U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–376 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

S. HRG. 106–745

NOMINATIONS CONSIDERED DURING THE SECOND

SESSION OF THE 106th CONGRESS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE NOMINATION OF ERIC D. EBERHARD TO BE A MEMBER, BOARD

OF TRUSTEES, MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION—FEBRUARY 3,

2000

THE NOMINATION OF W. MICHAEL McCABE TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—FEBRUARY 3, 2000

THE NOMINATION OF ELLA WONG-RUSKINKO TO BE AN ALTERNATE

FEDERAL CO-CHAIR, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION—JUNE 13,

2000

THE NOMINATION OF ARTHUR C. CAMPBELL TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—JUNE 13, 2000

THE NOMINATION OF JAMES V. AIDALA TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—JUNE 13, 2000

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

DAVE CONOVER, Staff Director

TOM SLITER, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

FEBRUARY 3, 2000

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 3

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 2

Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire ..................... 1

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 14

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon .................................. 4

WITNESSES

Biden, Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........................... 4

Bracy, Terrence L., Chairman, Board of Trustees for the Morris K. Udall

Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation ... 16

Eberhard, Eric D., nominated by the President to serve as a Member of

the Board of Trustees for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence

in National Environmental Policy Foundation .................................................. 10

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 54

Letters:

Senator John McCain ................................................................................ 52

Terrence L. Bracy ...................................................................................... 53

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Response to additional question from Senator Graham ................................ 51

McCabe, W. Michael, nominated by the President to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. 9

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 35

Letter, Office of Government Ethics ............................................................... 45

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 26

Senator Graham ........................................................................................ 32

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 31

Senator Smith ............................................................................................ 21

Senator Thomas ......................................................................................... 34

Resume, W. Michael McCabe .......................................................................... 47

JUNE 13, 2000

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 97

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 90

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ................... 71

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........... 69

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada .................................. 80

Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire ..................... 65

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 83, 87

Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ....... 67
Page

IV

WITNESSES

Aidala, James V., nominated by the President to be Assistant Administrator

for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 81

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 135

Letter, Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................... 144

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 124

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Baucus .......................................................................................... 130

Senator Graham ........................................................................................ 127

Senator Hutchison ..................................................................................... 133

Senator Smith ........................................................................................ 126, 146

Campbell, Arthur C., nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary

for Economic Development, Department of Commerce ..................................... 77

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 116

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 114

Frist, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................................. 68

Robb, Hon. Charles, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ............

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas .................................. 70

Thompson, Hon. Bennie G., U.S. Representative from the State of Mississippi 72

Wamp, Hon. Zach, U.S. Representative from the State of Tennessee ................ 72

Wong-Rusinko, Ella, nominated by the President to be Alternate Federal

Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................... 74

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 101

Letters:

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 109

McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of

Kentucky ................................................................................................ 110

Wong-Ruskinko, Ella, to Senator McConnell .......................................... 111

Nash, Bob, Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential

Personnel ................................................................................................ 113

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97
(1)

NOMINATIONS OF ERIC D. EBERHARD AND W.

MICHAEL McCABE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m. in room

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Robert Smith (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Smith, Chafee, Baucus, Lautenberg, Wyden,

Thomas, and Chafee.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator SMITH. The hearing will come to order. Good morning,

ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, Mr. McCabe and Mr.

Eberhard.

The purpose of the hearing this morning is to consider the two

nominations here in question. I apologize for the delay, but we did

have a vote on the Senate Floor on Alan Greenspan.

As the new Chairman of the committee, I plan to hold a series

of oversight hearings on the EPA budget, the prioritization of resources, and overall performance, so I will be looking forward to

working with you gentlemen in that regard. We do have some questions—some for the record, and some may be here in person—and

I hope we will be able to get those answers resolved here this

morning.

From my own point of view, I think both of these gentlemen are

very well qualified for their positions. I haven’t heard of any registered opposition at this point, so I welcome you both today.

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE

Good morning. The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider two nominations.

The first nomination is that of W. Michael McCabe nominated to serve as Deputy

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

As the new chairman of the committee, I plan to hold a series of oversight hearings to examine EPA’s budget, prioritization of resources, and overall performance.

My colleagues and I have a number of questions for Mr. McCabe today on EPArelated concerns that I hope he will be able to answer for us.

The second nomination is that of Eric D. Eberhard nominated to serve as a Member of the Board of Trustees for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in

National Environmental Policy Foundation.
2

I am pleased to report that Mr. McCabe and Mr. Eberhard are well qualified for

their positions.

I welcome them today and I also welcome Senator Biden, who is here today to

introduce Mr. McCabe.

The President has nominated W. Michael McCabe to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Deputy Administrator for EPA

works with the Administrator to provide Agency leadership and is the Acting Administrator in the Administrator’s absence.

Mr. McCabe has served as EPA’s Acting Deputy Administrator since last November.

Formerly, Mr. McCabe was Regional Administrator of the EPA’s Region 3 where

he lead the implementation of Federal environmental programs in the Middle Atlantic states.

He also has worked for Senator Biden of Delaware as Communications and

Projects Director and advisor on Delaware issues, and as Staff Director of the House

Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee.

He received a B.A. from Duke University.

He is accompanied today by his wife, Maria.

The President has nominated Eric D. Eberhard to serve as a Member of the Board

of Trustees for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation.

Currently, Mr. Eberhard is a partner at Dorsey & Whitney where he practices in

the areas of Federal Indian Law, Environment and Natural Resources, Gaming and

legislation.

Formerly, he was Staff Director and Counsel on the Senate Committee on Indian

Affairs and Minority Staff Director and Counsel for the committee.

He served for 2 years as Legislative Counsel for Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Mr. Eberhard received a B.S. in Political Science from Western Reserve University, a J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law, and a LL.M. from

George Washington University National Law Center.

The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy

Foundation was established by Congress in 1992 to educate and prepare a new generation of Americans in effective environmental public policy conflict resolution.

Based in Tucson, Arizona, the Foundation’s activities are supported by the interest

accrued in a Federal trust fund and contributions from the private sector.

Now we will hear the statements of other committee members. Then Senator

Biden will introduce Mr. McCabe and we will hear testimony from our nominees.

Senator SMITH. I understand that Senator Biden is coming, Mr.

McCabe, to introduce you formally, so let me just go a little bit out

of order. Actually, Mr. Biden is coming in right now.

