Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 15, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1414 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE environment & public works
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY EPA BUDGET
TESTIMONY-BY: GEORGE V. VOINOVICH , SENATOR
BODY: May 15, 2001 Opening Statement of Senator
George V. Voinovich Environment and Public Works Committee EPA Budget Hearing
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing, I know last year you pledged
to hold an EPA Budget Hearing each year. I think it is very important for us to
have this Oversight and input into the Appropriations process. I would like to
commend Administrator Whitman for the President's Budget submittal. I know you
have not had a lot of time to put together this budget and I'm sure next year's
budget will be a better reflection of the Administration's environmental
priorities. I know you have gotten some criticism for transferring part of the
enforcement budget to the States through a $25 million dollar
grant program, but this is exactly what we should be doing. As
the former Governor of Ohio I realize that the States are and should be taking
the lead on environmental enforcement. States already conduct 95% of all
inspections and it's time for the Federal EPA Budget to acknowledge this fact.
By proposing these State Enforcement
grants, we as a nation
will get a better environmental enforcement program. There are a few issues I
would like addressed by the Administrator today: 1) I have held two meetings in
Ohio over the last several months on Ohio's wastewater infrastructure needs.
Most recently, at the end of April, Senator Crapo conducted a field hearing in
Columbus, Ohio on the state's wastewater needs. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a
rumbling of a rebellion across the nation as communities struggle to deal with
aging
water infrastructure, growth, and increasing federal
water quality requirements. In Ohio alone, estimated needs for safe drinking
water and wastewater total $12.4 billion: that's $5 billion for drinking water
and $7.4 billion for wastewater. I know you have defended the budget request of
$850 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) as an increase.
It would, in fact, be a $500 million cut from the $1.35 billion Congress has
appropriated in recent years. At the same time, the request ignores Congress'
goal of funding the Clean Water SRF program at a level of $1.35 billion before
putting any money toward the wet weather
grants program, which
is authorized at a level of $750 million for fiscal year 2002. Moreover, during
debate on the Budget Resolution, the Senate approved an amendment to increase
the funding available for the Clean Water SRF to the $1.35 billion level and
fully fund the new wet weather
grants program at $750 million.
With the incredible nationwide needs for
water infrastructure,
I would like to know why the Administration did not request more funding in
order to help address these needs and protect public health and safety? 2) The
federal workforce is suffering a human capital crisis. How is the EPA on this
issue? What percent of your workforce is eligible and expected to retire in the
short term? More importantly, will there be shortages in any particular job
category, such as scientists? 3) The EPA has been subjected to multiple lawsuits
over the years, many of them friendly lawsuits in the last few years. Are you
having problems prioritizing work because of the sometimes arbitrary deadlines
imposed by courts? 4) I know in the past few years the research programs at the
EPA have suffered and you can not make up the difference overnight. I am
speaking in particular about the residual risk program in the Air Office. We
held a hearing on this last year. The statute requires a number of decisions on
the residual risk program beginning next year and I am concerned that the Agency
will not be ready due to past priorities. For the record would you provide the
committee a list of any other programs which might fall behind due to inadequate
funding in the past. 5) Last year, the National Research Council prepared a
study entitled Strengthening Science at the U.S. EPA. That report included
several recommendations on how to improve the research management and peer
review practices at the Agency. While some of these recommendations require
congressional authorization, many do not. Is the Administration's budget request
sufficient to accomplish the recommendations necessary to strengthen EPA's
scientific practices? I look forward to your testimony and I hope we can get the
other nominees confirmed for the EPA as quickly as possible in order to get you
some help on these issues.
LOAD-DATE: May 16, 2001,
Wednesday