[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MARCH 1 AND 8, 2007
----------
Serial No. 110-11
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 1 AND 8, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-11
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-829 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
?
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
BART GORDON, Tennessee
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BART STUPAK, Michigan
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GENE GREEN, Texas
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman
LOIS CAPPS, California
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JANE HARMAN, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
HILDA L. SOLIS, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana JOE BARTON, Texas
Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRED UPTON, Michigan
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
_________________________________________________________________
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of
Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk
Bud Albright, Minority Staff
Director
(ii)
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois,
BART STUPAK, Michigan Ranking Member
LOIS CAPPS, California CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
TOM ALLEN, Maine NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
HILDA L. SOLIS, California HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
Vice Chairman JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin VITO FOSELLA, New York
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JOHN BARROW, Georgia JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
BARON P. HILL, Indiana LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
----------
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois,
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JOHN BARROW, Georgia FRED UPTON, Michigan
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
JANE HARMAN, California Mississippi
TOM ALLEN, Maine STEVE BUYER, Indiana
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MARY BONO, California
JAY INSLEE, Washington GREG WALDEN, Oregon
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 1, 2007
Page
Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 3
Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, opening statement................................ 5
Hon. Tim, Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 6
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 10
Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 11
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 12
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 13
Witnesses
Bill Roderick, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Answers to submitted questions............................... 170
J. Christian Bollwage, mayor, city of Elizabeth, Elizabeth, NJ... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Answers to submitted questions............................... 139
Robert W. King, Jr., president, Environmental Council of the
States; deputy commissioner, South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control............................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Answers to submitted questions............................... 144
Andrew M. Langer, manager, regulatory affairs, Federation of
Independent Business........................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Answers to submitted questions............................... 150
Maurice McTigue, director, government accountability project,
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA........................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Answers to submitted questions............................... 155
Patrice Simms, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council 88
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Answers to submitted questions............................... 160
MARCH 8, 2007
Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, opening statement................................. 183
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 186
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, opening statement................................. 187
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 189
Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 190
Prepared statement........................................... 190
Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 191
Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, opening statement..................... 191
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 192
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement.......................... 194
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 195
Witness
Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 195
Prepared statement........................................... 197
Answers to pre-hearing questions............................. 255
Answers to submitted questions............................... 271
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R.
Wynn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Pallone, Stupak, Solis,
Baldwin, Butterfield, Barrow, Hill, DeGette, Green, Shimkus,
Stearns, Terry, Rogers, Sullivan and Murphy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Wynn. This is the first of two hearings on the fiscal
year 2008 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Today
we will hear from a distinguished panel of stakeholders who are
directly affected by EPA's funding levels, and later on March 8
we will have the honor and pleasure of hearing from the EPA
administrator, Mr. Stephen Johnson.
For purposes of making opening statements, the chairs and
ranking members of the subcommittee and the full committee will
each be recognized for 5 minutes. All other members of the
subcommittee will be recognized for 3 minutes. Those members
may waive their right to make an opening statement when first
recognized to raise questions. They may add those 3 minutes to
their time for questions. Without objections, all Members will
have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements for the
record.
Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to
recognize the premier of Bermuda who is with us, the Honorable
Ewart Brown. We are delighted to have you, Mr. Premier.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. It was just suggested we have an oversight
hearing in Bermuda. Thank you very much for stopping by.
Since at least 2003, there has been growing concern about
the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to fulfill
its programmatic mission in several critical areas including
Superfund, Brownfields, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, the
Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving Loan Fund and environmental
justice, among other issues. However, this is the first hearing
this subcommittee has held on the EPA budget in 6 years and it
is the first under the current administration. I believe that
it is part of Congress's institutional and constitutional
responsibility to hold oversight hearings on the EPA, and
unlike the last Congress, this subcommittee will
enthusiastically pursue these responsibilities.
As we move forward, there are several realities we must
consider. First, the President's EPA budget request for fiscal
year 2008, when adjusted for inflation and constant dollars,
shows a dramatic decline over the last 10 years. Second, the
Superfund program has seen a precipitous drop in the number of
sites being completed. And third, the President has expressed
his opposition to reinstatement of dedicated taxes, resulting
in all EPA-funded cleanups having to come out of general
revenues.
It appears the administration has a less-than-serious
commitment to environmental protection since the EPA is one of
only two agencies to see a decline in the President's budget.
First, in terms of the Superfund, the fiscal year 2008 budget
request for Superfund is $35 million less than the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget request. These reductions come at a
time when progress in completing construction activities of
Superfund national priority list sites has slowed dramatically.
EPA has projected completion of 40 sites in fiscal year 2007
but recently announced that it will achieve only 24
construction completions this year, a reduction of 40 percent.
In many instances, EPA has been unable to begin construction
cleanup on new Superfund sites or more commonly, EPA has been
unable to move to completion on sites already in the pipeline.
What this means is that EPA is unable to adequately meet its
mission of protecting human health and the environment and our
constituents continue to remain at risk.
Turning to the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks program,
leaking underground storage tanks are the leading source of
groundwater contamination in the United States, posing a risk
to the Nation's drinking water supply. Congress enacted the
LUST Trust Fund in order to deal with this growing threat to
the Nation's health. Interest on the LUST Trust Fund is
estimated to add an additional $109 million in fiscal year
2008, bringing the total LUST Fund surplus to $3 billion. The
President's budget, however, requests just $72.5 million from
this trust fund for cleanup, slightly less than last year's
appropriations. Gasoline taxes paid by consumers are not going
for their specified purpose: the cleanup of spills and releases
and contaminated water supplies. Using this important trust
fund to offset other administration spending is quite frankly a
farce on the American public. But in the meantime, there is a
backlog of 113,000 cleanups. The longer this contamination is
left unaddressed, the greater the adverse effect on human
health, increasing the ultimate cost of the cleanups.
In terms of Brownfields, the President's fiscal year 2008
budget request of $89 million for cleanup and assessment grants
is 26 percent less than his request for 2006. Current law
provides an authorization of $200 million per year but the
President's request for 2008 seeks only 56 percent of the
amount authorized for cleanups and assessment grants. This is
troublesome when you consider that in 2006 there were 694
Brownfield project grant proposals but only slightly more than
a third actually received funding. This is also of concern
because demand for cleanups has intensified, particularly with
the increased focus on environmental justice for low-income and
minority communities.
In terms of the drinking water revolving loan fund designed
to support States in helping public water systems finance the
cost of infrastructure improvements, again we see inadequate
funding. When adjusted for inflation in 2006 dollars, the
President's budget request for 2008 is the lowest in the
history of the revolving loan fund program. These reductions
lead to shortfalls in State resources and consumers are hurt.
They either foot the bill or they suffer outbreaks of
waterborne diseases due to failing infrastructure.
Overall, there are concerns that EPA's funding is
insufficient to meet its mission to protect the environment and
the public health. There are unfunded mandates for States, a
backlog of polluted sites and spreading contamination. In the
face of chronic underfunding of EPA's core health programs, I
am also concerned that EPA is expending significant resources
on voluntary programs with questionable oversight and
evaluation.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, the
stakeholders who represent the interests of the States, the
environmental community and the small-business community and
learning more about their views of our efforts to protect the
health of our constituents and the environment.
At this time I would like to recognize my distinguished
colleague, Mr. Shimkus, the ranking member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
congratulate you on your chairmanship and tell you how much I
look forward to working together. We have already had a couple
meetings and I think that is very important. I know there will
be times when we will agree to disagree, and if we do that
amicably, I think that is going to help us also in the movement
of public policy. But I am sure we both can agree that
protecting human health, one of the duties of our jurisdiction
on this committee, is something members on both sides of the
aisle want.
One thing we know is that no real progress occurs on
environmental issues unless both Democrats and Republicans
stand behind the same policy. In fact, Chairman Dingell and I
talked about this prior to the markup that we just left. I also
want to be very clear that I and the Republican members of this
committee welcome congressional oversight by this panel and
want to extend our hand in cooperation to these efforts. We
want the facts, both the budgetary and the scientific, and we
support thoughtful, reasoned, deliberate and meaningful
questioning that advances the needs of our constituents, not
Republicans or Democrats. It goes without saying that efforts
outside of these parameters are viewed by myself and my
colleagues as partisan commercials that should not have a place
in this committee.
For this reason, I wanted to share with you my surprise at
not being asked to join you and other members of this committee
on a couple letters that were sent to the EPA and the
Government Accountability Office on waste generated at CAFOS.
At least give me the chance to say no, I won't sign it. I am
especially concerned about CAFOS, the Combined Animal Feeding
Operation Districts, because the three signers of the letter, I
have as many head of animals, poultry, beef, pork, as you all
do people, plus 70 percent more in my congressional district,
so there is a different view of CAFOS in rural America, and I
think that is why we want to encourage you to come out to
southern Illinois, but I have already made that invitation to
you and we can see a part of the country in which some of the
issues may be a little bit different.
Certainly long before any pollution from a farm reaches an
urban setting, it passes through a rural one and we have the
mayors here or the representatives of mayors and they are
mayors of small towns that have to deal with these issues. That
is why I would like to follow up and encourage a visit by you
and other members if we can arrange it, both to the St. Louis
metropolitan area and southern Illinois.
I only think it makes sense to focus our time and
understanding on the budget of the main Federal agency that our
committee oversees. I applaud your decision to hold 2 days'
worth of hearings and I would like to personally thank you for
allowing the minority two requested witnesses to appear on this
panel. I made that personal request and you agreed, and I do
appreciate that. This is a great start to our working together
as chairman and ranking member.
I think the budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is not an easy document to understand. I prefer things
to be simple, and this budget, just like the budget of other
Federal agencies, is not. What strikes me is that nothing the
EPA does happens in a vacuum. It has ramifications for Federal,
State and local regulators. It impacts large, medium and small
business and it translates into how public health protections
can and will be carried out. Simply looking at the numbers does
a disservice to the work of the agency and its partners.
Rather, we need to step back and ask ourselves if progress is
happening, are people being protected and how do we know: a
result-oriented approach. We also need to decide of the money
we are spending is being spent wisely. Is it sapping resources
from other potentially more crucial public health needs or it
is being used as a crutch for programs or stakeholders that no
longer need it or could do without it? We must admit that it is
misguided to beat up the Bush administration when all
appropriations are required by the Constitution to begin in the
House. So you all are going to have a chance to submit a budget
and address some of these wrongs and we are going to see how
well you guys do.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican members of this committee and
I pledge to be an honest broker on the issues that lie ahead. I
welcome the witnesses and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Wynn. I want to thank the gentleman for his opening
statement. I look forward to working with the gentleman. We
have had a good and cordial working relationship and had
several conversations prior to this hearing. I also want to
indicate that I am sorry if you feel excluded from our
correspondence. I am sure we will have an opportunity to talk
about that in the future.
Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield, you can always
say, well, you never signed that letter.
Mr. Wynn. That was my intent, but I certainly don't want
you to feel excluded.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Simms wants to make sure that I don't sign
my letters. He will let me know.
Mr. Wynn. With respect to the appropriations, I do want to
note that it was the Congress under the Republican majority
that was responsible for some of the shortages that we have
experienced.
But not to belabor that point, I want to move into the
opening statements by members of the committee, and at this
point the Chair would recognize Ms. Baldwin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is exciting to be here today to finally discuss the
operation of our Nation's Environment Protection Agency. Too
many years, in fact, 6 years have passed since our last public
conversations about EPA's programs and priorities, and this
body has been lax, perhaps even negligent in its use of
oversight power and it is certainly time for us to exert our
constitutional responsibilities and ask difficult but important
questions about the actions the EPA is taking, and I commend
the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for beginning our
discussions today with testimony from people who see firsthand
the impact of the EPA's actions and funding decisions. Quite
frankly, over the last 6 years it has been difficult for the
EPA to fully meet its mission of protecting human health and
the environment, given that the administration does not seem to
place a priority on its proper funding. In fact, the EPA's
budget has been stuck in a downward spiral for years. The
result has been that Superfund sites remain dangerous, drinking
water is threatened and air quality is jeopardized.
In my home State of Wisconsin, our environment is
considered precious. Our tradition is of stewardship,
conservation, preservation and environmental protection, and
that tradition is long. We rely heavily on groundwater and
freshwater from lakes. We believe in protecting our wetlands
and ensuring that our air is fresh to breathe. However, lately
our efforts to preserve and protect our environment have been
jeopardized. Our State and local authorities have expressed
concern about the effects of cuts to programs like the State
and tribal grants program, the State Drinking Water Revolving
Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. They are worried
that as funding levels for programs decrease or remain
stagnant, States are expected to provide a greater share of the
funding, and at the same time pick up responsibility for
implementing new requirements promulgated by the EPA. It is
simply not fair to place unfunded mandates on our neighbors and
communities back home.
Let me also add that in Wisconsin, we are deeply concerned
about the lack of attention that EPA is placing on efforts to
reduce mercury pollution. Exposure to and consumption of
mercury-laden fish can result in severe health effects. The EPA
recognized this in its 2006 roadmap for mercury and outlined a
number of promising programs to retire mercury-containing
devices, address mercury releases to the environment and
conduct mercury research and monitoring. Unfortunately, the
administration's budget does not appear to provide the
appropriate financial support or staffing levels needed to
implement many of these initiatives. Meanwhile, we continue to
hear about the dangers of exposure to mercury in our school
classrooms, our water and our food supply. Mr. Chairman, I am
hopeful that by holding these EPA budget hearings we will be
able to able to refocus our attention back to environmental
protection and show that protecting our environment should not
solely be a State or interest group responsibility. Rather, the
Federal Government has a role to play in ensuring that our air
is clean to breathe, our water is safe to drink and our
communities are preserved and protected for future generations
to enjoy.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentlelady.
At this point the Chair would recognize Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. I waive.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Murphy for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak at this hearing.
Back in the 1800's, I believe it was Charles Darwin that
referred to the city of Pittsburgh as ``Hell with the lid
off.'' Up until the 1940's and 1950's, it was the city that
when men came to work, they brought with them an extra shirt
and they would change it at noontime because by then it was
gray from the soot that was in the air. Pittsburgh, which
obviously has a legacy of steel, and the region, which has a
legacy of coal, of which we will have 190 years worth of coal
long after Saudi Arabia is out of oil, still finds itself in
making the transition from a century-plus of bad environmental
policies. We probably have one of the highest numbers of
environmental engineering companies in the Nation in Pittsburgh
and they have made some significant progress as we have looked
at how environment and health has worked to make positive
changes. This includes such things as coal mine sites and
continuing coal mines being turned into botanical gardens,
which will be an economic engine for the region, large steel
mill Brownfields which have been turned into vital shopping
centers and housing areas of which the housing demand is so
high in these areas people can't get them as far as they build
them.
Pittsburgh was home to a national bass fishing tournament
in rivers that used to be ones that people would not even want
to stand by, let alone see any fish in there. We have gone from
the smoky city, Hell with the lid off, to an area that really
as an example of one of the great, beautiful views of America.
In fact, they say that standing from Mount Washington is
probably second only to standing out and looking at the rocks
in Arizona as a view.
That being said, it has been done by large investments and
upgrading, incentives for positive change, building
partnerships for change with business and industries and public
health, embracing positive solutions and engine for economic
growth and doing those together, and not just with a heavy hand
of ones that works to threaten or destroy our local economy as
moving toward these. We all want, and our primary purpose
should be looking at public health but that also has to partner
with making sure we do not destroy our industries and our jobs
in the meantime. I think all the public can agree on that, and
sometimes I have questioned if EPA has all those things in mind
too. I hope it does but I think we do best when we work
together and we do worse when we work apart.
So given that case, as we work to recognize that we are
going to still need coal energy, we are going to still need to
manufacture in the United States, we should be looking at ways
to help transition from the legacy as opposed to just shutting
it down. I suppose we could clean all the air and streams in
America if we shut down our industry but then we would find
everyone else struggling to even survive from there. So let us
hope that all the aspects of this budget and all the working
towards will be money well spend and money that is multiplied
by working together with business and industry, communities and
public health to clean our air, clean our water, cleanup our
Brownfields by making these positive economic engines in place
that we can be proud of.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you. As a graduate of the University of
Pittsburgh, I actually recognize the progress that you cite.
At this time the Chair would recognize my good friend from
North Carolina, who represents the district where I grew up,
Congressman Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't
have any prepared remarks. I simply want to thank you for your
leadership and look forward to working with you on the
subcommittee. I thank the witnesses for coming forward today.
This is a very important subject, not only to America but to
the world. And so thank you for your testimony. I look forward
to hearing from you and look forward to working with all of you
including my friends on the other side of the aisle.
I yield back.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Rogers from
Michigan.
Mr. Rogers. I waive.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair recognizes Mr. Barrow of Georgia.
Mr. Barrow. I waive.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair would recognize Ms. DeGette.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo Ms. Baldwin's dismay at the fact that this
is the first hearing this committee has had on the EPA's budget
since the Clinton administration and I think that is really
shocking, but what is more shocking is what the administration
has done to some of our most vital environmental and public
health programs in that short amount of time. I do appreciate
the willingness of our panel to come and testify today and tell
us their views. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see that real
oversight has returned to Capitol Hill.
I am also pleased to see Mr. Stupak here because I think
between the two committees, the Environment and the Oversight
and the Investigation Subcommittee, both of which I serve on,
we know that your testimony will be very helpful to us as we
begin to look and see not only what this budget means but also
what the administration's environmental programs mean.
Last fall, I was privileged to attend a ceremony at a site
in Denver, the Shaddock site, which had been contaminated by
hazardous waste and which had a Record of Decision where
everything would be scraped in a big football field-sized area
and left in the middle of a low-income residential
neighborhood. I worked with Senator Allard on a bipartisan
basis to get that Record of Decision reversed and now we are
developing houses in that area, but while I was at that happy
event, I got to spend some time talking to my local EPA staff
in Denver and also to some of the activists and they confirmed
what I have believed for several years now: we are not
undertaking environmental enforcement at nearly the pace we
should be in this country to protect the health and welfare of
our citizens. There are a number of areas, and I hope to still
be here to question the panel about these areas of concern that
I have.
I am concerned about the lack of reauthorization for the
Polluter Pays tax into the Superfund. We may have many
Superfund sites around this country that are not being cleaned
up because there is not enough money in the Superfund and so I
think that I am interested in learning either today or later
what the impact of shifting the burden onto the taxpayer from
the polluter has been in cleaning up these heavily contaminated
sites.
A second issue that I have been working on many years ever
since I was in the Colorado State Legislature is the issue of
Brownfields, and I am very concerned in this budget about the
severe lack of funding for the Brownfields program. In 2005,
for example, the EPA received 673 requests for funding but it
only funded a third of the projects.
And last, Mr. Bilirakis, the senior Mr. Bilirakis and I
worked hard on the integrity and independence of the EPA
ombudsman program and I am looking forward to knowing next week
at the hearing that we have what is going on with the ombudsman
program and under the current structure at the Inspector
General's Office is the ombudsman really independent.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this
hearing and yield back.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentlelady, who has been a champion
on environmental issues.
At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first
congratulate you on becoming the Chair of the subcommittee.
Having previously been the ranking member, I know the complex
but critical issues under our jurisdiction here and I look
forward to working with you. I know that several of us have
mentioned how little the subcommittee has done over the past
several years, and just the fact that you are having the EPA
Administrator in front of us for the first time in his career
next week I think says a lot about where we are going. In fact,
I think it was already mentioned, for the first 6 years of the
Bush administration we didn't even have a hearing on the EPA's
budget requests, so obviously there are going to be some big
changes here.
President Bush's budget request is no different than what
we have been getting in the past and I frankly think it is
shameful because it is not going to allow the EPA to do its job
in protecting human health and the environment, and I am
particularly upset at the fact that there are cuts in programs
that are critical to cleaning up the toxic legacy that plagues
my district and my home State of New Jersey. For example, the
request for the Superfund program is $7 million less than the
enacted level, even though the administration lowered its
target number of site cleanups mid-year and is clearly lagging
behind in eliminating this most serious of environmental health
threats. The Inspector General has previously noted the serious
backlog in funding plaguing the program and I am eagerly
looking forward to updated figures from Mr. Rogers' office.
I would also like to note that the more and more we learn
about funding problems with Superfund, the more urgent it
becomes that we reinstate the Superfund taxes as Mr. Simms
indicates in his written testimony, and I intend to reintroduce
a bill that I have introduced in the past to bring back the
taxes and put the burden for cleanups on the backs of
polluters, not taxpayers.
I am glad to welcome Mayor Bollwage from Elizabeth, New
Jersey, here representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In
your written testimony, Mayor, you make important points about
the role of local governments in environmental protection and I
agree with you about the need to fully fund the Brownfields
program. I know that has always been a major issue for you. You
talked about it with me many times. A few years ago when I was
the ranking member, I helped author the Federal Brownfields
program so I want you to know that I intend to introduce a
reauthorization of that program so that we can continue to
strengthen it.
And finally, I want to recognize Mr. Langer here from the
National Federation of Independent Business. In your testimony,
you discuss your support of the EPA's recent changes that
undermine the Toxics Release Inventory program. You may know
that I have introduced a bill with Senator Lautenberg to
restore this important program and protect communities' right
to know about what toxic materials are dumped in their
backyards, and I think TRI is a successful program that has
gotten companies to voluntarily slash pollution without
imposing burdensome regulations, and I believe it should be
kept as it had been before the EPA's changes.
So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Congratulations. This subcommittee has a long history and under
the Democrats previously was a very significant subcommittee. I
remember our former Governor, Jim Florio, was once the chairman
of it and so many things were done and I know that will happen
again under your tutelage. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. Well, thank you, and I look forward to leading
the committee to its former grandeur.
At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Stupak, who is
also the subcommittee chairman for Oversight and
Investigations. Mr. Stupak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
After more than 6 years of little or no oversight of the
Environmental Protection Agency from this committee, I am
pleased we are finally holding hearings on EPA's budget
proposals. As the chairman of Oversight and Investigations, I
look forward to working to improved congressional oversight
with this subcommittee on this very critical agency.
State and local governments face a daunting task in
protecting public health and providing a clean environment.
They depend on the assistance on the Federal Government to
cleanup environmental problems, update their water and
wastewater infrastructure and protect residents from
environmental hazards. Unfortunately, rather than helping
States reach these goals, the President's fiscal year 2008
budget faces significant burdens on State and local
governments. By cutting funding for EPA and important programs
such as the State Drinking Water Act Revolving Loan Fund, the
Brownfield Revitalization Program, Superfund, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks, Beach Protection and others, the
administration has made it harder for State and local
governments to protect the public.
Across the country, communities are struggling to keep up
with the needs of their residents. Rather than cutting these
programs, the Federal Government should be increasing the
assistance so State and local governments can provide the basic
health and environmental needs. Despite what the administration
may think, slashing Federal environmental assistance does not
save us money. Instead, we are merely passing the bucks onto
States who are already struggling to make ends meet. More often
than not, the States don't have the resources to fix
environmental and public health hazards. The end result is the
American people suffer the side effects, which usually include
diminished health and poorer quality of life.
In my district, preventing drinking water contamination is
a major problem. Communities are having a hard time keeping up
with the problems, whether they are aging infrastructure or
polluted areas that are not being cleaned up. The Great Lakes
is a source of drinking water for more than 30 million people.
Programs that cleanup the Great Lakes developed by the Great
Lakes Collaboration have been flat-funded in this budget as
well as past budgets. This flat funding completely ignores the
needs outlined by the Great Lakes Collaboration, which has
recommended that water quality funding should be increased
exponentially. As a result, we have community health
departments and municipal water systems in Michigan that are
attempting to cope with higher bacteria counts, closed beaches
and sometimes even significant health concerns.
The American people deserve better. Rather than passing
hazardous public health and environmental problems onto local
governments, this administration should take some leadership
and accept the responsibility it has for protecting public
health rather than ignoring it.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I will be
in and out but I hope to be back to ask questions at the
appropriate time.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working
with you. I must say, I have been on this subcommittee for some
time, and when Ms. Solis was the ranking chairperson we tried
many, many times to have hearings on very important matters. We
never really got too far so I look forward to working with you,
and in my oversight role I am sure together we can move some
good environmental legislation to help protect the American
people and do the job we should be doing for them.
Mr. Wynn. I want to thank the gentleman, and I concur. I
look forward to working with him as well. I think we can get
some real good things done.
I also want to echo his sentiment in recognizing Ms. Solis,
the former ranking member, current vice chair, who has been a
tremendous leader on these issues, and it is with great
pleasure that I recognize Ms. Solis for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations.
Boy, how times have changed. I want to thank also Ranking
Member Shimkus and I also just want to thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, for having this hearing. I can tell you that this
indeed has been a long-awaited time, 6 years in waiting to have
the EPA come forward so we could have an oversight hearing
regarding their budget.
As policymakers and responsible parties, we know the
importance of how we utilize our taxpayer dollars and it is our
responsibility to understand what EPA has done in the last 6
years or has not done, and over the 6 years I am seeing that
many of the core programs that EPA is supposed to be in charge
of and implementing have not been diligent in implementing many
of the laws that they are supposed to be implementing and
monitoring. In fiscal year 2008 in their budget, which if
accepted, States will have lost over $1 billion in Federal
support if you look back over to the year 2004. Under the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, we see more than $325
million below authorized levels. The administration has cut its
request for the Brownfield program from $120 million to $89
million for a second year in a row, and the proposed budget
that funds the Safe Drinking Water Act is at its lowest level.
Despite the 2003 needs survey which was released in 2005
identifying $263.3 billion in needs, these budget cuts and
funding decisions have had real impacts on our communities
across the country. State and local agencies may be forced to
lay off staff, leave vacancies unfilled, shut down existing air
monitors and otherwise curtail very important monitoring
programs. EPA can't be sure that the cleanup at Libby, the
Superfund site in Montana, sufficiently reduces the risk to
public health. Regional and contract personnel are making
judgments at this time about water systems despite not being
the most qualified, and according to an article dated October
31, 2006, in the Seattle Times, EPA region 10, which includes
Hanford Nuclear Reservation and 40 percent of all tribes in the
Nation, was forced to close its Environmental Justice Office
because of budget cuts. Two-third of already burdened cities
who are working to create economic opportunities by
revitalizing formerly blighted areas are not getting
Brownfields grants and more than 113,000 leaking underground
storage tanks will continue to contaminate drinking water
supplies and become even more costly when we do consider
cleaning them up.
I am concerned about the impact that our dereliction of
oversight duty has had on the culture of the Agency, and
specifically, I am concerned about the movement from funding
core programs to funding unauthorized voluntary contractor-
based programs such as Performance Track, a program which
currently uses 32 full-time employees and appears to reward
noncompliant facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I am eager to address these issues and join
in that discussion with my colleagues on this committee such as
the Toxic-Right-to-Know program, the library closures and human
pesticide testing in our hearings this week and next and I look
forward to working with all of my colleagues to get our Nation
back on track.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentlelady, and we look forward to
having the benefit of her expertise as we move forward.