Joe, I have a little bit of a problem here on your side. Frank

needs to leave to go to Budget. Do you want to do your introduction, and then I can call on Frank?

Senator BIDEN. Whatever suits you. I have all the time in the

world.

Senator SMITH. All right. I’ll call on Senator Lautenberg.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator LAUTENBERG. I was going to vote one way, but having

Senator Biden here has caused me to rethink my vote.

[Laughter.]

Senator SMITH. Senator Lautenberg?

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, and thanks, Senator

Biden.

I know that Michael McCabe has had a lot of contact with Joe

Biden, and he comes with exceptional qualifications, as does Mr.

Eberhard. I’m sorry I can’t stay, but the position of the EPA Deputy Administrator is one of the great ‘‘unsung hero’’ jobs, and it’s

the Deputy who brings order to the far-flung Agency of 18,000 employees. It is the Deputy who oversees work on the several major
3

statutes we have passed, and if the Deputy doesn’t do his or her

job properly, EPA can’t help but fall short of our expectations. That’s why I am so pleased and excited about the nomination of Michael McCabe. As Regional Administrator for EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region since 1995, Mr. McCabe has managed a unit that is a

microcosm of the whole Agency. He has managed air, water, waste,

Superfund, right to know programs, and he served as a bridge between the Mid-Atlantic States and the EPA Headquarters. From

all accounts he has done a terrific job. As we know, Mr. McCabe has worked with our colleague and friend from Delaware—it should not be held against him——

[Laughter.]

Senator LAUTENBERG [continuing]. It’s very good experience for

anyone in line for the job of Deputy Administrator. He has proved

that he has broad shoulders, because if he can take working with

Senator Biden like that, he had to have broad shoulders.

So we are pleased at the prospect that Mr. McCabe is going to

be in that position and that he will do an outstanding job in a very

important and demanding post, and I look forward to working with

him on bipartisan legislation.

I know that we will move some things this year, Mr. Chairman,

and also I want to congratulate Mr. Eberhard on bringing the

qualifications that he does to the Morris K. Udall Foundation.

I thank all of my colleagues for letting me interrupt the process,

particularly the Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW

JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, the EPA Deputy Administrator is one of the great unsung heroes.

It is the Deputy who brings order to a far-flung Agency of 10,000 employees. It is

the Deputy who oversees work on the several major statutes we have passed.

If the Deputy is not doing his or her job right, EPA can’t help but fall short of

our expectations.

That is exactly why am so excited about the nomination of Michael McCabe. As

Regional Administrator for EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region since 1995, Mr. McCabe has

managed a unit that is a microcosm of the whole Agency.

He has managed air, water, waste, Superfund, and Right-to-Know programs. He

has served as a bridge between the mid-Atlantic states and EPA headquarters.

From all accounts, he has done a terrific job.

And as we have heard, Mr. McCabe has worked with our friend and colleague

from Delaware—again, very good experience for anyone in line for the job of Deputy

Administrator.

I believe Mr. McCabe will do outstanding work in a very important and demanding job. look forward to working with him on the bipartisan legislation know we will

move this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being so quick to move his nomination through our committee. I hope we can keep that momentum going, and put this

good man to work.

Senator SMITH. All right, thank you, Senator Lautenberg.

Senator Baucus, do you have any opening remarks?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, first to congratulate you on

your first DC hearing with this committee. I know you had a hearing in Florida which I was unable to attend, but this is your first

hearing as Chairman, and I look forward to a good, prosperous

year working with you, and I congratulate you.
4

Senator SMITH. Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Also I congratulate these nominees and thank

them for their dedicated service in the past, and their continued

service in their new positions.

You have a lot of work ahead of you. You are not going to be

thanked very much by people, but—as with all of us—the gratitude

and fulfillment comes from doing the best we can. We think that

we are helping to make life better for a lot of people. I compliment

you on that. This is interesting, that you are here for the Chairman’s first hearing. You will be confirmed, and I hope very quickly.

I hope that is a harbinger of how this committee is going to operate

and how the Senate is going to operate.

Congratulations and good luck, and if you have any questions,

just let us know how we can help you.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator.

Does anyone else have an opening statement prior to turning to

the witnesses? Hold your questions if you have them, but if you

have an opening comment?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief as well. I don’t

want to turn this into a bouquet-tossing contest, but I, too, want

to join in extending good will, and thank you for the opportunity

to work with you. We’ve worked on a whole host of issues—Federal

facilities, the streamlining of the ISTEA permitting process where

you win in terms of both the environment and in terms of the economy.

Mike McCabe is a terrific guy. I have some questions that are

important for my State in a minute or two, but we had a chance

to work closely with him in the House when he was at the Energy

and Commerce Committee. So I think he’s going to be a tremendous asset to the Federal Government and will continue the kind

of bipartisan approach that we’ve tried to follow, first with Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus, which you’ve told me you want

to continue. So it’s going to be an exciting time, and I look forward

to working with you.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.

Why don’t we start with you, Senator Biden, to introduce Mr.

McCabe.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH BIDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My congratulations to

you as well. You and I are always characterized as being on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. I don’t want to ruin your reputation, but we’ve been friends and I have great respect for you.

I appreciate your having this hearing in as timely fashion as you

have.

Let me say that although I am here to speak for Mike McCabe,

Mr. Eberhard, from what I know of his record, is completely suited

for the job. It makes me feel very old, though, to realize that I

served with Morris K. Udall, and now you are about to become a
5

Board Member of a foundation named after him and all that he has

done.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for allowing me the opportunity to be here today to introduce Mike McCabe

as we move forward with his nomination to become Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I have known

Mike for almost 30 years, starting in 1972 when he volunteered to

work with me as a 29-year-old kid—I was 29, and he was younger

than that—in a campaign for the Senate. His work during that

campaign distinguished him immediately. After my election, while

still a student at Duke University, I asked Mike to join me as one

of my first interns—that’s dating you, Mike, but I think you may

have been the first, if not one of the first.

Not surprisingly, Mike’s first project as a young intern in my office was to research the environmental impacts of the construction

of a proposed project along the Delaware River. That’s in the beginning when we had a Republican Governor who did a very fine

thing, in my view, who set up a thing called the Coastal Zone Act.

It was very controversial, but now it is totally embraced by everyone, including business, in my State.

