent to or surrounded by National Forests are
subject to the migration of air emissions from these and other forest
management practices. Will the EPA count smoke from these burns against
the state or region's air quality allowances?
Response. On May 15, 1998 EPA issued an interim policy for
addressing public health and welfare impacts caused by wildland and
prescribed fires. The policy, known as the Interim Air Quality Policy
on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, encourages State and tribal air
quality managers to collaborate with wildland owners and managers to
mitigate the air quality impacts of prescribed fires and to develop and
implement smoke management programs (SMP's) to prevent deterioration of
air quality and the violation of health standards, mitigate the
nuisance and public safety hazards (e.g., on roadways and at airports)
posed by smoke intrusions, and address visibility impacts in parks and
wilderness areas. If States and tribes actively implement SMPs, EPA
will exercise its discretion under the Clean Air Act not to redesignate
areas as nonattainment because of smoke from prescribed fires.
Question 15. If no, how will the EPA work with state and regional
authorities to help quantify the impact of such practices on local air
quality? If yes, what authority will state and regional officials be
given to undertake actions on public lands to mitigate air emissions
for which they will be accountable?
Response. The State of Idaho has a Smoke Management Program (SMP)
in place. Therefore, smoke from Federal burns will generally be exempt
and EPA will not redesignate Idaho areas as nonattainment because of
smoke from prescribed burns. However, if smoke from prescribed burns
begins to cause PM air quality violations, EPA will call on the State
to review the effectiveness of the SMP and make appropriate
improvements to mitigate future air quality impacts. If the problem
continues, EPA will call for the SMP to be made part of the State's air
quality implementation plan (SIP) and be federally enforceable.
______
Responses by Michael McCabe to Additional Questions from Senator
Lautenberg
Question 1. As you know, I have introduced legislation to improve
the quality of the waters we swim in at our nation's beaches. I
understand that EPA has a program underway to help states adopt water
quality standards for coastal waters. From your perspective having come
from a region with several coastal states (Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia), what improvements need to be made in how we protect health
at our beaches?
Response. EPA believes that improvements to beach monitoring and
public notification programs to make them more consistent nationally
are needed to provide better public health protection. As one way to
enhance public notification, in consultation with States, EPA has
established a public right-to-know data base about beach water quality.
Moreover, EPA believes that consistent, scientifically defensible
water quality standards for states and tribes are very important. Some
of these water quality standards are intended for recreational use.
These recreational water quality standards provide the scientific and
programmatic framework for enhancing protection of public health at
beaches. To address another area of needed improvement, EPA is working
with states and tribes to ensure that they adopt state standards which
incorporate the Agency's published criteria for Escherichia cold and
enterococci; research data support the use of these microbes as
indicators of swimming-associated gastrointestinal disease. The water
quality standards program framework established by the Clean Water Act
and continued by the Lautenberg bill is flexible, allowing for state
variation consistent with protection of public health and good
scientific practice, and revisions by EPA and States as new
bacteriological indicators, monitoring protocols, and models are
developed.
OEI
Question 2. Part of your portfolio as Deputy Administrator would be
oversight of EPA's new information office. Senator Crapo and I intend
to introduce a bill shortly that we believe is very much in keeping
with the spirit of that office, and we would appreciate having EPA's
support for it.
The Streamlined Environmental Protection and Pollution Prevention
Act of 2000 would require EPA to give each business one point of
contact for all Federal environmental routine reporting requirements,
and to otherwise minimize the administrative burdens of environmental
reporting. This ``one-stop'' reporting system would use a common
nomenclature throughout and use language understandable to
businesspeople, not just to environmental specialists. Its electronic
version would also provide pollution prevention information to
participating businesses. The bill would also give each State, tribal
or local agency the option of reporting information to one point of
contact at EPA.
My staff has discussed this bill with EPA, and received much
thoughtful and constructive technical advice. We have been able to
respond to the great majority of issues raised by EPA. One important
issue remains, however--the deadline by which EPA is to perform the
activities required by the bill. Our draft bill would establish a
deadline 4 years after the effective date.
Would you be able to support a 4-year deadline? Otherwise, could
you suggest a more appropriate timeline, and agree to work with us as
we move this bill through Congress?
Response. While EPA staff have held discussions with your staff on
technical issues related to your draft legislation, the Administration
has not yet developed a position on the bill. It would, therefore, be
premature for me to comment on the deadline contained in the draft
language, or on other aspects of the bill. We are happy, however, to
continue to work with you regarding the draft bill.
Through the recently established Office of Environmental
Information, EPA is moving ahead on numerous information management and
security issues, without the need for legislation. We are, as part of
our Integrated Information Initiative, continuing development of a
Central Receiving Facility. The Facility will provide the option of one
point of contact for both states and regulated entities which report
directly to EPA. Central Receiving also will facilitate our move to
electronic reporting. We also are proceeding with plans to adopt, in
partnership with states, data standards which will provide the common
nomenclature needed to facilitate integration of environmental data,
and to aid analysis and interpretation for users.
______
Responses by Michael McCabe to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
Question 1. Everglades restoration is anticipated to be a major
component of committee action this year. It is also a large priority
for the state of Florida. I am concerned that EPA recently could not
provide answers to detailed questions on the Army Corps of Engineers'
Restudy restoration plan. Are you planning to dedicate staff to ensure
that EPA can participate in this committee's debate on the Restudy
authorization?
Response. EPA thanks the committee for holding the recent field
hearing on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and
allowing the Agency to provide its vision on restoring the Everglades
and the CERP. We look forward to a continued dialog with members of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the Army Corps of
Engineers and all interested parties in order to ensure the successful
restoration of one our Nation's most precious resources. The Agency
currently is preparing clarification and detailed answers to questions
that Members had in regards to the Administrator's testimony. We are
prepared to provide the committee assistance as it considers the
restudy authorization.
The EPA is firmly committed to providing the necessary staff
resources to assist in implementing the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan. Currently, EPA's Office of Water, Region IV and the
South Florida office of Region IV provide scientific, legal, and
technical expertise to the Everglades restoration effort. EPA also
provides a full time staff person at the Army Corps of Engineers'
Jacksonville Mississippi office to assist in the restoration effort.
TMDLs
Question 2. In passing the Clean Water Act the Congress expressly
recognized the primary responsibility and right of the States to
prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution and to plan the development and
use of. . . land and water resources (33 USC 1251(b)(1972). The TMDL
proposal however calls for EPA involvement in state implementation
plans--which can be expected to result in EPA decisions regarding local
land use. In this regard:
Question 2a. What is EPA's authority for involvement in TMDL
implementation plans?
Response. Section 303(d) requires that TMDLs, whether established
by a State, Territory, or authorized Tribe, or by the Administrator,
``be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water
quality standards.'' As the implementation plan provides a description
of the voluntary and regulatory programs and authorities, EPA has
proposed that one way to address this is to review the implementation
plan and determine that there is ``reasonable assurance'' that the TMDL
will be implemented and will result in the achievement of water quality
standards.
Question 2b. In what manner will EPA recognize the primacy of State
and local involvement in the implementation of the TMDL program?
Response. Section 303(d) requires states to identify waters and
establish TMDLs, and submit them to EPA for review. EPA approves or
disapproves the list and TMDLs. If EPA disapproves, then the statute
requires EPA to identify the water or establish the TMDL. EPA expects
States to take the lead in developing and implementing TMDLs and does
not expect to be directly involved in development or implementation of
most TMDLs. As part of the process, EPA will work with the States and
other stakeholders.
Question 2c. Is it expected that EPA's direct involvement with the
States in the TMDL implementation plans will be more efficient than
state and local implementation solely under broad EPA guidance?
Response. As noted in the response to the previous question, EPA
expects States to take the lead in developing and implementing TMDLs.
EPA does not expect to be directly involved in development or
implementation of most TMDLs.
EPA will, as directed by the Clean Water Act, review State-
developed TMDLs to assure that they comply with the requirements of the
Act. Under the proposed rule, this includes review of implementation
plans submitted by States as part of the TMDL. EPA believes that this
proposed approach, rather than reliance solely on broad guidance, is
needed to provide ``reasonable assurance'' that approved TMDLs will
result in the achievement of water quality standards.
Question 2d. Has EPA identified the economic costs of the TMDL
proposals and increased EPA staff requirements of implementing the
plan?
Response. EPA correctly certified that the proposed rule would not
have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' EPA completed the economic assessment of the proposed
regulation revisions consistent with guidelines established by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and published the proposal for
public comment following OMB approval.
It is important to note that the economic assessment of the
proposed rule defines costs and benefits associated with the changes
that the proposed rule would make in existing regulations. EPA did not
estimate, and was not required by law or Executive Order to estimate,
the costs of complying with the requirements of section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act as passed by Congress in 1972 or the existing
regulations that States and EPA now rely on to implement the TMDL
program.
Our preliminary estimates, subject to additional work, are that
state costs will increase by $10-24 million annually to implement the
rule, and that the private sector will expend approximately $17-65
million annually for on-the-ground actions needed to implement the
TMDLs. These costs are relatively low because the major assumption
behind the estimated costs is that full implementation of required
regulatory programs--such as NPDES, including storm water and
installation of best available technology--as well as voluntary,
incentive-based programs--such as section 319 grants and the
Conservation and Wetlands Reserve Programs--will be sufficient, in most
cases, to achieve water quality standards.
EPA expects that each Regional Administrator will, consistent with
other water program priorities, provide adequate technical assistance
and oversight for the TMDL program. EPA will periodically evaluate its
staff needs for TMDLs.
Question 2e. EPA's proposed regulations on TMDLs would involve the
EPA in many strictly local decisions. For example, land use planning
typically occurs over many years as city and county plans are prepared,
subjected to public notice and comment and implemented. How does EPA
intend to implement these programs and provide, for example, timely
review, approval and monitoring of all state and local implementation
plans so that state and local agencies can continue to respond in a
timely manner to their constituents?
Response. EPA expects that states, in concert with local
authorities, will develop and implement TMDLs. For implementation of
TMDLs, EPA recognizes that local programs and planning processes will
play a major role. We expect that these local programs and processes
will be integral in state schedules, which will also include milestones
for monitoring progress in implementation. With respect to EPA review
and approval, under the proposed rule EPA will take action to approve
or disapprove a TMDL within 30 days of the state's submission.
______
Responses by Michael McCabe to Additional Questions from Senator Thomas
TMDLs
Question 1. What is EPA's Statutory authority for asking States to
list and develop TMDLs for waters impaired and threatened by pollutants
from nonpoint source and by pollutants from air deposition?
Response. EPA has the authority to ``include NPS pollution'' in the
TMDL program under section 303(d). In the preamble to the August 20,
1999 proposed TMDL rules, the Agency presents, in some detail, its
legal analysis concluding that the Clean Water Act provides authority
to require listing waterbodies impaired by pollution from either point
sources, nonpoint sources, or both, and establishment of TMDLs for
pollutants in these waters (see pages 46020-21 in the preamble of the
proposed rule).
The key point is that section 303(d) is intended to identify waters
where the applicable water quality standard is not attained and develop
TMDLs for these waters that ``implement'' the standards (section
303(d)(1)(A) and (C)). The fact that section 303(d)(1)(A)'s
identification provisions reference ``effluent limitations'' required
by section 301 does not limit the section's reach to waters impaired
only by point sources. Because nonpoint source-only impaired waters can
never be returned to compliance with applicable water quality standards
simply by application of section 301 effluent limitations,
identification of such waters on a State's section 303(d) list is
consistent with the plain meaning of the words in section 303(d)(1)(A).
This key conclusion is supported by several additional
considerations----
In drafting section 303(d), Congress did not expressly exclude NPS
impaired waters from the Act's identification and TMDL establishment
requirements.
By placing section 303(d) within section 303 (whose provisions
include water quality standards and implementation plans) instead of
section 301 (which deals with point source controls), Congress gave
TMDLs and section 303(d) lists a broad, all-sources ``water quality-
based'' scope, rather than a more narrow, point source-only focus.
The conclusion that section 303(d) includes NPS impaired or
threatened waters is also consistent with Act's broad objective to
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity'' of all the nation's waters. Enactment of section 319 in
1987 in no way limits consideration of nonpoint sources in section
303(d). Section 319 is designed to ``reduce'' pollution from nonpoint
sources generally and is not designed to result in attainment of water
quality standards in specific polluted waters. The reductions in
pollution accomplished under section 319 programs reduce the extent of
NPS pollution and reduce the number of waters that become polluted.
Thus, the program complements and supports more focused, waterbody
specific efforts under section 303(d) to bring together all sources in
an effort to restore the polluted water and attain water quality
standards.
Finally, it is critical to note that the conclusion that the
polluted waters lists and TMDLs should include NPSs does not mean that
these NPSs are subject to any new controls or the requirement to have a
Clean Water Act permit.
Question 2. What is EPA's statutory authority for applying drinking
water standards in ambient waters?
Response. The TMDL proposal does not require that ambient water
quality meet drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels or
``MCLs'') established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Safe
Drinking Water Act MCLs apply to treated drinking water delivered to
customers by public water systems. The rule does, however, reflect the
Clean Water Act's requirement in section 303(d)(1)(C) that TMDLs be
established at a level necessary to implement applicable water quality
standards. Such Clean Water Act standards include the waterbody's
designated use (including public water supply) and numeric or narrative
criteria adopted to ensure the use is met.
In addition, Section 303(d) says that States shall establish a
priority ranking for establishing TMDLs taking into account ``the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters.''
EPA's TMDL proposal reflects the Agency's belief that demonstrable
threats to human health, in the form of polluted drinking water
sources, be given high priority by States as they establish TMDLs. This
is articulated in section 130.28 of the proposal which requires States
to assign a ``high priority'' on their section 303(d) lists to a
waterbody if it is ``designated in water quality standards as a public
drinking water supply, used as a source of drinking water and the
pollutant for which the waterbody is listed as impaired is contributing
to a violation of and MCL.''
__________
Statement of Eric D. Eberhard, Nominated by the President to be a
Member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased and honored
to be nominated to serve as a member of the Board of Trustees of the
Morris K. Udall Foundation.
During the course of the nearly 30 years I have worked in the field
of Federal Indian policy, I had the opportunity to come to know Mo
Udall and to work with him and his staff on a number of issues relating
to Federal Indian policy, including governance, health care, children
and families, land and natural resource issues, water rights
settlements and the regulation and protection of environmental quality
on Indian lands. One did not have to be around Mr. Udall very long or
very often before it became obvious that he was a man of uncommon
vision, ability and wisdom. I am humbled by the opportunity to help
others carry out even a small portion of the legacy he left our nation
in the areas of Indian law and policy and the environment.
As the members of the committee know, the Udall Foundation has been
charged by the Congress with numerous duties, including: awarding
college scholarships, fellowships and internships to further public
goals in the environmental and Indian policy arenas; conduct research
and assist in policy development; and, serve as the Federal mediator in
environmental disputes. Since its inception, the Foundation has awarded
hundreds of scholarships to college students planning careers in
environment or Native American health care; developed and implemented a
successful internship program to provide opportunities for Indian and
Native American students to work in the Congress and the Executive
Branch; promoted new directions in environmental research and
education; and, the Foundation has begun the work necessary to become
an effective mediator of environmental disputes through the recently
authorized U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
I am hopeful that my experience working here in the Senate on the
staff of the Committee on Indian Affairs and the staff of Senator
McCain, along with my experience working for and representing tribal
governments before the Congress, the Executive Branch and in their
relationships with state and local governments will permit me to bring
to the Board of Trustees a perspective which is helpful as the Board
guides the efforts of the Foundation to meet the mandates set forth by
the Congress. I welcome the opportunity to assist the Board with the
challenges the Foundation faces as it continues to build on its record
of accomplishment.
I want to thank Senator Smith, the members of the committee and the
staff for your prompt consideration of this nomination. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have or to assist you in any
way you deem appropriate as you conduct your deliberations.
______
Response by Eric Eberhard to an Additional Question from Senator Graham
Question. The position for which you are nominated relates to
national environmental policy and education matters. Please share with
the committee some of the major specific environmental issues/projects
that you have had direct involvement within the course of your past
work?
Answer. During the past 24 years I have worked on issues relating
to NEPA compliance, solid and hazardous waste disposal, clean water,
safe drinking water and CERCLA on behalf of tribal governments. During
the 1980's I assisted in the development of amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, CERCLA and the Clean Water Act to authorize the
Administrator of EPA to delegate regulatory authority under those acts
to federally recognized tribal governments. While on the staff of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I assisted in the development and
enactment of the Indian Environmental General Assistance Act, the
Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement Act and the Indian Lands
Open Dump Clean Up Act. I have not been involved in environmental
litigation; however, I have participated in negotiations relating to
the issuance of environmental permits and the establishment of
standards for remediation and mitigation associated with development
activities which impact both land and water.
NOMINATIONS OF ELLA WONG-RUSKINKO, ARTHUR C. CAMPBELL, AND JAMES V.
AIDALA
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Warner, Lieberman, Chafee, Reid,
Hutchison, Voinovich, and Bond.
Also present: Senators Robb and Frist, and Representatives
Wamp and Thompson of Mississippi.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. The hearing will come to order.
The purpose of today's hearing is to consider three
nominations. The first is that of James V. Aidala, nominated to
be Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
As the chairman of the committee, I am in the process of
holding a series of oversight hearings to examine the EPA's
budget, prioritization of resources, and overall performance,
and my colleagues and I will have a number of questions, Mr.
Aidala, I think, in that area on EPA-related concerns.
The second nomination is that of Arthur C. Campbell,
nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development for the Department of Commerce.
The third nomination is that of Ella Wong-Rusinko,
nominated to be Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian
Regional Commission.
I am pleased to report that Mr. Aidala, Mr. Campbell, and
Ms. Wong-Rusinko are well-qualified for their positions, and I
welcome them today, and also welcome my colleagues, Senator
Lieberman and Senator Roberts, who I think will be here, and
Senator Warner and Congressman Thompson, who will also be
introducing witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire
Good morning. The purpose of today's hearing is to consider three
nominations. The first nomination is that of James V. Aidala nominated
to be Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
My colleagues and I have a number of questions for Mr. Aidala today
on EPA-related concerns that I hope he will be able to answer for us.
The second nomination is that of Arthur C. Campbell nominated to
serve as Assistant Secretary for Economic Development for the
Department of Commerce.
The third nomination is that of Ella Wong-Rusinko nominated to be
Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
I am pleased to report that Mr. Aidala, Mr. Campbell and Ms. Wong-
Rusinko are well qualified for their positions.
I welcome them today and I also welcome my colleagues, Senator
Lieberman and Senator Roberts who are here today to introduce Mr.
Aidala; Senator Frist and Congressman Bennie Thompson will be
introducing Mr. Campbell and Senator Warner will be introducing Ms.
Wong-Rusinko.
The President has nominated James V. Aidala to serve as Assistant
Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances. The Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Toxic
Substances serves as the principal advisor to the Administrator in
matters pertaining to pollution prevention, pesticides, and toxic
substances.