At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Sullivan of
Oklahoma.
Mr. Sullivan. I have no opening statement. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, sir.
At this time I would recognize Mr. Green of Texas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing today
and I welcome our panelists.
This hearing is the first oversight hearing on the
Environment Protection Agency's budget in over 6 years and I am
pleased that we are having this discussion on the issues we are
facing today. The administration's fiscal year 2008 EPA budget
request is significantly lower than the previous fiscal year
budget request. Most people in this room are not surprised. I
am particularly dismayed by the fact that 13 percent of the
EPA's fiscal year 2008 budget request has been allocated to
Clean Air. Of the $7.2 billion, the EPA is requesting only $912
million be available for one of the most important issues
facing our communities, air quality.
In my statement I would like to highlight two important
issues that did not get enough attention at the EPA or the
public discussion the EPA's duty, air toxics control and EPA's
role in accident prevention at chemical plants. In Houston we
have significant high levels of air toxics and some of the
highest in the Nation, although all major cities have levels
that are too high. Many in my district feel that the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, which regulates air toxics
in my State, has failed to focus on the air toxics in Houston.
The burden of reducing air toxics falls on the local
communities, which is not the most effective way to solve the
larger clean air issue. Cities provide water, streets, police,
firefighters, so they do not have the resources to craft the
best environmental regulations and to conduct enforcement.
I believe the EPA needs to show more leadership on the air
toxics issue, especially after a 2005 Inspector General report
critical and a 2006 GAO report both found that not enough is
being done at the Federal level. Some State agencies like our
Texas Environment Quality with huge responsibilities and
limited resources are not meeting communities' needs for all
air toxic improvement so they need more Federal help. The EPA
has set a bad example by repeatedly missing deadlines for
setting the maximal achievement control technology standards
and subsequent residual risk assessments. The EPA has recently
tried to help out State and local governments on air toxic
monitoring, which is the least they can do. However, we still
have urgent needs for more monitoring information in my own
area in Houston, which like large cities has a high
concentration of air toxics, and I hope to hear more from the
Inspector General on the issue.
In addition, I would like to note that the EPA has a role
in improving chemical facility risk management plans that
address accident risk outside the fence line. However, reducing
risk outside the fence line also reduces risk inside the fence
line for workers at chemical facilities, many of whom are my
constituents. Our office has heard that EPA has not fully
implemented several of the recommendations over the years from
the Chemical Safety Board. We also understand the EPA is not
providing the Chemical Safety Board with the documents and
information they are requesting for their investigation of
dangerous incidents in refineries and chemical facilities. Most
people think of OSHA when they think of workplace safety but in
the area of chemical facilities, the EPA has a significant
role. Perhaps the Inspector General should look into also
whether EPA is taking these responsibilities seriously.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be on the subcommittee and I
look forward to our hearings. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
Does any other Member wish to make an opening statement?
If not, any other statements will be included in the record
at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for having two hearings to
examine EPA's proposed budget for this upcoming fiscal year.
However, their appropriate sequence is upside down. I think for
a couple reasons the administration, regardless of party,
should testify first. It is our responsibility to have a dialog
with the administration directly, not through the filter of
special interest groups . It is the custom of this committee to
afford the administration the courtesy of testifying first,
regardless of party. Once that testimony is heard and our
questions have been answered by the administration, then we
turn to outside witnesses. In the spirit of inter-branch
comity, I hope we can return to that practice in future
hearings.
Although some will want to use these hearings to make
definitive statements about EPA's programs or spending
priorities, I find that understanding EPA's efforts and
priorities is akin to the job of herding cats.
EPA is not a perfect agency, and our efforts should be to
achieve an EPA that is competent, effective, and efficient. EPA
is entering the middle of its fourth decade of existence. Its
infrastructure and organization is predicated on a collection
of well-meaning, but disparate laws. We need to ensure that
EPA's efforts are focused, competent, reasoned, cost-effective,
and successfully achieving those program goals that further
public health protections.
For this reason, I think the most important issue for our
hearing today is whether, as EPA's mission statement proclaims:
``public health'' is being protected and ``a cleaner, healthier
environment'' is being produced for the American people. Next
week, I plan to be more specific in my questioning about
individual programs when the Administrator appears before our
committee. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will lead us in pledging
allegiance not to the programs of this Agency for their own
sake, but rather to its mission and the people it serves.
I welcome all of our witnesses and thank them for their
participation. Despite the irregular order of the two hearings,
I think it is essential that we hear from each of these
witnesses as they represent an important segment of our public,
private, and academic sectors. I am pleased to see the State
and local governments here. They are an important part of our
Nation's overall environmental strategy and we should welcome
and encourage that partnership. However, while States and
localities have special understanding and expertise, in this
time of tight budgets, we should not hold the Federal Treasury
out as a fund for pet projects that these levels of Government
can and should fund themselves. This principle also applies to
well funded private groups who receive EPA monies. We must
maximize what we have rather than rely on increased taxes for
these programs.
I also appreciate the fact that small, medium, and large
businesses are being represented on our panel today. EPA's
budget, whether discussing new regulatory programs or the
maintenance of existing ones, is a crucial factor for many of
these groups and their employees. We cannot afford real
environmental protection without a thriving economy and
business should not always be seen as the environmental enemy.
I believe there are productive voluntary programs that show
American business can create, innovate, and grow as well as be
good environmental stewards without the hammer of mandatory
programs hanging over their heads. We should always encourage
economic freedom when public health is not directly threatened.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can bring an engineer's penchant
for thoughtful analysis and problem solving to these budget
hearings. Let's focus on making EPA's efforts help people as
opposed to bean counting, statistical manipulation, and
political posturing.
Again, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses
and thank the Chair for his kindness.
----------
Mr. Wynn. We will turn to our distinguished witnesses. I
want to welcome each of you and thank you for coming. On our
panel today, we have with us Mr. Bill Roderick, who is the
acting Inspector General for EPA. We have Mr. J. Christian
Bollwage, mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey, and speaking on
behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors. We also have
Mr. Robert King, president of the Environmental Council of the
States and deputy commissioner of South Carolina's Department
of Health and Environmental Control. We have Mr. Andrew Langer,
who is the manager of regulatory affairs for the National
Federation of Independent Business; Mr. Maurice McTigue,
director of the Government Accountability Project and vice
president of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University,
and we also have Mr. Patrice Simms, senior attorney at the
Natural Resources Defense Council. I would like to welcome all
of you.
We will now have 5-minute opening statements from the
witnesses. The prepared statements of the witnesses have been
submitted and will be made a part of the hearing record.
At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Roderick for an
opening statement and wish to express a special appreciation to
him for accommodating us by appearing on the same panel as
witnesses who are not representing governmental interests, so
Mr. Roderick, we thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF BILL RODERICK, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Roderick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Bill Roderick,
Deputy Inspector General of the EPA. I have been serving as
acting Inspector General since March 2006. I am pleased to
testify during this oversight hearing on the EPA's budget. The
views I express here today are those of the Office of Inspector
General and do not represent the Environment Protection
Agency's final position.
An issue of primary and current concern in the Superfund
program is whether there is sufficient funding for cleanups.
Work that we did in 2003 at the request of Chairman Dingell and
Congresswoman Solis showed a funding shortfall for non-Federal
Superfund sites. We found that limited funding prevented EPA
from beginning construction at all sites and providing
additional funds needed to address sites. We estimated that the
fiscal year 2003 site-specific funding shortfall was nearly
$175 million. One of these sites was Libby, Montana. The
remedial project manager at the time indicated to us that an
additional $740,000 was needed for sampling and to conduct a
study to determine the cost-effective method for quantifying
the amount of asbestos in the soil.
More recently, funding was again raised as a concern in a
report we issued in December 2006 that looked at EPA's cleanup
efforts in Libby. In our limited review, we identified
significant issues that we believed were critical to the
successful cleanup. EPA has not completed a toxicity assessment
necessary to determine the safe level for human exposure to
asbestos. Therefore, EPA cannot be sure that the Libby cleanup
sufficiently reduces the risk that humans may become ill. One
of the reasons provided by OSWER officials for not performing a
toxicity assessment was that while it was proposed, EPA did not
approve the budget request. We recommended that EPA fund and
execute a comprehensive asbestos toxicity assessment to
determine the effectiveness of the Libby removal actions and to
determine whether more actions are necessary. EPA responded
that they are committed to beginning a toxicity assessment
early this year.
Superfund mega-sites are taking a financial toll on the
program because their cleanup is costly, complex and lengthy.
In 2004 we identified 156 hardrock mining sites nationwide that
have the potential to cost between $7 and $24 billion to
cleanup. These costs were over 12 times EPA's total annual
Superfund budget. Most of these hardrock mining sites are
located in the western and southeastern United States. These
sites will impact those States because EPA eventually turns
over responsibility for long-term response actions to the
States.
We noted several organizational and accounting obstacles
that impact EPA's ability to efficiently and effectively manage
the Superfund resources. EPA has disbursed responsibilities for
Superfund management and resources so that no single EPA office
including OSWER, which is the office accountable for Superfund
cleanup goals, has full responsibility or control over EPA
Superfund appropriation.
Another obstacle we identified is EPA continuing to
maintain unliquidated Superfund obligations and money in
special accounts as a hedge against tough financial times. We
made several recommendations to help address those issues.
I understand that the subcommittee is concerned about the
resources being expended on EPA's partnership programs. Some of
these programs report very small budgets and only a fraction of
the staff members' time devoted to operating them. Other
programs report more. We are currently evaluating one of these
programs, Performance Track. We initiated this review to
evaluate how the program contributes to EPA's goal of improving
environmental performance through pollution prevention and
innovation and how well it accomplishes its program goal of
recognizing and encouraging top environmental performers. To do
this, our approach was to analyze a randomly selected sample of
40 member facilities to determine if they met their Performance
Track commitments and assess how much progress they have made.
In order to demonstrate these facilities represent top
performers, we also sought to compare sample facilities'
compliance records and toxic release with others in their
sectors. We are compiling compliance information from EPA
databases and verifying individual facility data for sample
members with reasonable enforcement and compliance data
stewards. Since this work is incomplete, I am unable to report
on our findings and recommendations at this time. We expect to
issue a final report in April. I will gladly brief everyone
that wants to have the details of that audit.
The OIG's fiscal year 2008 budget request will enable us to
meet our statutory obligations and other higher priority work.
However, at these levels we will be challenged to meet every
demand placed upon us. We will need to make some difficult
choices in order to ensure the OIG remains a catalyst for
improving the quality of the environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We view all
of you on the committee as our customers and we would be
pleased to answer any questions you have at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roderick follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.013
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Roderick. As you know,
we have a vote coming up but I think we have time to have
testimony from Mr. Bollwage, so we will proceed with that. Then
we will recess until after the vote. Mr. Bollwage.
STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE, MAYOR, CITY OF ELIZABETH,
ELIZABETH, NJ
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First I
would like to request a technical correction in my prepared
testimony on paragraph 4, page 3, changing it from $150 to $200
million. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Certainly.
Mr. Bollwage. Mr. Chairman, ranking member and my friend,
Congressman Pallone, members of the committee, I am Chris
Bollwage, the mayor of the city of Elizabeth for the past 15
years. I also serve as a trustee for the U.S. Conference of
Mayors and co-chairman of the Mayors Brownfields Task Force.
Mayors have an interest in broader environmental issues
including increasing our energy independence in an
environmentally sound way and protecting our climate, and as
chief executives of our cities, we are in a unique position. We
are on the front lines protecting the health of our citizens.
Unfortunately, however, we are at the end of the line when it
comes to unfunded mandates. Mayors do not have a problem with
passing good environmental public policy. We have a problem
with passing the public policy without providing the necessary
resources to pay for it. There is no one left at the local
level that we can pass on these costs except to our
constituents, which we often have to do.
So I wanted to take this opportunity as you deliberate the
various environmental rules and regulations that come before
you to keep in mind that some costs will be incurred by local
government and our citizens and I hope that Congress is going
to take a hard look at where we are spending our money to
determine what the priorities should be for our Nation if we
are to remain economically competitive with the rest of the
world. We need to balance our budget every year and sometimes
that means deciding the best paths for the future with the
limitations we have, and on this EPA oversight hearing, I want
to outline some of the priorities for the Nation's mayors and
the most useful programs and ask that all of you do your part
in fully funding these programs.
Brownfields, which many of you mentioned in your opening
statements--I have been the co-chair of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors for 12 years, have had extensive conversations with
Congressman Pallone about this issue and I want to commend EPA
for listening to the mayors at that time and establishing the
EPA Brownfields program. It has been extremely successful in
cleaning up thousands of acres of sites and turning formerly
blighted areas into productive pieces of property. There is
still a lot of unrealized potential. Currently the Brownfields
law has authorized $250 million. It never received more than
$162 million. It is estimated there are 400,000 to 600,000
Brownfield properties in the United States, and as you said,
Mr. Chairman, currently only one out of three qualifying
Brownfield applications are funded. The Conference of Mayors
and members of a Brownfields coalition are pleased to hear that
Congressman Pallone is going to introduce the reauthorization
of the Brownfields Law.
On a related topic, the Superfund program, many properties
are still in the process of being assessed and cleaned up.
Mayors who have Superfund sites in their communities are
anxious to have these sites cleaned up and we urge Congress to
reinstate the Superfund taxes and assist EPA with its efforts
to expedite the cleanup of these severely contaminated sites,
and we thank you, Congressman Pallone, for those comments.
As this committee debates the issue of climate change,
mayors would like for you to consider a multilevel approach to
help deal with this problem. A cap and trade program as well as
encouragement for alternative energy sources and fuel
efficiency will be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at
the national level. However, there are many solutions that are
coming from the local level. The conference has held two
national summits that brought together public and private
sector to highlight what is currently being done and what can
be done to increase our Nation's independence. Through the
conference's work we have determined that much more could be
done. That is why the mayors of this Nation are proposing the
formation of an Energy and Environmental Block Grant, EEBG. Our
proposal would require local governments to determine their
carbon footprint and create a plan for reducing their
greenhouse gas emissions. Monies could be used to implement
this plan.
The Mayors' Water Council conducted a survey that asked
cities to identify the most important resources and issues they
face. The top three: rehabilitating aging water and wastewater
infrastructure, security protection of water resources and the
water supply availability. The MWC prepared a report on city
attitudes about the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
program and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Loan
program. The findings indicate that cities generally prefer to
use municipal bonds and pay as you go rather than the SRF
loans. The primary reason for this is because it is more cost
efficient due to better finance terms and greater time
certainty in the finance process. As often cited figures, local
governments are responsible for 90 percent of the public-
purpose water investments and the U.S. Bureau of the Census
reports that combined municipal expenditures for water and
wastewater infrastructure are second only to educational
expenses.
While most mayors are not directly responsible for most
clean air programs, we have local and State agencies that are,
and at the city level we are responsible for implementing many
of the programs that can have tremendous clean air benefits.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know I could have come here
today and identified programs at EPA that could be cut in order
to meet our environmental priorities. However, I hope you
recognize that the needs of this Nation are great, as all of
you do, to remain a competitive nation. I know that budgets are
strained but I hope you will take up the Nation's mayors' offer
on our offer to work with you in solving a lot of these
problems.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bollwage follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.026
Mr. Wynn. Thank you for your very constructive testimony.
At this time the committee is going to stand in recess until
immediately following the last vote of this series of votes.
Thank you.
[Recess]
Mr. Wynn. Mr. King, I believe you have the microphone.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. KING, JR., PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL OF THE STATES; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee for providing the Environmental Council of States,
ECOS, the opportunity to present testimony on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's 2008 budget.
My name is Robert W. King, Jr., and I am the deputy
commissioner for Environmental Quality Control at the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Today
I am here representing not only my State but all the
environmental agencies in the States belonging to our
organization. Our comments are primarily directed to the STAG
portion of EPA's budget.
States are co-regulators with the U.S. EPA and have the
challenging job of frontline implementation of our Nation's
environment pollution laws. EPA has delegated most of the work
on the core environmental responsibilities to us. Today States
are responsible for managing most of the delegable
environmental programs and rules, issuing environmental and
public health standards under Federal laws and for State-
specific laws, issuing most environmental permits, collecting
nearly 94 percent of the environmental monitoring data and
conducting over 90 percent of all enforcement actions.
Funds have been provided to the States to assist them in
the implementation of Federal programs. States also provide
funds for these programs, anywhere from half to 90 percent of
the costs. Federal funds are important to States because they
are targeted to specific programs and help States meet Federal
requirements such as permitting, enforcement, monitoring,
standards development, rule issuance and reporting, in short,
all the significant components of our co-regulator agreements
with the Federal Government.
In the 2008 budget development cycle, EPA for the first
time involved the States in the early stages of the budget's
development and we were very appreciative of this opportunity.
The ECOS officers presented information to the Agency and
proposed a tier of priorities shown in figure 2 of our package.
Our highest priorities included programs mandated by Congress
in the major environmental statutes. The EPA accepted some of
these recommendations but the 2008 budget continues a downward
funding trend as shown in figure 1.
If Congress accepts the 2008 proposal for STAG, it will
mean that States will have lost over $1 billion in Federal
support since 2004. This has come at the same time U.S. EPA has
promulgated a significant number of new rules for the States to
implement. From 2000 to 2006, EPA issued and proposed 390 new
rules with a significant impact on the States. Figure 3
demonstrates the dilemma States are in with the rising number
of rules for States to implement while funds decrease.
While States are reluctant to return Federal programs to
EPA for many reasons, we have begun to see this happen as well
as delays in implementation of new rules. This is highlighted
in additional information I have provided you regarding the
problems State drinking water and air programs are facing. Time
does not permit a thorough review of these details but let me
say this. The proposal in the EPA's budget to cut the air
programs by $35 million will be particularly difficult for
States. Many will have to cease operating existing monitors or
curtail their monitoring programs. It will also affect
development of State implementations for ozone and particulate
matter standards, which reduce air pollution and protect public
health. Declining Federal support and dramatically increased
workloads in the drinking water program have resulted in about
half of the States simply unable to take on implementation of
some portion of these new rules.
ECOS has again proposed an alternative budget for the STAG
portion of the EPA 2008 budget that addresses our concern with
continuing reductions of congressionally-mandated environmental
statutes. This proposal is based on principles agreed upon by
the ECOS members which include in times of fiscal crisis when
the resources are in short supply the core mandated
environmental programs funded through STAG and infrastructure
capitalization must be funded first and reductions in EPA
budget, if they must occur, should be shared proportionately by
EPA and the States after STAG levels are returned to their 2004
levels.
The States are thankful for the opportunity to present our
views to the committee and hope that Congress can assist us as
we implement the Nation's environmental statutes as a co-
regulator with the U.S. EPA.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify
and I will be happy to answer any questions later. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.038
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. King.
Mr. Langer.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW M. LANGER, MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
Mr. Langer. Chairman Wynn and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on the
issue of the EPA's budget.
I would like to say at the outset that while my prepared
written and oral remarks represent the collaborative views of
NFIB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association
of Manufacturers, any questions I might answer following my
testimony will represent the views of NFIB and not the other
two organizations. I hope that is alright.
I am here today to talk about the EPA's relationship to
America's smallest businesses. Businesses with fewer than 20
employees comprise roughly 90 percent of the universe of
businesses in America. These businesses want to comply with the
Nation's environmental laws but invariably they find compliance
to be a difficult and cumbersome proposition. The EPA's
proposal is to spend just over a half-billion dollars on
environmental enforcement this year. Their term is ``compliance
improvement.'' This number is dwarfed, however, by the mandates
by EPA. If environmental regulations account for roughly 40
percent of regulatory costs and regulatory costs last year were
$1.13 trillion, then Americans spent more than $400 billion in
complying with Federal environmental regulations alone.
In the private sector, we have learned that more money does
not equal more results, and our members constantly strive to
achieve more and better results with less money and fewer
resources. EPA's budget does not exist in a vacuum. It
represents choices, choices between larger priorities in the
Federal budget including homeland security, worker safety and
trade promotion. Through that lens we view the EPA budget as
one that makes tough choices in an environment of limited
resources, and there are a number of ways one can look at
regulatory costs both through efforts to reform regulation and
in looking at ways to streamline the regulatory compliance
process itself.
For the purposes of today's testimony, I want to focus on
that end of the pipeline, compliance assistance efforts. It is
well established that regulatory agencies get a greater ``bang
for the buck'' when they promote compliance assistance over
enforcement. It is more cost-effective than dedicating enormous
resources towards investigations and prosecutions and gets us
closer to the goals of more comprehensive environmental
compliance. In terms of giving people foreknowledge of their
responsibilities and walking them through how they can fulfill
their obligations, it is compliance assistance and not
enforcement that will get us closer to our ultimate goal of 100
percent compliance with 100 percent of regulations 100 percent
of the time. The movement away from enforcement as a primary
tool of compliance improvement is one that will have to be
driven by Congress, however. Continued oversight, encouragement
and budgetary prodding are going to be necessary. The Agency
ought to be rewarded when they decide to shift money away from
sticks and directed towards blackboards.
Unfortunately, the regulatory state is so complex, I want
you to consider for a moment that the Code of Federal
Regulations itself is thousands upon thousands of pages,
roughly 19 feet of shelf space that is out there, and what a
small-business owner needs to do to figure out his
responsibilities is next to impossible. It is next to
impossible for them to be in compliance with all the regulatory
requirements he faces. But imagine a system in which a small-
business owner can enter simple information about his business,
then that system takes this information and spits out each and
every regulation that applies to this business along with
simple compliance information. Yes, this is an ambitious idea
but in an era in which huge databases can be accessed from
thousands of miles away, it is not an impossible task. The
current iteration of this, the Business Gateway, Business.gov,
is a solid step in the right direction, but it must do more,
far more in terms of offering a simple way for businesses to
determine what their regulatory responsibilities are and to
make living up to those responsibilities as easy as possible.
What it will take is leadership from Congress, funding,
oversight and a political will to see it happen.
If Congress is serious about environmental compliance, then
it must do something about making a fully functional, fully
realized Business Gateway a reality. Once that is established,
businesses know their responsibilities and compliance is made
as simple as possible and then businesses will not only have
the time and resources to devote to helping the Government
craft smarter regulations, they will have an incentive to be
invested in the process. And while we believe that Business
Gateway will be a tremendous tool for truly improving
compliance, we recognize that there are a number of interim
steps that must be taken, steps that will also require
tremendous leadership on the part of Congress. Success of the
Business Gateway will hinge on the quality of the information
it provides, simple explanations and easy-to-understand-and-
follow step-by-step instructions on how to comply. That means a
wholesale restructuring of the information that is conveyed to
the public, a comprehensive review of all regulations mandated
by the Agency, the review of all guidance documents, manuals
and other publications the citizen uses to determine what their
obligations are and how to go about complying with them. Then
the Agency will have to start building from the ground up,
creating plain-language guides to each of their regulatory
regimes, guides that are as short as possible, guides that are
easy to find, guides that take a commonsense approach to
compliance, walks small-business owners through their
compliance process and offer them clear suggestions of what
they ought to be doing to be in compliance with a particular
regulation.
There are no two ways about it: this will be a Herculean
task. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken. Heretofore the
Agency has balked at such reviews and it is not difficult to
understand why. They get no credit for it, simply put. Why put
resources into developing easy-to-understand compliance guides
when Congress and active stakeholders are going to ask them why
they didn't spend more resources on investigations and
prosecutions.
Thank you very much for allowing me to testify, and I look
forward to answering any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Langer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.053
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much.
Mr. McTigue.
STATEMENT OF MAURICE MCTIGUE, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, FAIRFAX, VA
Mr. McTigue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
members of the committee for the invitation to be present here
today.
I have now been in the United States for 9 years and I have
spent those 9 years on the faculty of George Mason University
and my interest there has been to do research work on
accountability in government. It is from that perspective that
I am going to speak to you this morning. Preceding that 9 years
that I have spent in the United States, I was nearly 4 years in
Canada as New Zealand's ambassador to Canada and the Caribbean
and that was preceded by 10 years as an elected member of
Parliament in the New Zealand Parliament, and some of that
period of time I spent also as a member of Cabinet where
Cabinet members under parliamentary system were also members of
the legislature. But one of my portfolios was associate
minister of finance and in that portfolio I was responsible for
controlling the Government's spending and it is from that
background that I want to make comments to you this morning
about the process of budgeting.
Since I have been in America, there have been some
innovations which I think are important, particularly in terms
of the quality of the information that they put before
committees when they make decisions about budgets. One of them
is GPRA, the fact that it requires results information to be
produced. The move towards performance budgets as part of the
President's Management Agenda and the Program Assessment
Reading Tool are subsequent processes that produce us with
better information.
The process of making budget decisions really revolves
around some very simple tasks and some relatively simple
questions, the answers to which are often very difficult. A
department makes a budget request. Congress must then decide
whether or not to grant the request. What should the committee
know before it grants the department's request is the piece of
knowledge that I want to address, and that encompasses four
major questions. First, how big is the problem; second, what
progress has been made; third, how much is left to be done;
fourth, will the current tools and strategies provide the
remedy; fifth, how quickly can the current tools achieve the
result; and sixth, is this an acceptable level of progress.
The answers to these questions are a mix of facts and
values. The departments should be providing you with the
necessary facts. The value judgments should be made by the
political process. In the case of this budget request, the two
value judgments to be exercised by the political process are:
should we spend money on this activity, and the second one, is
this enough money to make acceptable progress.
Comments on the EPA's information in their budget
justification are as follows. First, I would like to
congratulate OMB on the decision to make budget justification
information readily available to researchers and the public and
it is from information that I make my comments. When I look at
EPA's budget request, what I find are two problems, in my view,
with the EPA's budget information. The first is the lack of
information to demonstrate the scale of the problem, how big is
this issue. The second is the lack of information that would
indicate acceptable progress on resolution of this problem.
I am now going to quote you something from the EPA's budget
justification and it is under the strategic objectives for
clean air and global climate change and it reads as follows.
``By 2030, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in
the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun
the process of recovery and overexposure to ultraviolet
radiation, particularly among susceptible populations such as
children, will be reduced.'' That sounds good until you ask the
following question: So how many people will contract skin
cancer from this cause over the next 23 years and who will they
be and from what populations. Without that knowledge, we don't
know how serious that problem is or whether or not progress is
rapid enough.
Now I going to quote from some information that I picked up
from the science and technology part of EPA's budget, and this
is about the air toxics program and here is what it actually
says when it looks at the measures. ``The measure is the
cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity weighted
for non-cancer risk emissions of air toxics before using the
1993 baseline.'' First problem: the data for 2006 will not be
available until 2009. That is not acceptable. The target for
2006 was a 58 percent reduction. The target for 2007 was a 58
percent reduction. The target for 2009 was a 59 percent
reduction. If zero is the goal, the problem will be eliminated
by the year 2048. Is that satisfactory progress? And I don't
think it tells us that because it doesn't tell us whether zero
is the right target if that is where we need to get to.