From the start, Mike’s interest and dedication in the preservation and restoration and improvement of our environment was

clear, compelling, and deeply rooted—deeply rooted traits that

would come to define his entire career. In 1976, while working as

a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate, Mike was instrumental in expanding the Bipartisan Congressional—and I emphasize ‘‘Bipartisan’’—the Bipartisan Congressional Environmental and Energy

Study Conference, designed to provide timely information to Congress on environmental and energy legislation and issues at a time

when I was originally on this committee, Mr. Chairman, as the

Public Works Committee. I remember one of the first things that

I said to then-Chairman Randolph was, ‘‘Maybe we should call it

the Public Works and Environment Committee.’’ And he said, ‘‘Son,

how long do you want to stay on this committee?’’

[Laughter.]

Senator BIDEN. That’s a true story.

But at any rate, under Senator Chafee’s direction, Mike served

as Staff Director for the Conference for 3 years. He acted as the

National Director for the 10th anniversary of Earth Day in 1980;

served as Director on the U.S. House of Representatives Energy

Conservation and Power Subcommittee, and under his leadership,

the first national program to deal with the safe disposal of nuclear

waste was enacted by Congress.

In 1987, Mike returned to Delaware to become my Communications Director, and later my Projects Director. And whether he was

advising me on issues of national significance or working to help

revitalize, in a parochial sense for us, the Christina River waterfront in Wilmington, Delaware, or assisting me in an effort to return over 1,000 acres of land to the State of Delaware from the

Federal Government that now is preserved in perpetuity—and

hopefully all of you can take advantage of it—and that is Cape

Henlopen State Park, Mike’s counsel and contribution to my office

and to me personally was invaluable. Few people understand so

many issues so well, articulate them coherently to a wide array of
6

audiences, and have developed solutions with significant results,

and do it in a way that everyone feels like they’re a part of it.

By 1995, Mike’s knowledge of the issues, his strength in managing staff, and his savvy in dealing with government on a local,

State, and Federal level impressed so many of us in and outside

of the State of Delaware that it would prepare him well for his

next—and most recent—position as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for Region III.

As you know, Region III covers Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Mike

has the distinction of working as the Region’s longest-serving Administrator. Bias aside—which is hard to do, I acknowledge—Mike

is the best Administrator ever to serve the Environmental Protection Agency, directing a staff of 1,000 people and turning it into a

more well-rounded, efficient, and well-respected organization. As

we all know, and you all know better than any of us who do not

serve on this committee, there is—Mike did something fairly remarkable, I think, at least in my region. Mike gained the confidence of business. Mike gained the confidence of the corporate

community who, generally speaking, in my area view the EPA as

‘‘whatever it is, it’s going to cost me money; it’s going to be a problem.’’ It has been remarkable, and I might add in part because—

and Mike will not like my saying this—Mike’s nonprofessional

background is that he has a working social and first-hand relationship with the CEOs of many of the Fortune 30 companies that are

in my region. It is not merely that they know Mike; Mike used

every one of his assets, including his ability to socially interact

with those people, as well, and by talking to people, by talking to

these folks whose immediate reaction was, ‘‘whatever the hell he’s

going to do about the water or the air or the environment’’—you’re

going to laugh; you all kid us about this in Delaware—‘‘chicken manure,’’ that is hundreds of thousands of tons of it that is having an

impact on the other major industry in our State, recreation, Mike

is able to sit down with these folks as an equal, not merely as the

guy who ran the Agency.

It has been remarkable in my State. During his tenure, Mike

was successful in restoring the District of Columbia’s drinking

water supply; streamlining permitting and pollution control measures; to achieve outstanding environmental performance in the

printing industry; and directing EPA’s approach to managing poultry waste in Delaware and other States.

I just point this out to you again, just to tell you how this guy

comes at this job, and I predict—I say to my friend from Wyoming—he is result-oriented. Instead of going down and insisting

that the industry, the multi-billion dollar industry in my home

State—I must tell you, I was holding my breath, because everybody

knows that ‘‘Mike was my guy, I recommended him,’’ right? Well,

the industry in my State is a little bit like the mining industry in

your State or the cattle industry in your State or the recreation industry in your State or the high-tech industry in your State, and

so on. It is the deal. And here we have this gigantic problem that

Maryland is in an uproar over. The legislature is absolutely having

great difficulty. And Mike, calmly, over a 4-month period, gained
7

the confidence of the producers; got them to enter into voluntary

restraints on how they dealt with this problem; and set it in place.

That’s my idea, Mr. Chairman, of what a maturing of the EPA

should be. It shouldn’t be, ‘‘We’re the Government, we’re the authority, this is the deal, this is what you do,’’ because it won’t get

done. It won’t get done.

It is a unique talent—I shouldn’t say ‘‘unique’’—it is a talent that

is not always found among very bright, committed people who want

to protect the environment. He has the ability to cross over and get

people who are reluctant to take on the responsibility that they are

required to take on under the law, and understand their own interest in it happening.

I don’t want to make it more than it is, but it was near miraculous in my State, politically, the way in which he got it done. And

it’s a big deal, in my view. His efforts on this last round led to a

workable, common-sense solution based on individual States’ needs

and resources, not ‘‘one size fits all’’ solutions that we see so often

in Government or major bureaucracies and corporations.

In addition to his achievements on the environmental front, Mike

is a very strong supporter of the community and serves on the

Board of Directors of the Delaware Arts Council and Delaware’s

Futures, an organization that provides at-risk youth with scholarships for colleges in our area.

Mike is the father of two young girls, Morgan and Alex, and is

joined here today by his wife Maria, and I feel privileged to call

them both my friends and I am very proud Mike, and the State of

Delaware is proud of Mike.

As Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, I know Mike will continue to serve to the best of his ability and

provide our Nation with the considerable leadership and expertise

and talent that he has.

I will close, if I may—and I apologize for trespassing on the time

of the committee—I told you a story yesterday, Mr. Chairman, on

the Floor of the Senate. Mike was Communications Director at a

time was a pretty low ebb in my career at home, when I had been

accused of—my wife says I should never use the word again—accused of plagiarizing in a Presidential campaign. It bothered me

more than anything that ever happened to me in my life, so I did

something strange, and against the recommendation of everyone. I

sued myself in the Delaware Supreme Court, our court of highest

jurisdiction, because there was a question on the bar application,

number 42, that you swear to under the penalty of perjury. And it

said, ‘‘Is there anything else in your background that would negatively reflect on your background?’’ And I wrote, ‘‘No.’’ Now, obviously, if I had been accused of plagiarizing in law school, if I had

plagiarized, I had committed perjury and not only should be disbarred, but a criminal penalty should pertain. And I initiated a

suit with bar counsel, as we are able to do in most State bars, to

have this proceeding, a formal complaint against myself.