Mr. Aidala has been serving as Associate Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Toxic Substances since 1993. He also has worked as a
professional staff member of the U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources and as the
Director of Policy Development at the Wallace Institute for Alternative
Agriculture. Before joining the Institute, Mr. Aidala was a Specialist
in Environmental Policy for the U.S. Library of Congress. He received a
received his B.A. and M.A. in Sociology from Brown University. He is
accompanied today by his wife, Abby; son, Sam; and sisters, Linda and
Angela.
The President has nominated Arthur C. Campbell to be Assistant
Secretary for Economic Development for the Department of Commerce. The
Assistant Secretary for Economic Development serves as the principal
advisor to the Secretary of Commerce on matters concerning domestic
economic development activities, and as the head of the Economic
Development Administration.
Currently, Mr. Campbell is the Deputy Under Secretary for Rural
Development at the United States Department of Agriculture. Prior to
serving the Administration, Mr. Campbell was a County Commissioner in
Hamilton County, Tennessee and the Chief Executive Officer of ACC
Development, where he established and operated a planning, consulting
and development business specializing in community revitalization.
Mr. Campbell received a B.S. from Tuskagee Institute and a Master's
of City Planning from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is
accompanied today by his daughter, Nedra.
The President has nominated Ella Wong-Rusinko to serve as Alternate
Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. The
Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to support the
economic and social development of the 13 states with counties that
fall within the Appalachian region. The Commission is composed of
governors from each of the 13 states and a presidential appointee
representing the Federal Government.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko has been serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Liaison, Program Research and Evaluation in the Economic
Development Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce since
late 1993. Previously, Ms. Wong-Rusinko has served as Executive
Assistant to Congressman Gene Green, Chief of Staff to Congressman
Albert Bustamente, and Legislative Liaison Assistant in the Immigration
and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice. She received
her B.A. from Incarnate Word College in San Antonio, Texas. Ms. Wong-
Rusinko is accompanied by her husband, Paul; sons, Christopher and
David; and her sister-in-law, Shirley and her family.
Now we will hear the statements of other committee members. Then
Senators Lieberman and Roberts will introduce Mr. Aidala; Senator Frist
and Congressman Thompson will introduce Mr. Campbell; and Senator
Warner will introduce Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Then we will hear testimony
from our nominees.
Senator Smith. So let me start with you, Senator Warner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator Smith. Wait a minute. Senator Warner, I apologize
one second. I want to recognize my colleague from Kansas.
Senator Roberts. I appreciate that very much. I underscore
everything you said.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Easy man to deal with.
Senator Warner. Well, he's a good man to deal with.
Senator Smith. He is.
Senator Warner. You can go to the bank on his word.
Mr. Chairman, this is a particularly enjoyable moment for
all of us gathered here today. These nominees have served well
and are deserving, hopefully, of confirmation. I anticipate
speedy reporting out and confirmation by the Senate. But this
marvelous person on my left here has just told me modestly she
has 30 years of Federal service.
Is that correct?
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Just about.
Senator Warner. Just about 30 years of Federal service, and
this is but another step along that long highway of service to
the public. So, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, Senator Frist,
Representative Thompson, it is my pleasure to introduce to the
committee this outstanding American as the Alternate Federal
Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
I also want to welcome the family here.
Would you introduce your family to the chairman and members
of the committee?
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
My husband, Paul Rusinko; my son, Christopher Paul; and my
other son, David Elliott.
Senator Smith. Welcome. Got ties and everything you guys.
Looking good.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. You look good.
I understand that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas
will add her comments to the committee later today.
Now, during my tenure as chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee, I had the privilege of working
directly with Ms. Rusinko when we crafted the reauthorization
for the Economic Development Administration. This 1998
reauthorization, the first in 15 years--that's remarkable,
isn't it--implemented significant reforms in EDA procedures and
programs.
The nominee was directly involved in the development of
this legislation. She was responsive to the committee and
effective in advocating the Administration's efforts to
streamline the Agency.
I want to underline, because I have specific recollections,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, she was not only
involved, she was very responsive. Each time we made an inquiry
into the preparation of this, she came forward promptly.
I believe her years of experience at EDA will serve her
well as the Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the ARC. EDA's
mission of providing economic development opportunities so that
these communities can transition to long-term employment and
growth are multiplied in the Appalachian region.
The challenges facing most of the Appalachian region today
are significant. It remains a region with high unemployment,
dependent on a limited industrial base, and I know it well. I
travel it with great frequency, Mr. Chairman. It is not only in
my State, West Virginia, it is that whole corridor that goes
down.
I know that the candidate's experience in working with
State and local governments will serve her well with the ARC.
Her talents and knowledge in the field of economic development
are well suited to the demands of the Appalachian Regional
Commission and the needs to diversify the economy in that
region.
I wish you well.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. As a citizen of this country, I thank you
for your long public service, and I have every reason to
believe that this is another chapter.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. I thank you, sir.
Senator Warner. I thank the Chair and members of the
committee.
You're on your own, my dear friend.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
I might just ask your sons, for the record, are you boys
proud of your mother?
Messrs. Rusinko. Yes.
Senator Smith. Good.
Senator Frist and Congressman Thompson and Congressman Wamp
all wish to say a few words regarding Mr. Campbell, so, because
we are in the Senate, I'll start first with Senator Frist.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL FRIST,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Frist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I, too, would like to recognize Mr. Art Campbell's family
who is with him today, his daughter Nedra--Nedra, would you
please stand up, as well.
Welcome. Again, that comment on being proud, I know you
feel a great deal of that today about your father, as well.
Thank you.
It is with great pleasure that I do introduce a fellow
Tennessean today, Mr. Arthur Campbell, to be Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development with the
Department of Commerce.
Listing all of his qualifications for this position simply
would take more time than I have been allocated this morning,
but I am certain that my fellow members, colleagues on this
committee, are familiar with his credentials.
Over his long and truly distinguished career in public
service, he has demonstrated tremendous leadership in
establishing community-based revitalization programs in rural
settings and urban settings. His current position with the
Department of Agriculture as the Deputy Under Secretary for
Rural Development allows him to oversee--very effectively, I
might add--over 6,500 people in rural utility service, in rural
housing service, and the rural business cooperative development
service.
He has been a key figure in this country--and I should also
add in our State--in promoting sustainable rural development,
and will be missed as he leaves the Department of Agriculture
and moves to the Department of Commerce.
He has been very involved in the community. Whether he has
been working on the Tennessee Aquarium Plaza Committee, which
spurred a revival in downtown Chattanooga, to his guidance in
the State Rural Development Council, the commitment of Art
Campbell has been demonstrative of a commitment to public
service and leadership that is of the highest, highest caliber.
It was almost a half a century ago that Harry Truman said,
``Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the
opportunity to change things for the better.'' How well, I
think, and how aptly those words apply to Art Campbell.
It is with a great deal of pride that I introduce Mr. Art
Campbell to this committee.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Frist.
I'm going to go slightly out of order to accommodate
Senator Lieberman, who has another engagement, and then I'll
come right back to the two Congressmen.
Senator Lieberman?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy,
and I thank my colleagues from the House. I welcome you and
promise to be brief.
I wanted to stop by, notwithstanding another commitment, to
welcome all the nominees and wish them well and say a
particular word on behalf of Jim Aidala, whom I've known for
many years and who was of really great assistance to me and to
my staff and many other staffs here on the Hill when he was at
the Congressional Research Service. He provided superb counsel
to us in reviewing environmental issues, particularly pesticide
issues, in preparation for testimony and hearings. I was
continually struck by his thoughtful, even-handed, and fair-
minded advice.
Since the Congressional Research Service, Jim has gained
additional experience with regulating toxic substances from the
perspective--the refreshing perspective, I might say--of the
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government
Operations, where he worked from 1991 to 1993, and from the
perspective of Associate Assistant Administrator of the Office
of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, a position he
has held since 1993.
He is truly an excellent candidate for the position for
which he has been nominated. I recommend him without
reservation.
Mr. Chairman, this is a serious subject. So much of what we
do here is serious, but Jim Aidala has been elevated
additionally, beyond what I've said, by an extraordinary sense
of humor, and I hope that I don't put his nomination in
jeopardy if I reveal that he has been over the years a very
active contributor to the group called the ``Capitol Steps.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. I think he has exceeded Senator Roberts
in his work with that--oh, no, that was somebody else.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Well, I fell down the steps, and then he'd
pick me up.
Senator Lieberman. I see. I knew you would rise to the
occasion.
Finally, I note that Jim is accompanied by his wife, Abby;
his son, Samuel; and the more quiet sisters, Angela and Linda.
Thanks, The Chairman. Good luck, Jim.
Senator Roberts. You made the baby cry. I hope you're
happy.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Senator Roberts, I didn't see you earlier.
We welcome the Senator from the State of Kansas.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Senator Roberts. I'm sort of a stealth Senator, Mr.
Chairman, but I follow Senator Lieberman everywhere he goes in
admiration and respect. I'm not as busy as he is, but I just
appreciate the chance to offer these words on behalf of Jim
under the banner of consistency.
To show Jim's sense of humor, prior to Samuel and his wife,
Abby, making an exit, he put down here, when he wrote their
names for me, as he did for Senator Lieberman, ``They sound
like a grower group wanting an emergency exemption.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Which is pretty humorous to those who have
worked on pesticide issues, and everybody else wonders what the
heck I'm talking about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here
this morning on behalf of Jim. I met him over 15 years ago,
when he was the Congressional Research Service top gun in
regards to working on pesticide issues. I think he is an
excellent choice to be an Assistant Administrator at the EPA.
Mr. Chairman, I have worked on pesticide issues. I have
been sentenced to work on pesticide issues for over 30 years,
and I understand how important a fair pesticide policy is to
the Nation's agriculture community and the Nation's industry
and consumers, and also the environmental community.
Our farmers want many choices in their pest control
toolbox, if I could put it that way, and they want them to be
available at a very low cost. In my days on the sometimes
powerful House Agriculture Committee, when we were considering
various policy proposals, we always called Mr. Aidala for
advice. He played a valuable role in the pesticide debates, and
they were really debates in 1986. Was that FIFRA Light, Jim? I
think it was FIFRA light.
Mr. Aidala. That was Berkeley Bedell if it was 1986.
Senator Roberts. Yes, that was Berkeley Bedell from Iowa,
and 1988, and most recently in 1996.
He was much more than just a technical advisor. He knows
the laws. He knows the way our Congress works and how to form
important coalitions and then to find solutions for some very
difficult challenges and problems.
If you look back, Mr. Chairman, many of the compromises he
helped forge have withstood the test of time. This is an area
that is always fraught with strong emotions, strong feelings,
and strong differences of opinion, but his imprint I think
continues to shape the way we regulate pesticides and chemicals
today on behalf of safety and on behalf of the agricultural
community.
Why is Jim the best choice for this job at EPA? First,
because he is the Nation's expert on pesticide and chemical
issues. Second, there is no one who has the years of experience
and insight that he does. Third, because he is honest and
level-headed and fair. He knows how to balance the competing
interests--and there are many--and make fair and rational
decisions. He has established relationships on both sides of
the aisle and knows how to tackle the very difficult problems.
And finally because, frankly, Jim is not afraid to tell it like
it is, whether it is to his boss at EPA or to the agricultural
community or to the environmental community or to industry or
to a Senator from Kansas. Sometimes a little disagreement is
healthy to the debate, and he does have that rare commodity
here which is so sorely needed, and that's a sense of humor.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention, the
opportunity and the privilege to speak on behalf of Jim, and I
look forward to a very swift confirmation process, and I thank
you again for the opportunity.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts, for
being here. We're glad to have you.
Senator Smith. Senator Hutchison?
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that Senator Warner has already introduced Ms. Wong-
Rusinko, but I just wanted to add my support for her. She is a
native of Texas, although she has lived in Virginia for the
last 15 years, but the reason I am here is because I have
worked with her and my staff has worked with her in her
position at the Economic Development Administration, and she
has gone the extra mile for us in so many ways that I just
wanted to go the extra mile for her today.
She brings exactly what this Commission needs to the table,
and that is she has taken on many of the areas of Texas,
particularly our border area, where we have needed strength in
cleaning up filthy conditions of living, and she has brought
economic development assistance and creativity and
infrastructure improvements to those areas.
Also, when we have experienced particular areas in my State
where there have been economic upheavals, she has come in with
creativity and innovation.
I think this is something that would do so well for the
Appalachian region of our country. This is an area that could
use creativity to improve the living conditions and the
economic development.
I just wanted to come and say that I support her. Even
though she is not a Texan any more, it is always in our hearts.
And I think that she would do for the Appalachian region what
she has done for people all over this country in the Economic
Development Administration, so I support her and I hope that
the committee will, as well.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison.
Senator Smith. Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi,
I know you wanted to say some things about Mr. Campbell.
Welcome. We are glad to have you here this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Senator.
It is not often we get a chance to introduce someone we
know a lot about. I've known Arthur Campbell for more than 25
years. I was a mayor of a small Mississippi municipality, and
Art Campbell, in another life, walked in and said, ``I'm here
to help you.'' That sort of signifies the career of Arthur
Campbell in public service. He has always been there to help.
I'm happy to see Nedra again. I haven't seen her since she
was in diapers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Thompson. That says time marches on.
Arthur was the kind of person who brought to Mississippi,
specifically, the knowledge and know-how and ability to
communicate with everyone on issues around rural development.
He established some of the first nonprofit community
development corporations in our State that now provide adequate
housing for over 3,000 families.
I'm happy to support him also because I've learned a lot
from Arthur--patience, tolerance, and a lot of things
politicians tend sometimes to be remiss, but Arthur has been
that direction for me. He's a good family man. He has
sacrificed a lot for this country and to his family because of
his pursuits.
But, again, he is someone that I know, and I am happy to
support him in his new position. I'm always challenged by him
always pursuing higher and loftier goals.
I have no doubt that he will do a good job in this new
position. He will represent this country well, and we can all
be proud of him, so I'm happy to add my voice to the chorus of
voices in support of Arthur Campbell's nomination.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Congressman Thompson.
Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. ZACH WAMP,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Wamp. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and the committee for holding this hearing.
As I began several months ago to discuss this possible day
with Art Campbell, we were concerned somewhat that the longer
it went in a critical election year like this, maybe it might
not happen, and so I'm just grateful that it is happening and
that, even as we approach, obviously, some division politically
this year, that we can still move forward on things like this
where we hope we can meet at the water's edge.
I assume Art is a democrat and that he is being nominated
by the President, but I never knew Art as a democrat or as a
republican, which I am. I've known Art for, I guess, about 15
years. When I was in the real estate business back in
Chattanooga and he was in community development and economic
development, I knew him then, and I knew Art when he served on
the County Commission in Chattanooga, and so for years we've
known each other before they attached the word ``honorable'' to
each of our names in elected office. We knew each other pretty
well, and I've known Art and seen Art up close and personal,
but I never thought of him as a democrat. I thought of him as
somebody that was serving our community and not jaded in any
way by partisanship, because he really doesn't come across as a
partisan. He just works for the people, and he's done a very
good job.
I would believe that, while the rural development history
that he had that Bennie talked so well about was very helpful
in his distinguished 5-year career over at the Department of
Agriculture, I want to say that in this new position, if you
men and woman are, I think, courteous enough to confirm him,
that he will be very well-suited there, too, because in
Chattanooga our success in the last 15 years is enormous,
incredible, the turn-around in that city, and it is in no small
way because of Art Campbell. Art Campbell has had a great role
in the establishment of public-private partnerships in
Chattanooga that led to our downtown redevelopment efforts,
which catapulted him to the County Commission, where he was
allowed to serve in elected leadership, and then 5 years ago
coming to Washington, frankly, quietly, just doing the job,
getting the work done, coming up here, and establishing an
excellent reputation here, as well.
He is a quiet man and would not tout his accomplishments,
but I want to say that they are very significant, and I come in
strong, full support of his confirmation, and it is really a
privilege for me to come, I guess as his Congressman. He has
been a Chattanoogan for 19 years, and I hope that when people
come serve in Washington they don't have to necessarily be
residents of Washington, D.C., so I hope I'm still your
Congressman, Art, even though we want to give you to this
position for quite some time and loan you to the Federal
Government for continued service.
Congratulations on the work that you've done.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will look
favorably on his confirmation.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Congressman. We
appreciate your being here today.
Let me say welcome to the witnesses. You had a lot of
support here from the House and the Senate, which is a tribute
to all of you--bipartisan support, I might add.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko, let me just, since I didn't take the time
to do it before, just give a brief introduction of you to the
Senate, because I wanted to accommodate other Senators'
statements.
You are being nominated to serve as the Alternate Federal
Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission, which was
established in 1965 to support the economic and social
development of the 13 States with counties that fall within
that region.
The Commission is composed of Governors from each of the 13
States and a Presidential appointee representing the Federal
Government.
You have been serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Affairs, Program Research, and Evaluation in the
Economic Development Administration at the Department of
Commerce since 1993. Previously, you have served as executive
assistant to Congressman Gene Green, chief of staff to
Congressman Albert Bustamente, and legislative liaison
assistant in the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the
Department of Justice.
I understand you received your B.A. from the Incarnate Word
College in San Antonio, Texas, thus the connection with Senator
Hutchison.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko is accompanied by her husband, who has
already been introduced, Paul, and sons Christopher and David,
and sister-in-law Shirley and her family. Welcome to all of
you.
I'll start with you, Ms. Rusinko. You have an opening
statement which will be made part of the formal record, and
please feel free to summarize that in 2 to 3 minutes. We'd
appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF ELLA WONG-RUSINKO, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
BE ALTERNATE FEDERAL CO-CHAIR OF THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL
COMMISSION
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Distinguished members of the committee and committee staff,
I am honored to be afforded the opportunity to appear before
you today as President Clinton's nominee to the position of
Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional
Commission. I thank the President for this nomination and for
the professional opportunity of serving for 7 years as an
appointee at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this hearing and for the
many courtesies which committee members and staff have extended
to me in my current Federal position. I am grateful for the
bipartisan collaboration that produced Public Law 105-393, the
Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998,
historic reauthorization legislation accomplished by this
committee and the leadership of Senators Max Baucus and Olympia
Snowe, original legislation cosponsors.
Dr. Jesse White, Federal Co-Chairman of the ARC, is with us
at this hearing. I thank you, Dr. White, for your support of my
nomination and for your outstanding leadership. I look forward
to having the opportunity to work with you and the ARC staff on
behalf of the Appalachian region.
I am here today because of the very special support of my
family and friends. I thank the many EDA and ARC professionals
who serve loyally and faithfully to make a difference in the
Nation's distressed communities. I am grateful to my
professional colleagues with national organizations for their
collaboration on economic development.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to share my mother's vision with
the committee and how that vision became a reality. It was this
unique effort that has guided my commitment to public service
and the creation of opportunities.
We lovingly called her Mama. Her vision was to pave a road
of opportunity for her four children with a foundation made up
of love of God, love of family, love of country, and respect
and understanding for your fellow man. Had she lived, she would
have celebrated her 77th birthday 5 days ago.