Here is a more serious one, in my view. Same issue, the
cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighed for
cancer risk emissions of air toxics from the 1993 baseline.
Once again, the data for 2006 not available. But the targets
are 34 percent for 2006, 35 percent for 2007 and 35 percent for
2008.
Mr. Chairman, if that is factual information, it means
their problem never gets fixed. This is the kind of information
I think should be in front of the committee if it is able to do
its job well.
Thank you for the opportunity of being able to present in
front of you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.062
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. McTigue.
Mr. Simms.
STATEMENT OF PATRICE SIMMS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Simms. Good morning, Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member
Shimkus, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to
speak with you today. My name is Patrice Simms. I am a senior
attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
I would like to address a few specific concerns that NRDC
has and I want to start with a couple of concerns that have a
common theme, and that theme is transparency, accountability
and oversight. The two issues relate to, one, the outsourcing
of important functions within the Agency's authority and, two,
the increasing use of voluntary programs instead of regulatory
programs within the Agency over the last several years.
Some clear examples of troubling relationships that
demonstrably compromise quality of EPA's scientific inquiry,
and one of those is the Agency's relationship with the
International Life Sciences Institute. This is an example of
the situation where the Agency has farmed out some of its
responsibilities in a particularly troubling way. In 2003, the
EPA issued some proposed guidelines that were based almost
entirely on a policy proposal that was drafted by an ILC
subgroup using EPA funding. Those guidelines addressed how to
assess the toxicity of certain chemicals, chemicals that are
used in, for example, Dupont's Teflon. That report was later
rejected by an independent scientific panel and subsequently in
2005 Dupont paid more than $16 million to settle charges that
it had hidden information for two decades about the toxicity of
Teflon chemicals. And I just cite that as an example of a
situation that presents serious problems for the Agency in
terms of its public accountability, the public perception of
the Agency and the Agency's scientific credibility.
Congress should ensure that money going to EPA is used in a
manner that preserves the Agency's scientific integrity and
that important science activities that the Agency funds are
conducted with adequate transparency and direct lines of
accountability.
Another recent trend, as I mentioned, is voluntary
programs. While some voluntary programs produce important and
substantial benefits, NRDC is concerned with others that
provide few real benefits and give the erroneous impression
that important environmental issues are being adequately
addressed.
The Performance Track program is a fine example of a
voluntary program that has gone awry. It has as a central
feature some deregulatory off-ramps that potentially compromise
the effectiveness and integrity of existing regulatory
programs. In addition, there is little evidence to suggest that
this program actually accomplishes better environmental
results.
In sum, NRDC is very concerned about EPA's expenditures on
voluntary programs that are not subject to rigorous oversight,
allow for so-called regulatory streamlining and cannot
demonstrate meaningful environmental payoffs, especially where
those programs appear to take the place of prudent regulatory
alternatives. I look forward, as I am sure you do, to seeing
the Inspector General's report on Performance Track and I hope
it is a rigorous and thorough report.
I would like to turn to a quick discussion of a few EPA
programs that are chronically underfunded. Chairman Wynn
mentioned a few of these at the beginning in his opening
testimony and I would like to echo some of them. Superfund, the
Nation's premiere program for cleaning up hazardous waste, has
paid huge dividends over the years, facilitating the cleanup of
hundreds of the most contaminated sites in the country yet it
is currently underfunded and bankrupt. The current budget
proposal is for $1.24 billion for Superfund, $14 million less
than requested in 2006. At the same time the fund is dried up,
cleanups have also slowed. During the 1990's, the number of
cleanups ranged from 88 cleanups in 1992 to only 61 in 1994.
However, in 2001 there was a dramatic drop-off from the 2000
number, being 87 cleanups in 2000 and only 47 in 2001. In 2006,
only 40 site cleanups were completed and EPA has a target of
only 24 site cleanups for 2007. Despite the meager request for
Superfund, there are still hundreds of sites on the national
priorities list and more being discovered each year.
Underfunding this program does a material disservice to the
American public and Congress should fund this program at least
to the $1.7 billion that is recommended by Resources for the
Future.
Another funding concern is the Safe Drinking Water Act,
State Revolving Fund. There is a tremendous burden on the
States to improve the infrastructure over the next 20 years,
$276 billion estimated by the EPA.
And finally, I would like to touch really quickly on the
underground storage tank program, 117,000 known leaking
underground storage tanks now, some 54,000 of which will
require public funds for cleaning up. A total of $14.5 billion
will be needed over the next 5 years. Clearly, the funds are
there to do that, and that should be part of what this Congress
funds the Agency to do.
I see my time is up. I have just a couple other things I
wanted to point to in my written testimony. I wanted to mention
that reduction in funding for environmental justice is very
serious and upcoming needs for carbon sequestration framework
and examination of nanotechnologies.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simms follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.092
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Simms.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their excellent
testimony. This concludes our witness statements and I will now
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I will begin with you, Mr. Langer. NFIB, I believe,
represents convenience store owners, gas station owners, truck
stop owners and they, to my knowledge, have taken a position
that the Federal LUST Trust Fund should not be used as a
deficit reduction tool but rather a trust fund, which totals $3
billion right now, and it should be used for that purpose, that
is to deal with the 113,000, I believe it is, sites that need
cleanup. Is that the position of NFIB?
Mr. Langer. Well, we are a membership-driven organization,
as you know. We have lots of members, and before we can take a
position on an issue we have to ballot our members regarding
it, and I actually went and looked throughout ballot
initiatives over the last 15, 20 years. We have never balloted
the issue of underground storage tanks. However, I can say if I
had to hazard a guess in terms of small businesses, as a rule,
small businesses, if they are collecting fees, excise taxes, et
cetera, for a particular Federal program, they are going to
want those fees to be used for that program and not for
something else. So if they are collecting fees for underground
storage tanks, they are going to want it to be used for
cleaning up underground storage tanks.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much.
Mr. Roderick, I believe you referenced the 2002 shortfall
between cleanup needs and actual spending. It is my information
that in 2003 the shortfall grew to $174 million and the
following year, 2004, this committee surveyed EPA regional
staff and our finding was a shortfall of $263 million in terms
of the gap in Superfund cleanup needs and actual spending. Have
you projected the gap for the upcoming year?
Mr. Roderick. No, sir, we have not.
Mr. Wynn. Do you have an estimate of the gap?
Mr. Roderick. No, sir, we have not done any further work
since the work that was requested in terms of estimating the
gap.
Mr. Wynn. Would you in any way disagree with the $263
million as of 2004?
Mr. Roderick. I cannot verify that number without actually
doing work with it, sir.
Mr. Wynn. OK. Now, you are aware the EPA projected 40
Superfund completions for 2007?
Mr. Roderick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wynn. They now revised that to 24 completions. Has your
office done an evaluation of this reassessment by EPA?
Mr. Roderick. No, sir, we have not done that.
Mr. Wynn. You did not mention in your testimony that in
fact this budget contains a 26 percent reduction in your
budget. How do you plan on completing your mission in light of
the 26 percent reduction?
Mr. Roderick. The budget difference is about $5.1 million,
or 10 percent, and I believe that will be sufficient for us to
conduct our highest-priority work and I think please most of
our customers with our products.
Mr. Wynn. Mr. King, you said the EPA accepted some of the
things that your organization recommended, some of the State's
recommendations, but that the budget basically continued the
pattern of business as usual. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. King. That is a fair assessment.
Mr. Wynn. What do you mean when you say business as usual?
Mr. King. Well, the concern we have is that a number of the
programs that are congressionally-mandated are losing dollars
when other activities are being funded, and we are concerned
about those things, and as we noted in the written testimony,
we did set up a priority, high, medium or moderate and low
priorities so that we could hopefully direct funding to those
high-priority areas that are congressionally mandated.
Mr. Wynn. And I believe on page 6, you site those
priorities as the categorical grants, Brownfields, hazardous
waste, financial assistance, underground storage tanks, under
infrastructure, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Is it
fair to say that you are not satisfied with those funding
levels?
Mr. King. We would like to see more funding in those areas.
That is correct, sir.
Mr. Wynn. Mr. Bollwage, you indicated on I think it is page
8 that about 15 percent of the cities cited red tape,
burdensome paperwork in the State Revolving Fund. Are there any
specific recommendations that you would make to us on that
score?
Mr. Bollwage. On the revolving loan fund?
Mr. Wynn. Right.
Mr. Bollwage. One of the things that we would recommend is
that the mayors would need more tools and resources to meet
these costs and the conference recommends fully funding the SRF
programs, grants, 30-year no-interest loans and a greater use
of the private activity funds.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
At this time I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start with, this whole debate on trust
funds is going to be an interesting dilemma that we have. I
mean, we do have trust funds. They ought to go for the intended
purposes, they never do, or at least only portions of it, and
we have numerous trust funds. So budget reform would be a good
process. Does anyone on the panel disagree that if you have a
trust fund, that that money should go for its intended
purposes? Mr. Roderick, you probably have to be given a request
to do a review but do you want to mention it or do you want to
say ``no comment''?
Mr. Roderick. It would probably be best to say no comment.
Mr. Shimkus. Mayor?
Mr. Bollwage. It would be nice to have money.
Mr. Shimkus. Do you have trust funds in your mayoral
capacity and do you use some of those funds for other purposes?
Mr. Bollwage. I do not have trust funds.
Mr. Shimkus. If we have a trust fund, it is probably the
Conference of Mayors' position that it ought to go for that
intended purpose. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Bollwage. I would tend to agree with that.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. King?
Mr. King. In South Carolina, we do have trust funds and the
expectation is that those funds will be used for----
Mr. Shimkus. Do they? Are they?
Mr. King. Yes, they are, and those people who have
oversight on those funds look at that and----
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Langer?
Mr. Langer. I think it is fairly clear, taxes are a high
issue for my members and if my members are going to be paying
taxes, they obviously want them to be going to good Government
services and the services they are intended to go for.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. McTigue?
Mr. McTigue. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And there is some accountability there also.
Mr. McTigue. Absolutely. If you set up a trust, you should
abide by the rules of the trust. If you no longer want the
trust, you should repeal it but you shouldn't leave it there
and just not honor it.
Mr. Shimkus. And really use that money to fulfill other
obligations that are not accountable for the trust itself.
Mr. McTigue. That is even worse.
Mr. Shimkus. We do it all the time here.
Mr. McTigue. You are taking it for the wrong purpose but it
is actually unethical.
Mr. Shimkus. I would concur. We are so reliant on trust
funds here and using that money for other purposes that it does
distort the whole oversight view and the accountability. Mr.
Simms?
Mr. Simms. I agree, it is hard to argue with the general
principle that when you allocate funding to a trust fund it
ought to go to what you have allocated it toward. I would add
to that, when that trust fund is being allocated to something
that has significant and intangible health impacts, if it is
well-funded, then that is an even greater reason to make sure
that that money is spent the way it was intended.
Mr. Shimkus. Like the nuclear trust fund to make sure we
dispose adequately of high-level nuclear waste. I mean, nuclear
power is putting billions of dollars into a fund, right? We are
using that money for doing other things. So the trust fund is a
way to address funding and accountability and, well, it is. I
appreciate my friend letting you come because shouldn't we be
about cost-benefit analysis and making sure that we get the
biggest bang for the buck and make sure that we have some
results from the analysis, Mayor? Wouldn't you like to see
that? And you probably have to see that in your budgeting.
Mr. Bollwage. But it is real difficult when the Brownfields
program, for an example, consistently gets cut and it gets
lower and lower so whether you call it a trust fund or whatever
you call it, the resources are just not there.
Mr. Shimkus. Right. Whether there is a trust fund or
whether the money gets appropriated out of the trust fund, that
is the whole debate that we just had. I mean, if you are going
to have a trust fund, it is ethically imperative to fulfill
those obligations of that trust fund, and if you have a trust
fund and you only use a portion of it, then you have a problem
with that. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Bollwage. I wouldn't disagree.
Mr. Shimkus. I will take that as an agreement then. My time
is going to go tremendously fast, and it is unfortunate. Maybe
we will get a chance to go again since we are so few members
here. But I also wanted to focus on the 1993 piece of
legislation that you quoted, Mr. McTigue, which I didn't now
about, the Government Performance and Results Act which you
credit as being a good step forward in causing us--of course,
that was in the old era--it is now the new era here--when the
Democrats were in control and they passed legislation and said
we ought to be accountable with the results. Can you talk about
that one more time?
Mr. McTigue. The legislation is really very simple and it
is a first internationally in that you have placed in the
statute a requirement for government departments to, A,
identify what public benefits flowed from the actions that they
took and then to publish an account for those. I think that
that is an excellent step forward. From there you have now
started to use some of that information to inform the budget
decision-making. That is even better. There is a publication
that we prepare each year as a matter of some of the research
that we do that looks at that reporting of all of the agencies,
and from my testimony you will see that EPA sort of falls in
the middle. It is not better or worse than the others but it is
certainly not great. But the quality of information being put
in front of the legislature is dramatically improving as a
result of this piece of law. It was passed in 1993 but didn't
become effective until fiscal 1999. So you now are into your
seventh year of results coming out of that piece of law.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
The Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask two questions of Mayor Bollwage, one about
Brownfields and one about the Energy and Environment Block
Grant Program that has been proposed by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors. I don't know how familiar you are with Elizabeth. It
basically includes most of the port facilities. It is known as
the Port of Newark and Elizabeth but people think of it as the
Port of Newark and then it also includes part of the Newark
Airport and then it has a very dynamic downtown area in a
traditional city. But in his time as mayor there, it has seen a
major transformation. A city that a lot of people had left to
move to other parts of the State has grown and he has used some
of the Brownfields areas to build new developments and shopping
centers, and if you go to Elizabeth now at night, you can go
there 9, 10 o'clock at night. All the stores are open. It is
dynamic. There is nightlife. It is a major transformation. So
he really can give us a good example of how to turn things
around.
But I want to ask you first, if you could give us, Mayor,
an example of how Elizabeth or other neighboring communities
have taken advantage of the Brownfields program to try to
redevelop blighted industrial sites and maybe some examples of
how the program could be improved in terms of either funding or
changes to the underlying law.
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Congressman, for those kind
comments. I will take the second part first if I can because I
think we should focus on that and move forward, and one is the
increase in the cleanup grant amounts would be a good way to
go, establishing multipurpose Brownfield grants. These grants
could be used up to $1.5 million. Applicants could be required
to demonstrate a plan first and a capacity for using this
multipurpose funding. Most importantly is increase the total
Brownfield grant program funding, overall EPA funding for
Brownfields grants beginning with $350 million in fiscal year
2007 and then maybe increasing $50 million annually to a goal
of $600 million to fiscal year 2012 and beyond so there is a
constant attention. Reauthorization of the Brownfield
legislation that you spoke about in your earlier remarks,
Brownfield remediation grant sites, facilitate petroleum and
UST Brownfield cleanups are just some of the issues. We
prepared a document on that, Congressman, and we can forward it
to you.
On the first part of your question, we took a 166-acre
landfill in the city of Elizabeth that was closed in 1970 and
capped it and built the Jersey Gardens Mall, which is 2 million
square feet of retail. We have four hotels on this site. We now
have a state-of-the-art 21-screen cinemaplex plus restaurants
working with the Port Authority to, hopefully, have a ferry at
that location as well into lower Manhattan. We have used
Brownfield grants and that type of funding for the completion
of our Hope Six grant which we took 550 units of dilapidated
public housing, used some turnkey sites with Brownfield
legislation for new housing. We have used some of it or at
least tools of it for new schools in our city. We built nine of
them over the last 3 years, and plus market-rate housing. So
Brownfield tools and all the programs around it are important
to urban communities like myself to develop.
Mr. Pallone. I mean, it is just amazing how the small
amount of money that comes from the program has been leveraged
by them to do so many different things.
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. It is just unbelievable, I have to say. I am
just running out of time so I want to get to the second
question. The U.S. Conference of Mayors had this idea you
mentioned of Energy and Environment Block Grant program similar
to the existing CDBG and I went to the mayors' energy committee
and they talked to me about this more when they had their
conference here in DC. But if you could talk a little more
about that and specifically what types of activities would be
funded by it.
Mr. Bollwage. Some of the things we could do is, integrate
energy management for municipal buildings and municipal fleet
of automobiles. We could stimulate a discussion in growth,
especially green building programs and green building
certification for code enforcement. Replacing traffic lights
would be key with the LED technology that is existing. Emission
reductions of the fleet, renewable energy. A new biodiesel
plant just opened up in the city of Elizabeth--the owners came
to see me the other day--where they are going to be bringing in
the product and then shipping out the product. This is a great
way to reduce emissions as well. And we prepared a book,
Congressman, that I can forward to you on some of the best
practices throughout the Nation and how these practices can be
implemented on even a more broad scale for use in our cities if
we had such a type of a grant.
Mr. Pallone. And if I could just tell my colleagues, again,
this type of thing would be leveraged with State funds too
because our State, for example, New Jersey, has a lot that they
are doing now in terms of grants to towns for renewable
resources and trying to make buildings more energy efficient so
it is just like a small amount of Federal dollars really go a
long way. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. I certainly thank you. Mayor Bollwage, I would
also like to get a copy of that book on best practices, how
they can be a very useful tool.
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. I would like to recognize Mr. Terry of Nebraska
now.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
I actually have a unique position from amongst my
colleagues and our distinguished panel, that I spent 8 years on
the city council and within those 8 years on the Omaha City
Council. We did a Brownfield project with the old Asarko Plant
site of which I was sued, being served in my law office by an
organization represented here today so that makes me unique
probably. But also then dealing with a Superfund site for the
city of Omaha that literally is 25 percent of the land mass of
Omaha, Nebraska's, city boundaries that does affect children's
health in particular from lead contamination. So I have been
through Brownfields and Superfund and I have got to tell you
that we have been--well, to put it bluntly, the Superfund
process is not an enjoyable process. It is still going on years
later when we were designated as such a site. It is a very slow
process. It is one where the Nebraska delegation comes crawling
to the EPA every year begging that we remain a priority so they
don't abandon the project. In comparison, doing it under the
State DEQ, Department of Environmental Quality, a different
project, the Asarko property, as a Brownfield where we
partnered with the city, then partnered with the State with
oversight from the EPA on an appropriate environmental cleanup,
it was done in less than a year. We have a great city park back
to the river. We now have the Gallup University campus there.
We now have our new Qwest Center on that property, and yet the
EPA or the Superfund continues to drag out.
So I would agree with the conclusion of the panel that at
least on Superfund as well as the other funds that there is a
funding gap between the needs and what is appropriated. But it
also begs the question from seeing the process and being
involved firsthand, I question the efficiency of the spending
of the dollars and I wonder, Mr. Roderick, if any part of your
investigation has determined the efficiency of the dollars
spent, maybe just cursory percentage of dollars appropriated
versus dollars actually used in cleanup.
Mr. Roderick. No, sir, I don't believe we have examined
that in the terms you are speaking of but I think we determined
in Superfund that more money was going to administrative costs
and less to programmatic or actually cleanup costs. That was
one of the conclusions of our most recent reports. But as to
dollars associated with that, I don't have the numbers.
Mr. Terry. I think it would be interesting to know because
the perception is that we use a great deal of the funds
appropriated, as you said, for administrative overhead,
defending lawsuits, as opposed to actually cleaning up so I
wonder if appropriating more dollars really gets to cleaning up
more properties, and perhaps we could be looking at ways to
streamline or create efficiencies within the administration
where we can more effectively use dollars.
I would like to know this question. Again, the panel seems
generally in agreement that there is a gap. How do we make up
that gap then if it is simply appropriating more dollars? You
may be exempt from answering that question. I will start with
Mr. Bollwage on down. How do we make up that gap?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, one of the things that Congressman
Pallone talked about earlier was doing the polluters' tax and
reinstituting that again. That is one way you can do it.
Mr. Terry. The polluter tax was a tax where we taxed
industry in general to fund the Superfund?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes, because now it is coming out of the
general fund but you could reinstate it. You could recoup much
more dollars. And we had a Superfund site in our city at
Chemical Control which has been cleaned up in the 1980's.
Mr. Terry. Mr. King?
Mr. King. Well, quite truthfully, I can't speak for ECOS.
Mr. Terry. Mr. Langer, do you have an opinion?
Mr. Langer. Taxes hit our members disproportionately as do
environmental regulations so we are loathe to endorse any sort
of a tax on anything, frankly.
Mr. Terry. Mr. McTigue?
Mr. McTigue. Sir, I served on a government where we moved
dramatically toward user pays and I still support that
philosophy, that as much as you can move toward user pays, that
is a good thing to do. There is a second thing though. I think
in the case of every site you seek to clean, you should look at
how big is the problem, how quickly can we complete this whole
operation and at what cost, because if you don't look at how
quickly, then I don't think that you are going to give pressure
on how could we more innovatively find ways of solving these
problems. We are using processes and procedures that many
instances I believe are old and archaic and there are probably
better processes and procedures that would be available, and
they may well be much cheaper than what is being used at the
moment.
Mr. Terry. Interesting.
Mr. Simms?
Mr. Simms. I would agree with a couple of the points that
you are making. One is that the Agency's programs including the
Superfund program do deserve and require some evaluation for
efficiency in how those programs are managed to make sure that
we really are getting the best quality that we can be getting
out of these programs when they go to a site, that that site is
managed well, it happens quickly and it is done effectively.
As for the funding question, I would certainly endorse what
I think I heard one of the other panelists say, that
reinstating the chemical industry tax, petroleum industry,
chemical industry tax for Superfund is, in my opinion, the one
way to resuscitate the monies in order to get this done and it
ties those monies back to the industries that are creating the
chemicals. Clearly not all the industries are contaminating but
it is these chemicals that are ending up in the environment at
some point and reintegrating those costs at the front end of
that process is a way that makes sense and has worked clearly
in the past.
I wanted to make one other observation. You are not alone
here in the fact of having been sued by someone on the panel.
Before I moved to NRDC, I was an attorney in the Office of
General Counsel at EPA. I worked on several rulemakings that I
was sued upon by myself.
Mr. Wynn. Mr. Stearns?
Mr. Stearns. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So you were sued by yourself?
Mr. Simms. In a manner of speaking.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Mr. McTigue, you are a vice president at
George Mason, the director of Government Accountability
Project. Lots of times on EPA projects, we are always talking
about more money to get absolute success on these projects
versus methodology, and I guess my question to you is, how do
you find the EPA measure, their way of measuring absolute
success in environmental protection? Do you have your own
method or thoughts on how goals and measuring of success can
best be achieved? Is it by throwing more money? Is that always
the most appropriate way to do it?
Mr. McTigue. No. Throwing more money at a problem, if you
don't know what the problem is, how big it is and how it is
best rectified is not the right thing to do for a start. You
should identify those things.
Can I say as a compliment to EPA, from when I first became
associated with it 9 years ago and looked at their first
strategic plan to where they are today, they have a much
clearer view of the world and what they are trying to do so
they have improved dramatically. Where they are in my view
still short of good performance is in identifying the scale of
the problem, how big is this problem. For example, sir, with
regard to Omaha, how much has the health of people in Omaha
deteriorated because of the lead problem? What is the increased
fatality level there compared to other places? What is the
diminished wellness of the people of Omaha? And the knowledge
of that would then provide for us some idea of what
prioritization we would give to fixing that problem and how
much we might be prepared to invest in it, and in many
instances in my view, EPA falls short of scooping the problem
and giving us a good idea of what sound science tells us would
be the way to fix this problem permanently.
Can I just finish with this comment? When I was in the
Cabinet, we had a test for all proposals that came up to us,
and one of the questions in that test was, what is the problem,
clearly define it, what will remedy it, what action are you
going to take, when will we be finished and not have to spend
money on it. You would be surprised how many times that last
question sunk all of the proposals because nobody was able to
say we will be finished in X period of time. If you haven't got
that answer, I don't think you are properly addressing the
problem. The EPA does not do that well.
Mr. Stearns. If you can't define when you are going to be
finished with a problem, then you can't define how much money
you are going to spend?
Mr. McTigue. Exactly.
Mr. Stearns. Do you have another example where the EPA may
have fallen short?
Mr. McTigue. In my view, yes. If I look at the budget
justification this year, and I think that it is great that we
have got this information available because it was never
available before.
Mr. Stearns. Because what you are saying is, the EPA
oftentimes wants more money and Congress wants to give them
more money but there are cases where they haven't defined the
components you just mentioned and it makes no sense to give
them more money or to talk about an absolute success until all
those things have been defined.
Mr. McTigue. Well, one of the weaknesses in their budget
presentation this year in my view is the fact that for many of
places where there are changes, either increases or decreases
in spending, there is not good rationale to say what is the
consequence of this change. There is a presumption in many
cases that this amount of money can be withdrawn and the
capability of the organization will not be affected one way or
the other. I think that that is a leap of faith that we
shouldn't really be prepared to accept.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Langer, you are manager of regulatory
affairs at the NFIB and this question is dealing with voluntary
programs.
Mr. Langer. Sure.
Mr. Stearns. A lot of people have talked about the merits
or lack thereof. I somehow think there is a lot of merit to
them. You sort of represent the small-business community. I was
a member of NFIB when I had my small business. So you have
real-world experiences, and lots of times in a small business
you have to comply with a lot of EPA programs and lots of times
you would like to know if you could do it voluntarily without
this huge mandate or this threat of fines and everything. So
how has the voluntary program worked and benefited the
environment in your view and is it a very useful tool?
Mr. Langer. Well, I think one of the problems you have to
look at is, the scope of the burden that is faced by these
businesses in day-to-day operations. We know that regulations
cost small businesses about $7,700 per employee per year for
businesses with fewer than 20 employees, and that is 90 percent
of the businesses that are out there. So if you are an average
NFIB member with six employees, you are talking about a roughly
$50,000-a-year regulatory compliance cost, and that is the cost
of when you know exactly what you are doing and the amount of
time you have to spend figuring out what needs to be done.
Mr. Stearns. Fifty thousand dollars would take some of
those businesses and put them in bankruptcy.
Mr. Langer. It does. It does. The bigger problem is, we are
trying to reach this goal of 100 percent compliance and it is a
lofty goal. It is a laudable goal. I mean, we need to have
that. We all want environmental protection. But the problem is
that these small businesses simply don't know where to go to
get the information so they spend a considerable amount of time
having to ferret out what they need to do, whereas if EPA took
an active role--and I will give you an example, OSHA, for
instance. OSHA is about as big a bogeyman to small businesses
as the EPA is and when it comes down to it, OSHA has taken an
active role. The new director, Ed Folk, is going out and
proselytizing to small businesses about the importance of
occupational safety and health in their businesses and he is
getting a greater bang for the buck in doing it. He is
investing them in the process, showing them how they can save
money by being compliant with the regulations that are out
there and showing them what they need to do in a non-punitive
manner. You can go out and you get an OSHA consultation, an
OSHA inspector will come out and review your business and show
you what you need to be doing.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you. Since we don't have too many Members
here, I think we will probably have a second round of
questioning and if Members want to stay and do follow-up, they
can.