After 8 or 9 months, when they went back and interviewed every

single, solitary professor that I ever had—only one had passed

away—they, on four levels, concluded unanimously, including the

Court itself, that I never did plagiarize in law school, and no one

ever said I did in law school.
8

Now, I was sitting down here one day when this happened, and

as I said, it was the most important thing in my life at the time.

And a headline in the morning paper, our statewide paper, said,

‘‘Supreme Court Clears Biden of Plagiarism.’’ I was so excited, it

was like someone gave me a billion dollars. So I called up to Wilmington and I got one of Mike’s assistants, a young woman, and

I said, ‘‘Send that reporter,’’ whom I never had dealt with, really,

in this thing, a woman named Robin Burns, ‘‘send her two dozen

long-stemmed roses.’’ So this kid, taking me literally, goes and gets

two dozen long-stemmed roses, at 2:30 in the afternoon, walks into

the newsroom, and hands them to her, from me, in front of everyone, obviously ruining her credibility and mine.

So I called Mike, and I said, ‘‘Mike, how could this happen?’’ I

was crazy. I said, ‘‘I assumed’’—and this is what talent he has, he

said, ‘‘Joe, we have an expression in my family’’—I’ll not tell you

literally what it was—he said, ‘‘In my family we have an expression: Assumption is the mother of all screwups.’’

The point I want to make is this. This thing that he has that we

need in Government, Mr. Chairman, is that he has the ability and

understanding that we should not assume anything about our constituencies, and we should explain to them. This is not a matter

of the guy in my church, after church he directs traffic and all of

a sudden—he preaches all the Christian virtues when he’s in

church, and out there becomes a little dictator, directing traffic.

This is a guy who understands his role. His role is that he works

for the various people he is regulating. He doesn’t back off on what

should be done, but he makes the first effort to try very hard for

them to understand why they have to act; and if they don’t, he is

prepared to act.

I think that, in my observation, Mr. Chairman, including an

Agency that I love—and I’m a strong supporter of the EPA—that

is not always the case.

So I hope that if you confirm him, and I hope that you will, you

will be proud of the fact, based on his record, that he will serve us

well, serve the law well, but make us proud of the way in which

he goes about doing it.

I thank you all for your indulgence, and I hope my support of

him will not in any way diminish his prospects.

Thank you very much.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Biden.

Does any member have a question of Senator Biden before he

leaves?

[No response.]

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Biden.

Mr. McCabe, why don’t we start with you, if you wish to make

any opening comments? Your written statement will be made part

of the record, as will yours, Mr. Eberhard, but I would like, if either one of you has an opening statement, why don’t we do them

both right now?

We will start with you, Mr. McCabe.
9

STATEMENT OF W. MICHAEL McCABE, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO SERVE AS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. MCCABE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Senator Biden, for that extraordinary introduction. I feel that any

statement that I may make will pale in comparison to what the

Senator said.

I just would like to make a personal comment on that. In Washington, the Senator is known for his expertise on foreign policy and

authorizing the crime bill and the Violence Against Women Act. He

is known for those things, too, in Delaware, but he is also known

for protecting Cape Henlopen State Seashore, and protecting the

White Clay Preserve. I think that when we look at his legacy as

a member of this important body, people will look to those issues,

as well as some of the outstanding contributions that he has made

to the State of Delaware. I am honored that he would introduce me

today.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, it is an honor to have been

nominated by the President to serve as Deputy Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency and to appear before this

committee today. I greatly appreciate the confidence shown in me

by the President and Administrator Browner. And, Mr. Chairman,

I would like to thank you for scheduling this hearing so soon after

my nomination.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to introduce my wife, Maria,

who is here with me today. I think that, as many of you know, the

public often underestimates the sacrifices that spouses make on

our behalf to fill these important positions. I know that I couldn’t

be doing this without the support of my wife, particularly given

that I’m going to be living down in Washington and she’s still going

to be up on the Pennsylvania-Delaware border. So I am pleased

that she can be with me today.

Protecting the Nation’s public health and natural resources is

one of the most important legacies that we can leave for our children. As a father of two daughters, ages three and seven, who both

have a better chance of living to be 100 than at any time in human

history, I am acutely aware of the responsibility we have to leave

them an environment better than the one we inherited. Protecting

the air they breathe, ensuring that their drinking water is safe and

clean and that they can swim and fish in our lakes and streams,

managing the pesticide residues on the foods they eat, and storing

and disposing of solid wastes in ways that prevent harm to their

health is critical not only to my daughters’ futures, but to all of us.

Protecting all of us is the Agency’s mission.

In the year ahead I hope to put my skills and experience to work

pursuing the Agency’s mission. Helping to lead this Agency is a

daunting responsibility, but I think it provides me with a real good

opportunity to use my regional experience to help shape policy and

to help forge coalitions and collaborate with groups outside of the

Agency.

I will work hard to keep that regional perspective. As I mentioned, I am still living on the Pennsylvania-Delaware border, and

I will be returning home on weekends. I am sure that you under-
10

stand better than most the importance of staying grounded in our

own State and of maintaining that common-sense perspective.

I am sure that I’ll be getting into details about the accomplishments that I hope to have over the coming year. I think that my

background and experience in the environmental area and in management suit me well for this position. I would like particularly to

note, as Senator Biden mentioned, something that I am very proud

of, and that is the work that I did very early in my career. My first

management experience 24 years ago was to be Staff Director of

the Environmental and Energy Study Conference, and it happened

at a time in the 1970’s when many of the Nation’s laws were being

developed. It was a time of extraordinary bipartisan cooperation

and collaboration in building the foundation of the environmental

laws which have served us so well over the last 30 years.

The Environmental and Energy Study Conference was unique in

Congress. It was an ad hoc Congressional caucus. It had rotating

Chairs between Republicans and Democrats, and the Senate expansion included Senator Gary Hart, who was my former boss, and

Senator Chafee. As it turned out, after the third year of the Senate

expansion, Senator Chafee took over as the Senate Chair, and I

was able to serve under him as Staff Director. It is an experience

that I valued, and I mourn the loss of such a great advocate of environmental protection and the bipartisan cooperation and spirit

which built our environmental laws.

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest

of the committee in that spirit, and I hope that together we can

help better protect public health and the environment.