Mama had a plan for the children's future--a thoughtful and
flexible master plan developed through an exceptional
partnership with Dad. The plan was updated periodically to
account for changing priorities or a better way. For the plan
to work, our parents realized that the children would need a
``nudge.''
Mom and Dad were raised in rural areas of Mexico and China.
As legal immigrants to the United States, they faced many
challenges, such as learning another language and earning a
living. Securing credit or a loan in the 1940's to start a
business was an enormous challenge. Thankfully, today it is
easier because of the availability of State and Federal
programs.
My parents worked hard, but they saved and invested wisely.
Their goal was to give their children a good education. To
achieve that goal, they started out with a small business and
diversified, ultimately finding their niche in a grocery store.
For them, the businesses were the vehicles they would use to
pave roads of opportunity for the family.
How did my parents succeed? First, they secured technical
help and developed and implemented a business plan that
included goals and objectives. Each business investment
required an outside financial partner and required concrete
outcomes. Outcomes provided my parents with a sense of pride
and the incentive to continue with their plan. Full
implementation of the plan culminated in the transition of a
helpless, dependent child into a responsible adult.
The availability of public infrastructure, the Federal
Government role, and the private sector investment, together
with my parents' commitment and initiative, yielded a formula
for business and personal success.
My parents' success is applicable to economic development.
I believe effective economic development begins with thoughtful
planning that generates partnerships. I maintain that the
strength of the country in a world economy is derived from the
ability of our communities to compete in a communications-
oriented environment. The recent and remarkable expansion of
the United States' economy presents us with a unique
opportunity--to make a real economic impact faster by
strategically focusing and targeting resources on the
distressed areas of the country.
America is rich in new, untapped markets. Federal, State,
and local programs are making a genuine difference. Federal
efforts such as those at the ARC and the EDA are realizing
economic opportunities in the Nation's distressed communities.
I believe the Federal role in economic development is to
provide the nudge that creates partnerships, helps build
consensus for implementation of state-of-the-art practices, and
produces long-term, sustainable results. On a project-by-
project basis, the Federal Government should be a partner to
deliver resources to fill the critical gap and then withdraw
and allow the private sector to develop the project.
American communities with good jobs, access to education,
and technology are proficient at competing on a world market
economy, but what about communities or regions that lack the
good jobs and access to education and technology?
A November, 1999, Department of Commerce report, ``Falling
through the Net,'' concludes, ``It is reasonable to expect that
many people are going to lag behind. Education and income
appear to be among the leading elements driving the digital
divide. This reality merits a thoughtful response by policy-
makers consistent with the needs of Americans in the
information age.''
The Department's report raises several questions about the
Federal role in economic development, especially in distressed
areas like the Appalachian region. The questions require
answers, and I hope to be involved in answering some of those
questions as we craft policies and approaches that will
continue to effectively transition the Appalachian region out
of its historic economic distress.
I believe economic development is about creating
opportunities and a fair chance for people. President Abraham
Lincoln said it best. On July 4th, 1861, in a message to
Congress he stated, ``This is essentially a people's contest.
It is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and
substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the
constitution of men, to lift artificial weights from all
shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to
afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race
for life.''
Mr. Chairman, in closing I reiterate my appreciation to the
committee for this opportunity and fair chance.
To my family and friends, I thank you from the heart.
To my professional colleagues, I look forward to the
opportunity of working with you in a new capacity.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Wong-Rusinko. It is
nice to have you here.
Mr. Campbell, you are nominated to be Assistant Secretary
for Economic Development for the Department of Commerce. The
Assistant Secretary for this position serves as the principal
advisor to the Secretary of Commerce on matters concerning
domestic economic development activities and as the head of the
Economic Development Administration.
Currently Mr. Campbell is the Deputy Under Secretary for
Rural Development at the United States Department of
Agriculture, and prior to serving the Administration Mr.
Campbell was a county commissioner in Hamilton County,
Tennessee, and the chief executive officer of ACC Development,
where he established and operated a planning, consulting, and
development business specializing in community revitalization.
Mr. Campbell received a bachelor of science degree from
Tuskegee Institute and a masters of city planning from the
Georgia Institute of Technology. He is accompanied here this
morning by his daughter, Nedra. Welcome to you, as well. And
Mr. Campbell, welcome.
Your statement will be made part of the record. Feel free
to summarize it any way you wish.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR C. CAMPBELL, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Mr. Campbell. Senator Smith, thank you very much. Senator
Reid, ladies and gentlemen, the absent members of the
committee, I come here today aspiring to assume the stewardship
of the Economic Development Administration, whose mission is
assisting development of economically distressed areas of this
country, both urban and rural.
I am fortunate to arrive here now, after the historic 1998
5-year reauthorization of EDA, a timeframe that I think allows
a realistic approach to the work that EDA has been assigned.
I anticipate my duties with a certain sobering respect for
EDA's mission and the challenges that it faces in fulfilling
that mission. I also have a deep appreciation for EDA's 35-year
history of improving the economic conditions of areas that have
not thrived as well as the rest of America.
Although it is a relatively small agency, EDA's impact is
magnified by the congressionally granted flexibility to
administer its programs in a way that is both responsive and
sensitive to the realities of working with a wide range of
local conditions throughout the country.
I think this flexibility allows an engagement of local
leadership in a shared, interactive, and more cost-effective
approach to economic development planning and implementation.
I'm a product of both the old south and the new south--the
old south of racial segregation, of ``cotton is king,'' of
widespread abject poverty, of disenfranchisement of blacks, and
a new south of progress and optimism, of revitalization and
renewal, of commitment to redress historical mistakes.
These two opposing environments have shaped and influenced
me and have convinced me of a need for reconciliation in human
affairs and a need to improve the fundamentals in economic
affairs.
Neither I nor my cohorts would have dreamed of this
occasion unfolding in this chamber that a black boy from rural
Alabama, a student in the 1960's--could grow to manhood and be
nominated by the President of the United States to head an
important agency of our Government.
What those of my generation would never have imagined my
children's generation now expects, so I am thankful today that
the great arc of American democracy is forever bending toward
justice and that our collective actions have helped to change
the expectations of a generation.
I am also thankful for this appointment by President
Clinton, whom I first met when he was a young, 31-year-old
Attorney General aspiring to be Governor of Arkansas. The
occasion for that meeting, to my amazement, was his offer to
help redress certain roadblocks to my efforts to develop the
economy of the predominantly black town of Madison, Arkansas.
Mr. Clinton's interest in distressed areas has abided these
many years.
I would not be here today were it not for the supportive
actions of families, countless colleagues, and friends. Mr.
Chairman, I'm convinced that heaven is brighter this morning
because of the smiles of my deceased parents, Johnnie Mae Burks
Campbell and Patrick Henry Campbell, as they witness these
proceedings. And I have been sustained by the unconditional
love of my wife of 33 years, Gwyndolyn McZeek Campbell, who is
this morning absent in body but present in spirit.
As Gwyndolyn and I have nurtured our three children, Erika
and Nedra and Nicholas, to adulthood, we have, in turn, been
nurtured by the character of their unfolding lives, their
level-headedness, and their educational attainment--two
attorneys. Well, some might quibble with whether educational
attainment would apply to attorneys--and one accountant. Nedra
put aside her lawyer's daily quest for billable hours to come
here today from Detroit.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Campbell. The great narrative story of America, I
think, in a basic way, is about people and places and how both
serve to create opportunity and freedom and realization of
hopes and dreams. It is about families and how they create
rewarding personal lives, and hospitable and nurturing
communities in which we live.
I view EDA as not just a repository of yet another set of
Government programs, but as an instrument in which to create a
more-perfect union, by promoting the general welfare of sectors
and areas of this country which have not prospered
economically. Restoring in some places, expanding in others,
opportunity for a gainful life is the high calling of the EDA.
I believe government exists to help fulfill the ideals
premised by our Constitution. Government's role is to help
people help themselves, to help communities afford its citizens
opportunity to decent housing, to earn a living, to educate
their children and obtain affordable health care.
EDA's legislative mandate is to help people in places
experiencing substantial and persistent unemployment in the
most economically distressed areas. It has steadfastly
implemented this mission for some 35 years, and I believe that
the legislative mandates and the expressed intents of the
Congress must continue to guide the agency's work.
We must be innovative in conducting EDA's business, yet
prudent and responsible in fiscal matters. I don't believe one
negates the other.
EDA and government, generally, should facilitate, I think,
public/private partnerships which produce locally led economic
development strategies. The experience of the empowerment zone
enterprise community program demonstrates that communities that
incorporate specific, measurable benchmarks in their strategic
plans produce a believable vision of that future and are more
successful in the implementation of their plans.
I don't think economic development is just about the issue
of money. I think it involves greater collaboration among
Federal agencies, to help provide more efficient and cost-
effective assistance to local communities.
Similarly, I think more sub-state regional collaboration on
economic development planning is needed to produce planning of
economic ventures, which might obtain more scale and greater
benefits to the participating communities.
I think it is important for us to build incubators,
important for us to build industrial parks, but I also think we
must provide the environment for entrepreneurship to take
place. I do not believe that if they build it they will
necessarily come. I think education is the cornerstone of
economic development, and I think people must be and can be
viewed as assets. They can be viewed as assets or liabilities,
but I think they must be viewed as assets. Sustaining economic
growth depends on creating a well-educated population and the
opportunities for them to be productive.
Therefore, I think it is important for us to link education
to economic development. I think too often the term ``economic
development'' is interpreted as doing things to solely create
jobs. Economic development, I think, is building institutional
and leadership capacity to create economic opportunity over
time.
I do not believe that job creation, alone, is economic
development. It would take sound investments to follow sound
planning by a broad-based cross-section of the local public and
private sectors and not just follow the economic development
vision of outside consultants.
Strategic planning draws upon the ingenuity and vision of
local people from the public and private sectors. These are
necessary preconditions of successful economic development.
I also think a concerted effort should be made to improve
economic opportunity in areas experiencing persistent poverty.
Persistent poverty is a major obstacle to equitable economic
development. Poverty exists in many urban centers, but it is
often more severe in distressed rural areas. Some 540
predominantly rural counties have poverty rates of 20 percent
or higher, and approximately 200 of these have poverty rates of
30 percent or higher.
Some of the economists argue that restoring broadly shared
prosperity is the No. 1 challenge that we face. Former
Secretary Ray Marshall says that, if you were to plot the
population distribution on a graph by income, that now it would
resemble more of an hourglass, where it used to resemble more
of a diamond shape, with a larger middle, a smaller top, and a
smaller bottom.
But we have in this country, in America today, a
combination of a powerful and peaceful military, a democratic
and stable government, and a strong and vigorous economy; yet,
in the midst of this plenty we have people in places that have
been left out and left behind.
I believe that a challenge facing EDA and the country at
large is to act in ways that produce more equal and equitable
economic outcomes. Economic equity is a public good. I think
society is more stable and strong in the way people are able to
fulfill their basic human aspirations.
My hope is that EDA's value will not just be in a project
that it funds or the planning that it does, but that the
projects and planning are done in a way that expands the vision
and hope of people of distressed areas and communities. My hope
is that agency investments will be driven by local vision and
local control, local ingenuity, and imagination. I'm convinced
that when we engender hope, enable those who hope to act on
their dreams, we produce a much more precious commodity than
any governmental program.
Finally, I think what made us strong as a Nation was a
spirit of cooperation and civic participation of communal
togetherness, of a widespread commitment to create the common
good, and a strong belief that we could achieve it. This spirit
I think must be brought to the economic development process.
So I would lead this agency guided by a firm conviction
that all people possess a certain genius. I would act to
unleash the creativity of the agency's employees and engender
the imagination of its customers.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to come before
this committee and speak a little bit about my views about
economic development.
Thank you.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Smith. Senator Reid?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. There's a unanimous consent order in effect
that I offer the first amendment at 10:30 in the Defense
Appropriation bill, so I'm going to ask your permission to be
excused.
I've enjoyed very much this hearing today. I've read all
the background material. I had no knowledge of Ms. Rusinko or
Mr. Campbell prior to today's hearing. Of course, Mr. Aidala
and we have had a number of meetings in the past and I know
more about him. From what I've learned here today, the country
is well served with these three nominations, and I apologize
for having to leave early.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Reid.
Mr. Campbell, I might say I used to once in a while be
guilty of making a derogatory remark or two about a lawyer, but
then my daughter married one so I'm in trouble and I can't do
it any more.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Mr. Aidala, it is nice to have you here this
morning. You are nominated, of course, to be the Assistant
Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances. This position serves as a principal advisor
to the Administrator in matters pertaining to pollution
prevention, pesticides, toxic substances.
Senator Roberts gave you quite an introduction there in
your expertise in that area.
Mr. Aidala has been serving as Associate Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances since 1993. He also has worked as a
professional staff member of the U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources and
as the director of policy development at the Wallace Institute
for Alternative Agriculture.
Before joining the Institute, Mr. Aidala was a specialist
in environmental policy, U.S. Library of Congress, and received
his B.A. and M.A. in sociology from Brown University.
He is accompanied today by his wife, Abby, and son, Sam,
who is now very quiet, and sisters, I think, Linda and Angela
are here, as well.
Welcome to all of you.
Mr. Aidala, the floor is yours. As I indicated to the
others, your statement is made a part of the record. Please
feel free to summarize it.
STATEMENT OF JAMES V. AIDALA, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Aidala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you,
Mr. Chairman, and to members of the committee.
I'd also like to especially thank Senators Roberts and
Lieberman for taking time out to introduce me to the
committee--I greatly appreciate that--as well as with Senator
Reid and a number of other Members past and present. I,
obviously, have had that pleasure and opportunity to work with
many Members in a variety of capacities over the years.
I am very pleased to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to be the Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances at EPA. I hope to
continue the important environmental and public health
accomplishments launched by the Administration through fair and
open implementation of the Nation's pesticide and toxic
chemical laws.
Over the past 25 years, my career has focused on issues
relevant to that job--pesticide and chemical regulation and
protection of public health.
As already mentioned by Senators Roberts and Lieberman, the
majority of my career has been spent in a variety of jobs on
Capitol Hill, working in the Senate and the House and also the
Congressional Research Service.
In these jobs, I have learned to balance competing
interests where intense feelings and perspectives are involved.
As mentioned already, I did have the opportunity to work
extensively on the amendments to our pesticide laws in both
1988 and 1996, which were successfully enacted with widespread
bipartisan support, even though those legislative issues are
very contentious.
I would like to mention a few of the key accomplishments
over the past 7 years of which I am proud to have been a part.
These include enacting the Food Quality Protection Act to bring
strong protections for infants and children regarding pesticide
residues in their diet, expediting the review of new and safer
pesticides, strengthening occupational protections for farm
workers, increasing the public's right to know by expanding the
Toxics Release Inventory, creating partnerships with farmers
and others to promote use of Integrated Pest Management and
safer pesticides, and last, but certainly not least, creating
the high-production volume chemical challenge program to
increase the availability of chemical safety and health
information.
While it is late in the Administration, serving as the
Assistant Administrator presents many positive opportunities.
Important work remains.
This year alone we face an ambitious agenda with much more
to accomplish. Specifically, for example, this year we must
continue the important work of the Food Quality Protection Act.
Our priorities in that area, alone, include completing the
review of the organophosphate insecticides, strengthening the
scientific basis of our decisionmaking, and enhancing public
participation by establishing a new Advisory Committee on
implementing FQPA.
I will ensure that FQPA decisions continue to be based on
sound science, include extensive consultation with our
stakeholders, occur in an open and participatory process, and
provide a reasonable transition that works for farmers. I
believe that these principles will guide us well as we move
forward in reviewing the safety of existing pesticides, while
also ensuring that farmers have the necessary pest control
tools to maintain a safe and abundant food supply.
In our Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances,
where we implement the Toxic Substances Control Act and the
Pollution Prevention Act, we are reinvigorating chemical
regulation through voluntary partnerships, increasing the
public's right to know by making more information available
about chemicals and their possible effects, and encouraging
pollution prevention through a number of programs to reduce
pollution at the source.
Also in this office we implement the programs to reduce
childhood lead exposure. This Administration has made
significant progress to increase consumer awareness, to reduce
childhood lead exposure, and to establish standards on lead
hazards. This work is important and will continue.
In the arena of pollution prevention, we must also continue
to nurture initiatives where we have found success, such as the
green chemistry and design for the environment programs. These
and other pollution prevention initiatives are ways to reduce
pollution and reduce the cost of doing business for the
regulated community.
I would like to close on a personal note. All four of my
grandparents immigrated to America through Ellis Island, and I
was raised in a relatively austere household. Both of my
parents dropped out of high school to make ends meet during the
Great Depression. Fortunately, with some luck, some brains, and
a whole lot of student loans, I was able to attend some of the
Nation's leading universities, and from there I have been
fortunate to be able to develop my career in public service and
environmental protection. For me, serving in this position will
provide an opportunity to give back some of what society has
afforded me.
I do look forward to working with Congress in a bipartisan
basis as we move forward on finding better solutions to today's
environmental and public health challenges.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and I'm glad to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Aidala.
Before we go to the questions--I will yield to you in just
a second, Senator Voinovich--I do have two questions that I
have to ask all witnesses who have come for positions before
our committee, and first I'll just ask of you to respond
together.
Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted
committee of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a
witness if you are confirmed?
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Yes.
Mr. Campbell. Yes.
Mr. Aidala. Absolutely.
Senator Smith. The second question is: do you know of any
matters which you may or may not have thus far disclosed which
might place you in any conflict of interest if you are
confirmed in this position?
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. No.
Mr. Aidala. No.
Mr. Campbell. No.
Senator Smith. Let the record show yes to the first
question by all witnesses and no to the second.
Senator Voinovich, I know you have an opening statement and
questions.
Senator Voinovich. Well, first of all----
Senator Smith. Go ahead and proceed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
I'd like to welcome the nominees and the members of their
families and apologize that I wasn't here for all of your
presentations, but I had the distinct privilege of presiding
over the Senate this morning.
I know it is a special day for you and a special day for
your families.
Mr. Aidala, I am very proud that someone who was born in
Akron, Ohio, from humble beginnings has risen to the place that
you have, and I can understand how good you feel about this
country and the opportunity that you have to serve.
Mr. Chairman, two of the individuals that are being
proposed here today are involved with two agencies that I am
involved with here in the Senate. My Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has the ARC and the EDA. I'd
just like to ask a couple of questions in that regard.
First of all, Ms. Wong-Rusinko, there were several attempts
in the last couple of years to eliminate the Appalachian
Regional Commission, and I'd be interested in knowing why you
think that we need an ARC and why it is just not adequate to
have their problems taken care of like other States in terms of
their problems.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. The Appalachian region, which covers a
13-State area, suffers from historic chronic economic distress.
As such, the region needs dedicated resources to look at
economic transition in a holistic manner, and for that reason I
believe that the ARC needs to continue to exist.
Senator Voinovich. Do you think that the money that is
being allocated today by the ARC is being directed enough
toward the distressed areas?