I would like to proceed and I want to ask you, Mr.
Roderick, it is the Inside EPA reprinted e-mail you sent out on
February 9, and it said that you anticipate losing about 30
employees, FTEs. Is that correct?
Mr. Roderick. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Wynn. And it also said that very likely you will have
to close facilities.
Mr. Roderick. That is a possibility, sir, yes, sir.
Mr. Wynn. Your term was ``very likely,'' and your
characterization was ``unwelcome and disappointing,'' which is
a little bit different from what you said here.
Now, you have staffers who work on this voluntarily
Performance Track program, right?
Mr. Roderick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wynn. And in fact, you studied 30 member companies and
found less than two out of 30 had fulfilled their commitments;
93 percent did not fulfill their commitments. Isn't that true?
Mr. Roderick. Well, sir, I don't want to discuss that
report until it is actually completely completed. We want to
complete our process.
Mr. Wynn. Alright, fine, if you don't want to discuss it,
but it was characterized as a gold standard, this Performance
Track program was characterized as a gold standard?
And also, this was not done by congressional statute, was
it, these voluntary programs?
Mr. Roderick. No, sir.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
Mr. Simms, I think at the very end of your testimony you
were trying to mention a couple points about the voluntary
programs and also I think environmental justice. If you would
kind of expand on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Simms. Well, I wanted to mention environmental justice.
Environmental justice is obviously a very important issue, and
the budget request reduces funding to the Office of
Environmental Justice by, I believe it is 28 percent. This is a
very troubling development, given that it is very clear from
the data that is readily available that people in low-income
and minority communities are still disproportionately affected
by pollution. In addition to that, there are clear indications
in recent IG reports that EPA is already not living up to its
obligations under the Environmental Justice Executive order.
That was one of the issues I wanted to make sure that the panel
is aware of. That funding is very important to communities that
in many cases are least able to protect themselves.
Mr. Wynn. And did you want to comment on the voluntary
program?
Mr. Simms. Well, I believe I did comment on the voluntary
program, and I can expand on that a little bit. One of the
things I want to make sure that this committee understands is
that there are a number of voluntary programs that are very
good and that have demonstrated very good results. There are a
number of voluntary programs for what that is absolutely not
the case, and there are voluntary programs that have a
deregulatory component to them that allow otherwise regulated
industries to take a regulatory off-ramp that reduce the
scrutiny of permanent reviews, reduce inspections and to the
extent that that happens, to the extent that these voluntary
programs have a central component of the program, an element of
deregulation. There has to be a heightened level of scrutiny
and accountability for those programs to absolutely ensure that
if that program is going to exist and it is going to remove
otherwise applicable regulatory requirements, that it is going
to achieve the results that it is intended to achieve and I----
Mr. Wynn. Can I just interject here? What is the authority
for a non-statutory program to remove statutorily imposed
regulations?
Mr. Simms. Well, the voluntary programs do not remove the
applicability of the statutory requirements. What they do in
many cases is provide alternative compliance mechanisms the
statute itself does not require a certain schedule for
inspections or a certain depth of process for permanent reviews
and so the Agency has the authority within its discretion to
implement the statutory requirements to allow for different
levels of scrutiny.
Mr. Wynn. Before my time runs out, let me interject,
because you make some very good points. Don't you think then if
they are going to have these programs to create these, I think
you described them as detours or off-ramps, that they ought to
be required to submit--that the Agency rather ought to be
required to submit them to Congress so that we could review
them before they are implemented?
Mr. Simms. Absolutely, and I will go back to my three
themes which are accountability, transparency, and
accountability--and those things are absolutely important both
EPA holding accountable the participants in these voluntary
programs and Congress holding accountable EPA to make sure that
the benefits of those programs are actually realized.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think one thing that we found in the hearing is there is
a consistency by everyone in the panel, real information, real
science, evaluation of the response. Even with you, Mr. Simms,
when you were talking about these voluntary programs, you are
saying there are some good programs, there may be some bad
ones, but until we gather up the real information to make value
judgments, likewise on a cleanup site, the same issue on the
flip side is, real information, real data, let us see if there
is a real return on the money we are spending. So Mr. Simms, I
would encourage you to talk with Mr. McTigue because I think
some of those responses, it is really the same formula, in
other words, looking at it from different arenas but it is the
same formula.
Let me go to the mayor for a second. As you know, Federal
Brownfields law does not allow States and municipalities to use
cleanup funds to pay for administrative costs, and I have been
surprised by your organization's argument that this provision
was a technical flaw that Congress did not intend. I noticed in
your testimony that you are encouraging statutory changes to
this law that you have previously emphatically considered
unamendable. Do you consider this change, meaning a reduction
of cleanup funding grants in favor of municipal and State
bureaucracy costs, one of those you allude to in your
testimony?
Mr. Bollwage. Could you go through that again?
Mr. Shimkus. Well, yes. I will put it in common language.
Brownfields funds go to cleanup. Your organization says we have
some administrative costs that we would like to use some of
these Brownfield dollars to go. That is really part of the
basis of this whole debate on how we budget and what kind of
return on the investment. Do you agree with that position?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, we were one of the first cities to get
a $200,000 Brownfields grant in the State. We were able to use
that grant administratively to characterize what our Brownfield
sites were, and going to what Mr. McTigue said, it would be a
little difficult to cleanup a Brownfield if we didn't know what
it was and that would have to be some type of administrative
cost to assess that problem.
Mr. Shimkus. But I am talking about the actual Brownfields
fund itself. Those monies go to cleanup. We don't want those to
go to administrative costs, do we?
Mr. Bollwage. Well, if you agree with Mr. McTigue's
assessment, you are going to have to figure out what the
problem is and then know where you are going and that would be
administrative costs, and then after that if there is a fund
dedicated for Brownfield cleanup then that should be used for
cleanup.
Mr. Shimkus. Going to the Superfund debate, which I have
been involved with for a long time since I have been on this
committee and we did small-business relief years ago back in
1998 through the committee, there was a NCEP study that said 50
cents on every dollar was spent on litigation in the Superfund.
Now, if 50 cents of every dollar is going to paperwork,
bureaucracy and court claims, do we think there would be a
better use of those dollars in actual cleanup?
Mr. Bollwage. I can tell you in the city of Elizabeth, we
had Chemical Control, which blew up in 1980, and Superfund
dollars to the tune of $50 million were used to clean it up. It
was not litigated in any way, shape or form. The Superfund
dollars were used to cleanup what is now a cement slab. So from
personal experiences, we do not deal with a lot of
administrative costs on legal bills regarding a cleanup of a
Superfund site, nor do we deal with it in cleaning up the 166-
acre site of the Jersey Gardens Mall, which was a Brownfield's
site. We planned, we prepared and I think if you do the things
that Mr. McTigue was talking about, you wouldn't deal with
lawsuits, but there has to be some type of administrative costs
up front.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me see if I can get an answer----
Mr. Bollwage. I answered. You just don't like it.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, do you want identified cleanup funds to
go for cleanup or administration costs?
Mr. Bollwage. Do I want identified cleanup costs----
Mr. Shimkus. Cleanup funds to go to cleanup or
administration costs? In other words, bulldozers, workers to
cleanup the site or litigation, paperwork----
Mr. Bollwage. Well, if you do the proper planning, the
proper planning would avoid litigation.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, why don't you just answer the question?
Mr. Bollwage. I am.
Mr. Shimkus. Should cleanup costs go to clean----
Mr. Bollwage. I am going to answer the question. Cleanup
costs, Congressman, should go for cleaning up the site. When
you do public-private partnerships, sometimes you can get other
people involved in this----
Mr. Shimkus. I don't have a beef with that. My focus is
making sure that if we are going to do cost-benefit analysis,
get a real return on our dollars, cleanup dollars should go to
cleanup.
Let me just highlight some of Mr. Langer's testimony in my
last 10 seconds, is the Business Gateway program is a good
program to get the small businesses involved and encouraged in
doing proper compliance and an easy method, and I think that
would be helpful. I don't have time to receive an answer but I
wanted to highlight that as a thing that I thought was
important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Certainly. I noted something that is kind of
interesting. EPA spent about $23 million on administrative
costs in this budget.
Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Just following up a little bit on Mr. Shimkus's comments.
Mayor, you mentioned something about partnerships and I think
that is the nice thing about Brownfields as opposed to being
put on the priority list where you really lose a lot of control
at the local level. On a Brownfield, you can see a partnership
between the local community and State and I think that is a
good way to share those administrative costs. I think it is
fair that if we have a grant program for Brownfields from the
Federal Government, that those be used or we could say those
can be used strictly for the cleanup. So actually my question,
since Mr. King has been fairly lonely in this discussion about
the participation of State governments in the Brownfields
process and how they can lend their level of expertise in the
administrative parts, the environmental engineering studies,
for example. Would you care to comment on being a participant
and the advantage of Brownfields?
Mr. King. I will do that from my position in South
Carolina.
Mr. Terry. Absolutely.
Mr. King. I think Brownfields has been just tremendous. It
really has helped in a lot of areas that probably would not
have been redeveloped or certainly would not be as far along as
they are today. We are actively engaged at the State level with
helping communities in the Brownfields area and I think it has
been a great partnership.
Mr. Terry. I appreciate that.
Would you say that too as well, Mayor? Have you worked with
your State in the Brownfield cleanup that is now a nice mall?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes, but the Nation's mayors would like to
see the Brownfields funds naturally directly come to the
municipalities. As a former councilman, you would understand
that. But we have very cooperative relationship in the State of
New Jersey. We would have never been able to build the Jersey
Gardens Mall because there was legislation to offset bringing
private dollars to offset the Brownfield dollars.
Mr. Terry. Well, in all due respect, as one of the people
that voted to put up funds to do the administrative work, we
were gladly putting those up to make sure that we didn't get
EPA and a priorities list on us. I think the little dollars
that we spent--I shouldn't say little. It was probably a
million or two.
Mr. Bollwage. That is why you got sued.
Mr. Terry. I was personally served by the sheriff at my law
office. I thought I was being sued for malpractice, which I
never was. But I want to end with that.
Mr. McTigue, I will tell you, your comments here I think
have been the most intriguing of the hearing, and just a little
bit of editorial comment. I think probably one of the areas
that we can help the EPA improve on are exactly the criteria
that you set out. I think on their priority projects, they set
goals. I think they have the right intent but sometimes they
don't have it clearly defined what the objectives are, what the
end game is, and we have seen that just in Omaha where in the
lead contamination Superfund site, for example, they are still
doing their research several years later about the health
impacts within the city and I am not sure they have been able
to determine what those are yet. In fact, the criteria, parts
per billion within the soil, has actually changed throughout
the process, which has led to a great deal of consternation
within the community that maybe games are being played to save
dollars. It may be. I don't know. I think it comes from the
fact that perhaps that sound science hasn't been used at the
beginning of the process to set the levels of contamination
that truly affect the health that can all be agreed upon.
In fact, this is just an editorial, not a comment. My first
meeting with the EPA was on lead in water in small
municipalities in Nebraska and we asked if the EPA could be
more flexible, that the city could take out the old piping and
put in new piping instead of having to put in a water treatment
facility and they said no, and then-Senator Kerrey asked the
EPA representatives how were you able to determine the
particulate level, that that level affects health; show me the
study. They said we don't have one but we will get you one.
Now, that established a great deal of credibility in my mind
that they just artificially set a level, then produced 90 days
later a study that wow, backed up that level. And so I do agree
with your level on sound science and perhaps maybe we can get
to a point where we work in here not only trying to get more
dollars but make sure that we set out some criteria to help
them become more efficient.
Mr. Chairman, can I just have a few more seconds?
I want to ask Mayor Bollwage, on the revolving fund, this
is a fund that many communities in Nebraska, not my district,
but Nebraska use. My understanding of that revolving fund is
that it was to go to cities or allow cities that are smaller in
nature, can't really go into the market with municipal bonds.
You made a comment in your statement that sounded like your
city should not have been forced to have to go out into the
municipal bond market to do your water treatment facilities.
Did I understand your point correctly there?
Mr. Bollwage. With clarification, Congressman.
Mr. Terry. I appreciate that.
Mr. Bollwage. I rushed through the comments because of the
time but in my written remarks, the SRF loans, we recognize the
importance that they are to the small municipality and we would
like to see it funded with 30-year no-interest loans and other
things. It was easier for a larger municipality like myself to
go into the private financing of the bond market but for
smaller municipalities, that revolving loan fund is direly
important.
Mr. Terry. Alright. Because I didn't want to have the
League of Cities saying that----
Mr. Bollwage. The U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Mr. Terry. When that wasn't its----
Mr. Bollwage. Oh, not at all, and I thank you for the
opportunity to clarify.
Mr. Wynn. Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
the panelists for coming today. I appreciate your time you
spent today here.
Mr. Simms, as I understand it, the Democrat-authored House
Resolution 20 only adds money to the Superfund account and the
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. Since your testimony is
very critical of the Bush budget proposal on area such as LUST
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, in light of the
constitutional mandate on the two branches of government, don't
you have anything critical to say to Congress about the lost
opportunity to increase funding for those areas, especially
considering the weight your testimony gives them?
Mr. Simms. I am not sure I fully understand. It is a
relatively long question. I am trying to piece it together.
Mr. Sullivan. Sure.
Mr. Simms. Let me give you the gist of my testimony. The
gist of my testimony is, there is an absolutely critical need.
The EPA has demonstrated that need through some studies looking
at the upcoming costs for water infrastructure, the number of
leaking underground storage tanks and the number of Superfund
sites yet to be cleaned up. My testimony is about making sure
that those issues get addressed. What I have before me is the
budget proposal. That is what I am looking at. That is why I am
criticizing the budget proposal for its failure to do that. As
a foundational matter, what I am talking about is getting these
environmental issues addressed.
Mr. Sullivan. OK. I have got a couple more, if I got the
time. Also, Mr. Simms, you mentioned in your testimony that the
EPA is increasingly reliant on voluntary, as opposed to
regulatory, programs and yet you acknowledge that less than 2
percent of the EPA's budget supports these activities. What
percentage, Mr. Simms, of the Agency's budget would you
appropriate in your view to support partnership activities?
What do you think is the proper amount?
Mr. Simms. Let me clarify.
Mr. Sullivan. If not 2 percent, what do you think is good?
Mr. Simms. I understand your question but it is a bit of a
misnomer in terms of what my testimony says, and let me just
clarify that for you so it is clear to this committee. I do not
have a blanket criticism, NRDC does not have a blanket
criticism of the amount of money going to partnership programs.
There are some very good partnership programs. The criticism
is, if money is going to partnership programs, those
partnership programs have to be transparent and accountable and
subject to scrutiny both through a functional process within
EPA and an oversight function from Congress. It is not about
how much money it is. It is about how those funds are used and
demonstrating that those funds are used in an appropriate way
that actually achieves the benefits that are being----
Mr. Sullivan. Since they are transparent, you would
advocate more partnership programs and more budget money spent
on them, right?
Mr. Simms. Well, I think there may be a point at which
there is a tension between the Agency's ability to institute
its core functions effectively and how many voluntary programs
there are and how effective they are you could have at the same
time. I don't know what that number is and it is not----
Mr. Sullivan. But also if it is more transparent like you
are saying, I agree that it should be, wouldn't you agree that
it could be more than 2 percent should be spent on those
programs if they are more transparent? Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Simms. I have no categorical objection to 2 percent or
some level above 2 percent, as long the programs are being
overseen.
Mr. Sullivan. Also, I got one more question, sir. You are
asking for $5 to $10 million per year starting in fiscal year
2008 for EPA to develop regulations and guidelines appropriate
for commercial-scale CO2 disposal projects. You say that for
the EPA to develop some regulatory framework will take several
years. I understand that a task force put together by the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission is months away from
developing guidelines for the States in this regard. It is
almost complete. Before we start spending Federal dollars on
Federal effort at EPA, would it not make more sense to take a
close look at what the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission task force produces first, and aren't the States
where this kind of expertise resides?
Mr. Simms. I would answer that in two parts. The one is,
even if the EPA starts now with this budget year focusing
intensely on what it will take to regulate CO\2\ sequestration,
that feedback between the Interstate Compact and the Agency can
happen and can happen effectively. So I don't think there is a
tension between giving the Agency the money to do that and
having a process that is moving forward providing some
information about that sort of a guidance within another
entity. So I don't think that there is a real tension between
the two and the amount of money we are talking about going to
EPA to do this stuff is quite small and it is absolutely
important that this get off the dime really quickly. If it does
not, we will be already behind the eight ball when we get to
the point where we really need to start putting the stuff in
the ground.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, thank you very much for being here. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Simms. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. At this time the Chair would recognize Ms. Solis
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Solis. Thank you, and I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for
being late. I was in another meeting. My question, if I might,
I would like to pose this to Mr. King. The Congressional
Research Service recently calculated that the President's
budget request of $842 million for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund is only, in our estimation, $802 million when
adjusted for inflation for 2006 dollars. That is the lowest
amount of purchasing power in the history of the program, and
at the same time the infrastructure needs of the States, which
EPA estimates to be at $263 billion in its 2005 report, are
huge and apparently growing. Your prepared testimony with
respect to Drinking Water State Revolving Fund identified
eroding effects of inflation on the DWSRF appropriation. I
would like to have a clarification on what you mean with
respect to the effect inflation is having on this critical
public health program, and I know I don't have enough time so
if you could please be very brief.
Mr. King. I can do that. The message there is just the fact
that the dollar today does not buy the same amount as the
dollar 5 years ago, and the monies that are allocated are at
the same level and that is not different than the other
programs that we receive dollars from EPA. The dollars are the
same, and as inflation goes on throughout the years, that
buying power is not there.
Ms. Solis. But it does appear as though the level amount
that we are looking at obviously, there is a difference there
in terms of funding. You will admit that?
Mr. King. Yes.
Ms. Solis. OK. Second question for Mr. King. One of the
ECOS's principles is to first and foremost fund the core
programs that have been enacted by this Congress such as Safe
Drinking Water, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, Air Quality
Management, Hazardous Waste Management and the State Revolving
Fund. Last year the ECOS identified a number of EPA contracts
where contractors were tasked to design and market voluntary
programs including telemarketing recruiting activities. At the
same time, EPA cut core Clear Air grants to the States. Can you
please explain your concerns regarding the growing use of
contracts for non-core programs that have been specifically
authorized by Congress?
Mr. King. We believe that because of the congressionally
mandated programs that we have an obligation to fulfill those
requirements, and we just cannot address those requirements
when dollars go down in those programs that were identified.
Ms. Solis. And are those competing programs then?
Mr. King. In some cases they are, and as you will see in
the testimony, we identified those priorities as a high
priority and moderate priority and low priority and some of our
moderate priorities are mandated as well but we had to
establish some priorities there.
Ms. Solis. But they would take precedent over, say, perhaps
statutory priorities?
Mr. King. No, there are not statutory priorities that are
in that category.
Ms. Solis. This is a question for Mr. Roderick. My time is
coming to a close here. Mr. Roderick, I think that the work
your office is doing on the voluntary Performance Track program
is indeed important work. The program is not specifically
authorized by any statute and is costing at least $5 million
per year using approximately 30 full-time employees. Last year
a group at Harvard University reviewed the Performance Track
program and made these findings: ``It is not clear that
programs like the Performance Track are encouraging companies
to do more than they would anyhow.'' That is a quote. We also
have been unable to find such evidence that Performance Track
encourages facilities to improve their performance. The
evaluation report prepared by your office studied whether 30 or
so member companies fulfilled the commitments they made to
improve environmental performance at their facilities. Your
staff found that only two of the 30 member companies met all of
their commitments; 93 percent did not. Have you made
Administrator Johnson aware of these extremely disappointing
results for the program that the Agency claims is a gold
standard for voluntary environmental programs?
Mr. Roderick. Well, we do not want to comment or discuss
anything to do with our ongoing work. We want to wait until it
is fully complete before we discuss the process that was used
and the results that were----
Ms. Solis. Have you spoken to the Administrator about this?
Mr. Roderick. No.
Ms. Solis. You have not, for the record?
Mr. Roderick. For the record.
Ms. Solis. I want to be clear. The Administrator is not
aware that there is a report to this effect that I just----
Mr. Roderick. Well, that is a different question. I am sure
he is aware that there is a report but we have not had a
discussion about it in any way.
Ms. Solis. Is there a statute that specifically authorizes
EPA to establish and implement Performance Track?
Mr. Roderick. Not to my knowledge.
Ms. Solis. There is not. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wynn. I would like to thank all of our panelists for
being so generous with their time----
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
Members may have an opportunity to submit written questions for
the record?
Mr. Wynn. Without objection.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. Again, I thank the panelists for participating.
Thank you for your time and your testimony. This concludes our
hearing. I would note that this subcommittee will meet next
week, Thursday, March 8, at 9 a.m. to hear from the
Administrator of EPA, Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.135
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials joint with Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R.
Wynn (chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stupak, Capps, Allen,
Solis, Baldwin, Butterfield, Barrow, Green, Dingell, Inslee,
Markey, Shimkus, Terry, Sullivan, Murphy, Barton, Walden,
Pitts, Pallone, Hall, Upton, Whitfield, Hastert, Burgess, Deal,
and Shadegg.
Staff present: Richard A. Frandsen, Lorie Schmidt, Karen
Torrent, Ann Strickland, Chris Treanor, Erin Bzymek, Alec
Gerlach, David McCarthy, Jerry Couri, Tom Hassenboehler, Peter
Kielty, and Kurt Bilas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Wynn. Good morning. Today we have a joint hearing on
the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials and the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality chaired by Mr. Boucher.
This morning we are very pleased to have with us the
Administrator of the EPA, Mr. Stephen Johnson. The subject of
this hearing will be the Environmental Protection Agency fiscal
year 2008 budget request.
For purposes of making opening statements, the chairs and
ranking members of each subcommittee and the full committee
will each be recognized for 5 minutes. All other members of the
subcommittees will be recognized for 3 minutes. Members may
waive the right to make an opening statement, and then when
first recognized for questions may add those 3 minutes to their
time for questions. Without objection, all members have 5
legislative days to submit opening statements for the record.
This is a somewhat momentous occasion. It is the first time
in 6 years that the committee is hearing from the EPA
Administrator on the EPA's budget submission. The EPA's role as
our Nation's steward of the environment is critical to
America's health, safety, and economic growth, and we take our
constitutional responsibility at oversight very seriously.
The President's budget requests have declined significantly
during the last 6 years. This year, the EPA is only one of two
agencies to see a reduction in the President's budget. This
request is indicative of the administration's attitude toward
environmental protection. There is growing alarm about the
administration's lack of commitment to environment and public
health protection. We are deeply concerned about whether the
Environmental Protection Agency can fulfill its mission in
terms of its core health programs, including Brownfields,
Superfund, the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Act Loan Fund,
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and Environmental Justice.
At our first budget hearing last week, we heard from
several stakeholders, including the Acting Inspector General of
EPA, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), United States
Conference of Mayors and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The distressing overall message we received from these
witnesses was that EPA's core environmental programs have been
chronically underfunded and that this lack of resources places
an undue burden on the States and localities and puts our
constituents' health at risk.
Mr. Chris Bollwage, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey,
testified on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors.
The mayors are facing unfunded mandates such as the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and as a result, are often forced to pass
the cost on to their constituents. Ironically, while we heard
testimony on the difficulties States face trying to protect
their citizens with less Federal funding, the Inspector General
testified that EPA has been spending money on voluntary
programs such as Performance Track, which yield questionable
results.
Unfortunately, the EPA has failed to provide this committee
with complete information on the amount of money and the
personnel dedicated to these voluntary partnership programs.
That is unacceptable. The EPA's lack of response raises serious
questions about the diversion of funds and personnel to some of
these programs at the expense of the core public health
programs mandated by Congress.
In terms of these core programs, of particular concern to
me is Superfund. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for
Superfund is $35 million less than the President's fiscal year
2006 budget request, yet the EPA Inspector General testified
before this committee last week that limited funding prevented
EPA from beginning construction at all sites. The short-funding
appears to have impacted projected completion rates. The EPA
initially projected it would complete 40 sites in fiscal year
2007, but recently backtracked on its initial estimate,
indicating it would only have 24 construction completions in
fiscal year 2007.
Not only has the administration underfunded EPA, it has
also expressed its opposition to the reinstatement of a
dedicated tax for polluters that would increase revenue for the
Superfund. Another concern is the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund. Leaking underground storage tanks are the lead
source of groundwater contamination in the United States,
posing a significant risk to the Nation's drinking water
supply. While the LUST fund surplus is estimated at $3 billion
in fiscal year 2008, the President's budget requests just $72
million from this trust fund for cleanup, less than last year's
appropriation.
Gasoline taxes are paid by consumers, and these taxes are
not going for their specified purpose: the cleanup of spills
and underground contamination. Yet, the President is using the
taxes designated for this environmental trust fund to offset
other administration spending, such as the war in Iraq and tax
cuts for the wealthy. In the meantime, however, there is a
backlog of 113,000 LUST cleanups. The longer this contamination
is left unaddressed, the greater the adverse impact on human
health, increasing the ultimate cost of cleanups.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests 26 percent
less than his budget request for fiscal year 2006 for
Brownfields. Current law provides an authorization of over $200
million per year, but the President's budget request is only 56
percent of the amount authorized for cleanup and assessment
grants. This is troublesome when you consider that in 2006
there were 694 Brownfield project grant proposals, but only
slightly more than one-third received funding.
In terms of the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund,
this is yet another core program that has faced cuts. The
President's budget request is the lowest in the history of the
State Revolving Loan Fund in real terms. The Environmental
Council of States testified that declining Federal support has
caused many States to institute new fees for drinking water
infrastructure and service. Shortfalls in funding for the SRF
program leads not only to rate increases, but also increased
risks of outbreaks of water-born diseases.
Overall, States are concerned the EPA funding is
insufficient to meet its mission to protect the environment and
public health. Superfund and Brownfield cleanups are declining.
States face increasing pressure to pass costs on to consumers.
Drinking water infrastructure continues to deteriorate in the
face of declining funds. The American public continues to face
health risks from leaking underground storage tanks. All a
result of chronic underfunding of EPA'S core health programs.
Meanwhile, EPA, under this administration, is spending
resources on voluntary programs with low oversight or
accountability.
I look forward, as does the committee, to hearing from the
EPA Administrator today about these and other issues affecting
the health of our constituents and our environment.
At this time, I would recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus, for an opening statement.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I go into
colloquy real quick and ask, the Administrator has got a time
constraint? Is that true also?
Mr. Wynn. The Administrator has agreed to be here until
12:00, which is one of the reasons we began this hearing at
9:00, to accommodate his need to depart.
