Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
February 13, 2002 Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1405 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: FISCAL 2003 BUDGET: EPA
TESTIMONY-BY: JAMES M. JEFFORDS, SENATOR
BODY: OPENING STATEMENT SENATOR JAMES M. JEFFORDS
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE PRESIDENTS FY 2003
BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
Good morning. The purpose of todays hearing is to examine the proposed
2003 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. We are pleased to have the
former Governor of New Jersey and able Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Christie Todd Whitman, here today to explain to us the finer
points of the EPAs budget request.
For the record, I want to thank
Administrator Whitman for all the work she and her staff have done recently to
help the State of Vermont tackle some tricky budget problems. Testifying on the
budget is admittedly a rather dry experience, but I hope that the Administrator
enjoys herself more today than she does in meetings with the Office of
Management and Budget. Now, to the subject before us. At a time when we should
be striving for the gold, the EPA's budget for next year barely makes it through
the qualifiers. The proposed budget represents a 3.5% reduction in spending from
last year. However, when inflation is taken into account, the cut is more like
6%, even as we are asking the Agency to take on greater homeland defense
responsibilities. And while fiscal year 2006 is a long way away, and not the
subject of todays hearing, I do wonder how the Office of Management and Budget
expects EPA to absorb about $1 billion in budget cuts between now and then.
But first let me start on a positive note. I am gratified that spending
for the brownfields program is doubled and that a large increase goes directly
to the states. On the air side, both the ozone and particulate matter programs
are given increases. And speaking for myself, and all of my colleagues in the
Hart Building, I am pleased that the Agency will be spending $75 million to
conduct research on better ways to cleanup contaminated buildings.
Most
of the savings in the budget comes from the rather naive expectation that there
will be no Congressional earmarks in next years budget. This is a battle I will
leave the Agency to fight with the appropriators. However, when earmarks are
added, I will fight to make sure that sufficient core program funds continue to
be appropriated to reverse cuts in clean water and climate programs and ensure
continued progress in the Superfund and air programs.
While I am pleased
that the Administration has substantially increased its budget request for clean
water revolving funds from its request last year, and level funded drinking
water revolving funds, I remain concerned that the proposed budget does not
provide adequate funding for the replacement and maintenance of our nations
aging
water infrastructure. Given the importance to public
health that all communities comply with the new arsenic standard in a timely
manner, I am concerned that no new drinking water funds are being allocated for
this purpose. Further, clean water revolving funds are cut 10% from last years
enacted level at a time when water systems are coping with the additional costs
of security. I am sure EPA is also aware that I am working with members of this
Committee on a bill to boost
water infrastructure funding that
will be introduced shortly.
Another issue I would like to highlight is
the reduction in EPA enforcement efforts. Once again, EPA is proposing a new
state enforcement
grant program. How is this program different
from the one that was proposed and shot down by Congress last year?
It
is my understanding that no cuts in existing enforcement personnel are planned,
but that cuts of about 100 enforcement positions will be made through attrition
and by not filling existing job openings. Just how many unfilled jobs exist in
the enforcement division? And does this explain the continued lowering of
performance goals for inspections and investigations?
I believe there is
a public education component to virtually ever major environmental statute. I
was, therefore, puzzled to learn that the EPA would like to move both its
environmental education division and STAR Fellowship program to the National
Science Foundation. I look forward to hearing the EPAs views on this subject.
Finally, let me say that I am deeply skeptical of the Administrations
government-wide proposal to require each government agency to assume the costs
of the Civil Service Retirement System and health care costs. As both a member
of the HELP and Finance Committees, I am troubled that mandatory spending would
be shifted to discretionary accounts potentially diverting these funds to
purposes other than funding retirement and health care costs. Furthermore, I am
concerned that in future years, this change in accounting rules would penalize
the operating budgets of programs with older employees.
Again thank you
for being here today Administrator Whitman, and I look forward to your
testimony.
LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2002