Several years ago, as Governor of Ohio, I was familiar with
the ARC, and there were some projects that were awarded in
various States that looked to me not to have too much to do
with your distressed community, and I'd like you to comment on
whether or not you think today the dollars are being directed
enough toward distressed areas.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. I'm happy to do so, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that the ARC provides a balanced approach to the
needs of distressed counties through its existing allocation of
funds process. ARC non-highway funds are provided for area
development, distressed counties--111 of them--the
entrepreneurship initiative, and 71 local development
districts.
In 1983, ARC established a 20 percent set-aside for
distressed counties. In fiscal year 1996, the set-aside was
adjusted to 30 percent. In practice, however, States have
consistently exceeded the 30 percent set-aside and have spent
about half of their total project funds on programs that
benefit distressed counties. This means that about 50 percent
of ARC project funds are being spent on programs to benefit the
11 percent of Appalachia's population living in distressed
counties.
As you know, one year ago ARC initiated an in-depth look at
its distressed counties program. I commend ARC on their
approach to the development of sound policies for the
distressed counties in Appalachia. The Agency has made great
progress in gathering information throughout the region.
Meetings have occurred in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia,
and I believe other meetings will be held this year. I am
hopeful that, if confirmed, I will have the opportunity of
participating in some of these future meetings.
In addition, I am optimistic that the process will yield
some very beneficial and thought-provoking recommendations
about what is needed to transition economically fragile
counties to thriving resilient areas fully capable of competing
in the new economy.
I anticipate that the outcomes and recommendations from
this process will be reflected in ARC's next reauthorization,
and I enthusiastically look forward to the opportunity of
working with you and the subcommittee which you chair on
looking at how we integrate some of that thinking into ARC's
next reauthorization.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, one of the comments that
I'd like to make this morning is that I believe that some of
the States should be doing a lot more for the areas that the
ARC is working toward their needed areas in the States--in
Ohio, 29 counties.
It seems to me that one of the things that ought to be
given consideration to is perhaps some type of more-local
participation in order to get ARC money. I mean, if it is an
area that is in need, it seems to me that the States--
particularly right now with the financial condition that States
find themselves with, surpluses--should be a little more
interested in spending some of their money in those areas that
are most distressed.
The other thing that I'd really like you and your team to
look at is: how do you take and do a better job of taking all
of the Federal dollars that are available and State dollars and
blend them so that you have the largest impact on the needed
region?
So often, ARC does their thing and then you've got money
coming in now under the new program that used to be the Joint
Training Partnership Act, but you have all this money flowing
in to these areas, and it seems to me that a much better job of
coordination ought to be made in terms of accessing those
dollars, and I thought that one of the things that ARC could be
doing is taking a leadership role in trying to bring those
resources together in a way that will have the largest impact
on the region, and I'd be interested in seeing if something
could be done in that regard.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. We will definitely explore those options,
Mr. Chairman, and we will look forward to working with you on
how to best do that, either through a legislative route or
administratively within the Agency.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Mr. Chairman, could I ask a couple more?
Senator Smith. Certainly. Go ahead.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Campbell, I have been the beneficiary in several
capacities of the EDA. I recall when I was mayor of Cleveland
that we used the EDA quite constructively to help our city. But
one of the things that I'm concerned about is that, under the
Clinton-Gore Administration, there has been a major initiative
in the area of empowerment zones, and EZ zones, and a lot of
money has gone into those projects. I intend, perhaps not this
year but for sure next year, to have some hearings on the
effectiveness of the spending of those dollars and our urban
dollars in terms of making a difference.
One of the things that has always bothered me is that I
thought that EDA did such a good job, and that, instead of the
money going into the ``empowerment zones,'' that that money
could have been better spent by allocating it to the EDA, who
has had a long history of some very, very creative projects. I
always used to refer to the EDA as the yeast that raised the
dough.
I'd be interested in your comment about the empowerment
zones and its relationship with the EDA.
Mr. Campbell. Well, Senator, part of the strength of the
empowerment zones is the coming together by people from various
sectors in the community and producing a believable vision of
what that community can become.
The interesting thing that has happened is that many
aspirant communities for designation of those zones who did not
get designated have done extraordinarily well in implementing
strategic plans that they put together. So there is a certain
strength and power that comes from communities getting a clear
idea of what they want to do and how to go about finding
resources to carry that out.
Part of the problem is the way we've always conducted
business, with the categorical loan and grant programs--first-
come/first-served basis. Those communities that for some reason
have been disinvested over time have been left out and left
behind. They don't have the plans and they don't do very well
in seeking resources in the normal course of things.
Now, I think EDA program works very well, but what is good
about EDA programs is that they are flexible and provide money
for actual planning. Often, the development districts are
involved in projects--putting them together and helping to make
deals that are sound investments. You know what can come out of
it and what ought to go into it in order to get the right
outcome.
EDA brings a combination of resources that are helpful and
available across the country. There are a lot of places that I
think have benefited very well from the empowerment zones
process and that kind of approach.
But the point I want to leave with you is although we have
complete coverage of the country in empowerment zones, EDA
still can impart the lessons of empowerment zones in other
places.
Senator Voinovich. Have you observed that the communities
that have been designated empowerment zones have received less
EDA money than had it not been for the fact that they were
empowerment zones?
Mr. Campbell. No, I haven't observed that. I would think
we've leveraged, like, some $10 for every $1 that has been put
in on the empowerment zone programs, and that has come from a
variety of places, including EDA and Health and Human Services
and public and private sector, so I wouldn't suspect that I'd
find that to be the case. But I haven't observed it. No.
Senator Voinovich. I'd be interested in that, Mr. Chairman,
to see just what dollars those empowerment zone areas have
received in terms of EDA, or have they received about the same
as they would have ordinarily, or because they are better
organized that makes them more qualified to take advantage of
the EDA.
I think the point you made is a very good one, and I hadn't
thought of that, but it is a very good one, and that is that
the communities that were preparing for the empowerment zones
have got their act together, and even though they weren't
designated they are doing a better job of utilizing their
resources. That's maybe a good idea for the Appalachian
Regional Commission, to think of some way that you could
require people to get together their resources and then come up
with a plan for the region.
I remember back when I was mayor of Cleveland I was part of
the group that lobbied for Federal enterprise zone
legislations. Originally, Congressman Kemp was involved in
that. We finally decided on 75 of them, and then we'd have 25
one year and so on over a 3-year period.
Of course, that legislation was never passed, but as I
think back on it, we were trying to prepare to take advantage
of one of them. It's amazing. This really gets to the point
that you're making. One of the areas in the district that we
were going to make application for had the highest crime rate
in the city of Cleveland, and because that plan was put
together a nonprofit organization was created in the area
called ``The Midtown Corridor Development Corporation.'' Today,
that area that was awful, in terms of crime and in terms of
development, is the best area in the city of Cleveland--the
lowest crime rate and the most development. In fact, people are
clamoring to get in the place.
So getting people together and getting them organized and
looking at things really does make a difference, and I
sometimes think that we forget about that on the national
level. We mandate these things down, and we don't understand
that the real action really is taking place with the indigenous
leadership in the community, and the key is getting them
together to take advantage of the resources that are available.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions except to ask if
I could have my statement put into the record.
Senator Smith. Without objection, the statement will be
made part of the record.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the State of
Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today and I would
like to welcome Mr. James Aidala, Mr. Arthur Campbell and Ms. Ella
Wong-Rusinko to the committee. I look forward to hearing their
testimony.
The three nominees that appear before us this morning have been
nominated for three very different positions. Mr. Campbell, has been
nominated to be the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development at the
Department of Commerce. Ms. Wong-Rusinko, has been nominated to be the
Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. And
Mr. Aidala is here because he has been nominated to be the Assistant
Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that Mr. Campbell and Ms.
Wong-Rusinko are here today. As you know, oversight jurisdiction for
the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) fall under the purview ofthe Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, which I chair.
In 1965, Congress created the EDA to bring opportunity to
economically-distressed areas of the United States. The EDA has been
working for the past 35 years to generate jobs, support private
enterprise and help achieve sustainable economic growth by empowering
distressed communities to develop and implement their own economic
development and revitalization strategies. Since 1965, EDA has funded
more than 43,000 projects, investing over $17 billion in more than
8,000 communities. It is estimated that EDA assistance has helped
create over 4 million jobs and leveraged more than $ 130 billion in
private-sector investment.
Also in 1965, Congress established the ARC to bring the Appalachian
region of our nation into the mainstream of the American economy. This
region includes 406 counties in 13 states, including Ohio, and has a
population of about 22 million people. As a unique partnership between
the Federal Government and these 13 states, the ARC runs programs in a
wide range of activities, including highway construction, education and
training, health care, housing, enterprise development, export
promotion, telecommunications, and water and sewer infrastructure. All
of these activities help achieve the goal of a viable and self-
sustaining regional economy.
The ARC currently ranks all of the 406 counties according to four
categories: distressed, transitional, competitive and attainment. These
categories determine the extent for potential ARC support for specific
projects. They also help ensure that support goes to the areas with the
greatest need. Mr. Chairman, distressed counties are the poorest of the
poor, with unemployment at least 150 percent of the national average, a
poverty rate of at least 150 percent of the national average, and per
capita market income of no more than two-thirds of the national
average. This means that a distressed county has an unemployment rate
of greater than 8 percent, a poverty rate of at least 19.7 percent, and
per capita market income of less than $13,674. For fiscal year 2000,
111 counties in the region are classified as distressed, including 9 in
Ohio. That is over one-fourth of the counties included in the region.
I know there is terrific potential in Appalachia, and I
wholeheartedly agree with one of ARC's guiding principles that the most
valuable investment that can be made in a region is in its people.
I look forward to the next reauthorization of the ARC. In
preparation, I am planning to hold a field hearing in Ohio on the ARC
program under the auspices of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee sometime in August.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. I was just going to ask a couple of
questions at this point, since I yielded to him first.
Mr. Campbell, I just want to pick up for a moment on what
Senator Voinovich was asking.
Oftentimes the criticism is that you get the infusion of
the money into these economically depressed areas and it has a
temporary effect, but then you get slippage and the help that
started with the initial grant or moneys infused in, you get
slippage after that and we fall back and we don't sustain the
economic help that came into that depressed area.
Could you give me any indication how we might be able to
follow through more to sustain that economic development that
occurs with the initial infusion of the dollars?
Mr. Campbell. Well, you start with the idea--included in my
statement--that economic development is not just about money.
You start with the idea of people at the local level creating a
vision of what can happen in that community. They start to
bring organizations and institutions together to implement
specific plans that they develop over time.
Money is important to the implementation of that plan.
However, often the community focus is strictly on the project
and the money needed to create jobs, without attention to
building management capacity. Without proper management,
projects can fail. Often that happens.
I think you start with the notion of how to build a
business step-by-step. Perhaps you begin with legislation and a
locally developed economic development strategy. Finding the
money that goes in at the right place, at the right time, and
for the right use would help a lot. But if we focus just on the
pursuit of doing a project, getting money in, without
understanding what the overall scheme of the development could
be in that community, then it won't work.
The other problem, Mr. Chairman, I might add, is that we
get so focused in some of these communities on the needs and
the problems and the pathology of these communities that we
don't look at what they can build upon or the available assets.
So I say to communities, ``What do you have that you can
build upon?'' I believe the strategy of always trying to find
some industry to come into a community has limited viability
and is not always a solution. I think you have to start with
what you have. Start with the assets you have in that community
and build upon those.
Senator Smith. How do you feel about new technology being
part of that building block?
Mr. Campbell. Absolutely. It is a key part of it. I've
talked about education. Unless we focus on preparing these
communities that are distressed and poor, that they are going
to be left out and left way behind in the application of the
new technology.
Technology potentially minimizes some of the disadvantages,
especially for distressed communities. For example, with
technology the distance disadvantage minimizes the remoteness
of some of the small places.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Aidala, when Mr. McCabe was here a few weeks ago I
asked him the same question regarding my plan next year to use
an authorization process for EPA, which we have not been doing
in the past. We basically have the smokestack--the Clean Air
Act, the Clean Water Act--all these authorizations of various
bills, but never really getting to see how they interconnect.
The response from Administrator Browner, as well as Mr.
McCabe, was positive in the sense that they felt that they
would be able to work with us in that area.
I'd just be interested in your reaction to that approach as
to how this would assist you in terms of your duties over
there.
Mr. Aidala. I think we would, obviously, also welcome that
approach, certain to explore it and see what opportunities
there may be. In particular, it is relevant to our part of EPA
because, as I mentioned in my statement, part of our
responsibility is the Pollution Prevention Act, which, by
definition, is trying to cut across the media programs. It is
difficult, and we would look forward to working with you and
other members of the committee on what are the lessons learned,
what do we need to do either more, better, or differently in
order to meet some of those goals, so we would welcome that
opportunity.
Senator Smith. One of the areas that has caused great
concern is asbestos. I have an example. In some cases you are
seeing up to $5,000 a day in fines or violations to schools
even. I have been contacted by one school administrator who had
been threatened with EPA violations for not having an asbestos
plan for a school that was built in 1995 and asbestos hadn't
been used in schools since the 1980's.
How do you address a situation like that, I mean, where a
risk is not present but you still have the regulation and
somebody is out there trying to enforce a regulation doesn't
even make sense?
Mr. Aidala. Obviously, I am not familiar with that
particular example. On the face of it, I think you are right.
It sounds like it is a technical term sometimes often used,
which is called ``it's a mistake.'' I'm not sure. That sounds--
--
Senator Smith. I think it is more getting into the
regulations and updating them----
Mr. Aidala. Sure.
Senator Smith [continuing]. And not having to live with
regulations that have just gone by the boards.
Mr. Aidala. That's part of our effort, in general. Asbestos
has been in the news for other reasons also recently, and it is
forcing us to re-examine where that issue has been in the past
15 or so years at the Agency.
But, in particular, in all seriousness, about any time you
have an implementation program you have to use some kind of
reasonableness and common sense. Again, I'm not familiar with
the exact example you raised. On its face, you are absolutely
right.
For example, our lead regulations, lead paint was stopped
in 1978. If you have houses or an apartment building built in
1990, it would be the same thing. And so it doesn't mean that
there is absolutely no problem, but obviously you have to apply
sort of just basic intelligence on that.
Senator Smith. This criticism or comment, perhaps better,
comes up frequently when we talk to folks in the field, and yet
everyone, including yourself, gives a reasonable answer to it.
We shouldn't be doing such things, but it happens. It happens a
lot. It happens in--we test, for example, in many of our water
systems for contaminants that aren't even in the water, and yet
we continue to have to test for them even though they are not
there. That's just another example, a generic one.
It happens a lot, and I think I would just encourage you to
look hard at that, because I think it makes us all look bad,
any of us who are in the employment of the Government one way
or another, to have those kinds of things surface which are
just totally preposterous and make a joke out of what we are
trying to accomplish.
Mr. Aidala. I couldn't agree more, Senator, especially the
part about credibility, shared credibility. This is not about
whatever branch of Government and what-not. It's the Government
that owes the people more than simply the sort of, ``Hold it,
this makes no sense. This is impossible by definition.'' We
need to respond to that.
We have made--you know, it's never enough, but we have an
ever-increasing effort to try to move away from everything from
the individual stovepipes to try to have more of a policy from
headquarters that obviously incorporates those kinds of
reasonable approaches, while I'm sure we'll always be able to
do better.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Bond?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my
pleasure to join with you in welcoming the nominees and their
families. I see some of the younger members are maybe a little
bit less thrilled with the boring nature of these lengthy
discussions, but this is what the folks that we are talking
about have to go through every day, so now you know some of the
burdens that they face.
We are pleased that you could be here. I've had a good
conversation with Mr. Campbell and talked about a lot of areas
of mutual interest. We have a few things that we want to
followup on with him, but we've had a good conversation there.
Mr. Aidala, this has to be one of the toughest jobs in the
Federal Government. You understand that, by being willing to
undertake this job, that may disqualify you by casting doubt on
your judgment, and I trust----
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. I'm sure this is a line the Capitol Steps
could use.
I originally came here this morning to explore with you the
mysteries of the Food Quality Protection Act, whose
administration has managed to keep almost all interested
parties sullen and on the verge of outright rebelliousness, but
a pending floor amendment forces me to put you on the spot here
this morning.
You spent years reviewing scientific data, but we have
overnight to review the merits of a proposed amendment for the
Defense appropriations bill. It's very short. Let me just read
it to you.
``None of the funds appropriated under this act may be used
for the preventive application of a pesticide containing a
known or probable carcinogen or a category one or two acute
nerve toxin or a pesticide of the organo-phosphate, carbomate,
or organochlorine class in any area owned or managed by the
Department of Defense that may be used by children, including a
park, base housing, a recreation center, a playground, or day
care facility.''
You are responsible in this area. Do the data--does the
information that you have support this amendment?
Mr. Aidala. Senator, we just became aware of this proposal
in the past, I think, 48 hours or so and haven't had time to
take a particular position. I think there are some issues about
the crafting of this language. For example, it is a rather
broad brush of all the different kinds of pesticides that are
mentioned here.
I would be happy to sit down with your office or the
offices of the Members that are sponsoring the legislation and,
in effect, see what they're really trying to get at and whether
or not that's something that makes sense to the particular
situation at hand.
Let me mention one or two things.
The Department of Defense is one of the biggest users of
pesticides as a single entity. At the same time, they've just
reduced their pesticide use over 50 percent over the past--I
forget what period of time, 6 or 7 or 8 years, or even less.
They've made great strides in that arena.
I think the intent here is something we could all agree
with, which is obviously if there are dangerous pesticides you
don't want to have them used around children. But whether or
not this particular language does that and/or more I think we'd
have to take a look at a little more particularly.
Senator Bond. What troubles me is that you all are the
experts, and if this was clearly needed we would expect you to
come forward with it. I trust that there may be a couple in our
body of a hundred who know what the hell this is all about and
can understand it and interpret it, but I'm sure not one of
them. I will be very honored to meet any of my colleagues who
really do understand all of the ramifications of it.
It seems to me that this is something that is within your
judgment and we've got to depend upon a lot better scientific
understanding and knowledge than we have right now.
Nobody in Congress or the EPA wants children exposed to
harmful pesticides or other chemicals, but we also don't like
disease-carrying roaches and spiders and ants and tics. We made
a lot of progress reducing the danger to children because we
have been able to kill many of those things which are disease
carriers and can even be fatal to small children.
This is an area where we count on your expertise, and I'm a
little bit concerned about the breadth of this.
Second, how long has chlorpyrifos been on the market,
Lorisban?
Mr. Aidala. Mr. Chairman, it was first registered, I
believe, in 1965 or so.
Senator Bond. Let me ask some of the assumptions that went
into this study. For example, I heard that to determine
exposure one study assumed that a 1-year-old would drink eight
glasses of grape juice every day, and another study used a
required dose well above that allowed on the label, the
equivalent of more than 500 applications in a home every day.
Is this accurate on the study, and are these realistic
assumptions?
Mr. Aidala. There may be some of the initial models that we
use in the case of any pesticide--not this particular case--
that have, shall we say, conservative assumptions. I don't
think they are as overly conservative as you mentioned, but I'm
happy to look into that.