Mr. Shimkus. The only reason I mentioned that is so Members
understand that the longer we talk, the less questions we get,
which may be good, but I am still going to use my 5 minutes.
But just so other people keep that in mind.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
congratulate you on the success of your first hearing and tell
you how much I look forward to today's follow-up hearing on the
EPA budget proposal for fiscal year 2008.
Our hearing last Thursday on this issue was very
informative. I was especially pleased to hear the agreement
voiced by our witnesses that the amount of money allocated to a
problem does not signify commitment. Instead, we learned that
clear objectives, transparent actions, and focused resources
mean more to improving public health than the amount of money
dolled out to each program. I was especially happy to hear that
the EPA has improved since 1999 in focusing its resources and
defining its mission.
Ultimately the EPA's efforts should not be measured from
the size of their budget, but whether they are protecting human
health and the environment, and whether EPA is getting better
and more efficient at that job with each year.
Last week helped us set the table for our time with the
Administrator, and I want to welcome him before our panel. Mr.
Johnson, our Republican members support congressional oversight
by this committee because we believe real accountability and
oversight should not be a partisan issue, and we are looking,
as are our colleagues on the other side, for facts, both
budgetary and scientific.
As a side note, I want to say how pleased I am that our
Administrator is a scientist who understands the need for sound
objective science at the EPA. This was a clear thing that we
heard from our panelists last Thursday.
I also believe that having great scientific data is only so
helpful if we don't know how clean we want our air, soil, or
water to be. We need to be able to place into context how one
environment improvement fits in with another. This, to me, is
especially important because it speaks to the very heart of
being able to prioritize our public health needs, and I would
guess the States would agree with me after hearing how much
they are feeling squeezed, trying to meet their own objectives
as well as trying to implement Federal mandates.
One last item I want to touch on is the use of trust funds.
I am a big proponent of using money raised in a dedicated trust
fund for those activities a trust fund claims to address. I,
and our witnesses, unanimously agree that once raised, these
monies should go to their stated purposes. This includes a
negative implication of having them being unused so they can
cover deficit spending, a sin committed repeatedly by White
Houses and Congresses of both parties, and I can bet after the
budget goes through the process, it will be a sin committed
again by the budget process here and our appropriators. We need
to consider ways to make this money work for the purpose it was
raised, or put the charade of having trust funds in the first
place.
Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense to focus our time on
comprehensively understanding the budget of the main Federal
agencies that our committee oversees. EPA's budget has
ramifications for Federal, State, and local regulators. It
impacts large, medium, and small businesses, and it translates
into how public health protections can and will be carried out.
Simply looking at the numbers does a disservice to the work of
the Agency and its partners. We must admit that Congress is the
constitutional home of Federal spending, not the executive
branch, and that pay-go rules forced priority spending because
they prohibit free spending without offsets. In this context,
we need to be responsible and construct solutions that solve
environmental problems rather than feed political fires.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican members of this subcommittee
and I pledge to be honest brokers on the issues that lie ahead.
Again, I want to welcome Administrator Johnson, and with a
minute and 32 seconds remaining, yield back my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. I want to thank you for that. Can I claim it?
Mr. Shimkus. You probably will anyway.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I would like to recognize Mr. Dingell, who I believe is
coming in at this moment, the chairman of the full committee.
We are very honored to have him here, and without further
comment, I would recognize the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Good morning, and good morning to my
colleagues on the committee. I want to commend you, Mr.
Chairman Wynn, and you, Mr. Chairman Boucher, for holding this
hearing on EPA's budget request for fiscal year 2008. This is
the first time during this administration that the EPA
Administrator has come before this committee to justify the
agency's funding requests for environmental protection. I am
sure we all welcome Administrator Johnson here for this new
experience.
EPA plays a vital role in protecting the health of our
public and the Nation by ensuring that the water we drink is
safe, the air that we breathe is clean, the waste being
generated is managed properly, and the legacy of toxic waste
sites is cleaned up expeditiously. After reviewing the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, I can only conclude that
it fails to meet the administration's professed goal of
accelerating the pace of environmental protection, and in many
areas, the budget falls woefully short of the needs previously
identified by EPA. We look forward to Administrator Johnson
telling us why EPA was one of only two agencies, the other
being the Department of Labor, that actually faced decreases in
the President's budget. Clearly, the President has not made
environmental protection a priority.
To cleanup leaking underground storage tanks that are
polluting the drinking water supplies of the Nation, the
President's budget requests $72.5 million. In contrast, the
trust fund to address these matters will receive over $300
million in annual revenues, and the trust fund surplus
dedicated to these cleanups is projected to be over $3 billion
in fiscal year 2008. American consumers then are being taxed,
but the money is not being used for the specific purposes for
which it is collected, or which the Congress intended it should
be spent.
The Government Accountability Office has recently
identified a $12 billion public funding need, and EPA has
acknowledged over 113,000 releases from leaky underground
storage tanks that have not been addressed. We want to hear why
that is so.
For Brownfields grants to help communities with site
assessments and clean-ups, the President continues his request
from last year of $89 million, even though the Conference of
Mayors has testified last week that only one in three
applications has been funded over the past several years. The
administration describes the Brownfields program as a vital
jobs creation and economic program. If that is so, why did the
President then cut the Brownfields grant budget request by $31
million or 26 percent from fiscal year 2006 when not only is it
a job creation program, but it is an urgent environmental
necessity.
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund helps public water
systems finance the cost of infrastructure improvements needed
to achieve or maintain compliance and protect the public
health. EPA's last drinking water infrastructure needs survey
and assessment identified the total State need as $263.3
billion. The President's budget request of $842 million is the
lowest in the history of the program, when it is adjusted for
inflation.
In Superfund, the budget requests have been going down
consistently over the past 5 years. There are numerous toxic
waste sites on the National Priority List where cleanup has
been delayed for lack of funds. Large funding shortfalls have
been identified by the EPA Inspector General and acknowledged
by senior EPA officials. Rather than expediting the rate at
which Superfund sites are cleaned up, EPA has failed to meet
the agency's own 2007 projections and has just recently
announced that a reduction of 40 percent in construction
completions. Only 24 Superfund sites will complete construction
activities this year.
Now, the States carry out, enforce, and implement most of
our major environmental statutes. Last week, the Subcommittee
on Environment and Hazardous Materials was told by senior State
environmental officials that if Congress accepts the 2008
proposal for STAG, that is, the State Territorial and Assistant
Grants, it will mean that the States will have lost more than
$1 billion in Federal support since 2004. This isn't normal.
This is an enormous list of forgone opportunities to cleanup
and better the environment.
The subcommittee should also examine the extent to which
EPA has been shifting money away from the States to pay for pet
projects or programs not specifically authorized by this
committee or by the Congress. We will look forward to comments
on this matter from the Administrator.
The President's budget would cut State and local air
quality management grants by $35 million, or 15 percent, from
fiscal year 2006 levels. These grants provide the money needed
to pay State and local employees' salaries, and other expenses
to develop and run State core and other local air programs.
These programs, which are required by Federal law, reduce the
pollution which causes asthma attacks, premature death, and
other respiratory and cardiopulmonary problems.
Serious cuts have also been proposed for EPA's Office of
Inspector General, which the Acting Inspector General has
characterized as unwelcome and disappointing. I would declare
this to be a much more serious matter, and one on which the
committee will want to have some rather strong answers, either
here or at some later time. Office of Inspector General
employees have been told that the President's budget will
likely result in closed offices and a reduction in force for
personnel.
Mr. Chairman, these are important hearings. I commend you
for having them, and I observe that they are important in
fulfilling the oversight responsibilities of the committee. I
look forward to Administrator Johnson's testimony, and I thank
you for recognizing me.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Pitts.
Mr. Pitts. I will waive.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair would recognize Ms. Baldwin.
Ms. Baldwin. I, too, will waive.
Mr. Wynn. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. I will waive, too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Mrs. Capps.
Mrs. Capps. I will waive.
Mr. Wynn. Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. I waive.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair recognizes Mr. Green.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
unanimous consent to have my statement placed in the record,
and I did make an opening statement the other day, but I am
glad the EPA Administrator is here and I just want to mention
two things.
One, I have an interest in the Superfund sites. I have a
very urban district in Houston with petrochemical plants. That
is our job base and our tax base, and I have been proud, since
I was a State legislator, that we cleaned up what we thought
was our last Superfund site. But just recently we noticed one
that is actually on the border of our district in East Harris
County with Congressman Poe, and so I am going to become very
interested in how we get that site on, because it is actually a
submerged site that is leaking dioxin into the Houston Ship
Channel and into Galveston Bay and ultimately into the Gulf of
Mexico.
But I know there is a concern, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to also mention that I know this is a joint hearing, so I can
talk about air quality, because our issues are only water
quality, but I have also requested a site hearing in Houston
because some of the issues that we are dealing with with air
quality, air toxins in our area. So I would hopefully look
forward that we acknowledge some of the few water problems. We
also have a few air problems I would like to have address, so I
yield back my time.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Also without
objection, his full statement will be entered into the record.
At this time, Chair would recognize Mr. Murphy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the rest
of my statement for the record, too, but just very briefly I
would like to thank Administrator Johnson for being here today.
One of the things that the EPA has done over the years is
certainly pressure many cities and towns to cleanup their act,
and many industries to cleanup their act, and has done so with
success, particularly when there has been cooperative efforts.
I mentioned in a previous hearing here how Pittsburgh used to
be such a polluted city that men would come to work with two
shirts so they could change at noon because it was pretty gray
and dingy by lunchtime. But we have in our region now beautiful
views, rivers full of fish, and still, we have a sizable coal
industry that yields 50,000 related jobs in the Pittsburgh
region. We no longer have the strength of steel industry that
we once had, but many other industries have replaced it, and
what is important as we move forward in anything is to make
sure we have maintained the high interest for public health
that the EPA has, and our environment is part of that, but also
recognizing we need to also keep jobs in our country and remain
competitive in our marketplace. We have lost so many jobs in
this Nation from manufacturing sector. Many have gone overseas.
It is not just a matter of how we handle things in this Nation,
but very much the competitive nature we see of what happens in
other nations with little or no environmental concerns and our
high ones, such that they can manufacture products without any
of those costs that we see as so important to public health.
As you continue your position as the Administrator of the
EPA, I hope you will continue to keep this in mind: that we
have to keep jobs in this Nation, we have to keep public health
as high priority as working together and building the
cooperation of our industries in this Nation, as well as the
EPA's work in making sure we balance all these things together.
I hope that as you spend your budget, that is part of what you
do wisely, to multiply those dollars as we work together
cooperatively with industry in this Nation to keep our
manufacturing sector up in a competitive world.
And with that, I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
United States Steel Corporation's Clairton Plant, located
in Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, is the largest coke
producer in North America producing approximately 4 million
tons of coke a year. As evidence of U.S. Steel's corporate
commitment to environmental compliance, Clairton has become the
first heavy industrial facility in the United States to be
certified to ISO 14001 standard for environmental management
systems.
Integrated steel facilities, coke plants in particular, are
one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United
States. Clairton is subject to not only Federal and State
regulations but also the more stringent Allegheny County
regulations. Clairton is subject to the Federal standards for
coke oven topside emissions and for by-product emissions and
has been in compliance with these requirements since the rules
were promulgated in the early 1990's. Recently, in 2006,
Clairton became subject to the Federal standards for coke oven
emissions from pushing, stacks and quenching and is also in
compliance with these new requirements. Allegheny County also
regulates emissions from coke batteries and their standards are
considerably more stringent than Federal or State. Clairton
maintains a very high percentage compliance with these
standards. In addition, Clairton continues to proactively
develop and implement programs to address environmental
challenges. U.S. Steel's Clairton Plant has been and continues
to be a leader in environmental performance and stewardship.
----------
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my statement and
use the time for questions.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
Chair will recognize Ms. Solis.
Ms. Solis. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will waive and also hold my
time.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair recognizes Mr. Barrow.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, you may not remember when we met a few
years ago. Thank you for being with us today. I will make my
comments very brief.
As we are looking at your budget, we are kind of looking at
the business plan for your agency over the course of the next
year, and I just want to encourage you all to look into the
area of efficiency standards for heavy duty class A trucks.
Emission standards without any regard to efficiency can cost us
in the long run. What we gain in air quality by tightening up
on emission standards, we can lose if we have trucks running
consuming a lot more fuel to cover the same distances. So what
I want to do is encourage you all as you build your business
plan for this year and for the next, that you look into that
area because I think that is an area that I am getting a lot
feedback from folks in my district that focusing on the one
without focusing on the other, we are losing at one end what we
are gaining on the other. If you could think about something
without thinking about the thing to which it relates, you have
the quality of being a good lawyer. What I want us to do is I
want us to be thinking about the things to which these things
relate so we are not thinking of this in a lawyerly fashion,
but looking at this from a common sense point of view.
That is all I wanted to share with you. It is good to be
with you again, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First,
let me thank the witness for coming forward today and
participating in this hearing. It is long overdue, to say the
least. I also want to thank Chairman Boucher for coming
together with Mr. Wynn to have this joint hearing. We need to
do more of this. It should produce good results.
I have only been in the Congress now for 3 years, but my
staff tells me that we have not had congressional oversight
over EPA appropriations for at least the last 6 years. I hope
my staff is incorrect about that, but if it is correct, we need
to make sure that that problem is corrected.
After reading through the Administrator's testimony, I am
somewhat alarmed, Mr. Chairman, by his assessment of our
current situation. His opinion seems to be in line with the
tenancies that we have come to expect from the administration.
Our environment is doing better now than it was a generation
ago, but not as good as it could or should be doing.
When the EPA's new Clean Air and Mercury rule was released,
I applauded that step as a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, in my State of North Carolina, it took a lawsuit
from our attorney general and strong rhetoric from the governor
and the delegation just to get the EPA to enforce existing
clean air standards on the TVA, who for years has contributed
to non-attainment in many North Carolina counties. The
statement that I have before me says that ``the President's
request continues the administration's commitments to safe
drinking water.'' Unfortunately, the request is a $14.8 million
decrease from last year's request, and the lowest it has ever
been when you account for inflation.
The President's proposal on land preservation and
restoration is equally troubling. This year's proposal includes
$15 million less than last year's, even while EPA budget
documents say that it will not complete 40 percent of the
projects that you expect to complete last year. There are a
number of sites where you acknowledge that remedial projects
are stalled, but you won't say how many. I hope you will
mention that today. You point out in your written statement
that around 1,000 national priority list sites have been
completed. My concern is with nearly 700 sites where that is
not the case.
Are we seeing a pattern here? I hope not, but it appears to
be. What I am hoping to hear today is less about how great
things are going, and more about what we can do together to
make sure that the EPA is properly funded and given adequate
guidance to make sure that it can carry out its mission of
serving the environmental interests of the American people.
Again, I want to thank the Administrator for coming today,
and thank the chairman for his leadership in this area. I yield
back my time.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
At this time, the Chair would recognize the distinguished
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing this morning. It is good to see our two witnesses here.
I think it is important that we focus on their budget for
the upcoming fiscal year. I think it is also important that we
look at the results that the agency has achieved in its 30-year
history to measure the environmental progress of the United
States, in light of the efforts and money that has been spent
on achieving them. Last week's witnesses raised some important
issues about priority setting within the agency. Recognizing
current budgetary limits, few themes arose from those witnesses
that I hope we can look into a little bit deeper today.
First, what public benefit has arisen from the expenditures
that have been made in the past? Many of the witnesses last
week said that increases in spending do not always directly
correlate to increases in environmental protection.
Number 2, I think it is very important that decision making
should be grounded in the evidence and in science where the
science exists, and trust funds should be used for their
intended purposes. Finally, whenever it is appropriate, we
should use cost-benefit analysis to determine how well the
money has been spent and where to spend additional funds.
I understand that overseeing the EPA is something like
herding a herd of cats, or at least attempting to. The problem
is that EPA's job is monumental, and we expect on some days
literally an environmental miracle from our many, many
dedicated people that work at the EPA. It is not a perfect
agency. We should help the EPA to make sure that it can be as
perfect or as competent as possible. It is entering its fourth
decade of existence. Its infrastructure and its organization is
predicated on a collection of well-meaning but disparate laws.
We need to ensure that the EPA's efforts are focused, reasoned,
cost-effective, and successful in achieving the program goals
that it is responsible for.
For this reason, I think that the most important issue for
our hearing today is whether, as EPA's mission statement
proclaims, ``public health is being protected and a cleaner,
healthier environment is being produced for the American
people.'' The proof is in the pudding. Clean and safe water,
increased land preservation and restoration, improved research,
better compliance, and increased corporate stewardship are all
areas that we should have measurable results, based on what EPA
has actually done.
Speaking of air quality, I think this is an area where the
EPA has done very well. By any objective measurement, the Clean
Air Act has been a success. We have reduced emissions of most
of the pollutants that the Act targets, often quite
substantially. These emission reductions allow Americans to
live healthier and longer lives, and preventing tens of
thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses
every year. This is a major achievement. The agency can be
proud of it. Members on both sides of the aisle of this
committee can also be proud of it. It is important that as we
move forward, the EPA continue to improve its air quality,
while at the same time, ensuring that we improve the quality of
life for all Americans.
While I have got a little time, I want to comment on
something that is happening on the floor today that is relevant
to the EPA. Apparently, we are going to create a Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. To quote
my good friend Mr. Dingell of Michigan, that's like setting up
another committee to study feathers on a fish. I don't believe
it is going to serve any intended purpose, other than serving
as a platform for some Members to grandstand and play to the
politically correct constituencies that are so--I can't say the
right word without being profane--are so insistent that we
destroy our economy in the name of political correctness. By
its own admission, this select committee is going to have no
legislative jurisdiction. It is only going to exist for 2
years. It can't report bills. It goes out of existence December
31, 2008. In my opinion, it is a huge mistake. It is going to
do nothing but muddy the waters, waste a lot of resources, and
valuable time of the members that are selected to serve on it.
I still hope that maybe we will come to our senses and vote
that particular select committee down.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing,
and I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement.
At this time, I would recognize the gentleman from Maine,
Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening and ask
that it be submitted for the record.
Mr. Wynn. Without objection, so ordered.
I believe that concludes our opening statements. Any other
statements for the record may be included at this time.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Hastert and Mr. Burgess
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois
Thank you, Chairman Wynn.
I'd like to begin by thanking you, Chairman Boucher and
Chairman Dingell for calling this hearing. I look forward to
hearing from Administrator Johnson and working with all three
of you to conduct appropriate oversight of the Environmental
Protection Agency to ensure that it continues to protect the
environment in a manner that looks after the health and well-
being of all Americans.
While the focus of this hearing is split between the
jurisdictions of our two respective subcommittees, I will
confine my remarks to my subcommittee's jurisdiction and
discuss air quality. Specifically, I wish to highlight the
dramatic improvements in air quality seen over the last 37
years and the manner in which EPA has encouraged that
improvement.
To paraphrase a noted economist--things are always getting
better, but some will always insist they are getting worse. The
facts speak for themselves, things are getting better. Since
the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, emissions of the six
criteria pollutants addressed by the Act have been cut in half.
Specifically, emissions of lead decreased 98 percent, volatile
organic compounds 54 percent, carbon monoxide 52 percent,
sulfur dioxide 49 percent, and nitrogen oxides 24 percent. All
this was achieved even as the economy has grown by more than
187 percent, the number of vehicle miles traveled in the United
States increased by 171 percent, and U.S. energy consumption
grew by 47 percent. This is a record of success upon which we
can all share credit and be proud and constitutes the proper
measure of EPA's success. One cannot accurately measure the
success of the Clean Air Act by merely looking at the dollars
appropriated.
I'm also pleased that EPA's success in the air program
goes beyond command and control regulation. We have made
significant progress toward cleaner air using voluntary
programs developed in concert with stakeholders and State and
local government. A prime example is Energy Star, a Government-
backed program that improves the environment through promoting
and recognizing greater energy efficiency. Through partnerships
with hundreds of organizations, Energy Star has eliminated
millions of tons of emissions and saved consumers money at the
same time.
As we proceed, I would encourage my colleagues to use
their time in this hearing to learn about EPA's successes and
let the Agency know that it should continue to pursue cleaner
air in a manner that best benefits all Americans. Specifically,
EPA should continue to combine appropriate regulation with
voluntary partnerships developed after input from interested
parties.
In conclusion, I look forward to hearing from
Administrator Johnson and to the exchange of ideas at today's
hearing. I also welcome additional opportunities to work with
Chairmen Wynn, Boucher, and Chairman Dingell, and Ranking
Members Shimkus and Barton to ensure that EPA continues to do
its job in an appropriate manner.
Thank you Mr. Chairman
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today.
One of my most important responsibilities as a Member of
Congress is to ensure that my constituents' tax dollars are
being spent wisely. It is for that reason that I look forward
to the ongoing debate about our national funding priorities.
Administrator Johnson, thank you for appearing before us
this morning. As we begin the fiscal year 2008 appropriations
cycle, it will be helpful to hear from you about the
President's budget request for the Environmental Protection
Agency.
My district is located in North Texas, and one of my
region's most important and challenging issues over the next
decade will be how best to cleanup our air, so I am especially
interested to hear your testimony on the EPA's air programs.
Administrator Johnson, thank you again for appearing before
us this morning. I yield back.
----------
Mr. Wynn. Again, I would like to welcome Administrator
Johnson. We are delighted to have you here. As you can see, we
have lots of questions. We will allow you a 5-minute opening
statement, and your prepared testimony will be submitted and
included in the full record of this hearing.
At this time, it gives me great pleasure to recognize
Administrator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Dingell and
Chairman Boucher and Chairman Wynn, members of the committee. I
am very pleased to be here to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
The President' $7.2 billion request builds upon EPA's
record of accomplishments and funds its role as our Nation
enters the next phase of environmental progress. Over our 36
years, EPA has laid a strong foundation to shift America to a
green culture. Our citizens are embracing the fact that
environmental responsibility is everyone's responsibility. So
today, instead of only having 17,000 EPA employees working to
protect the environment, we now have 300 million Americans as
environmental partners.
These are exciting times. Our air, water, and land are
cleaner today than a generation ago, and with this budget, our
progress will continue.
The evolution of environmental progress has come about in
part because we have proven that a healthy environment and a
healthy economy can, in fact, go hand in hand. But as the
economy continues to grow, so do our energy needs. In order to
meet the President's ambitious clean energy and air goals,
EPA's budget requests over $82 million to support our Energy
Policy Act responsibilities. This includes $8.4 million to
implement the renewable fuel standards and $35 million for
grants to cut diesel emissions from trucks and school buses.
EPA also plays a vital role in advancing the
administration's aggressive, yet practical, strategy for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has requested
$117.9 million for EPA's climate change programs, including $44
million for the successful Energy Star program, $5 million for
the Asia Pacific Partnership Initiative, and $4.4 million for
Methane to Markets Program.
The evolution of environmental progress requires EPA to
work effectively with our State and local partners. The
President's budget builds on this cooperation by providing $2.7
billion to help our partners improve their water quality. We
are also promoting the use of innovative tax exempt private
activity bonds for capital investments and drinking water and
waste water projects.
Additionally, collaboration is the key to protecting
America's great water bodies. In order to strengthen the
efforts of EPA and our partners, the President is requesting
$28.8 million for the Chesapeake Bay, $56.8 million for the
Great Lakes, $4.5 million for the Gulf of Mexico, and $1
million for Puget Sound.
At EPA, we are working productively with our partners to
deliver a healthier, more prosperous future. The President's
budget provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund program to
continue transforming hazardous waste sites back into community
assets.
After highlighting some of our cooperative initiatives, we
also must recognize the necessity of vigorously enforcing our
Nation's environmental laws. The proposed fiscal year 2008
enforcement budget, $549.5 million is the highest enforcement
budget ever.
As EPA helps shape America's green culture, we understand
the need to advance environmental science. The President's
commitment to sound science is reflected in his $134 million
request, an increase of $9.4 million, to fund human health
risk, clean air, and nanotechnology research.
Finally, I must also mention EPA's evolving role from being
guardians of the environment to also guardians of our homeland.
The President has requested $152 million for homeland security
responsibilities in water security and decontamination.
While the Nation's environmental progress continues to
evolve, so too does EPA's role. This budget will fulfill EPA's
responsibilities of being good stewards of our environment, and
good stewards of our Nation's tax dollars. By making smart uses
of our resources, we are not only building on our Nation's
environmental accomplishments, we are creating a lasting legacy
for future generations of Americans.
Thank you, and I look forward to addressing your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.150
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your statement, and also
for the very positive attitude you have had about EPA.
However, I do have some concerns. I looked at your Web site
and it says ``President Bush has charged EPA with accelerating
the pace of environmental protection while maintaining our
Nation's economic competitiveness, and I am committed to this
challenge.'' That was your quote, but if you look at 5 years of
decreasing budget request for Superfund, $31 million less for
Brownfields, and basically the lowest funding in history for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and being only one of
two agencies with a budget decrease, I have to ask you to
explain to the committee how we are going to do this
acceleration that you referred to.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our fiscal year 2008 budget the President has proposed
continues to deliver results while meeting a balanced budget.
As part of our budget, we are leveraging tax dollars for
the environment. Examples of that is our Brownfields program.
Leveraging our Energy Star program, helping us deal with both
energy security as well as greenhouse gas emissions. We have
numerous examples of where our limited tax dollars are being
used wisely to leverage other dollars.
Mr. Wynn. Well, despite this leveraging, on the subject of
Brownfields, you are doing only about one-third, maybe a little
bit more than one-third--you are responding to slightly more
than one-third of the actual requests, and this is according to
the National Conference of Mayors. So how do you characterize
that as an acceleration of the Brownfields program?
Mr. Johnson. Well, sir, our goal for Brownfields program is
to turn those community eyesores into community assets, and the
President's budget, which is $138.6 million of State and tribal
assistance grants, does that. What does that mean? We, in 2008,
are focusing on delivering results. In 2008, that means we
project we will assess 1,000 properties. We expect that to
leverage 5,000 new jobs, and also result in leverage funds of
$900 million.
Mr. Wynn. Can I just interject and ask a question?
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Wynn. How many more Brownfields applications will you
be able to do in 2008, because that is what the mayors are
asking?
Mr. Johnson. Generally speaking, we get quite a few
applications. For those that work through the screening
process, I would say generally twice the number of applications
for the funds available.
Mr. Wynn. But how many more in 2008 than in 2007, because
that is basically my definition of acceleration.
Mr. Johnson. Again, my focus is given the funding that is
available for Brownfields, we are focusing on the--and I gave
you the statistics. I think it is important to point out that
over the past number of years since Brownfields, in fact, the
level of funding has remained relatively constant, even though,
in fact, in years past the President has asked for more money
for Brownfields, Congress has chosen not to give us additional
funds. And in fact, for the 2008 budget, I should say, this
budget request is in alignment with what Congress has been
doing.