Thank you very much.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. McCabe.

Mr. Eberhard, why don’t you make your comments, and then

we’ll go to questions?

STATEMENT OF ERIC D. EBERHARD, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF

TRUSTEES FOR THE MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND

EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

Mr. EBERHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. It is a privilege and an honor to be here today and have

potentially an opportunity to assist the Udall Foundation, should

the committee and the Senate confirm my nomination to the Board

of Trustees.

In the very short life of the Udall Foundation, it has already

built a record of solid accomplishment in its primary missions of

providing scholarships and internships to Indians and Native

American students, and in conducting research and in assisting in

the development and implementation of Federal environmental policy. I think one measure of its success is the recent mandate from

the Congress to expand its functions to include the establishment

of a U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, a true

vote of confidence in the work that the Board of Trustees is carrying out.

With the leadership of the Board of Trustees and its able Chairman, who is here with us this morning, Mr. Bracy, the Foundation
11

is financially and programmatically sound and poised for even

greater success in the years ahead, and I hope to be able to contribute in some way to that success as the Foundation moves into the

new millennium.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank

you.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much.

There are a couple of perfunctory questions that we are required

to ask, under committee rules, of each witness, so let me just ask

you both these questions. Just answer yes or no.

Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted committee

of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness?

Mr. MCCABE. Yes.

Mr. EBERHARD. Yes.

Senator SMITH. And second, do you know of any matters which

you may or may not have thus far disclosed which might place you

in conflict of interest if you are to be confirmed in this position?

Mr. MCCABE. No.

Mr. EBERHARD. No.

Senator SMITH. All right, thank you.

Mr. McCabe, in our conversation yesterday I had indicated that

I intended to move forward on an effort which is called, basically,

the EPA authorization, which would give us a chance to look at

more of a wide range of issues and priorities at one time, rather

than the ‘‘rifle bore’’ of each piece of legislation, to take a big picture look. My idea is to look across programs, to help you set priorities, to help the Congress do more oversight—the Senate, in this

case, do more oversight, and essentially to make sure that taxpayers are getting the most cleanup and risk reduction out of their

dollars. We do it in the Armed Services Committee and we do it

in the other committees.

I would like just a brief reaction from you on that approach.

Mr. MCCABE. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this year EPA celebrates its 30th anniversary in December, and a lot has happened

since EPA was first established 30 years ago. A number of the laws

that we operate under, obviously, were passed in that first decade.

We think that taking a look at where we are now, how we function

under all the different laws, and how we really have grown into

much more of a multimedia Agency is something that would be

very beneficial, and I think that looking at the Agency from that

overall authorization perspective would be something that we

would be willing to work with you on.

Senator SMITH. I appreciate that response, and we look forward

to working with you in this effort. I just want to make sure that

the word is out among the EPA Assistant Administrators and the

rest of the organization that that is the goal here, to try to have

this committee look at cross-program decisions rather than into—

not one tunnel, but to look at cross-program decisions to help all

of us in the oversight and you in the implementation of the programs to try to see where we can do a better job, perhaps save

some in one area and put it in another area, or whatever.

One issue that just comes to mind off the top of my head is that

EPA over the past several years has continually decreased the

number of Superfund sites in America; more and more are coming
12

off the list, yet the program expenditures are actually pretty

steady, and in some cases—in 1 or 2 years—may even have gone

up in expenditure. That’s just the kind of thing that we would like

to look at in terms of explanation. That’s just one example.

Let me turn to Senator Wyden for any questions.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I say, we know Mike McCabe well, and I think he’s going to

be a great addition at EPA.

Mr. McCabe, I need to go over with you a couple of issues that

have been of longstanding concern in my home State. The first is

Portland Harbor. As you know, we are trying now, through a very

creative kind of partnership between the Oregon State government

and a variety of business and community interests at home, to

clean up the harbor, looking at a homegrown, locally driven approach rather than simply designating it as a Superfund site and

having all of the hubbub that is associated with that. We are very

proud of what we have tried to do with these kinds of approaches

in the past that the Administration knows a lot about—the Coho

salmon, and, of course, we think the Oregon environmental record

leads the country in terms of saving beaches, land use, and the

like.

My first question to you is, can you support the concept of a

State leading major environmental projects like the Portland Harbor cleanup, assuming that there are these strong assurances in

place so that there is an adherence to Federal standards?

Mr. MCCABE. Well, Senator Wyden, I appreciate your interest in

this matter, and your involvement in it as well. I think that EPA

should work closely with local communities and State government

when addressing the cleanup of sites like this. We are working

with the State of Oregon in an attempt to reach an agreement for

Portland Harbor. I think, as you mentioned, it needs to be done

within our objectives and guidelines, but it is something that we

are pursuing and hope that we can achieve.

Senator WYDEN. So in a case like this, EPA is open to some flexibility in allowing a local plan to proceed as long as it does adhere

carefully to the kind of guidelines that are appropriate?

Mr. MCCABE. For Portland Harbor and other sites like this, we

will be as flexible as we possibly can within our established guidelines, and we look forward to working toward a local solution.

When you have that local involvement, it makes these projects go

forward better, with stronger support, and generally you can get

them done faster. So we encourage that kind of participation and

activity.

Senator WYDEN. Well, I appreciate that.

The other area that I wanted to ask about, as we talked about

in the office, is Jackson and Klamath Counties in my State. In

1990 they were classified as ‘‘not meeting’’ the requirements with

respect to Federal air quality, and they went out and did the heavy

lifting, the hard work necessary to get in compliance, and they now

have monitoring data to show that they have been meeting EPA

standards for the past 5 years. They haven’t, however, been formally redesignated by EPA because it is a costly and time-consuming exercise to be involved in preparing this application. EPA’s con-
13

tinued classification of these areas as nonattainment is now creating some very serious obstacles to economic development.

Our understanding is that you all are working on what’s called

a ‘‘limited maintenance guideline’’ that would make it easier to redesignate like Klamath and Jackson Counties that have the data

to show that they are in fact meeting Federal standards.

My question to you is, when can we anticipate EPA issuing this

guidance so that areas like mine—and I assume there will be others in the country, as well—can get formally redesignated without

going through what seems like, to a lot of them, a lot of costly red

tape and bureaucracy?

Mr. MCCABE. Well, we hope to have this guidance final in the

next month. The guidance is designed to apply to moderate PM10

areas that have few PM sources involved, and where the PM10

problem is very well understood.