In the case of chlorpyrifos, which agreement was announced
last week, there were a couple of things that are very much
different than some of these sort of baseline assumptions. For
example, we had an additional 200 studies from the company.
That's on top of the sort of normally required 120-plus
studies, so there is a package of over 300 studies that we
looked at.
A lot of that data came from, for example, USDA's PDP--
pesticide data program--which is the actual residues in foods.
In other words, you're not assuming what may or may not be in
the grape juice. It is what is in grape juice as they sample
it.
We had separate studies from USDA about food consumption,
so it is not an assumption about whether it would be 28 glasses
of whatever substance a day, but what do people really eat and
drink.
Those are the real-world data that we put in the equations
and did in the case of chlorpyrifos when we did our
assessments, and especially supplemented by those additional
200 studies by the company which, again, used less of the
modeling assumptions and more of the actual--for example,
putting monitors on people as roach spray was sprayed and see
what's in the air and things like that. It was a whole lot of
realistic data developed by the company, themselves.
Senator Bond. Well, I had understood that the Vice
President directed EPA to work with USDA in this area, but we
hear from USDA that they just learned about this announcement
last week as it was happening.
How well is USDA kept in the loop in making these
determinations?
Mr. Aidala. We work very closely with USDA all the way from
the top through the rank and file, if you will. For example,
just next week we'll have our first Advisory Committee meeting,
which is the third in a series of Advisory Committees that
we've had that are co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of
Agriculture, Mr. Rominger, and the Acting Deputy Administrator
at EPA, Mr. McCabe, all the way down to the rank and file.
In this case of chlorpyrifos it was a little bit different
because the primary issues of concern were not agricultural.
That's not to say that we then didn't work with them, but
obviously if it is a crop use and--much of our work, the
majority of our work, obviously, affects more crops than home
and garden uses from the homeowners' point of view, but
chlorpyrifos was a little bit unique in that way.
Senator Bond. Well, you talked about what is going forward.
Was it true that USDA just learned about it last week? I mean,
is this something that was sprung on them?
Mr. Aidala. That would surprise me, actually. We had
announced to the world, including--I mean, as well as USDA,
even informally, that we were preparing for what we call under
the FQPA process a ``technical briefing,'' and that is, by
definition, announced 3 or 4 weeks in advance.
We obviously tell them long before that, and they certainly
are aware of our assessments. We ship again, for some of these
processes that have been developed with a variety of
stakeholders, ship the assessments over to USDA, seek their
input. Again, in this kind of case, where the biggest concerns
are home and garden uses, they are not things that USDA would
normally be very much engaged in, but they are aware of it.
Senator Bond. Last year we increased the Registration
Division's budget 11 percent, but there were fewer decisions
last year, nevertheless.
We need, as I think everybody agrees, to assist farmers in
transitioning from lost products to new products, and as
products are taken off the market we need to get the final
determination on what is safe so that we can deal with pests of
all kinds, from insects to fungi to noxious weeds.
Is there anything that Congress can do to get the
registration process moving so we can get some final decisions?
Mr. Aidala. It has been moving pretty well in the past. We
are at relatively historic levels. We've registered over 110
new active ingredients since FQPA was enacted, and that's very
important, because by definition each one of those decisions
meets the absolute toughest law in the world for pesticide
regulation, the FQPA.
At the same time, obviously we did take a hit in our budget
2 years ago, and what that translates into is you're seeing
less decisions right now because of the lag time from the time
that we have from sort of setting up the decision and getting
the review packages together and moving them through our
system.
One idea has been floated--and I know it has been talked
about at least among some Members of the Senate, but I don't
think the Agriculture Committee has taken up any formal
inquiry, per se, have not done a hearing and things--is the
concept of a fee-for-service contribution from the regulated
community to help accelerate the decisions moving through our
system.
At any given time we have about 3 years of applications,
and obviously in one year we do one year's worth. So if we do--
if we were to be able to find additional funds, by whatever
means, we obviously could accelerate some of the decisions that
we have pending before us.
Senator Bond. Finally, I am advised that the vote on this
amendment on the Department of Defense bill is going to occur
at 2:20 p.m. Any guidance for us on that measure?
Mr. Aidala. I'm happy to do it now, do it here, do it in
the back room, do it wherever you'd like--happy to sit down
with, again, your staff and/or other Members and their staffs
who are interested and advise through that means.
Senator Bond. Well, this is our best shot. Give me your 60-
second, ``What do we do?'' I've got two of my colleagues here.
We've got 3 percent of the Senate, and we can talk for the
other 97.
Mr. Aidala. So roll your sleeves up and get your yellow
pencils out.
Having been a member of the Senate staff as my first Hill
job back for Senator Percy of Illinois at the time, obviously
in this kind of situation the question is whether or not you
want to have an agreement to perfect it over time sooner than
later. I'm not familiar with what the motivations of the
sponsors are. I mean, we can sort of infer some of this, given
the language and all.
Senator Bond. I'm not interested in the motivations, but, I
mean, do we vote to put this in law, or is this something that
requires more work with EPA?
Mr. Aidala. I would suggest it probably needs a little more
work with EPA, but that is obviously up to the Members of the
Senate and the sponsors.
Senator Bond. You aren't ready to say that this is--EPA's
got questions that have to be resolved.
Mr. Aidala. I would say that--again, from its appearances
it is not an EPA amendment, it is a DOD amendment. I suspect
DOD would have questions wondering exactly what it is going to
mean and how they are going to implement it, if that helps you
at all, Senator.
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, do you understand?
Senator Smith. I think I do.
Senator Bond. OK.
Senator Smith. You know, just as a followup on that, it
would seem to me the lawn care folks on the military bases--
what if this thing were the pass in this form, would that
prohibit that?
Mr. Aidala. No. Again, as I said, there have been over 100-
plus new chemicals registered since 1996, most of which, I
suspect, are not in these categories.
I suspect that the biggest difficulty, upon further sort of
debate and review, is sort of whether or not, as Senator Bond
indicated, the sort of sweeping breadth of it is whether or not
you are sort of putting in too much in certain categories. But,
again, not knowing the intention of the sponsors, per se, that
would be my immediate response.
Senator Bond. Attention is beside the point. The question
is, this is what--when you get the scientific evidence, this is
what you are supposed to do, right? If you find something that
is bad that should not be used in Defense Department
playgrounds or school playgrounds or homes, you ban it, right?
Mr. Aidala. And I think--again, I know we're not talking to
the sponsors of this thing. I suspect the short answer is yes,
Senator, I guess, to get to your point. But other than that I
think the concern is whether or not all these classes of
compounds have been through the full FQPA review, and they have
not. I think that's part of what is the motivation here, but,
again, I'm only speculating.
Senator Bond. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Bond.
Senator Voinovich, do you have any further questions? If
you don't, I'll bat clean-up and we'll wrap it up.
Senator Voinovich. Wrap her up.
Senator Smith. You all finished?
Senator Voinovich. Finished.
Senator Smith. Let me just go back to a question for you,
Ms. Wong-Rusinko.
As you, I know, are aware because you responded to it in a
private letter, but I want to give you the opportunity to
respond to it here publicly, the letter that Senator McConnell
sent to the President expressing concern that you didn't grow
up in the Appalachian region, therefore probably wouldn't be a
good nominee. Since those letters are made part of the record,
I wanted you to have the opportunity to respond to it here
publicly.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
I think that my experience, especially growing up in Texas,
has really allowed me to look at distressed communities. If you
look at some of their statistical data, you have unemployment
rates, 24-month unemployment rate anywhere from 24 to 30
percent. If you look at the 3-year data for States in the
Appalachian region, they are not close. You have 17 percent and
18 percent unemployment rates.
So I have seen what it is like along the U.S.-Mexico
border. I know what it is like not to have access to water, not
to have good roads. I believe that I bring a certain
sensitivity to the position, as well as, I hope, some
creativity.
All I want is a fair chance to be allowed to do that, and I
think that's my best answer.
Senator Smith. All right. Just a final question for you,
Mr. Aidala.
The issue of animal testing has gotten quite a bit of
prominence, as you know. Speaking for myself as the chairman of
the committee, I want to also indicate to you that it would
make me very happy if we could eliminate all unnecessary animal
testing. I think that we are locked into this 40 or 50 years
back. We've always done it; therefore, we will continue to do
it. And we're not really looking at other alternatives. You
know, there is a difference between what is necessary and what
is not.
I guess let me just ask you, what efforts will you make, as
the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances, to address
reducing and ultimately replacing the use of animals in
toxicity testing?
Mr. Aidala. We make, will continue to make, extra efforts
in that regard, Mr. Chairman. We have been in the lead, not
only within EPA but within the Federal Government, on
attempting to pursue that policy of reducing, refining, and
replacing animal tests altogether. That's a stated goal of ours
and one that we spent a significant amount of time on
throughout various parts of our programs.
We are very active in what is called the ``Inter-Agency
Coordinating Committee on Validating Alternative Methods.'' It
is a very important part of making sure that we have the
scientific credibility of whatever new test method, whether it
be animal or non-animal, but this is especially a good forum
for the non-animal tests.
We also use that as a springboard to take a lead in the
international forum, especially working with OECD and other
international partners.
The difficulty sometimes comes in validating these non-
animal tests, besides the sort of obvious scientific questions.
There are certain scientific standards that must be met.
Sometimes it takes a number of non-animal tests to replace
one whole animal test, and that sometimes is a misunderstood
point. But if you do it right--for example, notwithstanding you
may not have an altogether substitute for an animal test--we
have situations in part of our programs, for example, where, by
combining guidelines, for example, of certain other test
requirements, we can reduce the use of animals by 70 to 80
percent compared to, as you say, some time ago, even more
recently than 50 years ago.
So getting reductions in the 70 to 80 percent range,
looking for these alternatives altogether, trying to sort of
share some of your concern about, ``Are we just doing this
because we've always done it that way, or is there, again,
shall we say, a particular valid scientific reason, given our
regulatory duties, that we have to have this kind of
information?'' And, notwithstanding that, have we made every
attempt to reduce or refine or eliminate animal tests.
Senator Smith. This became quite a controversial issue, as
you know. There have been some ads run on it.
Mr. Aidala. Sure.
Senator Smith. I just want to tell you, in all candor, I
have been told by people in and out of the EPA, many inside,
that a lot of what you do, if not most, is not needed, and that
there's just basically a mind set that we've got more important
things to worry about than that, and I just want to let you
know that I feel very strongly about it, and if you are
interested in pleasing me this can help. If you're not, then
that's another issue.
But as the inter-agency, I cosponsored that so-called
ICCVAM. For the purpose of those people who are watching and
don't know what we're talking about, the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative
Methods, which seeks to make this a permanent committee.
Now, EPA has decided to use the ICCVAM to validate the non-
animal test methods for the endocrine disrupter screening
program, but intends to use an EPA review process for animal
methods. Now, the EPA review process is a lot less stringent
than the other. I think that's a double standard, and I think
you ought to apply the standard to both.
If you don't apply that standard, it won't happen. You know
that. It's not just EPA, it is also National Institute of
Health. It is everywhere, wherever this stuff goes on.
Mr. Aidala. Sure.
Senator Smith. A lot of it in the Pentagon, as well, where
I'm also looking at it.
I think it says a lot about a society. A lot of people say,
``Well, we need to care about people more than animals.'' Well,
I don't know that that's necessarily true. I'm saying that a
lot of the problems that we have with abuse, for example, with
children comes from people who abuse animals first. Wife
beaters tend to abuse their dogs and cats and child abusers
abuse animals before it all starts. So I think it says a lot
about a society to say, ``If we don't need to use animals for
testing, let's not use them.'' But it takes somebody with some
leadership in the Agency to say, ``Enough is enough. Let's look
at this. It is important. Let's move on with it.''
I think ultimately it saves money, frankly, if you can use
non-animal sources.
Let me just say thank you to all of the witnesses.
Does anybody have a final parting comment you'd like to
make, a reaction to what anybody has said?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. Don't be too concerned about the lack of
attendance. This happens frequently because people are involved
in so many things. Usually when there is full attendance you
should be worried because somebody is mad about something and
they're going to come after you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. That wasn't the case here. I think you can
expect, since I am the chairman and I can make this statement,
a timely consideration of your nomination.
With that, I'll dismiss you and say we'll leave the record
open if anybody wishes to provide questions to the witnesses,
which you may have to respond to if they come. We'll leave it
open until close of business Friday.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in welcoming our
nominees this morning. Each of them has demonstrated a strong
commitment to public service in their careers and I commend them for
it. It is heartening to find such capable people willing to serve the
public.
Mr. Aidala has been nominated to advise the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency on pollution prevention, toxics and
pesticides. In my state of Montana we have had some very unfortunate
incidents resulting from our lack of understanding and overseeing the
use of toxic substances. I look forward to working with Mr. Aidala to
ensure that what has happened with asbestos contamination to Libby,
Montana, does not happen again elsewhere.
Mr. Campbell's nomination to be the Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development is of particular importance to me. EDA is a major
source of economic development assistance in Montana. It has been
instrumental in working with communities around the state providing
grant funding that helps to generate jobs, and stimulate industrial and
commercial growth. There are many Montana families today that have
directly benefitted from the work of EDA.
Ms. Wong-Rusinko will be a welcomed addition to the Appalachian
Regional Commission, an organization that is of great importance to
many members of this committee. This committee has worked with her over
the years in her capacity with EDA and her talents will be put to good
use at ARC.
I look forward to hearing from each of the nominees.
__________
Statement of Ella Wong-Rusinko, Nominated by the President to be
Alternate Co-Chair, Appalachian Regional Commission
Mr. Chairman, Senators Baucus, Warner and Hutchison, distinguished
Members of the committee and committee staff, I am honored to be
afforded the opportunity to appear before you as President Clinton's
nominee to the position of Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). I thank the President for this
nomination and for the professional opportunity of serving for 7 years
as an appointee at the Economic Development Administration (EDA), one
of nine bureaus within the U. S. Department of Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this hearing and for the many
courtesies which committee Members and staff have extended to me in my
current Federal position. In particular, I am grateful for the
bipartisan collaboration that produced Public Law 105-393, The Economic
Development Administration Reform Act of 1998 historic reauthorization
legislation accomplished by this committee and the leadership of
Senators Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe, original sponsor and co-sponsor
of the legislation. Senators Warner and Baucus please accept my
gratitude and sincere appreciation for your support of my nomination. I
would also like to thank House of Representatives Members who supported
my efforts to secure this nomination The Honorable Jim Oberstar of
Minnesota, The Honorable Bob Wise of West Virginia, and The Honorable
Martin Frost of Texas.
Dr. Jesse White, Federal Co-Chairman of the Appalachian Regional
Commission, is with us at this hearing. I thank you, Dr. White, for
your support of my nomination and for your collaboration, guidance and
leadership. I look forward to having the opportunity of working with
you and the ARC staff on behalf of the Appalachian Region.
First, I am here because of the unique and special support provided
to me by my family my husband, Paul Stephen Rusinko; my two sons,
Christopher Paul and David Elliott; my parents Ella Guadalupe and Pete
Wong; my sister, Rose Mary, and brothers, William and Jesse and their
families; my aunt, Finora Fuu; my parents-in-law, Paul and Ester
Rusinko; and my sister-in-law and her husband, Shirley and Peter
Brauning and their two children.
Second, I would like to express my appreciation to the employees at
EDA and ARC for their guidance and support. In particular, I would like
to recognize the dedication and commitment of many career and tenured
professionals at EDA and ARC who serve loyally and faithfully to make a
difference in the Nation's distressed communities. In the time I have
spent at EDA, I believe we have accomplished a great deal and more
remains to be done. My thanks to EDA field and headquarters staff, and,
in particular, to EDA research, analysis, web, communications and
budget employees for the opportunity of working with you in a special
manner. The talent of these individuals has allowed me to work on the
development and implementation of innovative client-focused policies,
processes and procedures at EDA.
Next, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the many national
organizations that I have had the opportunity of working with on
economic development issues. In particular, I am grateful for the
working relationships that I have been able to establish with the
National Association of Development Organizations, the National
Association of Regional Councils, the National Association of Counties,
the U. S. Conference of Mayors, the Public Works and Economic
Development Association, the League of Cities, the National Association
of Towns and Townships, and the Council for Urban Economic Development.
When I spoke with committee staff, I was asked to talk about ``my
vision.'' If you will indulge me, I would like to share someone else's
vision and how that vision became a reality through a special
partnership. It was this unique effort which has greatly influenced my
commitment to public service and to the creation of tangible
opportunities that can become a reality.
My mother whom we lovingly called ``Mama'' had a vision for her
family. That vision was to pave a road of opportunity for her four
children with a foundation made up of love of God, love of family, love
of country and respect and understanding for your fellow man. Had she
lived 3 years longer, she would have celebrated her 77th birthday just
5 days ago.
Mama had a plan for the children's future: a thoughtful and
flexible master plan developed through an exceptional partnership with
Dad. This special relationship involved sharing the benefits, making
sacrifices and dealing with the challenges. It meant working together
in a consensus and creative manner toward implementation of an overall
plan. The plan had to be updated periodically to account for changing
priorities or a ``better way.'' For the plan to work, our parents
realized that the children would need a ``nudge'' and that meant start-
up capital, which was not readily accessible.
My parents were raised in rural, farming areas of Mexico and China.
As legal immigrants to the United States, they faced many challenges:
learning another language, earning a living, making new friends,
finding a place to live, and providing for their children. It was a
difficult time. For them, getting started was not an easy task.
Securing credit or a loan in the 1940's for business start-up purposes
was an enormous challenge. Thankfully, today it is easier for more
people to obtain credit as a result of the availability of state and
Federal programs.
Mom and Dad worked hard and saved religiously. They started out
small by opening a restaurant, later they expanded and opened what we
called an ``ice-house'' or in today's terms a ``fast-stop convenience
store.'' What is more important, they saved and invested wisely for the
future. They continued to pursue their goal of providing sound
educational opportunities for their four children. Eventually they
purchased a mid-size business a grocery store. For them, the businesses
were the vehicles they would use to pave roads of opportunity for
themselves and their children.
Since education was a parental priority, the youngest would stay at
home after school with my maternal grandparents who lived with us. As
we got older, we would have to go to the grocery store after school.
Homework was always first, then work. We stocked shelves, helped
deliver groceries, and as we say today, other duties as assigned. As
the eldest, I was taught to help with paperwork and bookkeeping. The
grocery store was my parents' last investment together. The business
did well and after decades of hard work, they sold the grocery store.
My parents' story is one of business success, but how did they do
it? First, they secured technical help, from those knowledgeable about
businesses. They developed and implemented a business plan that
included goals and objectives. My parents took calculated risks. They
initially put more than half of their money to work for them in the
business. In my parents' case, each business investment required an
outside financial partner. They were diligent, persevered, planned and
partnered to implement their master plan.
Goals for the children and objectives for the business were
interrelated and each had milestones with projected outcomes. Plans
were refined or changed which often generated better results. The
results showed accomplishment which provided my parents with a great
sense of pride and the incentive to continue with full implementation
of the plan. A child graduating from high school or college was a
milestone. Witnessing your child secure a job that took her away from
home was an outcome. Observing your child become independent and self-
sufficient were results and measured the success of your master plan.