Mr. Wynn. Let me move on to Superfund briefly. You
projected 40 completions and you now have adjusted that
projection to substantially fewer. How do you account for that
and how do you characterize that again as an acceleration in
environmental protection?
Mr. Johnson. Well again, our focus on Superfund is turning
those problem properties back into community assets, and for
construction completions, it is important to note that these
are long-term construction projects taking 10 to 15 years.
Mr. Wynn. I understand that. You projected 40 at the
beginning of the year. You are now readjusting that to say
well, now we'll only do 24, and my question is, No. 1, why
less, and 2, could you have not anticipated whatever problem it
is you are going tell me caused you to adjust downward?
Mr. Johnson. Well, what we have found is the sites of today
are significantly more complex than they were yesterday, and as
we were projecting 40, we were assuming that the number of
remedies per site and the pace of construction was going to be
far greater than what it----
Mr. Wynn. Are you suggesting they are more complex than
Love Canal, which was one of the major cleanup efforts, and I
guess the other follow-up question is why didn't you anticipate
that they would be more difficult when you told Congress you
would do 40?
Mr. Johnson. You mentioned Love Canal. That is a great
example. Congressman Terry from Nebraska is dealing with a
Superfund site called Omaha Lead, and the Love Canal site was
about 70 acres. The site in Mr. Terry's home State is nearly
9,000 acres, and so in terms of size, complexity, the
measurements that we have--and Mr. Chairman, if you would, I
would love to present this for the record. I apologize that I
don't have any bigger chart, but what it shows is that from
1993 to 2000, the number of remedies per site, which a measure
of complexity, was 1.7. From 2001 to 2006, the remedies per
site was 2.5. For those sites that are currently under
construction, that is, constructions are not complete, the
remedies per site are 4.3 remedies per site. So we are seeing
very complex sites. The resources remain the same, the sites
are more complex.
Mr. Wynn. My time is up. I would only comment that I cannot
believe that you could not have anticipated, and did not, in
fact, anticipate the higher level of complexity when you
projected the 40 completions. I don't understand what happened
in mid-year that caused you to conclude, oh my goodness, these
are more complex than we thought.
That concludes my questions. I turn the questioning over to
my colleague, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will just start
by saying I know that Superfund remediation is a 10 to 15-year
program that goes back many years. I dealt with one up in
Quincy, IL, an issue.
But let me start with my questions. Some of my colleagues
are criticizing the Bush administration because during the 8
years of the Clinton administration, the average number of
Superfund sites completing remedy construction was 76, but in
the past 6 years, that average number of sites has declined to
41.5, and you are projecting only 24 construction completions
in fiscal year 2007. This is kind of in addition to what we
were just talking about. What caused the increase in
construction completions during the 1990's and the drop off in
2001?
Mr. Johnson. In fact, in the first 12 years there were
1,251 sites that were identified, and it was acknowledged that
these were long-term construction projects of 10 to 15 years.
In fact, it wasn't until 1993 that the agency put in place a
new measure because there was no interim measure of success,
and so a new measure was put in place in 1993 called
construction completion, which means when all immediate threats
have been eliminated and no further on-site physical
construction is needed. It doesn't mean that it is safe for
complete reuse. As the agency began its effort--I shared with
you statistics from 1993 to 2000, and 2001 to 2006, and what we
are dealing with today. These are considerably more complex
sites.
Mr. Shimkus. With regard to how we know or don't know, what
we find is we get into the sites and we find that we discover
the site conditions change. We discover at a new site new
contaminants, the extent of the contamination is sometimes
found to be greater, so in spite of our best efforts of
planning and forecasting, these are unknown sites and it is not
until we physically get in there looking at the groundwater or
looking at the dirt until we fully understand the extent and
the complexity. Our construction completion adjustment reflects
the complexity and what we have learned as we have begun to
cleanup these sites.
Mr. Shimkus. And I know you showed this chart earlier, and
I don't know if my colleagues have that, and I would want to
make sure that we share this with the minority. You talked
about the remediation issue, because he raised it up. I think
that remediation issue is key. Earlier sites were less
difficult than sites that were held over, and that is part of
the reason why it is more challenging.
Second question is my colleagues think simply increasing
revenues into the Superfund is the answer to speeding up
cleanups. In fact, many strongly support reinstating the
Superfund taxes. Tell me, would this help EPA cleanup Superfund
sites?
Mr. Johnson. In our judgment, no. The Superfund tax expired
December 1995. It was never a tax on pollution, it was a tax on
the sale of chemicals and petroleum, and the amount of funds
appropriated by Congress never matched the amount of funds
coming in for the tax. Again, I apologize, but I do have
another chart that shows the tax revenue coming in, and it
shows the appropriation level, and as you can see from the
chart, the appropriation level has remained relatively constant
since 1992.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that be
distributed. I think you all would probably want to see that,
too.
Mr. Wynn. Without objection, we will include that.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. I stepped on your punch line on that chart.
Mr. Johnson. Well, as you can see the congressional
appropriations that remained relatively constant while tax
revenue has gone way up in the early days, then gone down.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Let me just, for my final 20 seconds, let me just go to
your bio. You have been in EPA for over 20 years. You are a
career service employee. You have a bachelor's in biology, and
an M.S. in pathology. I want to recognize the fact that you are
not a political appointee--you are, but you have come through
the ranks in EPA service and we appreciate the work that you.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
At this time, the Chair would recognize the distinguished
chairman of the full committee for questions, Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy.
Mr. Johnson, welcome to the committee.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Johnson, we note that you are late in
issuing the fine particulate implementation rules that provide
State guidance on air quality plans that they must submit in
April 2008. We have been in some correspondence on this matter.
On January 19, I wrote you requesting that you produce the
following documents. The letter said this. ``All documents
relating to this rulemaking that contain or reflect discussions
with, or comments from OMB, or other parts of the executive
branch as a part of formal or informal review of the proposed
final rule.'' Have you received that letter?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dingell. I believe you have responded to it, and on
February 9, you said that you did not meet the deadline that I
had sent, but you would keep working on the response.
On March 1, Mr. Stupak and I requested you deliver these
documents by March 7, yesterday. Were they delivered?
Mr. Johnson. We have committed to have a full response to
you by, I believe the date is April 2.
Mr. Dingell. Now, let me try and understand, and let me
know whether you understand what we had requested. We simply
requested through the committee the delivery of certain
documents, is that right?
Mr. Johnson. You asked for certain documents, that is
correct, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Yes. Now, is there a reason why you cannot
deliver those documents to the committee?
Mr. Johnson. As is always the case, and certainly my 26-
year history with EPA, documents that are deemed deliberative
need to be reviewed before being released.
Mr. Dingell. No, no, no, Mr. Administrator. Deliberative
documents are within the purview of the responsibility of this
committee.
Do you assert any privilege on the refusal to deliver these
documents, and if so, what privilege do you assert?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, the volume of documents that you
requested has not allowed us to complete our search and review
process by this time, and that is why the vast----
Mr. Dingell. So you are telling us then, Mr. Administrator,
that the reason that you have not been able to deliver these is
that you have not completed your search. Is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Alright. Now, have you found any of the
documents that we are referring to?
Mr. Johnson. Because I am not conducting the actual
document search myself, I would have to talk to one of our
staff.
Mr. Dingell. Well, the question here is very simple.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, we have found
some, yes.
Mr. Dingell. Alright. What is there that precludes you from
making a partial delivery of the documents? Is there any reason
why you cannot deliver some and then make available the balance
of them?
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to provide a partial
response.
Mr. Dingell. Then I will expect by the conclusion of
business today that those documents will be delivered in
response to the request through the committee, those which you
have. And I expect that you will pursue with great vigor the
balance of the documents which you are still trying to find.
Can you deliver those documents which you've already identified
as being in compliance with the request of the committee?
Mr. Johnson. My staff is advising me that in order to
physically get the documents to make sure that they are all
together, I would respectfully ask for tomorrow.
Mr. Dingell. Alright, tomorrow will be a fine day.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Dingell. We look forward to them by the conclusion of
business.
Now, is there any claim of privilege of any kind which
would foreclose you from delivery, any of these documents,
including those not currently identified, as being in
compliance with the request of the committee?
Mr. Johnson. I am not aware of any at this time.
Mr. Dingell. Very good.
Have you been instructed by any person that you are not to
deliver these documents to the committee or that you are
instructed in any way to delay or to in any way foreclose the
committee from the timely delivery of these documents by any
person in the administration?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Mr. Dingell. Very good.
Then how long will it take you now, Mr. Johnson, to
identify the balance of the documents to be submitted to this
committee, if you please?
Mr. Johnson. In my March 7 letter to you, Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully asked that we respond to your full request by
April 2.
Mr. Dingell. Is there a reason why April 2 is the date by
which we would receive them? Is there any reason why they could
not be delivered sooner?
Mr. Johnson. It is my understanding, sir, just given the
volume of documents that you are requesting that it takes us
time to try to find them, research, and provide them to you. We
want to be complete in responding to your request.
Mr. Dingell. Then, Mr. Johnson, I think I am to assume that
you are giving this committee the assurance that all of those
documents will be made available to us by April 2, is that
correct?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Mr. Dingell. Very good.
It is always the hope of this committee that we may deal in
a most friendly and a collegial and cooperative means and
method with our dear friends in the executive branch, and we
hope that you have the same good feeling towards us, that you
share this kind of feeling and this kind of cooperation does
obviate a lot of unpleasantness which could otherwise occur. I
hope as events go forward that you will keep these thoughts in
mind.
Mr. Johnson. I am fully in support of that, too, sir.
Mr. Dingell. I note that my time is expired. I thank you,
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Dingell. We will withhold our request until April 2. I
know that we will see those documents here, to the pleasure and
appreciation of us all, on that date.
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. At this time, I recognize the distinguished
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I ask my questions, I want the Administrator to know
document requests that are legitimate, the minority totally
supports the majority in getting those documents. If for some
reason there is a request that you consider to be not
legitimate, if you would contact myself we will work with you
and Mr. Dingell to alleviate it. But in general terms, this
committee requests official documents we expect them to be
tendered in the timeframe that is appropriate.
I would like to ask you about the CAIR Act.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Barton. The mercury rule that was promulgated and
implemented, I think, several years ago, could you expound on
how you think implementation of that Act is going and what the
results have been to date?
Mr. Johnson. The Clean Air Interstate Rules are actually
the first regulations I signed as Administrator, and it will
achieve close to a 70 percent reduction of both SO\2\ and NOx
emissions over the coming years from coal fire power plants.
This results in literally, over time, hundreds of billions of
dollars of human health benefits to American citizens. This
rule was put in place. States are in the process of
implementing it, some through State implementation plans, some
through partial State implementation plans, some through
adopting the Federal implementation plan. But we are seeing
good progress and certainly want that to continue.
With regard to the Clean Air Mercury Rule, again, we are
the first Nation in the entire world to regulate mercury from
coal-fired power plants. We want to eliminate mercury as a
health hazard from the citizens of the United States. In fact,
we are one of the world leaders in taking on that challenge of
dealing with the global problem of mercury, and of course, the
Clean Air Mercury Rule is one of those examples of things we
put in place.
Mr. Barton. Are we actually in the stage where it has been
implemented anywhere and reductions are occurring, or is it
still in the implementation stage?
Mr. Johnson. Well, it requires technology and it is my
understanding that companies are beginning to install the
technology. I will turn to Bob. Do we have any specifics of a
company?
Mr. Barton. Can you identify yourself?
Mr. Myers. Bob Myers, Office of Air and Radiation.
We can provide specifics for the record. We are obviously
at the beginning of a program in two phases. The first phase is
2010, so investments are made now to meet that degree to which
equipment is on the ground now specifically for that 2010 date.
We will try and provide some information.
Mr. Johnson. So far we are still kind of ramping up. There
is not an actual cleanup or mercury reduction that has occurred
yet.
Mr. Myers. There could be some reductions. It is a matter
of assessment to try to see how exactly what the rule has
produced. We also have, obviously, the investments associated
with CAIR and the first 2010 date is the co-benefit level for
mercury, so the investments in CAIR essentially get the mercury
reduction. What I can provide right now with specificity is
exactly how many in the ground in the plant investments are
operating right now, but we will try to do that shortly.
Mr. Barton. It seems to me you ought to be up here instead
of down there, but that is a different story.
You said we are the first Nation. Have any other nations
adopted a similar rule on mercury since we have?
Mr. Johnson. Not that I am aware of, but that is an
excellent question. Bob, are you aware of any other countries?
Mr. Myers. Not at this point in time that I'm aware of.
Mr. Barton. The United States of America, it is routinely
pilloried in international media for dragging our feet on
environmental issues. Not only leading the way, we are the only
Nation even attempting to control mercury, is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. I would have to check the record to see what
other countries, because we have been aggressively pushing
other countries as part of our international effort to deal
with mercury from a variety of sources, including air,
including stocks of mercury, as well as things including
mercury that is included in little switches of older cars that
we have taken a very aggressive stance on here in the United
States.
Mr. Barton. My time is expired. I will have some questions
in writing, Mr. Chairman, for EPA on the funding of the leaking
underground storage tank program. I am dismayed that we have--
the trust fund is growing and expenditures for actual cleanup
seem to be declining, and I hope that is area on a bipartisan
basis we can work with the administration to increase funding,
because we do have many localities that have leaking
underground storage tanks, and that was one of the priorities
in the Energy Policy Act, to beef that fund up and to get the
States doing inspections and actually cleaning it up. So we
will have some questions for the record for that.
I yield back.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman. I concur that that is a
likely area for bipartisan cooperation. The trust fund is
clearly being underutilized and that is of detriment to our
citizens. At this time, the Chair would recognize Ms. Baldwin
for a total of 8 minutes.
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, are you familiar with the Supreme Court
case Cooper Industries, Incorporated v. Aviall Services,
Incorporated ?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I am familiar with it.
Ms. Baldwin. In that case, the Court held that a private
party may not obtain contribution from other liable parties
under CERCLA section 113(f)(1) unless the private party has
been the subject of an administrative order or enforcement
action by the EPA. This holding is very important because it
challenges the previous practices of parties initiating
voluntary cleanups without EPA intervention or involvement.
I am wondering if you could tell us what effect this case
has had on voluntary cleanups throughout the United States?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we are currently monitoring the Aviall
decision, because as you point out, in fact the Circuit Court
split in January 2007 and the Supreme Court has granted cert.
So at this point, we are monitoring the situation and I am
unaware, at this point, of specific impacts on particular
Brownfield sites, but as I said, we are currently monitoring.
One of the things that I would like to note, that is a
program very much akin to Brownfields and one that certainly
urge members of Congress to pass, and that is our Good
Samaritan legislation. There are over 500,000 abandoned hard
rock mines in the United States, key word abandoned. And we
have Good Samaritans who want to go in and cleanup, but because
of liability provisions associated with our Clean Water Act and
CERCLA, they don't want to become the liable party for the
entire site. And so we think it is a good thing to allow Good
Samaritans to get in and help these sites, and so here is a
great opportunity to accelerate environmental progress. And so
I urge Members of Congress to help us move forward.
Ms. Baldwin. I want to continue speaking a little bit about
Aviall. Of course, my understanding is it goes beyond
Brownfields in terms of its impact. Attorneys in the field have
described the impact of the case as having created a needless
policy crisis, so I am not sure that I am hearing from you the
same level of concern about the impact of this.
I guess since it has been over 2 years since the original
Supreme Court decision in December 2004, and you certainly
responded to, I think it is Chairman Dingell's inquiries about
the impact of the Aviall decision. Have you made any real
effort in the EPA to collect data on the impact that this might
be having on voluntary cleanups? Again, I would hope that the
EPA is encouraging this type of activity with regard to the
113(f)(1) section.
Mr. Johnson. We definitely want to encourage continued
cleanup through Brownfields. It is a highly successful program,
and as I said, want to extend it to hard rock mines.
Let me ask my staff.
Ms. Buhl. Good morning. I am Lynn Buhl and I am in the
Enforcement Program at EPA.
Yes, we were concerned by the ruling Aviall, and we have
asked our regional offices repeatedly if they are getting phone
calls, if they are getting a number of parties coming in and
asking to enter into an agreement with us when they may not
otherwise have done so, and the answer is not really. A couple
of States have expressed concern. It is very hard for us,
though, to know what is not happening in the private sector
that we simply are not a part of.
So we are worried about it. We are a little suspicious that
a lot of things may not be happening that we would like to see
happening, but we just don't have the anecdotal evidence.
Ms. Baldwin. OK.
I am curious. The EPA has consistently said that the Agency
supports voluntary cleanups. Even in your testimony, Mr.
Administrator, you talked about having 300 million partners in
your efforts to protect the environment.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Baldwin. Does the EPA support the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision in Aviall, and as you may recall, when it
was at the Fifth circuit, the decision would have encouraged
voluntary cleanups and subsequent contribution actions by
allowing parties performing cleanups to recover some of their
costs without EPA's involvement through an enforcement action
order. I am wondering what posture you took at the 5th circuit.
Ms. Buhl. I believe we took the position that you need to
take a very strict interpretation of the statute.
Ms. Baldwin. Did your agency, when DoJ was taking the
position on behalf of the U.S. Government, did you express
concerns about the path they were taking in terms of the impact
on voluntary cleanup, again, something I hope that you would
want to encourage?
Ms. Buhl. I apologize. I was not there at the time and not
present in the discussions, but I am happy to inquire and
follow up on your question.
Ms. Baldwin. I want to switch to the issue of mercury. Last
July, the EPA issued its first ever comprehensive overview of
the Agency's activities surrounding mercury. EPA's roadmap for
mercury focused on six key areas where the goal is to reduce
health risks associated with mercury exposure. Among them are
research and monitoring. The roadmap states that the Office of
Research and Development will continue to pursue its long-term
goals to reduce health risks associated with mercury and to
better understand the transport and fate of mercury in the
environment. I am wondering what is the Office of Research and
Development's current budget for mercury research specifically?
Mr. Johnson. I will ask Dr. George Gray to come up to the
microphone, who heads up our office's research and development,
but in the meantime, as I mentioned to Mr. Barton, that mercury
really is a global challenge and EPA and the United States are
leading the way. I mentioned our Clean Air Mercury Rule, we
have now a partnership program for getting the mercury out of
those old automobiles. That is 75 tons of mercury that would
have gone into the environment, either the air, water, or land,
that we have eliminated through this agreement.
Ms. Baldwin. But I am sure you are interested in this issue
and, in fact, have legislation of my own on this specific
issue.
What I am really interested in, though, is knowing the
budget level for the Office of Research and Development with
regard to mercury research.
Mr. Gray. I am George Gray, the Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Research and Development.
This year's presidential budget helps us accelerate our
efforts on mercury and increases our budget to $4.3 million for
our research on mercury. That research ranges from looking at
ways to further implement the Clean Air Mercury Rule, looking
at technologies for removing mercury from power plant gases, to
understanding the way in which it moves around in geochemical
cycles. We have a strong program that has, as I said, an
increase of about $500,000 in this year's presidential budget.
Ms. Baldwin. And then the roadmap also looks at----
Mr. Wynn. Excuse me, the gentlelady's time is expired.
Ms. Baldwin. Oh, I will submit my final question in
writing. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentlelady.
At this time, the Chair would recognize former Speaker, the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting,
because what I found that the EPA probably does some of its
best work when it works together with other Government
agencies. In my home district in Illinois, the town of West
Chicago, at one time we had 13 billion cubic feet of fluorium
tailings, and it was through the cooperative efforts of the
Illinois EPA, the U.S. EPA, not only did we get those fluorium
tailings moved to a safe place--these were just dumped in the
middle of a town, radioactive material, but a lot of the other
material that was produced during the 1950's, nobody really
knew about radiation then. It was taken for people to use in
sandboxes and dumped as fill and found its way into Crest Creek
and then the Dupage River, and a cooperative effort of the U.S.
EPA, the Illinois EPA and some lucrative regulatory agencies,
we have been able to clean this up, and we are almost there. It
has only taken us almost 22 years. I think that type of
cooperation when your agency doesn't stand alone as an entity
by itself, it really reaches out to State and local agencies to
work together, you have been, at least in my view, the most
successful.
Which takes me to another issue. In the area of Missouri
and Wisconsin and Illinois, we end up every spring with an
issue of biofuels, and biofuels are a result of trying to meet
clean air standards in changing climates. Of course, the winter
blend of gasoline is different than the summer blend of
gasoline. But every year, we see a spike in the cost of
gasoline in those areas, especially the metropolitan areas of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Madison, the areas of Chicago and East
St. Louis, and St. Louis area. And so it has been a frustration
for us to try to get some type of accommodation for transition.
Can you give us an idea of how that might be implemented?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir, I can.
Of course, our goal with our fuel program is to both meet
our air quality standards as well as to make sure that we have
an abundant and affordable fuel supply. The President asked me
shortly after our situation with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
and concern over gasoline shortage to work with our States, our
governors, to evaluate biofuels and to see whether there was a
problem both in availability and impact on price. Working with
our State partners--and thank you for the great comments about
our partnership--we looked at the issue of biofuels and I would
be happy to provide a copy of that to you and for the record,
because what it indicated was is that while on occasion there
might be an issue with availability of biofuels, by and large
it was a tool that States, particularly governors, wanted and
needed to be able to manage both air quality issues as well as
fuel supply.
So I would be happy to supply----
Mr. Hastert. I think probably the issue is not the biofuels
themselves, it is the transition periods, and the peripheral
vision of blending those fuels, trying to get them in empty
tanks and move through the availability of pipelines to move
this, stuff has to be flushed, and there is a transition time
where it is not really winter, it is not really summer, I see a
possibility of at least a leniency at least blending these
fuels so they are not completely separate, and then moving into
the complete fuel line as temperatures get warmer. So it is a
consideration, it something we have talked about for a long
time. I appreciate your attention to it.
One last thing I would like to cover. You have the new
diesel standards coming into effect this year and I wonder,
what kind of cost analysis have you done as far as increased
costs? What is the increased cost to engines and operation, do
you know at all?
Mr. Johnson. We have done extensive cost analysis on diesel
engines, both on road, off road, and a proposed regulation that
I just proposed last Friday dealing with marine engines and
locomotives. I would be happy for the record to give you the
specifics and our detailed analysis.
Locomotives, for example, I do know that it is somewhere
between about 2 percent of the cost of moving to a clean diesel
locomotive and of course, the requirement is a number of years
away because we are in the process of----
Mr. Hastert. Is that about the same for truck engines?
Mr. Johnson. Truck engines, Bob, do you recall? I don't
have the specifics off the top of my head.
Mr. Myers. Yes, we did perform a detailed regulatory impact
analysis associated with the cost increases in truck engines.
It depends on the technology. Again, I would like to verify for
the record, but I think in terms of the high end of the range
was along the lines of roughly $1,500 and hundreds of dollars
at the low end of the range. That would be not necessarily the
increase of costs if somebody might price it. We do our
analysis based on what we think the actual cost to the
manufacturer would be.
Mr. Hastert. Alright, I appreciate it. I just want to say I
think that is a giant step in cleaning up air, and of course,
diesel is one of the most intrusive pieces of clean air. But on
the other hand, that cost is passed on to consumers and the
consumers then pick up that cost, whether it is the cost of
freight, cost of buying a truck or a diesel mower or whatever
it happens to be, so I appreciate what you have done. I
appreciate your service. I would like to have those cost
analyses for the record.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just to
add to that, the cost for the diesel locomotive and marine
would be about $600 million is what our estimate shows. The
public health benefits, 20 times that, $12 billion per year,
and so we see that kind of significant ratio of cost and
benefit throughout all of our diesel, and of course, just to
lastly add, we look at all of our diesel regulations that we
put in place and add that to the Clean Air Interstate Rule, in
fact, short of getting lead out of gasoline, these are the most
health protective and health beneficial standards to our air in
the history of the United States.
Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.
Mr. Wynn. At this time, the Chair would recognize Mrs.
Capps for 8 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mrs. Capps. I am going to be putting up a chart that is
entitled ``Hazardous Substance Superfund Account'' and this is
provided by the Congressional Research Service.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.299
Mrs. Capps. If you have a chance to notice, the President's
request for 2008 is at the bottom of the chart. You see that it
is actually less in terms of real dollars for cleanup than any
of the previous 10 years, I will give you a minute to find it,
but is this not correct? The President's request for 2008, the
bottom of that middle column----
Mr. Johnson. The President's request is $1.2 billion.
Mrs. Capps. Yes, which is, if you look at all of the
numbers on the right column, it is actually less in terms of
real dollars for cleanup than any of the previous 10 years. Is
this correct?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know how this was----
Mrs. Capps. This was provided by CRS.
Mr. Johnson. Taking it at its root then it is what it is.
Mrs. Capps. Alright. Then my first question out of several,
can you explain to me what is going on here? Why is the
President's request not keeping up with inflation?
Mr. Johnson. Well, the President's request is focusing on,
again, for Superfund of turning problem properties into
community assets, and the President's budget helps achieve--in
fact, it achieves what our goals and objectives are for----
Mrs. Capps. I don't want to interrupt you, but I want to
get on to something more specific. It is true, though, that it
is a decrease in funding?
Mr. Johnson. Well, let me also point out that I think it is
also important that if you look at Superfund, it is not just
EPA, but when you look at across the Federal Government,
Department of Defense, it is actually $8.5 billion.
Mrs. Capps. You are on the witness stand here today, sir,
with all due respect, and I am looking at this portion of the
funding.
Now I want to turn to a more specific local situation in my
district, but it appears to me that without funding, the pace
of cleanups will be adversely affected. Two years ago, the
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mr. Dunn, commented that
effects of the funding shortfall--and this is his quote ``For
the last 3 years, EPA hasn't started cleanup at some new sites.
If we assume that EPA's budget will remain flat for the
foreseeable future, construction funding could be delayed at
more and more sites.'' Another quote more recently from
Assistant Administrator Ms. Bodine, announcing that EPA would
only achieve 24 Superfund construction cleanups as opposed to
the 40 cleanups cited in the President's proposed budget.
Yesterday EPA proposed the Halaco Engineering Company in my
district in California for listing on the National Priorities
List. Your proposal identifies to the surrounding communities
that this is, indeed, a dangerous place, would be probably
hazardous to one's health, and yet, there is going to be a time
lag by all of the facts that we have. I want you to give me
assurances to my constituents that the Halaco site is going to
be remediated anytime soon, given that this EPA Superfund
levels are effectively decreasing.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. With regard to the specific site, I will
ask Susan Bodine if she would come to the table. We will say
for those sites that we have identified that there is an
imminent hazard, then we aggressively pursue, making sure that
we bring an interim answer to a point so that we are
eliminating that imminent hazard.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Could I ask if you would please, I
would like to have these documents in writing so that I can
convey them, because I do want to go--well, go ahead and give
me a brief answer, but I would like something more lengthy that
I can share with my constituents.
Ms. Bodine. Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator for
Emergency Response.