The delay in issuing this guidance has been because we wanted

to make sure that we didn’t create any additional loopholes for

those parts of the country where you didn’t have that situation,

where there were few sources and where the area understood the

problem.

Senator WYDEN. Well, we certainly are not interested in setting

up loopholes; that’s important. And at the same time, I think you

know that we are just concerned that good actors out there, when

they are told they are not in compliance and are willing then to go

out and do the—I call it ‘‘heavy lifting,’’ the hard work to make

sure that they are making significant improvements—they ought to

quickly be eligible for redesignation and not have to go through all

of what they see as just costly and unnecessary bureaucratic rigmarole. We want their hard work recognized by EPA, and it sounds

like we can anticipate shortly a policy that will do that and that

is helpful.

My only other question, Mr. Chairman, is that there are many

of us on this committee—Senator Baucus, in particular, has done

some very good work on this—we have a lot of concerns about the

impact that various environmental regulations have on farmers.

This is important, given the fact that we have a lot of difficult

problems in the farm economy right now in my State and throughout the country. Region III has many agricultural areas, of course,

Virginia and Pennsylvania and Maryland.

What has been your experience in terms of working with folks

in the agricultural sector, food producers and those communities?

Mr. MCCABE. Well, one of my biggest projects when I was Regional Administrator was working with the poultry industry to try

to deal with the issue of runoff of poultry waste, agricultural waste,

which was impairing our waterways. And as Senator Biden kindly

mentioned, it was an initiative that not only I took on a regional

basis, but I also worked with poultry producers, poultry growers,

and the industry in general to have a ‘‘national poultry dialog,’’ as

it was called, where we invited the poultry industry to address the

problem and come up with solutions on their own. I think that it

was a successful dialog. The industry has set out standards for itself, and they are now following those standards. They work well

with our regulatory approach to controlling poultry waste.
14

Senator WYDEN. Well, we look forward to working with you. As

I say, remembering our days at the Energy and Commerce Committee where we had a lot of these debates, which weren’t exactly

for the fainthearted, under Chairman Dingell’s leadership, I know

that you are going to work in a bipartisan way and an effective

way. I look forward to your service there.

I don’t have any questions for your associate there in the Udall

Foundation. It’s a fine program, and he will be a real valuable addition, as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Wyden.

Senator Thomas?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen. I am glad you are here.

I am not familiar, Mr. McCabe, with you and your activities, as

everyone else seems to be, but at any rate I am very much interested, of course.

Also, I would have to observe that if you came from Mars and

listened to this, you would think that the EPA and everybody was

just right in step, and of course that’s not the case. There are substantial conflicts out there in terms of what the States are doing,

and the conflicts that arise there, and I suppose we will always

have them. But it isn’t as if there are no controversies, because

there are.

For example, what is your view on the statutory authority for

EPA and the nonpoint source and the TMDL situation?

Mr. MCCABE. We believe that the Agency does have the statutory

authority to include nonpoint sources in consideration of improving

water quality. We think that the Clean Water Act provides us with

that authority, and we have a number of programs that do address

nonpoint pollution sources.

Senator THOMAS. We have asked for several designations from

your Agency to say where that is and point it out, other than just

that it isn’t mentioned.

Mr. MCCABE. I would be glad to provide you with information on

that, Senator.

Senator THOMAS. I wish you would. Do you have any concern

about USDA’s conflicts with the TMDL activities that you have?

Mr. MCCABE. I think that we’re working closely with USDA to

address the TMDL issue. In fact, just within the last 24 hours I

had a conversation with Deputy Secretary Rominger on this subject. I know that Administrator Browner—and I believe Mr.

Rominger, or perhaps Secretary Glickman—will be appearing before a committee to discuss that issue, I think it’s the Agriculture

Committee, later in February.

But importantly, I asked Mr. Rominger whether the letter that

had been sent out recently explaining USDA’s position from Secretary Lyons was a true reflection of USDA’s position, and he said

that in fact that letter was not a true reflection and that would be

clarified at the upcoming hearing.
15

Senator THOMAS. Secretary Lyons said that it was not? It was

his letter, I believe.

Mr. MCCABE. I believe that it was his letter, but it was signed

for him, and the individual did not check up the chain.

Senator THOMAS. Well, that will be interesting. You know, the

last time I was here, when Ms. Browner was here, for example, the

Court had ruled that you exceeded your statutory authority in

some areas, and I think that’s a very real concern to others. For

instance—well, I don’t know about that part of it, but ‘‘TMDL Proposal: Ambient Water Standards Must Meet Drinking Water

Standards.’’ Is that a reasonable suggestion?

Mr. MCCABE. I’m sorry, could you repeat the question?

Senator THOMAS. Under the TMDL proposal, ambient water

needs to meet drinking water standards.

Mr. MCCABE. I’m not familiar with that part of the proposed

rule. If that is a question that you have, Senator, I will respond

for the record.

Senator THOMAS. I wish you would, because that’s pretty difficult

to deal with ambient water when you’re comparing it to water

that’s been through treatment.

Well, I won’t take more time, but I have to tell you that the

Clean Water Action Plan, for example, is quite controversial; as a

matter of fact, it’s in the Court at the moment. In terms of that,

I think you spoke glowingly about your relationships with the

States. That isn’t always the case in terms of who has, you know,

other responsibility of doing this.

So I just would say to you that everyone agrees with the idea

that we need to move forward; that’s not really the issue. The issue

is how we do this in relation to communities, in relation to States,

including having people have input into what’s happening there.

And I’m sorry, but from my point of view and my State, I can’t accept the idea that this is just a big love-in, because it isn’t. And

I think we have to find some ways to be able to recognize differences in regions, differences in the kinds of things we’re dealing

with, and hopefully to allow for a little more involvement on the

part of States and communities.

One of them, of course, is the confined animal feeding thing,

which could be interpreted to be a corral with a couple horses in

it. That needs to be made more clear and needs to be made more

realistic, it seems to me.

So if your experience is in Delaware, I hope you’ll come out west

and share a little bit of the differences that exist there, as well. So

thank you for being here. We want to work with you, but I just

don’t want you to go away—I’m sure you don’t—thinking that everything is just a big happy family situation, because it isn’t, and

there is a considerable amount of conflict there.

Mr. Eberhard, I’m interested in what you’re doing. We have a

foundation in Wyoming that deals with conflict resolution and some

of those things.