Full implementation of the plan showed that you had a key role with the
transition of a helpless, dependent child to a responsible adult.
Noteworthy is the fact that the last family business, the grocery
store, was strategically located in an area of mixed economic need. To
the North were about ten square blocks of Federal-government subsidized
public housing. The downtown area was about two miles East and
residential housing South and West. The availability of public
infrastructure, the Federal Government role, and the private sector
investment together with my parents' commitment and initiative yielded
a formula for business and personal success.
My parents' vision, how and what they accomplished, is applicable
to economic development. I believe successful economic development
begins with thoughtful planning that generates partnerships. Local,
state, regional, and Federal partnerships produce a shared
responsibility for making sound investments that can transition
economically fragile areas of our Nation into self-sustaining, healthy
communities. Fostering partnerships that eventually produce vibrant,
competitive economies are inherent to the missions of ARC and EDA.
Economic development is a local, ``bottoms-up'' process which
results in a quality of life environment that generates jobs through
community and private sector partnerships. Traditional economic
development investments are critical to communities, especially those
that lag behind more prosperous areas. All communities have unique
developmental needs and no easy formula exists to achieve or sustain
economic resilience.
Advances in technology and telecommunications have posed new
challenges for our children and the places they call home. Many
American communities struggle to provide essential services that
include quality-of-life, sustainable economies. The new economy is
globally competitive and the opportunities are greater. However, so are
the barriers especially for those communities diligently working toward
meeting basic living needs, such as water, roads, schools and jobs.
Many areas of the Nation are out of the economic mainstream profile:
high need counties of the Appalachian Region, localities along the
United States-Mexico Border, remote areas of Alaska, much of the
Mississippi River Delta, pockets of severe poverty in large cities like
Los Angeles and New York, lesser populated tracts of Mid-Western
states, and Native-American tribal units.
My view is that the strength of the country in a world economy is
derived from the ability of our communities to compete in a
communications-oriented environment.
The recent and remarkable economic expansion of the United States
economy presents us with a unique opportunity:
To make a real economic impact faster by strategically focusing and
targeting resources on the distressed areas of the country accomplished
through state, Federal, and private sector partnerships.
I believe that collaboration, consensus, and non-partisan
partnerships assure economic opportunities and lasting outcomes for
American communities.
America is rich in new, untapped markets. Through many worthwhile
Federal, state and local programs, I believe we are making a
difference. I am very proud of having the unique seven-year experience
of working with the EDA at the Department of Commerce. An agency with
the mission of job creation and retention that stimulates industrial,
technological, and commercial growth in economically-distressed rural
and urban areas of the United States. Through Federal efforts, such as
those of ARC and EDA, I believe we are creating economic opportunities
for the Nation's distressed communities in different, but complimentary
ways.
ARC is focused on the specific needs of a region of the country
with a century of historic poverty and economic distress a Region that
has consistently suffered from underdevelopment, geographic isolation,
and out-migration. The challenges of the Appalachian Region which
includes 406 counties in 13 states (Alabama, Georgia, Maryland,
Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) are longer-term
requiring longer-term, targeted solutions. The Commission through a
unique Federal/State partnership focuses on a broad-based approach to
economic development and implements solutions that include
transportation, education, training, health, and entrepreneurial
development.
EDA, by contrast, is focused on the needs of distressed communities
nationally and responds to cyclical and structural changes in the
economy, such as military base closures, declared natural disasters,
Department of Energy reductions, major plant downsizing or shutdowns,
Native-American needs, international trade agreements, depletion of
natural resources, and brownfields, to name a few areas of need.
Through a strong, flexible portfolio of transition tools and a national
network of 320 planning organizations, 69 university centers, and 12
trade adjustment centers, EDA provides assistance on a cost-shared
basis directly to eligible units of government and to non-profit
organizations for economic development.
I believe the Federal role in economic development is to provide
the mechanism and ``the nudge'' or assistance that creates
partnerships, helps build the consensus necessary for implementation of
state-of-the art practices, and produces long-term, sustainable
results. On a project by project by project basis, the Federal
Government should be a partner to deliver resources to fill the
critical gap and then withdraw and allow the private sector to develop
the project. American communities with good jobs, access to education
and technology are becoming more proficient at competing in a world
market economy. But, what about communities or regions that lack the
good jobs and access to education and technology?
A November 1999 Department of Commerce updated report, Falling
Through The Net, issued by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) focuses on the telecommunications and
information technology gap in America. The report concludes that:
The Census data reveal a number of trends. On the positive side, it
is apparent that all Americans are becoming increasingly connected
whether by telephone, computer, or the Internet over time. On the
other hand, it is also apparent that certain groups are growing far
more rapidly, particularly with respect to Internet connectivity.
This pattern means that the ``haves'' have only become more
information rich in 1998, while the ``have nots'' are lagging even
further behind.
. . . It is reasonable to expect that many people are going to lag
behind in absolute numbers for a long time. Education and income appear
to be among the leading elements driving the digital divide today.
Because these factors vary along racial and ethnic lines, minorities
will continue to face a greater digital divide as we move into the next
century. This reality merits a thoughtful response by policymakers
consistent with the needs of Americans in the Information Age.''
The NTIA report raises several questions about the Federal role in
economic development, especially in distressed areas like the
Appalachian Region. More specifically, what policies are needed to
assure those American communities already economically strained do not
lag even further behind? How do we integrate technology-led economic
development into the planning and investment process? In this context,
the term ``technology-led economic development'' means incorporating
into comprehensive development strategies a thinking that allows
communities to transition to the next level of need that factors
competing in a cyber economy. Do existing state and Federal Government
programs have the technical capacity and understanding to provide the
type of assistance communities need to survive and thrive in the new
economy? For every region and community, affordable access is critical
to opportunity because without access there can be no opportunity.
The questions require answers and I hope to be involved in
answering some of those questions as we craft policies and approaches
that will continue to effectively transition the Appalachian Region out
of its historic economic distress. For some time now, I have sought out
an appropriate quote that captures the essence of my views on economic
development, which I believe is about creating opportunities and ``a
fair chance'' for people. I believe I found it. On July 4, 1861,
President Abraham Lincoln in a message to Congress in Special Session
stated:
This is essentially a people's contest . . . It is a struggle for
maintaining in the world that form and substance of government
whose leading object is to elevate the constitution of men to lift
artificial weights from all shoulders to clear the paths of
laudable pursuit for all to afford all an unfettered start, and a
fair chance, in the race for life.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I reiterate my appreciation to the
committee for this opportunity and fair chance. To my husband and
children, I thank you lovingly for being there for me. To my family,
especially my parents, I express my heartfelt thanks for the
opportunities and values that you have given me. To my professional
colleagues, I look forward to the opportunity of working with you in a
new capacity. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Arthur C. Campbell, Nominated by the President to be
Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, Department of Commerce
To Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Baucus, other honorable members,
and ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today aspiring to assume
stewardship of the Economic Development Administration (EDA), a Federal
agency whose primary mission is to assist in the development of
economically distressed areas of this country, both rural and urban. I
am fortunate to arrive here now after the historic 1998 five-year
reauthorization of EDA, a time frame that allows a realistic approach
to the important work EDA has been assigned.
I anticipate my duties with sobering respect for EDA's mission and
the challenges to fulfilling it. I have a deep appreciation of EDA's
35-year history of improving the economic conditions of areas that have
not thrived as well as the rest of America. Although a relatively small
agency, EDA's impact is magnified by the Congressionally-granted
flexibility to administer its programs in a way that is both responsive
and sensitive to the realities of working with a wide range of local
conditions throughout the country. This flexibility allows engagement
of local leadership in a shared, interactive, and more cost-effective
approach to economic development planning and implementation.
I am a product of both the Old South and the New South--the Old
South of racial segregation, of cotton as king, of widespread abject
poverty, of the disenfranchisement of blacks; and the New South of
progress and optimism, of revitalization and renewal, of a commitment
to redress historical mistakes. Those two opposing environments have
shaped and influenced me, and have convinced me of a need for
reconciliation in human affairs and a need to improve the fundamentals
in economic affairs.
Neither I, nor my cohorts, would have dreamed of this occasion
unfolding here today in this chamber--that a black boy from rural
Alabama, a student in the sixties, could grow to manhood and be
nominated by the President of the United States to head an important
agency of our government. What those of my generation would never have
imagined, my children's generation now expects. So I am thankful today
that the great arc of our American democracy is forever bending toward
justice, and that our collective actions have helped to change the
expectations of a generation.
I am thankful for this appointment by President Clinton whom I
first met when he was a young 31 year old Attorney General, aspiring to
be governor of Arkansas. The occasion for that meeting, to my
amazement, was his offer to help to redress certain roadblocks to my
efforts to develop the economy of the predominantly black town of
Madison, Arkansas. Mr. Clinton's interest in distressed areas has
abided these many years.
I would not be here today were it not for the supportive actions of
families, countless colleagues and friends. Mr. Chairman, I am
convinced that heaven is a little brighter this morning from the high
voltage smiles of my deceased parents Johnnie Mae Burks Campbell and
Patrick Henry Campbell as they witness these proceedings.
I have been sustained by the unconditional love of my wife of 33
years, Gwyndolyn McZeek Campbell, who is this morning absent in body
but present in spirit. As Gwyndolyn and I have nurtured our three
children, Erika, Nedra and Nicholas to adulthood, we have, in-turn,
been nurtured by the character of their unfolding lives, their level-
headedness, and their educational attainment: two attorneys well, some
might quibble about whether being a lawyer is ``educational
attainment'' and one accountant. Nedra put aside the lawyer's daily
quest for billable hours to come here today from Detroit.
The great narrative of America, I think, in a basic way, is about
people and places, and how both serve to create opportunity, freedom
and the realization of hopes and dreams. It is also about families and
how they create rewarding personal lives and hospitable and nurturing
communities in which to live.
I view EDA as not just the repository of yet another set of
government programs, but as an instrument with which to ``create a more
perfect union'' by promoting the general welfare of sectors and areas
of the country which have not prospered economically.
Restoring in some places, expanding in others, opportunity for a
more gainful life is the high calling of the Economic Development
Administration. I believe government exists to help fulfill the ideals
promised by our constitution. Government's role is to help people help
themselves, to help communities afford its citizens opportunity to
afford decent housing, earn a living, educate their children, and
obtain affordable health care.
EDA's legislative mandate is to help people and places experiencing
substantial and persistent unemployment in the most economically
distressed places. It has steadfastly implemented this mission for 35
years. I believe that the legislative mandates and expressed intents of
the Congress must continue to guide the agency's work. We must be
innovative in conducting EDA's business, yet prudent and responsible in
fiscal matters. One does not negate the other.
EDA, and government generally, should facilitate public/private
partnerships which produce locally-led economic development strategies.
The experience of the Empowerment Zone/ Enterprise Community program
demonstrates that communities that incorporate specific measurable
benchmarks in their strategic plans to produce a believable vision of
their future are more successful in the implementation of their plans.
Economic development is not just an issue of money. Greater
collaboration among Federal agencies can provide more efficient and
cost-effective assistance to local communities. This is especially
necessary in areas seeking to adjust their local economies to: trade
related downturns, military base closings, persistent and intractable
poverty, dramatic out-migration and job loss, and environmentally
triggered economic changes. In these instances, holistic strategies
requiring a variety of resources are needed in addition to the need to
fund specific projects.
Similarly, more sub-state regional collaboration on economic
development planning is needed to produce clusters of economic
ventures, which might attain more scale and viability with greater
benefits to the participating communities. It is important to not only
build incubators or industrial parks, but to also promote environments
that foster entrepreneurship and market development. I do not believe
that ``if you build it they will . . .'' necessarily come.
Education is the cornerstone of economic development. People can be
viewed as assets or liabilities. We must see them as assets. Sustained
economic growth depends upon creating a well-educated population and
the opportunities for them to be productive. Therefore, it is important
to link education to economic development.
Too often the term ``economic development'' is interpreted as doing
things to solely create jobs. Economic development is building
institutional and leadership capacity to create economic improvement
over time. Job creation alone is not economic development.
Investments should follow sound planning by a broad-based cross-
section of the local public and private sectors, and not just follow
the economic development vision of outside consultants. Strategic
planning that draws upon the ingenuity and vision of local people from
the public and private sectors is a necessary precondition of
successful economic development.
A concerted effort should be made to improve economic opportunity
in areas experiencing persistent poverty. Persistent poverty is a major
obstacle to equitable economic development. Poverty exists in many
urban centers, but is often more severe in distressed rural areas. Some
540 predominantly rural counties have poverty rates of 20% or higher.
Approximately 200 of these have poverty rates of 30% or higher.
Noted labor economists argue that restoring broadly-shared
prosperity is the number one economic challenge that we face as a
country. Ray Marshall, former Secretary of Labor, says that the
population distribution by income when plotted on a graph today looks
more like an hourglass, with a shrinking middle and a larger bottom and
top. In the not-so-distant past; it used to look more like a diamond,
with a larger middle and a small top and bottom.
We have in America today a combination of a powerful and peaceful
military, a democratic and stable government, and a strong and vigorous
economy. Yet, in the midst of this plenty, we have people and places
that have been left out and left behind. I believe that a challenge
facing EDA and the country at large is to act in ways to provide more
equal and equitable economic outcomes. Economic equity is a public
good. Society is more stable and stronger when its people are able to
fulfill their basic human aspirations. I believe that economic
development that produces broadly-shared prosperity is in the public
interest, and that achievement of such prosperity is a public purpose.
My hope is that EDA's value will not just be in the projects that
it funds or the planning that it does, but that the projects and
planning are done in a way that expands the vision and hope of people
of distressed areas and communities. My hope is that the agency's
investments be driven by local vision and control, local ingenuity and
imagination. I am convinced that when we engender hope and enable those
who hope to act on their dreams, we produce a much more precious
commodity than any governmental program alone.
Finally, I think that what made us strong as a nation was the
spirit of cooperation, of civic participation, of communal
togetherness, of a widespread commitment to create the common good and
a strong belief that we could achieve it. This spirit must be brought
to the economic development process. I would lead this agency guided by
a firm conviction that all people possess a certain genius, and would
act to unleash the creativity of the agency's employees and engender
the imagination of its customers.
__________
Statement of James V. Aidala, Nominated by the President to be
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Environmental Protection Agency
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. I'm
pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this committee. Today
I'm seeking your confirmation to serve as Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances at EPA. It's an honor to
have the opportunity to continue the important environmental and public
health accomplishments launched by this Administration. I'm also
looking forward to the opportunity to work with the committee on a
bipartisan basis.
If confirmed as an Assistant Administrator, I am committed to
building on our success in implementing our Nation's pesticide and
toxic chemical laws to protect public health and the environment. Often
in the contentious field of pesticide and chemical regulation, where we
routinely deal with tough decisions that directly affect consumers,
farmers, chemical producers, and so many others, it is imperative that
we advance our work with everyone involved. Since I have been a deputy
in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances for 7
years now, I believe I am uniquely qualified to bring the different
parties together to find sensible solutions that further environmental
and public health protection.
My professional career has predominately focused on the issues
relevant to this job--pesticide and chemical regulation and protection
of public health. In 1975, I started at EPA as a GS-4 summer intern in
the pesticide program. Before my present position, the majority of my
professional career has been spent in a variety of jobs on Capitol
Hill. These positions included working for Senator Charles Percy of
Illinois, Congressman Mike Synar from Oklahoma, and the Congressional
Research Service. During the course of my career, I have learned many
valuable lessons about how to balance competing interests especially
where intense feelings and perspectives are involved. For example, I
worked extensively on the 1988 and 1996 amendments to our pesticide
laws, and while these legislative issues were contentious, the
amendments were enacted with widespread bipartisan support.
In my current position as a deputy in the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, I have helped to manage and direct a
staff of approximately 1,450 employees with a budget exceeding $225
million. Our key role is to manage and implement the Nation's pesticide
and chemical regulatory programs.
I would like to mention a few of the key accomplishments over the
last 7 years, which I am proud to have been a part of. They include:
Enacting the Food Quality Protection Act to bring stronger
protections for infant and children regarding pesticide residues in
their diet; Strengthening occupational protections for farm workers;
Expediting review of new and safer pesticides; Creating the
Pesticide Environment Stewardship Program to partner with farmers and
others to promote use of Integrated Pests Management (IPM) and safer
pesticides;
Increasing the public's right to know by expanding the Toxic
Release Inventory; and,
Creating the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge
program to increase chemical safety and health information.
It has been my goal to find common ground by bringing relevant
stakeholders together and develop workable solutions. I believe that my
efforts and successes are appreciated by our stakeholders. While it is
late in this Administration, serving as Assistant Administrator
presents many positive opportunities. Important work remains. This year
alone we face an ambitious agenda, with much more to accomplish.
Specifically, this year we will continue the important work of the
Food Quality Protection Act. Our priorities include completing review
of the organophosphates, continuing to refine the FQPA science
policies, and enhancing public participation by establishing a new
advisory committee on FQPA implementation. While pesticide decisions
will always invite close scrutiny, I am committed to ensuring that our
decisions continue be based on the best science, continue to
extensively involve our customers, and continue to occur in an open and
participatory process.
In our Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, where we
implement the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), we are
reinvigorating chemical regulation through voluntary partnerships to
increase the public's right to know about the safety of chemicals. EPA,
in cooperation with the chemical industry and advocacy groups, is
implementing the High Production Volume Chemical Challenge. This
voluntary program requires manufactures to generate basic health and
safety data, and make it available to EPA and the public.
Also in our office, we implement the Agency's pollution prevention
and lead programs. This Administration has made significant progress to
increase awareness and combat childhood poisonings from lead-based
paint. However, much more remains to be done. We must enhance our
efforts to increase the awareness about lead-based paint hazards, and
continue progress on the necessary lead regulations necessary to
protect children from lead exposure.
In the area of pollution prevention, I'm committed to continue a
variety of initiatives underway with industry, consumer groups and
others, to achieve voluntary reductions in risks associated with the
use of chemicals, and to promote more sustainable technologies. During
my tenure as an Assistant Administrator, I will continue to develop
voluntary and innovative partnerships with the chemical industry,
consumer groups, and others to expand the public's right to know about
potential chemical hazards in the environment.
I would like to close on a personal note. All four of my
Grandparents emigrated to America through Ellis Island, and I was
raised in a relatively austere household. Both of my parents dropped
out of high school to make ends meet during the Great Depression.
Fortunately, with some luck, some brains, and some student loans, I was
able to attend some of the Nation's leading universities. From there, I
have been fortunate to be able to devote my career to public service
and environmental protection. For me, serving in this position will
provide an opportunity to give back some of what society has afforded
me.
I look forward to working with the Congress as we move forward on
finding better solutions to today's environmental and public health
challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses by James V. Aidala to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. As the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances at
the Environmental Protection Agency, with oversight of all pesticide
and industrial chemical toxicity testing, what will you do to
prioritize Agency funds and other resources toward the research,
development, validation and implementation of non-animal test methods
into the programs you oversee?