You quoted former Acting Administrator on the concern that
we had unfunded new starts. In 2005, we had nine unfunded new
starts, in 2006 there were six unfunded new starts.
Mrs. Capps. Is this not a correct quote or a statement by
you that you would be achieving 24?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, that is accurate. We have actually
provided information to Chairman Wynn and Chairman Dingell with
respect to the reasons as to why----
Mrs. Capps. Right, well, I would like to have those reasons
as well. I would like to get that in writing.
Ms. Bodine. I can provide that to you.
And then with respect to the Halaco site, yes, it has been
proposed to the national list. We will take comment on that
proposal and presumably in due course it will be listed. As we
have talked about and as other members have discussed,
Superfund is a long-term process so we would be proceeding with
the investigation and picking the remedy for that site. Those
are not high-cost activities, and at the point of that we would
get to construction, it, of course, would then be--if there are
responsible parties, we would be asking them to cleanup. The
fund lead, at that point, it would go through our
prioritization process where we have our experts prioritize
sites based on their level of risk.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
Ms. Bodine. At the beginning of the process----
Mrs. Capps. Exactly, but there is now a delay, because
there is a backlog of sites.
Ms. Bodine. No, there is no delay in moving forward with
listing or with doing investigation or with picking remedies
and I can't tell you what would happen 5 or 6 years from now
when this would be ready for funding.
Mrs. Capps. OK, thank you.
I do have another topic to bring up, since this time with
Mr. Johnson is very important to me. Turning to clean air, the
EPA finally issued standards for ozone and fine particle
pollution requirements, which now means that the State and
local governments need to meet these responsibilities. At the
same time, in this budget you are proposing $35 million in
budget cuts. Does this mean a decrease in grants to State and
local air pollution control agencies who are charged with
meeting these standards?
Mr. Johnson. What it means is that we certainly value the
work of our States and this is a shift of the monitoring
network to the States. It was never envisioned that the Federal
Government would continually pay for monitoring networks, so
this represents a shift of a portion of that to the States.
Mrs. Capps. So this would be a burden for States and local
agencies to meet these standards?
Mr. Johnson. Well, with regard to the standards, we were
just talking earlier about the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which
was the Federal Government's role in dealing with that trans-
state boundary air pollution, but yes, the States for their
local air provinces would need to develop appropriate
mitigation for the issues in their State.
Mrs. Capps. And they will do this now with these new
standards being published? They have been in effect for several
years but they have now been published so that they now have
new requirements to meet.
Mr. Johnson. There are new requirements to meet, that is
correct, and they have to go through----
Mrs. Capps. It is hard for me to justify these cuts at a
time when States are right in the middle of developing and
implementing their own strategies for ozone fine particulate
and many other programs, and I wish I had more time, because as
a public health nurse, I find the President's budget so
unacceptable. In times of rising rates of childhood asthma,
cancer, neurological and developmental disorders, decreasing
funding for environmental programs--I don't see how we can
justify decreasing them. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have
a lot of work ahead of us to restore funding in these very
critical areas.
I have no more time, but I would love to have a response
from you.
Mr. Johnson. Well, if the chairman would allow, in fact,
there are a number of items in our budget, for example, one
that I want to point out is that we--actually as part of the
President's budget, there is an increase of $6 million to fund
children's health research centers, so we are going from seven
to nine to help in that. As I mentioned in my opening
testimony, for research and development we have additional
funds in there to help particularly air research for children
by way of roads, because of the concern over asthma.
So there are a number of very specific programs in our
budget which are designed to help us better understand and
better protect our most sensitive subpopulations.
Mrs. Capps. But in this area, which is your responsibility,
there are cuts.
Mr. Johnson. In air monitoring, it is a shift to where
responsibility to the State, which was always something that
the Federal Government would never pay for all State
monitoring, but that was a responsibility that was shared by
the States and the Federal Government----
Mrs. Capps. So it is a shared responsibility.
Mr. Johnson. It is a shared responsibility.
Mr. Wynn. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair would recognize Mr. Pitts for 8
minutes.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, there appears to be some confusing
regarding the Agency's efforts to address climate change. Could
you describe the Agency's efforts in this regard?
Mr. Johnson. If I could, sir, I would like to put in the
context of the administration, in fact, our Nation's commitment
to--we have an unparalleled commitment, international
commitment in the United States to address climate change. From
2001 through 2006, we as a Nation have spent $29 billion to
fund science, technology, and even providing some tax
incentives to address climate change. At EPA, we have a part of
the program which deals with issues such as Energy Star,
Methane to Markets, climate leaders, Asia Pacific Partnership.
We are an active participant, and as an administration, we have
an aggressive program to address climate change.
If I might, Energy Star, for example, in 2005 by consumers
buying products with the little Energy Star label, they saved
$12 billion in energy costs. If you want to put that in terms
of greenhouse gas emissions, they reduced greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to 23 million automobiles.
And so what we are finding is our programs are working. Of
course, the President in his State of the Union has now put two
charges before you members of Congress, and that is to pass the
alternative fuel standard, as well as the CAFE standard, both
of which help not only energy security, but also help us on the
environment, particularly greenhouse gas.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Another line of questioning, Brownfields. Brownfields
funding is an important program to many of us on this
committee, and I have a couple of questions based on the
testimony our committee received last week from the U.S.
Conference of Mayors.
First, Mayor Bollwage seemed to suggest that anyone who
sends a Brownfields application to EPA should automatically get
a Federal grant. The first question is, is it the Agency's
experience that every grant application it receives is worthy
of funding?
Second, Mayor Bollwage claimed that EPA denied two-thirds
of the Brownfields applications because it did not have the
funding, and the mayor suggested that if EPA had more money,
these sites that were denied Brownfields grants would be able
to obtain Federal grants. Is it true, second, that EPA denied
funding to these sites solely due to the lack of Brownfields
funding?
And lastly, Mayor Bollwage suggested that Federal
Brownfields cleanup grants should be used to help fund cities
applications for Brownfields grants, as well as the
administration of the grants once received. This is not an
allowable use under the law, and cities, especially those that
tap the success of the existing Brownfields program have
willingly put up their money for these purposes. Do you support
changing the statute to allow cleanup grant dollars to be
siphoned away from cleanup, and instead allowed to go to
administrative costs?
Mr. Johnson. Alright, yes, sir. Let me try to take each of
your questions in turn.
First, to make sure that everyone is aware that the fiscal
year 2008 budget request is actually higher than what the
President's budget request was for Brownfields last year. In
fact, as I already mentioned, as you look through the history
of Brownfields, in fact that in spite of the President's
request for much larger sums, Congress has chosen to keep this
program relatively stable. We think it is a great program. It
leverages dollars, it converts those eyesores into sources of
pride.
With regard to administrative costs, we do not support. In
fact, as you are well aware, the current legislation prohibits
those administrative costs from--being able to use the funds
for administrative costs. The reason why we don't support it is
that we want to see those dollars not go to administrative
costs, but we want to see them go to cleanups. And, in fact, as
you appropriately point out, what we are finding is that people
are willing to invest in the administrative costs to be able to
get a grant to go forward with.
With regard to the grants that we receive, we receive a
great number of grant applications. Not every one of them is
worthy for funding. I don't have the statistics, but I would be
happy to share with you for the record what information we have
as to the numbers and which ones have been evaluated and found
to be worthy or not.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, I appreciate you providing that
information.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Does the gentleman relinquish the balance of his
time?
Mr. Pitts. Yes, I yield back.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone of New
Jersey for 8 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to quickly go back to the Brownfields issue,
and then move on to Superfund.
My own interpretation of history here, because I was
involved in the authorization of the Brownfields program, and
it was really the first and maybe the only pro-environment bill
that the President signed. So I am a little sympathetic to the
fact that the President does support the Brownfields program. I
am not going to disagree with you. But it is true, of course,
that the Republican majority in the last few years since it
went into effect has not been funding it adequately. So I guess
my point I am trying to make to the Administrator is if it was
possible to get significantly more money for some of these
applications that Mr. Pitts mentioned, you clearly would fund
more of these. In other words, these applications have merit,
they are just not being funded because you only have limited
resources.
If you could just answer that question.
Mr. Johnson. Again, there is a lot of work to be done and
there are a number of potential Brownfield sites, and again,
the President's 2008 budget continues the progress and we are
looking forward to having the budget passed so we continue that
progress.
Mr. Pallone. I know you can't say you want more money, so
all I am asking is a lot of these applications that are not
being funded clearly do have merit, is that true?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know what the statistics are, but
again, we will be happy to provide it for the record. I do know
that a number of applications come in that have not been
completely well-thought through, if will, and others that have
merit. But I would be happy to provide that information for the
record.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I mean, I would point out that when it
comes to the assessment and there are these other grants, so
these assessments and another kind of grants where the
President's budget actually is less. I mean, in that category
there was $120.5 million in 2006 but in 2007, the budget
request was only $89 million, and now it is $89 million again.
So that account has gone down.
But I am not looking to criticize the administration on
this. I think more of the blame rests with the Republican
majority in not providing more funding and actually limiting
some of the funding, as you suggest.
With regard to Superfund, my concern is that according to
your own site managers, there are 15 Superfund sites in New
Jersey where human exposure is not, I stress not, under
control, more than any other State. But there are a number of
these sites around the country where the human exposure is not
under control. My concern is that I would think that protecting
human health is probably the most important issue when it comes
to these Superfund sites, and yet it seems like controlling
exposure to people has not been a top priority.
So I just wanted to ask you, isn't it time that you get
human exposure under control? If you had, again, more funding,
would you do more to get human exposure under control in New
Jersey and across the country? Why isn't that seemingly a
priority? Is it because of the money, or is there another
reason?
Mr. Johnson. No, it is a priority. I think that it would be
helpful and beneficial to have Susan Bodine come up and explain
what we mean by Superfund sites that are not under control.
Mr. Pallone. That would be helpful, if you would. I know my
time is running out, but----
Ms. Bodine. Again, beginning in about 1993 we identified
sites as where there was a complete exposure pathway. It
doesn't mean that there is actual exposure, because of course,
we are not going to go in and test people to see if they have
actually been exposed, but where we find a complete exposure
pathway and we have identified all of those as human exposure
not under control.
We do take everything possible to take steps to cut off
that exposure, but for example, if we put up a fence and we see
evidence that someone is cutting through a hole in the fence
and getting on the site, we will list that as exposure not
under control.
For example, if we put a community on bottled water, or if
they are all on a community water system but one person
refuses, at this point we will say that is not under control
because we have this one outlier.
So there are a variety of reasons why a site may be not
under control. Where we have immediate acute exposures, we take
action right away through our emergency removals, our time
critical removal programs. That doesn't mean there may still be
long-term risks----
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that and I appreciate your
response, but I just want to give you one example. One of these
sites is the Ringwood Mines Landfill site in New Jersey, this
is in my opinion one of the biggest Environmental Justice
tragedies in the country, and I use Environmental Justice. It
involves a minority low-income community, actually Native
American, in our State of New Jersey, that has toxic paint
sludge dumped on them by the Ford Motor Company, and the Agency
came in and said they have conducted an Environmental Justice
assessment, and said that the site is ``an adversely impacted
area'', but really nothing was meaningfully done, in my
opinion, to do anything about the human exposure, other than to
say OK, it is adversely impacted from the Environmental Justice
point of view.
I just want to use that as an example. Do you plan to do
more work and comprehensively address the injustices, and in
this case, the human exposure? I could go through all 15, but I
think this is one of the worst. As you know, this is one where
you did relist the site and I do appreciate that. It was off
the list and now it is on the list, but now that it is back on
the list, something has got to be done about the human
exposure, because everything that she described is true. I
mean, there are immediate problems, there are long-term
problems, but I don't really feel that any of them are really
being significantly addressed at this time. I don't know if you
can comment on this.
Ms. Bodine. Yes. Ford Motor Company is taking actions at
that site under an administrative order issued by EPA. I have
statistics which I have provided for the record on the
thousands of cubic yards of sludge, and yes, this is a problem.
There is paint sludge and other materials that were on the site
and that have been removed as part of the administrative order
actions, as part of these emergency actions, and we are
continuing to do more site characterization at some of the
mined areas around it. But all of that work is proceeding and
it is a priority.
Mr. Pallone. Alright. Let me just ask one more thing. I
only have a minute left.
This goes back to the Toxics Release Inventory Program. You
know that myself and the two New Jersey Senators introduced a
bill, and Ms. Solis also playing a major role in trying to go
back to the original regulation as opposed to the changes that
the EPA promulgated.
I was concerned because the GAO found that the EPA did not
adhere to all aspects of its rulemaking guidelines when they
developed a new TRI reporting requirements. What is your answer
to the GAO report on that? I mean, it seems to confirm the fact
that not everything was done properly in this rulemaking, which
obviously we now want to overturn.
Mr. Johnson. Well, the GAO also points out in the report
that the Administrator and Assistant Administrators have
flexibility in the rulemaking process, and in fact, we did
follow the Agency process. There is flexibility and we went
through the appropriate notice and comment rulemaking. We
certainly had an active program in the Agency to come to the
final recommendation and my final decision on TRI.
I should note that since this is a budget hearing, that TRI
is an important program. This year's 2008 request is $15.7
million, which is the highest request in 5 years. So it is a
program we certainly support and believe in, and certainly is
reflected in the President's 2008 budget.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
The Chair would recognize Mr. Terry for 8 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. I do appreciate that opportunity, Mr.
Chairman, and like a couple of my colleagues on this committee,
I want to focus on Superfund in my district, and I do
appreciate that you brought it up in our discussion or answer
to the chairman, considering the complexity of it.
I will make one comment that I think is shared amongst all
of us on this committee that have Superfund or other
environmental issues, and this is we want it done yesterday. We
don't like it done over a 10-year or like the Speaker said, 22
years. We want it done in 1 day and we want it done perfectly,
and ours should be the priority over everybody else's. I
realize you have those political complexities on top of the
scientific complexities.
I am generally pleased with the dedication of the EPA to
the Superfund site in my district. As you mentioned,
Administrator Johnson, it is 9,000 acres and makes up, I think,
almost about 15 percent of the geographic area of my district.
It is a changing area. It is mostly African American. There are
a lot of young families in that area. I appreciate that you
have made those households with children the priority and
cleaning those properties first.
So I appreciate your dedication. I will, with every one of
my colleagues in the delegation, continue to hound you to make
sure that it stays on track and isn't diverted for political
purposes because some other district becomes a political
hotspot or something. So you have been above that political
fray and I appreciate that, because it really is a safety issue
within my district.
Now, with funding, I would support additional funding
within the Superfund so that you don't have to make as many
priority choices between projects. But I am a little bit unsure
how your budget works. I just want to ask a couple of questions
within the Superfund fund.
There has been discussions with the panel we had up here
last week that suggested that the tax on chemicals and
petroleum should be reinstated to bring the amount of your
budget up to past. Well, you have proven that it is at least
equal using general funds as it was in the past. So I
appreciate you showing that.
So my follow-up would be the other part of making industry
just levy a tax on industry because they exist, the alternative
is what is currently written in the law, and I know firsthand
because of my district that you have been very aggressive in
making polluters pay, and in my view, you have even gone so
far, it is like if you brush by one of the potential
responsible parties on the street, you would then become
another potential responsible party. It is down to the point
where I think you have gone way beyond what we think of
polluters.
My question then is in that regard about how aggressive you
have become or the administration has become on making sure
that the polluters are paying the full cost of remediation in a
Superfund site, is that reflected, those dollars that come in,
are those reflected in your budget or is that just the
Government dollars? And how effective is your aggressiveness in
making polluters pay in? Now, certainly in our blood sight you
have an issue of the SARCO leaving the country and folding and
defaulting on their obligations, so I just wonder how effective
that has been, whether that is on budget or off budget, how are
those dollars accounted for?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we have been very successful and we do
aggressively go after the polluter, because we do believe that
polluters should be the ones paying. On average, we are
achieving about 70 percent polluter pays, we have a responsible
party. Certainly the law charges us to seek that responsible
party and have them pay, and that is what we do.
Having said that, we also try to be reasonable,
particularly for those that are, if you will, the small
contributors to it. Is there a diminimus threshold? We
certainly prefer to settle. As I have often said, the air and
the water and our land get any cleaner when we are sitting in a
courtroom, and so we continue to try to negotiate settlement.
With regard to numbers, let me ask Marcus, my deputy, to
share with you the number that we now----
Mr. Peacock. Just to get a sense of how large the breadbox
is here, Congressman, the total PRP commitments for cleanups
from fiscal year 2001 through 2006 was almost $6 billion, so
those dollars are not reflected in the President's request. In
fact, PRP spends money on PRP lead sites, we never find out
what that amount of money is, and that is most certainly in the
billions as well.
Mr. Terry. Very good. So actually, there is more investment
in cleanups than what we are discussing here today within the
budget?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct, and as I pointed out that
that is what is in EPA's budget. The PRP lead is another pot of
money which Marcus Peacock just went over, and then when you
look at our other Federal partners, it is $8.5 billion. So as a
government, between our $1.2 billion in Superfund and then our
other Federal partners, $8.5 billion, we as a Nation are
investing a great deal of money in cleaning up these hazardous
waste sites.
Mr. Terry. I appreciate that. Certainly, in my particular
version of justice, I think you should go after those that
cause the pollution. The polluters should pay for the
remediation, and I appreciate your aggressiveness.
I will just make a quick editorial comment on Brownfields,
because Omaha--and I was involved in the City Council, as I
mentioned, when one of the authorities on our panel last week
actually sued me personally and in my capacity as a City
Council member, which I will never forget, but the Brownfields
that we cleaned up really was a partnership between the State
and the city, and both of us put up some money as well as the
polluter. And that was done and cleaned up within about 2 years
from beginning to end. So there are times, at least in my view,
that when the local communities take control of a site, and no
offense, but leave the EPA out except for being advisory, it
actually works better. And so when we pound our chest about
more Federal involvement in the Brownfields, I sit there and
cringe. No offense to that, but sometimes the local folks when
they want to step up can actually do a darn good job of making
a Brownfield useful for the community.
And that ends my time.
Mr. Johnson. That is one of the reasons it is one of the
most complicated sites.
Mr. Wynn. At this time, the Chair would recognize
distinguished vice chair of the subcommittee and a leading
advocate on environmental issues, the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Solis.
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr.
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Good morning.
Ms. Solis. I just want to go straight into a line of
questioning and hopefully, you will be able to respond yes or
no on some of these questions.
When were you first informed by the Inspector General about
his draft evaluation of Performance Track?
Mr. Johnson. My recollection of the first discussion that I
had with regard to Performance Track was actually with the head
of my policy office, who said that he had had a discussion with
the Inspector General with regard to Performance Track.
Ms. Solis. But you have not had that particular
conversation with the Inspector General yourself?
Mr. Johnson. No, following that conversation, I did meet
with the Acting Inspector General and talked about Performance
Track, but really more in the sense of as the Inspector General
performs program evaluations. By the way, I believe are very
valuable to the Agency and are very appropriate, and
encouraging our Inspector General to do more, that in the
program evaluations what is helpful for me as a senior manager
is to not only know and understand what is wrong or what areas
need to be fixed, but also highlight those things that are
going extraordinarily well so we continue to do those things.
Ms. Solis. Did you think that the evaluation was fair and
balanced?
Mr. Johnson. I didn't see the evaluation, so----
Ms. Solis. But when you spoke to the Inspector--what date
was that?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know, I would have to go back and look
at a calendar.
Ms. Solis. Can you get me that information?
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to.
Ms. Solis. OK.
Moving on, my next question. Mr. Johnson, as I understand
the eligibility for Performance Track, a facility supposedly is
not allowed to be a member if it or its parent company is under
investigation or has convicted an environmentally related crime
within the last 5 years. If that is true, how are three
Monsanto facilities members, despite their parent company
having paid $1 million in fines as a result of criminal
indictment by the Department of Justice? How are they then
eligible for this program?
Mr. Johnson. On the specifics, I would have to defer to
Brian Mannix, the head of our policy shop. Let me say, the
Performance Track which was launched in the year 2000 now has
470 members. It was recognized by Harvard University in 2006 as
one of the top innovations in Government.
I think it is important to put it in perspective. It is an
outstanding program. It is beyond compliance, and the
specifics, Brian?
Mr. Mannix. I wouldn't want to comment on the enforcement
record of a particular company without a chance to review it,
so I would be happy to answer that for the record, but I don't
know the answer.
Ms. Solis. But they did remain a part of the performance
track program, in spite of the fact that according to your old
standards they would have been outside of the bounds of the
program?
Mr. Mannix. Some facilities are part of the Performance
Track program, yes.
Ms. Solis. That fall out of the restrictions that you place
on them for being a part of it, that is what I am trying to get
at.
Mr. Mannix. I am sorry?
Ms. Solis. For example, in the case of Monsanto, they have
been convicted of environmentally related crimes in the last 5
years, and yet they are a part of this program.
Mr. Mannix. Again, there are facilities in the program as
to what the enforcement record is at other sites in the
company, I would have to review that before----
Ms. Solis. OK, and you could give us that information?
Mr. Mannix. Yes.
Ms. Solis. OK.
This week, EPA announced new members with a press release
stating that Performance Track facilities must meet all
environmental regulatory requirements, and you praised Members
as environmental leaders, because they go beyond what is
expected or required by law. I have a chart that I would like
to share with you.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.300
My chart shows one example of a facility which is a member
of the Performance Track despite compliance problems. The
company, U.S. Steel/Clairton Coke Works has paid over $140,250
in fines for 10 separate Clean Air Act violations in just the
past 3 years. Is this the kind of compliance history that a
company is allowed to have and still qualify to be a part of
the Performance Track program? Yes or no.
Mr. Mannix. Again, I would have to review the record of the
company before commenting on the specifics.
Ms. Solis. Please provide the committee that information.
My next question, in your testimony, the Agency is
supposedly a good steward of taxpayer dollars, but my
understanding is that EPA has awarded contractors millions of
dollars to support Government employees implementing this
program Performance Track. Contractors run telemarketing call
centers to recruit applicants for this program. They draft
press releases, templates, and articles to promote Fortune 500
companies and design advertising and motivational posters to
hang at Performance Track workplaces, such as these that are
noted here before the committee.
Are you spending the taxpayer's dollars to pay contractors
to do public relations work for corporations?
Mr. Mannix. In part, Performance Track is a recognition
program, and yes, we do provide posters to companies so that
they can proudly display their membership and their
accomplishments.
Ms. Solis. Even when those same groups are found in
violation of the law?
Mr. Mannix. We don't tolerate violations of the law.
Ms. Solis. OK, next question.
The California Air Resources Board estimates that each year
there are about 5,400 premature deaths and 2,400
hospitalizations and about 140,000 cases of asthma. This is a
filter that I would like to demonstrate to the committee that
is currently being used, a filter that is a monitor located
near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in a residential
neighborhood that is predominantly low income minority. The
filter was white, white as this paper, and now it looks like
this, and there are three little dots to show you what it
looked like when it was placed at the facility. Twenty-four
hours later, which is equal to the amount of a typical human
would breathe in 2\1/2\ half months, this is what it would look
like, that accumulation in just that one cycle of 24 hours. The
black color is largely diesel exhaust, and a toxic air
contaminant in California, due to its carcinogenic risk.
While I am pleased that EPA proposed a rule for locomotives
and marine vessels, I am very concerned that it will not
protect the health and well-being of minority and low income
communities. My staff has reviewed this new rule that you just
issued, and for the life of me, we can't find any discussion
that would speak to the issue of Environmental Justice for
review under this proposed rule. So could you please speak to
that? Is there any mention at all?
Mr. Johnson. I am pleased to, because this rule applies to
all Americans, and in fact, the good news is because of our
aggressive stance on diesel, on road, off road, and the
proposal that I just signed on a week ago Friday, we will see
significant health benefits across the population, particularly
those sensitive subpopulations near or around port cities.
Ms. Solis. But is there an exact area in the 800-page
document where that is cited? That is what we want to know.
Mr. Johnson. I would have to look. As I said, I know that
it applies to all Americans, and in fact, anyone who is close
to a port or to where locomotives are will benefit even greater
than those that live further away.
Ms. Solis. Well, this is a very, very critically important
issue for many of us across the country, but in particular, in
Long Beach and the Wilmington area, and as just noted, this
filter is quite alarming to know that just in the course of 24
hours, this is the same impact that is occurring with those
young families that reside around the area. Many of them, I
have to tell you, are military families.
Mr. Johnson. That is why we have been aggressively going
after diesel and in fact, urge you to support the President's
2008 budget request, because there is $35 million in that
budget to help deal with legacy engines, whether they be from
trucks, school buses, or construction equipment.
Our goal is to have that black puff of smoke which you see
evidenced on that filter something you only read about in a
history book.
Ms. Solis. Very deadly carcinogenic.
Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. The gentlelady's time is expired. I thank the
gentlelady.
Next speaker will be the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to get back to the issue of Clairton Coke Works,
because it is a Pittsburgh company, in a moment, but first I
want to ask a couple questions.
First, how does the EPA work with industry when your are
implementing some new standards that may impact upon them
financially and also impact upon our job and manufacturing
base? How do you go about that?
Mr. Johnson. We have a number of programs that range from
enforcement to compliance assistance to education, training,
outreach, to partnership, and my experience after 26 years of
being at EPA is that when we can come together to work
collaboratively to address environmental challenge with our
partners, it works a lot better. In fact, the results are
cheaper, faster, and better results.
We do have, as part of that effort, we have identified 13
sectors in our business community where we have been
aggressively reaching out to them to help and to work with them
to achieve greater environmental results while maintaining
economic competitiveness.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Also, earlier you were referring to the mercury issue and
the work that the United States has done as a Nation to really
work at eradicating mercury through automobiles, air, et
cetera. I know it is a significant concern for coal companies
in trying to eliminate and reduce that, and yet, my
understanding of the science of mercury is that it floats in
the atmosphere, such as China, which is opening up a power
plant every week, does not have controls on that, and the
mercury that they produce--correct me if I am wrong on this,
but even if we eliminate all of it from our factories we would
still see a significant amount of mercury coming in, drifting
in from other places around the world that do not scrub out or
eliminate their mercury. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct. There is trans-boundary air
pollution. Pollution knows no political or geographic
boundaries; that is precisely why the President asked a number
of us, myself included, to be part of the strategic economic
dialog with China. In my case, to work with them to help
address the pollution, which obviously affects their citizens,
but also creates trans-boundary air pollution.
One of the initiatives of the President's 2008 budget is
the Asia Pacific Partnership, which our $5 million is part of
the President's overall $50 million request, to help in this
very effort, so it is a critical effort that we work with our
international trading partners, particularly China, India,
South Korea in particular.
Mr. Murphy. I hope that continues because I know it
concerns me that when we are taking measurement samples of our
air to compute in there, a lot of what is measured is not even
coming from the continental United States.