I didn’t understand that this was substantially toward tribal

scholarships.

Mr. EBERHARD. The Foundation charter, which is embodied in

Federal law, specifically sets out as one of the Foundation’s respon-
16

sibilities, providing scholarships and internships to Native American and Indian college students and graduate students.

Senator THOMAS. I see.

Mr. EBERHARD. I believe last year the Foundation had about 200

scholarships and several hundred internships over the past several

years here in the Congress and in the executive branch.

Senator THOMAS. Good. Where are the scholarships?

Mr. EBERHARD. I would have to defer to Mr. Bracy on that as the

Chairman——

Senator THOMAS. I would hope they’re not all at the University

of Arizona.

[Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF TERRENCE L. BRACY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF

TRUSTEES, MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRACY WILLIAMS &

COMPANY

Mr. BRACY. Senator, I’m Terry Bracy, and I have the privilege of

chairing the Foundation Board.

Our scholarship program is a national program. I believe that

last year 46 States sent scholars to perhaps as many as 38 institutions.

Senator THOMAS. I see.

This conflict resolution is a challenging issue.

Mr. BRACY. Yes, it is, and it’s interesting—this committee, of

course, gave birth to the legislation, and we’re in our first year. I

am aware of an excellent program at the University of Wyoming.

We are dealing with all the various programs around the country,

trying to bring in the best minds, and are trying to deal regionally

with the conflicts, not simply where our headquarters is. But we

are involved now, I believe, in 35 or 36 conflicts in different regions

around the country.

Senator THOMAS. I’m not sure we’ve limited ours to the best

minds. I’m on the Board, as well.

[Laughter.]

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Thomas.

Mr. Eberhard, it seems to me—one more time, your name, sir?

Mr. BRACY. Terry Bracy.

Senator SMITH. Bracy?

Mr. BRACY. Yes, sir.

Senator SMITH. In terms of conflict resolution, it seems like one

of the tools to resolve some of these conflicts might be the area of

risk assessment, and even priorities, in terms of what we do. Can

you just shed a little light on that in terms of what your thoughts

are, in the Foundation?

Mr. EBERHARD. I can’t speak for the Foundation from my personal experience because I haven’t served on the Board yet. But

from my personal experience, I would agree that risk assessment

is a key part of trying to figure out what the parties bring to the

table, what the issues are that need to be resolved, and what the

range of possible solutions would be.
17

In my work over the past 30 years I’ve had a fair amount of experience in just those kinds of negotiations and discussions. I think

people of good will can resolve almost any dispute, if that is what

they are interested in doing, and part of that process has to involve

understanding the universe of the issue that is under discussion so

that everybody comes to the table with the same understanding

about what it is that is in dispute.

Risk assessment and risk allocation are key parts of that process.

Senator SMITH. A lot of times the conflict is between Federal

agencies. For example—and I want to ask you a question about

that in a moment, Mr. McCabe—at Yucca Mountain, where you

have the NRC and the EPA both in dispute over who should rule

on the regulations for storage of nuclear waste. I think when it gets

frustrating is when certain entities, such as a State or somebody

in the private sector or the Army Corps—there are so many agencies out there that are in conflict—it gets frustrating when you’re

building a road and you get four or five different Federal agencies

and nobody can make a decision as to who rules here and who the

top Agency is. I’m sure you’ve seen that.

Well, I don’t know too much about the Foundation, but I did

know the gentleman that it was named after very well. I served

with him in the House, and he was loved and respected by everybody that I knew. A book that he wrote, ‘‘Too Funny to be President,’’ is a laugh-out-loud funny book, and I would recommend it

to anyone, whether you want to run for President or not. It was

of particular interest to me since I did, and I had the same fate

that he did.

[Laughter.]

Senator SMITH. But it is a great book.

Let me just ask two final questions of you, Mr. McCabe, and then

we’ll be finished.

I want to come to that issue that I just mentioned, the conflict

between the NRC and the EPA. Would it make more sense for each

of you, the two respective agencies here, to work with each other

rather than against each other to develop some kind of joint regulation for Yucca Mountain?

Mr. MCCABE. Mr. Chairman, I think that working with the NRC

and other Federal agencies, working cooperatively with other agencies, is very important from a standpoint of not only being as efficient as possible, but effectively using the skills and experiences of

each of the agencies.

With Yucca Mountain, EPA is required to establish protections

for groundwater from possible contamination by radioactive material, and our position has been that the protections to groundwater

should be the same as we protect any groundwater system from

any hazardous waste, not more, not less. And in fact what we have

proposed is exactly that, to protect groundwater in the same way

that we would protect it if there were a nearby Superfund site.

Senator SMITH. Well, who should be responsible for issuing the

environmental health and safety standards for the nuclear waste

repository at Yucca Mountain? Should it be EPA?

Mr. MCCABE. We believe that EPA should be, because it is our

responsibility to protect public health, and we have expertise and

experience in this area.
18

Senator SMITH. Is it your position that the NRC should not have

a co-equal role, but that you should have the lead role? Is that your

position?

Mr. MCCABE. Our position is that we should have the lead role

on establishing these standards.

Senator SMITH. There is a substantial amount of expertise, however, with the NRC on the storage and disposal of radioactive

waste.

Mr. MCCABE. And I am aware of that from my past experience

with the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator SMITH. As I understand it, the NRC at this point in time

still sets standards for facilities that accept low-level radioactive

waste, is that correct?

Mr. MCCABE. I’m not sure about low-level waste, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SMITH. Well, some of the rules, regulations, and standards developed by the NRC over the years are standards for protection against radiation; occupational dose limits for adults; dose limits for individual members of the public, and so forth. So there are

a lot of regulations and requirements that are set there, and I

think that it would expedite things and perhaps be more productive

if there were some way that that could be worked out on a co-equal

basis, at last trying to partake of each other’s expertise rather than

feuding about it. And I would just ask you to take a look at that.

Mr. MCCABE. Mr. Chairman, we will, and I’m sure we will be

communicating with the committee on this issue.

Senator SMITH. One other issue that was kind of alluded to in

Senator Thomas’ question, in that there is frequently conflict that

does occur between the Federal Government and the States. In the

1998 Integrity Act report, EPA identified the NPDES permit backlog as a major weakness, and the records from EPA basically show

that they had not reissued 38 percent of the permits for major facilities, and 76 percent of the permits for minor facilities. And then

the comparable State backlog was 26 percent for major and 40 percent for minor.