Response. The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) is working closely with EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD), and with other Federal agencies including the
National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (which has
been designated by Congress as the Federal Government's lead agency for
alternative testing methods development) and the National Toxicology
Program, to address the validation of alternative, nonanimal test
methods.
EPA has prepared an Interagency Agreement (JAG) with NIEHS in which
EPA commits to provide $250,000 this fiscal year, and an additional
$250,000 in fiscal year 2001, for alternative test method development.
EPA and NIEHS are sponsoring a workshop this Fall under the auspices of
the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Validation of Alternative
Methods (ICCVAM), to address the validation status of various
alternative non-animal test methods for predicting acute toxicity. The
funds committed through the IAG will be used to fund research on and
validation of the most promising techniques. In addition, the Office of
Science Coordination and Policy within the Of lice of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances is examining making available
additional funds to support future workshops on alternative test method
development and validation.
Question 2. In 1999, the EPA invested approximately $70,000 into a
rapid, cost-effective, humane test method, commonly referred to as the
High Throughput Pre-Screen (HTPS). It is my understanding that Congress
appropriated significant funds for the research and development of the
HTPS for incorporation into the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.
Why has EPA discontinued consideration of this promising method?
Response. The results of the Agency's $70,000 feasibility
demonstration study of the HTPS process were deemed unreliable
following external scientific peer review by a joint committee of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific
Advisory Panel and the EPA Science Advisory Board. Nonetheless, EPA
continues to evaluate other methodologies to screen and prioritize
chemicals under the EDSP. At this time, it appears that similar
information can be more efficiently derived from computer simulation
models that predict endocrine activity from the molecular structure of
chemicals. The Agency is actively pursuing development of these models
including their validation using non-animal receptor binding assays.
The proposed use of a Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship
(QSAR) computer simulation approach in lieu of HTPS was well received
at a June 2000 public workshop on endocrine disrupter priority setting.
The workshop included representatives from industry, state government,
and public health, environmental, and animal welfare groups. The Agency
is continuing to develop several alternative non-animal in vitro
screening assays using conventional bench methods.
Question 3. Where is the remainder of the appropriation?
Response. The $70,000 appropriation for the feasibility
demonstration study of HTPS has been expended. No other funds were
specifically appropriated for use in the development of the HTPS.
The balance of the Congressional appropriation for the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) is being expended on a variety of
activities. For example, a portion of the funds are being expended in
support of the development and evaluation of alternative test methods,
including non-animal test methods. Further, EPA continues to evaluate
the potential usefulness of the HTPS as well as other methodologies to
screen and prioritize chemicals under the EDSP. A significant portion
of the funds are being expended for the standardization and validation
of test methods being considered for use under the EDSP. Because many
of the endocrine disrupter screens and tests involve cutting-edge
science, few of them have actually been formally standardized or
validated through inter-laboratory comparisons.
Finally, to ensure continued public participation in the
development and implementation of the EDSP, EPA is supporting various
workshops and will charter a new Federal Advisory Committee to address
standardization and validation of EDSP screening and testing protocols.
Question 4. You may know of concerns I raised with Administrator
Browner concerning the High Production Volume Chemical Testing Program.
I have a copy of the October 14, 1999 agreement between the EPA,
Chemical Manufacturers Association, Environmental Defense Fund and
animal protection advocates. In the agreement, the EPA commits to
incorporating animal protection considerations into all future EPA
testing programs. What concrete efforts will you make as the Assistant
Administrator for Toxic Substances to address reducing and replacing
the use of animals in toxicity testing?
Response. The Agency has emphasized on numerous occasions and in
various forums that it is committed to reducing the number of animals
used for testing, and to replacing animals in testing with validated in
vitro (non-animal) test systems when they are reasonably and
practically available for use in the HPV challenge program. These goals
must be balanced with the need to conduct scientifically sound chemical
hazard/risk assessments in support of the Agency's mission. The October
14, 1999, letter, which was written in the specific context of the High
Production Volume Challenge Program, embodies several key principles,
designed to minimize the use of animals, which are applicable to the
Agency's chemical information programs. The principles include:
encouraging participating companies to conduct a qualitative analysis
to determine if there is sufficient data, maximizing the use of
existing and scientifically adequate data to minimize further testing,
and encouraging the use of categories of related chemicals and
structure-activity relationships. These principles are intended to
reduce the absolute number of chemical substances that may need to be
tested and ensure that duplicative testing is avoided.
In addition, EPA actively supports validation of alternative test
methods through the Agency's role as a Co-Chair, along with the
National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), of the
Interagency Coordinating Committee on Validation of Alternative Methods
(ICCVAM)). For example, EPA recently concurred with ICCVAM that the
Local Lymph Node Assay (a test for allergic contact dermatitis) and the
Corrositex method (a test to measure skin corrosivity) can be
used as valid alternatives under the appropriate circumstances. These
alternative test methods will reduce pain and suffering of test animals
and replace animals in testing with validated non-animal test systems,
respectively. In addition, as noted above, EPA is committing $500,000
over the remainder of this fiscal year and next fiscal year for
research on and validation of promising alternative test methods for
predicting acute toxicity. An example of EPA's efforts in the
international arena is the Agency's work through the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and ICCVAM to modify the Up
and Down Procedure (OECD 425)--an alternative acute toxicity test which
reduces the number of animals by more than 70 percent as compared to
the standard LD50 test--so that it can be used to evaluate dose
response relationships (which are routinely used to evaluate the
toxicity of pesticide active ingredients).
______
Responses by James V. Aidala to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. I have been informed of some concerns regarding EPA's
policies related to tolerance revocation for voluntarily canceled uses
where the Agency has any concern about the dietary risk from the
product. Specifically, in addition to approving the voluntary
cancellation of uses requested by the registrant, I have been told that
EPA now intends to revoke the corresponding tolerances within 180 days
of canceling the specific uses. This would make any food containing
such residues adulterated.
We have been advised that numerous groups have indicated to you
that the premature revocation of tolerances could cause significant
market disruption both domestically and internationally. They have
indicated that, without the protection afforded by a tolerance,
commercial buyers will be reluctant to purchase foods (including fresh
and processed foods) which may have been treated with the voluntarily
canceled pesticide.
I understand that in response to this concern, the EPA has
referenced the ``Safe Harbor'' or newly termed ``channels of trade''
provisions of section 408(1)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. Can you describe exactly how this provision will resolve the
concerns raised by agricultural interests in my state?
Response. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) each
recently published proposed policies for public comment on channels of
trade. The channels of trade provision you cite in the FQPA allows
marketing of food crops which were legally treated with a pesticide,
even if the pesticide is subsequently canceled and its tolerances
revoked. FDA recently issued guidance for public comment on how it
intends to apply the channels of trade provision to crops treated with
the pesticide, methyl parathion. In essence, FDA will treat domestic
and imported crops the same and will make allowances for those
commodities which may have methyl parathion residues past the date of
tolerance revocation, such as frozen foods, to remain in trade. To
minimize the burden of providing confirmation that crops were legally
treated, FDA cites examples of documentation which most processors
regularly maintain. FDA is considering issuing generic guidance to
expand the principles of the methyl parathion decision to other
pesticides. As it has with FQPA decisions, EPA will continue to work
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), FDA, and other
stakeholders, including the agricultural community, to ensure that
legally treated crops are not adversely affected by tolerance
reassessment, and that food is allowed to be distributed through
commerce.
Question 2. Vice President Gore's memorandum in 1997 recognized the
need for a transition period to newer pest management tools. General
statistics aside, when you cancel a use, what specific steps are taken
to assure that an efficacious alternative pest management tool is
immediately available prior to cancellation?
We are working closely with USDA and the agricultural community to
ensure that our decisions are based on accurate information, which
includes analyses of available alternatives. EPA, in cooperation with
USDA, is providing a transition that works for agriculture. EPA and
USDA are working to identify opportunities for reasonable transition
and strategic management planning for agriculture and public health use
pesticides. EPA's goal is to ensure greater protection of public
health, while also ensuring that farmers have the tools necessary for
food production. To address the concerns of all interested parties, EPA
and USDA have established the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and
Transition (CARAT), which met for the first time June 23, 2000. This
committee is bringing together expertise from all perspectives,
including agricultural representatives, to help guide EPA and USDA
implementation of FQPA. CARAT is developing recommendations for
reducing risks from older, riskier pesticides, with a focus on ensuring
that farmers are provided a reasonable transition to safer pest
management strategies, including chemical and non-chemical
alternatives. CARAT will also discuss the process for developing
strategic pest management plans for agriculture and public health uses
of pesticides, and work to ensure that high priority is given to risk
management strategies for pesticides most likely to lead to exposures
to children. In creating CARAT, EPA and USDA reaffirm their commitment
to the key principles established by the Vice President: use of sound
science in protecting public health; consultation with the public and
other agencies; increased transparency; and, reasonable transition for
agriculture.
EPA has also developed a priority system to expedite review of
applications for new pesticides to address pest control needs
potentially impacted by FQPA. For instance, since organophosphate (OP)
pesticides are one of the classes given priority for tolerance
reassessment, the Agency has instituted a policy to give priority
consideration to applications for organophosphate alternatives. Since
the passage of FQPA, almost 25 OP alternatives have been identified--
some completely new chemicals--and almost half of them have already
been registered. For example, spinosad, tebufenozide, methoxyfenozide,
and pyriproxyfen have recently been registered as OP alternatives for
use on apples, a crop which has historically high OP use. In fact,
along with ``reduced-risk'' pesticides and other prioritized pesticide
registrations, hundreds of new uses are now available. Likewise, EPA
gives priority to applications for new minor use pesticides, methyl
bromide alternatives, and for pesticides which may help address
vulnerable crop/pest combinations.
In addition to the registration process, EPA has instituted
programmatic changes to facilitate transition for agriculture. For
example, through its regions, the Agency initiated an Agriculture
Initiative program. This Initiative, currently being piloted in four
EPA regions, helps fund projects such as the gathering of use/usage
data and the education of growers regarding alternative methods of pest
control. The Agency also formed a Minor Use team to work more closely
with minor crop growers and USDA.
Question 3. I understand that before a pesticide can be on the
market, it must undergo up to 120 scientific tests required by EPA to
determine human health, safety, and environmental effects. Once EPA
concludes that a pesticide has met FQPA's safety standards is it EPA's
belief that the pesticide is safe for use? Does this safety
determination apply to all approved uses (i.e., on a farm, in schools,
around the home, on a golf course, and in other locations for which the
product is intended)?
Response. Yes, the decision to allow use of a pesticide means that
EPA has determined that the uses specified on the label are within
acceptable risk limits based on EPA's rigorous scientific review of
available information. Still, those who are applying it and the public
have to exercise caution and follow strict label requirements. In
tolerance reassessment, FQPA specifically requires EPA to review
potential risks to children, aggregate risks, and cumulative risks to
ensure the pesticide meets today's more stringent scientific and
regulatory standards.
Question 4. EPA-approved pesticides help protect Florida citizens
from serious diseases such as malaria and encephalitis through vector-
control programs. Loss of these pesticides will threaten public
protection from disease-carrying mosquitoes, rodents, and cockroaches.
The Food Quality Protection Act specifically directs EPA to work with
FDA to ensure that public health pesticides continue to be available to
prevent such disease outbreaks. What is EPA doing to ensure continued
availability of these pesticides or reliable and effective alternatives
in order to protect children and adults?
EPA, in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
developed a process to consult and advise on public health uses of
pesticides so that critical public health use pesticides are available.
To date, this process has been used in the review of 11 pesticides. In
addition, the Agency and the CDC have discussed processes to ensure
availability of public health pesticides including possible fee
waivers, expedited processing of applications for new public health
pesticides, and a possible mechanism to coordinate development of
supporting data for public health pesticides facing regulatory action.
Following passage of FQPA, EPA appointed a public health official
who is charged with implementing the public health provisions of the
law and serves as the point of contact for coordination with FDA, CDC,
USDA and state and local public health officials. The Agency also
established a public health steering committee which developed a
consultative process with other Federal agencies and holds monthly
coordination calls with CDC. EPA and CDC will shortly finalize a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOW) to provide a framework for joint
efforts and coordination. Although the MOU is not final, the two
agencies have already begun many joint activities. For example, CDC and
EPA have worked closely together in responding to West Nile Virus
concerns and in the use of mosquito-control pesticides, and in
addressing public health uses in the reassessment of OPs, such as
chlorpyrifos and methyl parathion. EPA and FDA have also worked
together in the review of some public health uses of malathion.
Question 5. The medical community strongly recommends a diet rich
in fruits and vegetables for better nutrition and disease prevention.
How would the health of the American public be affected if FQPA reduced
the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables, or priced them out of
reach of low-income consumers?
The American food supply is one of the safest and most abundant in
the world. EPA strongly endorses the recommendations for a diet rich in
fruits and vegetables. The need to maintain the variety and
productivity of U.S. agriculture is very much a part of our approach.
Implementation of FQPA will provide even more protection for consumers,
particularly infants and children, while maintaining the availability
for a wide selection of fruits and vegetables. While FQPA sets a tough
health-based safety standard for pesticides, EPA is committed to
balancing the provisions with the need to maintain pest control options
for agriculture. EPA, in cooperation with USDA, will ensure a that a
reasonable transition responsive to the needs of agricultural producers
is provided to ensure that this balance is maintained.
Question 6. As you implement FQPA, it is important to involve
stakeholders, including farmers, mosquito control officials and others,
to make sure their information and concerns are considered. What are
your goals for the new Committee to Advise on Reassessment and
Transition and what do you want to see it accomplish? Will this be a
permanent advisory committee or will you allow it to sunset?
Response. We are working closely with USDA and the agricultural
community to ensure that our decisions are based on accurate
information, which includes analyses of available alternatives. EPA, in
cooperation with USDA, is providing a transition that works for
agriculture. EPA and USDA are working to identify opportunities for
reasonable transition and strategic management planning for agriculture
and public health use pesticides. EPA's goal is to ensure greater
protection of public health, while also ensuring that farmers have the
tools necessary for food production. To address the concerns of all
interested parties, EPA and USDA have established the Committee to
Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT), which met for the first
time June 23, 2000. This committee is bringing together expertise from
all perspectives, including farmers, mosquito control officials,
industry representatives and others, to help guide EPA and USDA
implementation of FQPA. CARAT is developing recommendations for
reducing risks from older, riskier pesticides, with a focus on ensuring
that farmers are provided a reasonable transition to safer pest
management strategies, including chemical and non-chemical
alternatives. CARAT will also discuss the process for developing
strategic pest management plans for agriculture and public health uses
of pesticides, and work to ensure that high priority is given to risk
management strategies for pesticides most likely to lead to exposures
to children. In creating CARAT, EPA and USDA reaffirm their commitment
to the key principles established by the Vice President: use of sound
science in protecting public health; consultation with the public and
other agencies; increased transparency; and, reasonable transition for
agriculture.
The CARAT has been established for a 2-year term, through June
2002, and at that time EPA and USDA will determine whether to extend
the committee.
Question 7. Can you describe the registration process that is
underway for methyl bromide alternatives including timetables?
Response. EPA gives expedited review and top priority registration
review to all potential methyl bromide alternatives. Each new
application of a potential methyl bromide alternative is screened by
EPA/USDA's Joint Workgroup on Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Once a
submission is verified as a legitimate methyl bromide alternative, it
is placed at the top of EPA's work plan for review by Agency
scientists. Actions receiving expedited review are typically ready for
a registration decision within 18-22 months, as opposed to non-
expedited reviews which can take 32-40 months to complete. The EPA/USDA
Workgroup has been actively meeting with growers, academics, university
extension experts, and registrants to identify potential methyl bromide
alternatives, coordinate research, and identify regulatory barriers
that have to be addressed. EPA is sensitive to the importance of methyl
bromide in agriculture and stands ready to work with the agricultural
community to ensure that adequate pest control alternatives to methyl
bromide are available.
Question 8. In your meeting with my staff you indicated that the
process to identify methyl bromide alternatives and the process of FQPA
implementation are handled in different divisions of EPA. I am
concerned that the process to register methyl bromide alternatives may
be compromised in the push to implement FQPA. Can you describe the
difference between these two processes and describe how EPA is ensuring
that methyl bromide alternatives identification proceeds in a timely
manner?
As mentioned above, EPA has assigned highest priority to reviewing
registration applications for alternatives methyl bromide. Tolerance
reassessment and pesticide reregistration reviews are conducted by
personnel dedicated to these separate activities. Generally, there is
no conflict between the demands to review pesticide applications for
methyl bromide applications and the demands posed by tolerance
reassessment. Since these alternatives are the No. 1 priority, they
receive expedited treatment, and are not compromised by tolerance
reassessment or by any possible increase in registration review
workload.
______
Responses by James V. Aidala to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. It is important that implementation of FQPA be based on
the best available and reliable information. For those cases in which
pesticides or their uses are canceled, what is EPA doing to help
farmers identify alternative products that can be used? With regard to
the cancellation of chlorpyrifos, what action is EPA taking to prevent
any disruption in grain marketing?
Response. We are working closely with USDA and the agricultural
community to ensure that our decisions are based on accurate
information, which includes analyses of available alternatives. EPA, in
cooperation with USDA, is providing a transition that works for
agriculture. EPA and USDA are working to identify opportunities for
reasonable transition and strategic management planning for agriculture
and public health use pesticides. EPA's goal is to ensure greater
protection of public health, while also ensuring that farmers have the
tools necessary for food production. To address the concerns of all
interested parties, EPA and USDA have established the Committee to
Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT), which met for the first
time June 23, 2000. This committee is bringing together expertise from
all perspectives, including farmers, industry representatives and
others, to help guide EPA and USDA implementation of FQPA. CARAT is
developing recommendations for reducing risks from older, riskier
pesticides, with a focus on ensuring that farmers are provided a
reasonable transition to safer pest management strategies, including
chemical and non-chemical alternatives. CARAT will also discuss the
process for developing strategic pest management plans for agriculture
and public health uses of pesticides, and work to ensure that high
priority is given to risk management strategies for pesticides most
likely to lead to exposures to children. In creating CARAT, EPA and
USDA reaffirm their commitment to the key principles established by the
Vice President: use of sound science in protecting public health;
consultation with the public and other agencies; increased
transparency; and, reasonable transition for agriculture.
EPA has developed a priority system to expedite review of
applications for new pesticides to address pest control needs
potentially impacted by FQPA. For instance, since organophosphate (OP)
pesticides are one of the classes given priority for tolerance
reassessment, the Agency has instituted a policy to give priority
consideration to applications for organophosphate alternatives. Since
the passage of FQPA, almost 25 OP alternatives have been identified--
some completely new chemicals--and almost half of them have already
been registered. For example, spinosad, tebufenozide, methoxyfenozide,
and pyriproxyfen have recently been registered as OP alternatives for
use on apples, a crop which has historically high OP use. In fact,
along with ``reduced-risk'' pesticides and other prioritized pesticide
registrations, hundreds of new uses are now available. Likewise, EPA
gives priority to applications for new minor use pesticides, methyl
bromide alternatives, and for pesticides which may help address
vulnerable crop/pest combinations.