On the issue of so much that we are working on with air
pollution, it is so important we work together on this. We
still have to recognize 50 to 55 percent of our energy comes
from coal. The Pennsylvania seam may have had more of an
economic impact in the United States than almost any other
geological formation on Earth, and we continue to be dependent
upon it. I know there are forces who are trying to shut down
coal's role, but we need it, especially in manufacturing, one
of those being coke, and I am sorry that the gentlelady from
California has left, because I wanted to ask--my understanding
is the Clairton Coke Works that U.S. Steel owns, which is
actually in Mr. Doyle's district, and many of the employees are
from mine and many from U.S. Steel Works are also in my
district as well. My understanding is that they are in
compliance. They worked for several years with the EPA on this.
I hope that is something you can get back to us and----
Mr. Johnson. We have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Murphy. Because it should be one of those things we
have to find out if working together with the EPA has yielded a
positive outcome, which we all want to see, but we also want to
make sure we are not shutting down an industry. The steel
industry in Pittsburgh is obviously important, and this
Clairton Coke Works has been around for a long time, working
and producing a vital element to make steel. So I hope that is
something you can get back to us on and see. Because if there
is some good news of how the compliance and working together
has yielded some positive results, we would like to know about
that and see how money is spent on that.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
Next we will hear from Mr. Allen, distinguished gentleman
from Maine for 8 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Johnson, for being here.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Allen. I want to begin by going back--your testimony is
that the budget request for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund is essentially the same as the 2007 level, but it doesn't
appear that any of your budget considerations have taken into
account the concerns expressed by the State environmental
directors last week. Their basic point was that a dollar today
doesn't buy as much as a dollar 5 years ago.
We have a chart, and I would like that to be put up.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.301
This chart is prepared by the Congressional Research
Service, and what it shows is that when you look at the fiscal
year 2008 budget request, adjusted for inflation, and this
looks at the last 10 years of funding for this particular
program, adjusted for inflation in 2006 dollars. When you look
at that, your budget requests to $802 million, or the lowest in
the history of the program.
Mr. Johnson. Correct.
Mr. Allen. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Johnson. It meets the President's commitment for a
sustainable infrastructure and remember, this is a revolving
loan fund and so as time goes on, that account continues to be
built. The President's commitment was for drinking water
between the years 2004 and 2018 that there be $12 billion
revolving at $1.2 billion per year. The President's request of
$842.2 million, which I believe is a $5 million increase, helps
achieve the President's commitment.
And may I also add, I think one of the important things
that I would certainly urge Members of Congress to take a look
at is the notion of private activity bonds. We have an outside
group of financial advisors as well as a number of others,
including mayors and others, have said if you could fix the
private activity bond issue on the revolving loan fund, we
believe we will get more investment.
Mr. Allen. But we haven't fixed that yet, have we?
Mr. Johnson. We haven't fixed it yet and that is part of
the President's 2008 budget request is to fix that is actually
amending section 146 of Internal Revenue Tax Code, so it would
eliminate that cap.
Mr. Allen. Right. I understand that, but you wouldn't
disagree that the amount of money requested because of the
factor of inflation is--the amount of money that can be put
through this program buys less each year. That is what the
chart says.
Mr. Johnson. Having not seen the chart, just taking it by
its face value, that is what the chart indicates. However,
again, what the 2008 budget does do is it meets the President's
commitment of revolving at $1.2 billion a year, and that is----
Mr. Allen. But the only point I am trying to make, and I
don't think you disagree with this, is if you have a flat
commitment year after year after year, you can do less each
year because everything costs more. That is the basic point. I
think that is pretty simple, isn't it?
Mr. Johnson. The point I was trying to reach is that in the
case of our water infrastructure, this is another case where
environmental responsibility is everyone's responsibility. The
Federal Government has a role. Certainly rate payers have a
role, and we have been looking for innovative ways to help
accelerate the pace of dealing with our infrastructure. Private
activity bonds is one.
The other one which I just want to mention is a partnership
program which we have initiated called Water Sense, and it is
modeled after Energy Star. In fact, I just launched it this
past year because I thought that it was important for consumers
to be made aware of and to have a certification process so that
consumers could make the preferential purchase that they are
more efficient, and so we see a number of efforts to help
ensure that our infrastructures----
Mr. Allen. I understand those programs are fine, but my
understanding is if you look at overall water infrastructure
funding by the Federal Government, it has declined over the
last 4 years by about 50 percent overall. Your Agency did a
need survey and assessment in 2005 and concluded the total
drinking water infrastructure needs stood at more than $263
billion. In Maine, it is $300 million alone. I mean, I think
what you are saying is somebody else has to pay for that. It
can't be the Federal Government because we are going to keep
our commitment flat. That seems to be what the President's
commitment is and what you are suggesting the Agency should do.
Mr. Johnson. What I am saying is I agree that the needs are
great and in the range of $300 billion. Also, pointing out that
it is not just the Federal Government's responsibility, but
from individuals to----
Mr. Allen. I hear you.
Let me ask you another question before my time runs out.
The Department of Defense, I understand, in contrast to
previous BRAC grounds, has decided to withdraw funding to EPA
for oversight of the 2005 round of BRAC cleanups.
Traditionally, DoD has funded oversight by reimbursing EPA for
full-time equivalent staff. For example, in fiscal year 2006,
EPA had 75.5 FTEs dedicated to oversight work at 73 sites from
the first four rounds of BRAC, and most of that was allocated
to the regional offices. The DoD's intention in the 2005 BRAC
ground is not to fund these FTEs.
Now, if that is the case, the burden of paying for
oversight of BRAC related cleanups moves to you, and given the
meager EPA budget request, it is hard for me to see how that
occurs, which means those costs would now be born by States or
localities, making property transfer and disposal much more
difficult, and in many cases, endangering people who live near
those sites. My basic question is, were you consulted? Do you
agree? Is this a good thing for DoD to pass those costs on to
you?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we at EPA continue to participate and
seek reimbursement from Department of Defense, and Susan, if
you would have some additional comments to provide?
Ms. Bodine. Yes. As the Congressman pointed out, we have
reimbursable FTEs for BRAC 1 through 4, and not for BRAC 5. We
did consult with our regional offices as to the impacts of BRAC
5 and were told that the additional resources, the reimbursable
FTEs wouldn't be necessary, but that we are going to continue
to monitor the situation so if it turns out that we do need
additional resources, then we will go to DoD and seek
reimbursement. But we were told, based on our review, that it
wasn't necessary.
Mr. Allen. So but if they are not necessary, does that mean
that you are just taking people who are doing other things for
EPA and moving them into that work? I mean, the work doesn't go
away, I don't think.
Ms. Bodine. No, but it is much--the BRAC 5 have many fewer
NPL sites, national priority list sites. The work is much less
and it is work that we can do within our existing resource
base.
Mr. Allen. OK. Do the States agree with that conclusion?
Ms. Bodine. I believe the States expect us to still
participate in the BRAC process, and we will continue to
participate in the BRAC process.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. My time is expired.
Mr. Wynn. The gentleman's time has expired.
Next we go to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here today.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Johnson, as you may be aware, the
attorney general of my State of Oklahoma, has sued a number of
poultry companies for the natural resource damages under
CERCLA. Because of the downstream liability concerns for
smaller contract poultry producers, this case has caused many
in my State to question whether manure is really a hazardous
substance within the definition of pollutant or contaminant
under CERCLA. I personally think we should see if there are
ways to ensure environmental protection without the default
assumption being that the courthouse is the first stop in these
efforts.
I have two questions for you, sir.
First, I understand that you testified before the House
Appropriations Committee about an administrative effort the EPA
was undertaking in regard to animal waste and CERCLA. Could you
please explain that effort and its scope for me?
Second, if my State of Oklahoma is successful in its suit
and other parties use the courts to establish that manure is
the constituent or contaminant under CERCLA, could you please
explain the enforcement predicament that this would place on
the Agency. How much would EPA have to increase enforcement
staffing and funding to patrol farms that EPA has historically,
as a group, not considered an environmental threat?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Again, our interest is to make sure
we are providing environmental protection while at the same
time supporting agriculture.
In the case of the comment that I made is yes, we will be
proposing a regulation that would exempt air releases from
animal waste from CERCLA emergency notification requirements.
We have heard from our 26-State emergency planning commissions
that they believe that it is a waste of their time to hear a
report from an emergency because there is a farm, if you will,
nearby. And so we are going to be proposing a regulation that
does not exempt farms from regulation under CERCLA. It does not
exempt farms from regulation under the Clean Air Act, and of
course, we have an ongoing science process to better understand
what the air emissions may or may not be from agriculture. We
are looking to try to have effective regulations that are
efficient, while at the same time, focusing on where problems
may be and not where they are not.
And so, soon we will be having that draft regulation coming
out for public comment.
Mr. Sullivan. I will tell you, what I am really interested
in--and for 5 years I have been here, is we have a problem with
the poultry industry. We are downstream from them and they have
been dumping litter and runoff and all that, and we have had
mismanagement practices at the State which haven't really
helped that much.
I will tell you what is frustrating, sir, is that EPA will
come down in our area if someone has--let us say a developer
has some silt fences that aren't working and someone calls.
Well, the region 6 people come up and find those builders, but
they will not get involved. And this thing, I think the EPA is
the Environmental Protection Agency for the entire United
States. What they say is that you need to work this out. Well,
you wouldn't tell a developer and someone complaining about
those silt fences failing, you would come and find them. Well,
how come the EPA has not gotten involved in this effort? Why
don't they step in and try to do something about this, because
my city of Tulsa is looking at changing and redoing their water
supply. It is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to
do that. Our lakes and streams are terrible. I don't know if
you have seen them, but you can't even see your foot if you are
standing in four inches of water, and it is just absolutely
atrocious that nothing has been done.
Can you answer that, why the EPA will not get involved?
They say you guys figure it out.
Mr. Johnson. Let me ask Ben Grumbles, who is the head of
our water program. He can give you a good up-to-date report.
Mr. Sullivan. Is the problem too big for the EPA?
Mr. Grumbles. The problem, particularly when in an
interstate context, it involves a great deal of collaboration.
EPA, as I know you know when you first came to Congress and I
met with you to respond to and address various concerns, we
have a couple of key areas where we are involved and
Congressman, we commit to continue to stay involved and to help
work out the water quality standards issue, for one, about when
there are different standards for different States upstream,
downstream, it is important for EPA to be involved in that.
In the context of runoff or non-point source pollution, the
way the Clean Water Act is written, it really does put a
greater role for the States. There is not a Federal EPA
regulatory role, but that doesn't mean we don't step up and
help, through science and a collaborative process. There is
also the watershed approach, the planning that I know is a
focus for us to work with you and your constituents, and the
upstream constituencies.
I also would say that when there are large CAFOs, it is
important to regulate them, and that is why we are committed to
finalizing a regulation on nitrogen and phosphorus under the
Clean Water Act for concentrated animal feeding operations,
including poultry.
Mr. Wynn. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we really need your help.
Mr. Wynn. At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr.
Stupak, the gentleman from Michigan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I believe it would
be 8 minutes.
Mr. Wynn. Did you waive originally? You claimed the time
you sat in the chair.
Mr. Stupak. No, I didn't give an opening statement, but I
will take 2 minutes for sitting in the chair, so I should be up
to 10 minutes.
Mr. Wynn. I think we are going in the wrong direction, Mr.
Stupak.
The gentleman is recognized for 8 minutes.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, thanks for being here.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Stupak. Two weeks ago, the General Accounting Office
reported that it would cost $12 billion in public funds to
cleanup half of the 54,000 leaking underground storage tanks.
Michigan's share would be $1.64 billion. American motorists are
being taxed on every gallon of gasoline to pay for the leaking
underground storage tank trust fund to cleanup petroleum and
MTBE leaks from these tanks. The trust fund will have a surplus
of over $3 billion in fiscal year 2008.
I want to direct your attention to the chart here, and I
believe they are just handing you a copy right now.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.302
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Stupak. It was prepared by the Congressional Research
Service, using EPA budget numbers. It shows annual revenues of
$300 million to the trust fund, $200 million from tax revenues
and over $100 million from interest on existing trust fund
corpus. With over $300 million in annual revenues, why is the
EPA only seeking $72.5 million from the LUST fund when there
are over 113,000 cleanups not completed? Why wouldn't you ask
for $300 million?
Mr. Johnson. Well, this is a prime example of why we don't
want the Superfund tax, because while the tax revenue has come
in, as you look even----
Mr. Stupak. Well, this about LUST.
Mr. Johnson. Exactly precisely the point is that this is
exactly what has happened with the Superfund tax, as is what is
happening with the underground storage tank tax is that while
the revenues have gone up, Congress has appropriated
considerably less money.
Mr. Stupak. What did you ask for? You only asked for $72.5
million. Have you ever asked for $300 million?
Mr. Johnson. We continue to ask for and align ourselves----
Mr. Stupak. Asked for how much? How much did you ask for?
Mr. Johnson. We asked for $72.4 million. That is for
cleanups, and $22.3 million for inspections.
Mr. Stupak. You asked for $94 million.
Mr. Johnson. We are urging Congress to take a look at the
requirement for inspections every 3 years, and in fact, what we
have heard from the States is that it would be much more
efficient to allow self certification----
Mr. Stupak. But you have all this money here to cleanups.
We have over 113,000 leaking underground storage tanks. How
come we are not asking for the money to cleanup when the money
is there?
Mr. Johnson. We don't have the money. Congress has the
money. What we have asked for is--and what the President has
asked for continues the steady progress towards addressing
underground--leaking underground storage tanks.
Mr. Stupak. It doesn't look like any steady progress to me
on that chart, it looks pretty flat or actually going
backwards. I mean, the frustration of American people is they
are paying for every gallon of gas and putting $200 million in
this fund, and we still can't get the leaking underground
storage tanks cleared up. So why don't you just ask for the
$200 million, and we'll leave $100 million in for interest. Why
don't you just ask for that so we can get this program done?
Mr. Johnson. We want to continue to make steady progress
while achieving a balanced budget. We estimate that 350,000 of
the leaking underground storage tanks have already----
Mr. Stupak. Well, you believe it is proper to place a
gasoline tax on the public, but instead, use those funds as a
Federal deficit reduction device rather than cleaning up
contaminated leaking underground storage tanks?
Mr. Johnson. Again, that is a decision for Congress, and
what I can say is even before 2003 and 2001, Congress has
chosen to appropriate a relatively level of source. Let me just
give you another statistic, if I could----
Mr. Stupak. I don't want you filibustering here. I have 8
minutes. I'm trying to get 2 more from the chairman and he
won't give it to me, so I can't let you filibuster.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, please.
Mr. Stupak. The EPA decelerated the pace of environmental
protection by dropping the Agency's annual cleanup performance
goal of leaking underground storage tanks from 22,000, that is
what it was in 2003. You were going to do 22,500. Now, you went
down to 13,000 in 2008. That is a 42 percent drop. It seems
like the Agency is not making any progress. You are going
backwards. The goal is 22,500 in 2003, now you are down to
13,000 in 2008. That is a 42 percent drop over 6 years. Why?
Mr. Johnson. I have to ask. Susan, do you want to come up?
While Susan is coming up, the one I wanted to point out was
this President's budget is higher than any amount appropriated
in all but 6 years since 1987.
Mr. Stupak. No, my question, sir, is fiscal year 2003,
22,500 were targeted for cleanup. Fiscal year 2008, the budget
year we are in, it is 13,000. That is a 42 percent drop. Why?
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Congressman.
The underground storage tank program is a State run
program, and----
Mr. Stupak. I am very familiar with it. Just answer the
question. Why is it going down 42 percent in 6 years? No
filibustering, please.
Ms. Bodine. We rely on the States to tell us how many tanks
they are going to be cleaning up, and they are telling us that
they will cleanup fewer because the ones that are left----
Mr. Stupak. So if the States ask for more money, you will
give them more money?
Ms. Bodine. They are telling us that with States----
Mr. Stupak. Have the States asked for more money? Yes or
no.
Ms. Bodine. I would have to get back to you on that. I
don't know that, but I can get back to you on that.
Mr. Stupak. Alright. Let me ask this question. In 1992,
there was an agreement between Michigan and Canada, solid
municipal waste moving from Canada into the United States. In
1982, the EPA was going to put forth a proper framework for
notice and consent of the movement of waste and the flow of
trash between our two countries. EPA has never done it. In 1993
in a question to Mr. Dingell, when asked when those rules and
regulations would be put out, the EPA said ``shortly''. It is
now 14 years. We still do not have a program. And everybody who
came from EPA--and over the last 6 years we haven't had many
EPA hearings, but each time I ask and each time I use the word
shortly, and each time I get back these nice letters saying we
are working on it. We have the pilot program. We will have this
completed shortly. It is 14 years. We still don't have the
rules or regulations.
Mr. Johnson. We lack the authority to ban municipal waste
imports.
Mr. Stupak. Yes, I have heard that before so I asked for
language, and we never get any language from the EPA. If you
lack authority, how could you do a pilot program if you didn't
have authority?
Mr. Johnson. Our pilot program went to look at to see
whether, in fact, they were----
Mr. Stupak. Moving trash?
Mr. Johnson. Well, what the movement was and did it contain
any hazardous waste, or was it indeed municipal solid waste as
it was. And we concluded that the report inspections was
completed in fiscal year 2006, and I would be happy to provide
another copy of that for the record, if you would like.
Mr. Stupak. Well, when are you going to put forth the rules
and regulations, 14 years?
Mr. Johnson. Again, we lack the authority to ban municipal
solid waste imports.
Mr. Stupak. But do you support Mr. Dingell's bill, then,
H.R. 518?
Mr. Johnson. We have taken no position on that bill.
Mr. Stupak. You haven't taken a position on any one of the
bills we have introduced for the last 6 years on this issue.
Will you take a position on Mr. Dingell's bill, H.R. 518, which
is a bipartisan bill signed by Great Lakes members who want to
see the flow of Canadian trash greatly curtailed into this
country?
Mr. Johnson. We have not taken a position.
Mr. Stupak. Will you take a position? Six years you have
been trying to take a position. We change the numbers every 2
years, the same bill. Will you take a position on that bill?
Mr. Johnson. I will be happy to get back to you for the
record.
Mr. Wynn. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Stupak. Fourteen more years I am going to have to wait?
I don't know if I will be here that long.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair recognizes Mr. Deal of Georgia.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield to Mr.
Murphy briefly.
Mr. Murphy. I thank the gentleman.
I just want to clarify. I have been checking this issue
about the Clairton Coke Works, because they have been around
for many years. The Clairton Coke Works is operated by U.S.
Steel and is actually in full compliance with the EPA and full
compliance with the National Emissions Standards. Not only
that, it actually operates under stricter standards than the
EPA or the National Emissions Standards, because the State of
Pennsylvania has stricter standards and Allegheny County has
even stricter standards than the State of Pennsylvania, and it
is operating under strict standards for all of those.
Mr. Chairman, I would like with unanimous consent to be
able to provide all this information, as well ask the
gentlelady from California to provide her information, because
it may be an example of how the EPA and industry can work
together to make sure they are working for the public health
and achieve the things that we wish.
I yield back.
Mr. Wynn. Since the gentlelady from California is not here,
for her I am happy to include without objection, and I will
certainly ask her if she would like her information included.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here today.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Deal. Very briefly, since the issue of poultry waste
and CERCLA has come up, as a representative from perhaps one of
the largest broiler producing districts in the entire United
States, my communities have serious concerns about the
expansion of authority, regulation or otherwise, under CERCLA,
which we do not think was initially intended to address this
issue.
So a little bit different perspective than perhaps what you
have heard earlier references made to that, but moving on to
another consideration. And it would be primarily observation,
followed by a very brief question or two. We have heard from
many of my colleagues, many on the Democratic side of the
aisle, about issues that relate to Superfund, relate to
Brownfields, et cetera, and it has been with criticism that
enough money is not being spent, actions are not being taken
fast enough, and then, of course, criticism of existing
industries, such as Mr. Murphy has already tried to clarify,
the issue about alleged continuing pollution.
I would point out that in this concept that we have heard
of Environmental Justice, I would like to insert another term
for your consideration, and that is geographic justice. My
constituents in rural areas don't really complain about
spending Federal dollars to cleanup these sites, but I would
point out that in most instances, those are sites that are the
result of industrialization in this country, and they provided,
even though they polluted in hindsight, they provided good
paying jobs for those parts of the country that benefited
richly from those job sites. Just as the jobs that are now
being complained about industries that they don't particularly
like, many of my constituents would welcome them to the rural
parts because they need those kind of jobs. We are not
complaining about spending money for these geographical sites
that have benefited in the past but now have pollution
problems.
But there is an issue of geographic justice that I don't
think is being paid much attention to. For example, I think we
ought to, in our environmental policies, not promote further
concentrations of population, further concentrations of
industry in areas that are already polluted, but I am afraid
that many of the policies that we have in place are doing
exactly that. Instead of dispersing, we are promoting further
concentration. Let me give you specific examples of that.
My congressional district in the northwest corner borders
Alabama and Tennessee. That portion is in the Chattanooga
metropolitan statistical area. Several of my rural counties are
now in non-compliance under air quality. They have very good
information that it is not because of things that are coming
within their area or things they have any control over. In
fact, they had a study from NASA that showed that one of their
non-compliances was because they were burning wheat fields in
the Midwest and it was simply blowing there.
My time is running out.
My question is this. You indicated that there is going to
be a shift of responsibility for air monitoring to the States.
Many of those counties, the one in particular that is in non-
compliance, has no testing site within the county. They have
testing sites in another State, Alabama and Tennessee, and they
are concerned. They feel like if you want to get a good
reading, get one from them and not penalize readings coming
from somewhere else. In fact, one of the readings in my State
is in the middle of a national forest, and it is in non-
compliance because of pollen in the air.
Who has the authority to determine the location of air
monitoring sites? Is it the State or is the Federal Government?
Whose approval has to be obtained?
Mr. Johnson. It is done in cooperation. Again, we work with
our State partners to make sure these we are trying to achieve
national----
Mr. Wynn. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Chairman, let him answer my question, my only
question.
Mr. Wynn. Because of the pending vote, I am trying to get
another Member recognized. I am sure he would be happy to
submit his answer to you or give you an answer in private.
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to have my staff also sit
down with you. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Administrator Johnson, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change has determined that the planet is
warming as a result of carbon dioxide pollution and other
emissions of greenhouse gases, by mankind, and that we could
face a potential environmental catastrophe of severe hurricanes
and other storms, droughts, rising sea levels, and massive
species extinction if we do not reverse current trends.
Do you agree with the IPCC's findings?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, we do. In fact, and because of investment
by the United States and----
Mr. Markey. Do you do agree?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Markey. Do you support a mandatory cap and trade
program to curb carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions?
Mr. Johnson. Sir, what I do support is what the President
announced at the State of the Union, and that is an aggressive
yet practical strategy----
Mr. Markey. No, you support a mandatory program to?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, in fact, support a mandatory program in
the sense of CAFE standard, as well as a mandatory----
Mr. Markey. Do you support a mandatory 4 percent annual
increase in CAFE standards over the next decade?
Mr. Johnson. Support an increase in CAFE standards----
Mr. Markey. Mandatory.
Mr. Johnson. Mandatory increase in CAFE standards, yes.
Mr. Markey. So you support a mandatory 4 percent?
Mr. Johnson. Four percent.
Mr. Markey. That is what the President used in his State of
the Union address. So you support a mandatory 4 percent
increase?
Mr. Johnson. That is what I support.
Mr. Markey. OK. And that is very helpful to me.
So do you support a mandatory cap and trade system?
Mr. Johnson. No, I do not.
Mr. Markey. No, you do not, OK.
Would you support a Federal renewable portfolio standard to
mandate that electric utilities get 20 percent of their
generation from clean renewable sources, such as wind, solar,
geothermal or biomass by 2020?
Mr. Johnson. Let me just make clear on the CAFE. The
proposal from the President is to ask Congress to defer to
Department of Transportation to actually----
Mr. Markey. So you don't support mandatory----
Mr. Johnson. The President identified is part of a 20
percent in 10 years, the 5 percent would come from CAFE----
Mr. Markey. So you don't support----
Mr. Johnson. I just want to make it clear----
Mr. Markey. No, you are not clear. You don't support a
mandatory 4 percent increase in CAFE, is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. I support what the President asked for.
Mr. Markey. Is that mandatory or not mandatory?
Mr. Johnson. It is a mandatory CAFE standard through the
Department of Transportation to determine the percentage to
achieve what the President has outlined----
Mr. Markey. Alright. I can't let you go on. The answer is
either mandatory or non-mandatory, not mandatory except that
the Department of Transportation decides it is not mandatory.
Which is it for you, sir, mandatory or not?
Mr. Johnson. For me, I support the President.
Mr. Markey. OK. That's all we need to know.
Would you support mandating a 10 percent increase in
overall electric power sector efficiency and a 5 percent
increase in natural gas utility efficiency by 2020 to be
achieved by demand reduction programs, more efficient power
generation, transmission, and distribution systems,
accelerating introduction of more energy efficient buildings
and appliances? Would you support that?
Mr. Johnson. I support increased energy efficiency.
Mr. Markey. But again, we need goals. Everyone supports it.
Is it a goal that will deal with catastrophe or is it----
Mr. Johnson. I support energy efficiency.
Mr. Markey. Well, that doesn't help us again.
What you are telling me, again, Mr. Administrator, is that
the Bush administration's policy of denial and delay is
continuing as you sit there today. It is little wonder that
today is the first time in nearly 6 years that the EPA
Administrator has actually appeared before this committee. The
FBI does not have as good a witness protection program as the
Bush administration and the Republican Congress has had to keep
the EPA from actually testifying on these issues.
Today we can see why. You really don't have a policy to
deal with the number one environmental challenge now facing the
planet, the threat of global warming. I can only hope that this
policy soon comes to an end and that your administration, Mr.
Administrator, becomes serious about working for mandatory
goals that are set in each one of those areas rather than this
non-specific, completely useless testimony in terms of helping
Congress understand what the goals of this administration are.
You also have a requirement to set standards for the
underground sequestration of emissions from coal-fired plants.
When do you plan on providing those specific guidelines?
Mr. Johnson. With regard to geologic carbon sequestration,
EPA and Department of Energy have been working on guidance that
would guide the pilot projects so that we can evaluate the
technical aspects for these class 5 experimental technology
wells. We have started the public dialog. This is an issue for
underground injection----
Mr. Markey. How many years before you can give a----
Mr. Wynn. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Markey. Can you provide the answer so the committee has
it?
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to provide one for the
record.
Mr. Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. The subcommittee has no further members seeking
questions.
I remind members if they have additional questions, they
can submit them for the record to be answered by the witness.
The questions should be submitted to the committee clerk in
electronic form within the next 10 days. The clerk will notify
your offices of the procedures.
I want to thank the Administrator, Mr. Johnson, and his
team for appearing before us today, and without objection, this
hearing is now adjourned.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8829.312