In addition to the registration process, EPA has instituted
programmatic changes to facilitate transition for agriculture. For
example, through its regions, the Agency initiated an Agriculture
Initiative program. This Initiative, currently being piloted in four
EPA regions, helps fund projects such as the gathering of use/usage
data and the education of growers regarding alternative methods of pest
control. The Agency also formed a Minor Use team to work more closely
with minor crop growers and USDA.
Regarding your question about the use of chlorpyrifos on grains,
chlorpyrifos-methyl, not chlorpyrifos, is the primary non-fumigant type
treatment used to control grain pests. The registrant is voluntarily
canceling the uses of this pesticide. Because this important grain-
storage pesticide is being canceled, this crop/pesticide combination is
now classified as a critical pest management need by EPA, and
alternatives will receive prioritized pesticide registration status.
Further, potential alternatives will receive priority research funding
status with USDA. Also, USDA's Pesticide Management Alternative Program
and its new Crops at Risk (CAR) and Risk Mitigation for Major Crop
Production (RAMP) programs provide funding to seek both short- and
long-term solutions to critical pest management needs like this.
Question 2. Organophosphates (OP) pesticides, which account for
about 70 percent of the current market, are being reviewed under the
FQPA. EPA has announced its plans to complete the review of all OPs by
the end of this year. How will EPA work with USDA to find suitable
replacements for any OPs that may be canceled or will no longer be
available as a result of the review?
Response. EPA has developed a priority system to expedite review of
applications for new pesticides to address pest control needs
potentially impacted by FQPA. For instance, since organophosphate (OP)
pesticides are one of the classes given priority for tolerance
reassessment, the Agency has instituted a policy to give priority
consideration to applications for organophosphate alternatives. Since
the passage of FQPA, almost 25 OP alternatives have been identified--
some completely new chemicals--and almost half of them have already
been registered. For example, spinosad, tebufenozide, methoxyfenozide,
and pyriproxyfen have recently been registered as OP alternatives for
use on apples, a crop which has historically high OP use. In fact,
along with ``reduced-risk'' pesticides and other prioritized pesticide
registrations, hundreds of new uses are now available. Likewise, EPA
gives priority to applications for new minor use pesticides, methyl
bromide alternatives, and for pesticides which may help address
vulnerable crop/pest combinations.
Additionally, we are working closely with USDA and the agricultural
community to address the concerns of all interested parties. Again, EPA
and USDA have established CARAT to bring together expertise from all
perspectives to help guide EPA and USDA implementation of FQPA. In
creating CARAT, EPA and USDA reaffirm our commitment to the key
principles established by the Vice President: use of sound science in
protecting public health; consultation with the public and other
agencies; increased transparency; and, reasonable transition for
agriculture.
In addition to the registration process, EPA has instituted
programmatic changes to facilitate transition for agriculture. For
example, through its regions, the Agency initiated an Agriculture
Initiative program. This Initiative, currently being piloted in four
EPA regions, helps fund projects such as the gathering of use/usage
data and the education of growers regarding alternative methods of pest
control. The Agency also formed a Minor Use team to work more closely
with minor crop growers and USDA.
Question 3. Please describe how EPA will work with USDA to evaluate
the impact on U.S. exports and commodity prices if U.S. growers cannot
use discontinued pesticides but their foreign competitors can?
Response. EPA, in cooperation with USDA, is working to ensure that
there is a level playing field with our international trading partners.
EPA has a policy of revoking tolerances for pesticides that are no
longer registered in the U.S. This policy is based on the Agency's
long-standing concern that retention of tolerances that are not
necessary has the potential to allow foreign growers to continue to
ship treated produce to the U.S., putting our own growers at a
disadvantage. Also, FDA conducts sampling and testing of imported foods
to detect potential pesticide residues. If there are detections of
illegal pesticide residues the food is adulterated and seized.
EPA is working with our international trading partners to inform
them of our regulatory decisions, and to help promote the use of safer
alternatives. For example, throughout the past 5 years, we have been
working very closely with the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory
Agency (PMRA) in jointly reviewing new pesticide applications for
registration, and sharing work on many other pesticides. The agencies
have completed four joint reviews of reduced risk pesticides, and seven
other pesticides are either being jointly reviewed or in a work share
mode, with several other candidates in the pipeline.
EPA is also working to harmonize our regulatory standards among
countries to help ensure that our farmers are not at a competitive
disadvantage. For example, the U.S., Canada and Mexico have made a
great deal of progress in pesticide regulatory harmonization as a
result of work done under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) Technical Working Group (TWO) on Pesticides. The work of the
NAFTA TWO aims to develop a North American market for pesticides, and
make work-sharing the way of doing business between the U.S., Canada
and Mexico by the year 2002.
Question. In conducting a more rigorous, thorough scientific review
of pesticides, as required by FQPA, the cost of developing the
necessary data, such as actual exposure and health effects, can be
considerable. For some pesticides, especially those with limited or
specialty uses, the cost of those tests may outweigh the return the
manufacturer receives from the product. How serious a problem is the
potential discontinuation of products due to the data development costs
and how would you intend to address it.
Response. EPA considers the pesticides you mention to be ``minor
use'' crop pesticides--chemicals with limited or specialty uses. EPA is
concerned about the minor use problem, and has a number of activities
underway to help ensure that data development costs are considered in
our data requirements. For example, EPA makes every effort to reduce or
tailor data requirements to reflect the degree of exposure. Therefore,
in many cases EPA has minimized data development costs.
Since FQPA passed, the Agency has worked even more closely with
USDA to expedite review and register minor crop pesticide alternatives,
promote research and development of new safer minor use tools, and
increase dialog with the minor crop community. EPA has established a
system that gives priority to products with minor crop uses for
conventional pesticides. USDA's Inter Regional Project No. 4 (IR-4) has
been an important ally in accelerating the registration of alternatives
to minor uses, with special emphasis on reduced risk products. EPA/IR-4
partnership projects include: developing blanket tolerances for
selected reduced-risk chemicals, significantly reducing review time;
improving the tolerance petition format creating new crop groupings;
streamlining the reduced risk justification format for minor uses; and,
harmonizing registration data development with other countries. We are
making significant progress to expedite registration of minor use
pesticides. For example, in 1999 EPA established 32 tolerances for
minor crops, and plan to review over 100 petitions on 40 active
ingredients, which could result in 300 new registrations for minor
crops in fiscal year 2000.
To help facilitate minor use registration efforts, EPA also created
a multi-disciplinary Minor Use Team and a Public Health Steering
Committee. The goals of this group are to: provide greater coordination
between EPA and minor use growers prior to decisions; increase
coordination with USDA, the JR-4, industry, growers, and other
stakeholders to promote registration of reduced-risk pesticides for
minor uses; and, encourage the development of pesticide use and residue
data. The Agency also appointed a minor use ombudsman within the Of
lice of Pesticide Programs who's primary responsibility is to serve as
liaison and advocate for minor crop grower needs.
Through the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), and
now CARAT, EPA has increased consultation with pesticide stakeholders,
including minor crop growers, encouraging comments on our
implementation process and decisions. Working cooperatively with USDA,
EPA has collected additional pesticide use and residue data for
tolerance reassessments. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics
Service and Pesticide Data Program provide statistically sound,
reliable pesticide use and residue data and develop data collection
based on EPA needs, which allows for better, more-informed regulatory
decisions. We have also provided support to USDA's development of
integrated pest management strategies. In fiscal year 2000, this
includes over $10 million for pesticide alternatives programs at USDA.
EPA is an active partner with USDA in selecting projects which fulfill
the mission of these grants.
______
Responses by James V. Aidala to Additional Questions from Senator
Hutchison
Bt Cotton
Question 1. What process has or will EPA employ to ensure that the
reregistration decisionmaking process is transparent and timely? How
has or will EPA involve growers in this process?
Response. It is EPA's goal to assure that we continue to make our
regulatory decisions within an open and transparent framework, and that
we are fully informed by the most recent and best available scientific
information. Specifically, EPA will shortly announce our public process
to reach regulatory decisions on the Bt corn and Bt cotton expiring
registrations. The process will include scientific peer review and
public comment of EPA's risk assessment for the Bt products.
The Agency will assure a transparent and interactive review process
for its decisions and will involve all of our stakeholders--the
manufacturers, the growers and the public, as we develop and implement
a U.S. biotechnology program that provides the public with confidence
in EPA's regulatory decisions, while providing U.S. farmers with the
tools they need to continue to produce a safe and healthy food supply.
This Agency is also committed to providing clear and timely information
to the farming community to ensure our decisions are responsive to
agricultural growing conditions.
In fact, EPA recently held meetings with each of the stakeholder
groups, including grower groups, to get input on the process for
considering the reregistration of Bt corn and Bt cotton. In addition,
EPA met with the National Cotton Council and the National Corn Growers
Association on several aspects of the registrations of these products,
especially resistance management. The National Corn Growers Association
and the manufacturers all played a significant role in strengthening
the resistance management plans for Bt corn for the 2000 growing season
and beyond that were announced in January.
Question 2. Does EPA have field data from commercial farming
operations that indicates resistance is building in target insect
populations that warrants changes in current refuge requirement?
Response. Fortunately, no Bt resistant insects have been found in
the field. However, independent scientific experts believe that
resistance could occur under certain conditions, and that the
development of resistance is significantly minimized with updated
refugia requirements. EPA and the manufacturers have already
implemented strengthened refugia requirement for Bt corn. As part of
these measures, EPA is also requiring actual field monitoring as an
early warning system to prevent potential resistance. EPA, in
cooperation with the cotton scientists, growers, and the manufacturers
have agreed to new and improved approaches to refuge management in Bt
cotton to help ensure resistance does not develop.
Question 3. What economic analysis has EPA completed to determine
an economic threshold for these products in regards to refugia options?
Response. An economic analysis to determine an economic threshold
for these products in regards to refugia options is not necessary. By
way of background, economic thresholds determine when it is appropriate
to use a pesticide so that such use provides the farmer a benefit at or
above the cost of the treatment. Refugia are established to help
prevent resistance to Bt, and are not directly related to economic
thresholds. Therefore, there is not an economic threshold per se in
establishing a refuge. Preserving the effectiveness of Bt is critical
to maintaining this important technology.
Question 4. Would EPA propose new refuge requirements that have not
been extensively field tested by commercial farmers? What
communications has EPA had with growers to determine the feasibility of
such proposals?
Response. Academic, USDA, EPA, and industry scientists have been
working on resistance management for the Bt crops since the development
for these products. Scientific testing to strengthen existing refugia
and developing new refugia options has been ongoing. New refugia
options are typically tried on a small scale, and then tested further
on a larger scale. Any new refugia options are discussed extensively
with EPA, USDA, growers, and the manufacturers. Depending on the
scientific results to prevent resistance and their practicality, are
incorporated as necessary into agricultural growing practices.
EPA has met frequently with the National Cotton Council, the
National Corn Growers Association, and the National Potato Council to
gain their perspective on resistance management, and to ensure the
ongoing resistance management requirements are practical for growers to
implement. As we move forward to review the expiring registrations for
Bt corn and Bt cotton, we are establishing an extensive open and
transparent process to provide input into our decisions. We encourage
our stakeholders to comment in writing and in public when we hold
public meetings, including meetings with our Scientific Advisory Panel
meetings. We have also participated in meetings held by these grower
organizations and visited field sites to specifically discuss
resistance management with growers.
Question 5. The registration of Bt cotton product expires with the
current crop. When can farmers expect to learn what rules will apply to
use of Bt cotton for the 2001 crop year?
Response. EPA will shortly issue a Federal Register notice which
will describe the process for consideration of the expiring Bt crop
registrations. EPA is planning on using a process which will invite
public participation from all interested parties, including farmers and
grower groups. This process will include review of EPA's risk
assessment by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel as well as technical
briefings. Farmers and all other interested parties will be invited to
participate and comment on the draft risk assessment and risk
management decisions for Bt crops. The Agency is sensitive to the
seasonal planning needs of farmers, and will ensure that decisions on
any new requirements, or other information critical to growers, are
announced well in advance of the 2001 growing season.
Responses by James Aidala to Supplemental Questions from Senator Smith
enclosure 1
Question 1. Is it accurate that EPA supports enactment into law of
amendment No. 3308 as written?
Response. As you are aware, EPA stated in a letter to Senator Boxer
dated June 13, 2000, that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As
noted at the hearing, however, the amendment has not been subject to a
full review by the Administration, nor has the Administration taken a
position on the amendment.
Question 2. If EPA supports elimination of the products restricted
in amendment No. 3308, please outline and supply the scientific studies
and other scientific basis in detail which influenced your judgment.
Response. EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to
children of pesticides. EPA is ready to work with the Department of
Defense (DoD) and others to craft effective methods of pest control
that will minimize exposures to children. In fact, there is already a
foundation of success to build on in this regard. In 1996, EPA and DoD
entered into a memorandum of understanding to form a partnership to
promote environmental stewardship by adopting integrated pest
management strategies. This effort has resulted in significant
reductions of pesticide use by DoD.
The categories of pesticides included in the amendment correlate
with Group 1 of EPA's schedule for tolerance reassessment, consisting
of pesticides which appear to pose the greatest risk to public health.
A copy of the Federal Register Notice explaining the division of
pesticides into groups is enclosed. The Agency is giving priority to
the review of these pesticides through its tolerance reassessment
process and will take appropriate action upon completion of the review.
To date, the Agency has reviewed approximately 3,485 of the 9,721
existing tolerances. When the Agency determines, after extensive
scientific review, that the risks posed by a pesticide do not meet the
FQPA standards it will move to eliminate the risk. For example, last
August, the Agency negotiated agreements with the manufacturers of
methyl parathion and azinphos methyl to either eliminate or reduce
application rates on foods to address such unacceptable risks.
Meanwhile, many of the pesticides included in the amendment are still
undergoing reassessment.
Question 3. If EPA opposes the amendment, supports changes to the
amendment, or has concerns with the amendment, why was that not
expressed in the letter?
Response. As stated above, the June 13 letter reaffirms EPA's
support for the goal of the amendment. Beyond that, the Administration
has not taken a position on the amendment.
Question 4. If the letter is neither supportive or in opposition to
the amendment, what was the purpose of the letter?
Response. Immediately after the June 13 confirmation hearing, EPA
was asked by Senator Boxer to provide its views in writing on the
amendment prior to the scheduled floor consideration of the amendment.
As Mr. Aidala testified, the amendment had not received Administration
review. Given the limited time available, the Agency stated its support
for the goal of protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure
and to explain our current activities in that area. We also expressed
our willingness to work closely with the DoD on this issue.
Question 5. Were you aware of this letter at the time of your
testimony and if so, why was it not referenced before the committee?
Response. At the time of Mr. Aidala's testimony, EPA was not
preparing a letter, it was only upon the conclusion of the hearing that
a request was received from Senator Boxer for such a letter. At the
time of the hearing, Mr. Aidala was only aware that Senator Boxer was
considering introducing such an amendment.
Question 6. If you were not, were you subsequently consulted?
Response. Mr. Aidala was subsequently informed that EPA's Of lice
of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations received a request
from Senator Boxer to clarify EPA's views.
Question 7. If you were not consulted, why were you not consulted?
Response. Not applicable.
Question 8. Please reconcile your testimony with the letter.
Response. The letter and, to the best of our understanding, Mr.
Aidala's testimony state that EPA supports the goal of protecting
children from unnecessary pesticide exposure, and that EPA supports the
goal of the amendment. As noted at the hearing, however, the amendment
has not been subject to a full review by the Administration.
Question 9. Does EPA already protect children on military bases
from harmful pesticides?
Response. The protection of children is one of our highest
priorities. When we register, reregister, or reassess tolerances for
existing pesticides we try to ensure that our actions are protective of
all consumers, especially children. FQPA requires special protections
for infants and children including: an explicit determination that
tolerances are safe for children; an additional safety factor, if
necessary, to account for uncertainty in data relative to children; and
consideration of children's special sensitivity and exposure to
pesticide chemicals.
Question 10. If not, why not?
Response. Not applicable.
Question 11. If so, why is this legislation necessary?
Response. EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to
children from pesticides and respects the authority of Congress to
impose restrictions beyond the current regulatory program.
Question 12. List the products that would be impacted by this
amendment?
Response. As stated earlier, the products correlate with those on
Group 1 of EPA's tolerance reassessment schedule. A copy of that
schedule of information is enclosed.
Question 13. Describe the nature of the products in a range from
threatening to benign that would be affected by this amendment?
Response. Pesticides which were included in Group 1 were those that
EPA identified as appearing to pose the greatest risk to public health.
The Agency did not distinguish among products in this group in terms of
their potential effects.
Question 14. Do any of these products have positive benefits to
children's health?
Response. When used according to label directions many of these
products could be used for pest control, sterilization of medical
instruments, or other uses potentially beneficial to children.
Question 15. If so, is there any risk to children if Congress
prevents the availability of these products?
Response. EPA is not sufficiently aware of DoD's pest control needs
to make that determination. To make a proper assessment, the Agency
would need to know what products are used, and how they are used so
that alternatives could be considered. It should be noted that through
EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, DoD has committed to
moving toward pesticide alternatives and less use of pesticides, or use
of less toxic pesticides. DoD has been recognized by EPA for their
tremendous progress in this area.
Question 16. What is the availability and cost of substitute
products?
Response. Again, EPA would need to know more about the DoD's pest
control needs to make that determination.
Question 17. Are any of the products affected by this amendment
products that were NOT restricted in an equivalent way by the
chlorpyrifos agreement announced by EPA last week?
Response. There would be many other products affected that were not
part of last week's agreement, although chlorpyrifos products would be
part of the list of affected pesticides.
Question 18. If so, which products/uses permitted under the
chlorpyrifos agreement would not be permitted under this amendment?
Response. This would require detailed knowledge of DoD pest control
needs, but might affect any of the pesticides under Group 1, including
chlorpyrifos.
Question 19. Did EPA consult with DoD prior to the 6/13/00 letter
to coordinate the Administration's view on the amendment?
Response. EPA did not formally consult with DoD in preparing this
specific letter. The letter stated that EPA supports the goal of
protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure, and that EPA
supports the goal of the amendment. As noted earlier, however, the
amendment has not been subject to a full review by the Administration.
Question 20. Is EPA, in general, supportive of Congress
substituting its own judgment in place of that of EPA's by bypassing
the existing regulatory system that relies on science and is already in
place?
Response. EPA respects the role of Congress to enact laws and
conduct oversight on their implementation by the Administration. EPA
stands ready to work with Congress to ensure the necessary pest control
tools are available while minimizing unnecessary risk.
Question 21. In general, is EPA supportive of broad new regulatory
requirements added as legislative provisions to appropriations bills
without the benefit of public hearings and if so why was this amendment
not opposed on that basis?
Response. In general, the Administration opposes riders to
appropriations bills that weaken environmental protections. As stated
above, EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure of
children to pesticides. This is consistent with the emphasis of FQPA's
mandate to protect infants and children.
-