I understand that EPA’s goal is to eliminate the backlog by about

2004. That’s 6 years after the problem was identified. And then,

using Texas as an example, I am told that Texas was able to eliminate the backlog completely within a year or a little over, receiving

authority from EPA to run the permit program.

Can we learn some lessons here from the Texas example, that

maybe the State can do it fine, thank you, if you give them the authority to do it, to get rid of the backlog?

Mr. MCCABE. Well, we are committed to removing the backlog,

and I think that we’re well on our way to doing that.

As far as your broader question is concerned, I think that we can

learn from the States. We have learned from the States, and I

know that, based on my experience as a Regional Administrator,

it’s an important partnership. We couldn’t effectively clean up the

environment without the participation of the States, without their

capacity, without their expertise. I hope that as Deputy Administrator I will be able to build on those relationships and strengthen

the EPA-State dialog and cooperation.

Senator SMITH. Finally, we talked yesterday about the Corrective

Action Management Unit lawsuit. We’ve been working together for
19

the past couple of years with EPA for legislation on this. I think

we can address this in a bipartisan way and a cooperative way. I

hope we can work together to finish this process; we’ve developed

a bill here that I believe is consistent with that settlement and

we’d like to complete it soon, so I would just urge you to support

us in the process here of trying to get this legislation moving and

to get this out of the way.

Mr. MCCABE. Well, the CAMU issue is one that is very important to the EPA from the standpoint of efficiently and quickly cleaning

up the RCRA corrective sites. We are right now at a very sensitive

point in the settlement of that litigation, and as soon as that settlement is reached I am sure we will be talking to the committee, Mr.

Chairman.

Senator SMITH. All right. We’ve had some problems in the past

in getting information on this issue in a timely manner. I did send

a letter to the Administrator in December, so if you can help us in

this regard when you get on the job, we would appreciate it.

Mr. MCCABE. I will look into that.

Senator SMITH. Well, I don’t have any more questions and I don’t

see anybody else here to ask any, but I will leave the record open.

The questions that were submitted to you for the record, or that

you indicated you would respond to for the record, should be answered by the 9th. It is my intention, unless something happens

that I don’t know about, to bring your nominations to the committee on the 9th. That’s the intention right now; things could change,

but that’s the intention. So try to get those responses in by the 9th,

and I will leave the record open until the close of business Friday

for any Senators who may wish to submit questions to you, but the

same response for either one of you would be to answer them by

the 9th.

Well, thank you very much, gentlemen, and good luck. We look

forward to working with you.

The hearing is closed.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MCCABE, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to

have been nominated by the President to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and to appear before the Senate Environment

and Public Works Committee today. I greatly appreciate the confidence shown in me

by the President and Administrator Carol Browner to fill this position.

Protecting the nation’s public health and natural resources is one of the most important legacies that we can leave for our children. As a father of two daughters,

aged three and seven, who both have a better chance of living to be 100 than at

any time in human history—living to the end of this century—I am acutely aware

of the responsibility we have to leave them an environment better than the one we

inherited. Protecting the air they breathe, ensuring that their drinking water is safe

and clean and that they can swim and fish in our lakes and streams, managing the

pesticide residues on the foods they eat, and storing and disposing of solid wastes

in ways that prevent harm to their health is critical not only to my daughters’ futures, but to all of us. Protecting all of us is the Agency’s mission.

Helping lead this Agency is a daunting responsibility, but it also provides me with

an opportunity to use my regional experience to help shape national policy. I will

work hard to keep that regional perspective. I am still living on the Pennsylvania/

Delaware border and return home on weekends. I am sure the committee under-
20

stands better than most the value of keeping active links beyond the beltway in

order to stay grounded and maintain common sense. I have agreed to undertake this job in the eighth year of this Administration be- cause I am committed to seeing the environmental programs and initiatives

launched by the President and Administrator Browner brought to fruition. It is an

important year also because it marks the 30th anniversary of Earth Day and the

30th anniversary of the EPA when we should look back on our accomplishments in

the area of environmental protection and chart the course for the future.

I plan to focus on a number of areas throughout the year. First and foremost will be the day-to-day administration of the Agency itself. This includes meeting our

budget obligations under GPRA and managing the work force targets set by Congress. Another area will be implementing the Administrator’s consolidation and redirection of Agency information programs under the new Environmental Information Office. This will include working with States to establish common information

and data systems that promote better communication about environmental results

and reduce reporting paperwork. The Food Quality Protection Act, one of the most significant new environmental laws passed by Congress in recent years, also will be an area of focus. The extensive

reassessment required by the law of the pesticides used in agricultural production

and pest management requires tremendous resources and extensive scientific review.

I also plan to continue my involvement in assuring environmentally protective permitting of surface mines in Appalachia. This issue is one which could have important consequences for water quality in conjunction with mining practices nationwide.

For most of the past 25 years, I have devoted my career to public service in the field of environmental protection and natural resources management. From my earliest professional experience in the 1970s, when many of the nation’s environmental

laws were being written, I have brought new ideas and leadership to strategies to

control pollution and to use our natural resources wisely. I am steadfastly committed to promoting innovative, common sense approaches to environmental protection

by building partnerships at all levels of government, with the private sector, and

by involving stakeholders. In addition to a solid foundation in environmental policy, I have extensive experi- ence in managing organizations including the Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee, Senator Biden’s project staff, the bipartisan Congressional Environmental and Energy Study Conference, and the MidAtlantic regional office. While serving as director of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy Conserva- tion and Power Subcommittee, of the House Commerce Committee, in the early

1980’s, we led the debate in promoting utility deregulation which is now sweeping

through the industry. We also tackled a persistent problem facing nuclear power—

how to safely dispose of spent fuel—and we enacted the nation’s first program for

the disposal of nuclear waste.

I am particularly proud of my leadership of the Study Conference—my first management position 24 years ago. You may be familiar with the Study Conference and

its ‘‘green sheets’’ which provided members of Congress and their staffs with background information on key environmental and energy legislation and issues.

Shortly after it was founded in the House by former Representative Richard Ottinger and then Representative Jim Jeffords, a group of Senators led by my former

boss Senator Gary Hart and Senator Chafee, expanded it into the Senate. The Conference was an organization based on the belief that environmental protection

knows no party affiliation and that the foundation of this nation’s environmental

laws was built through bipartisan collaboration. To underscore this, the Chairmanship of the organization shifted between Democrats and Republicans in the House

and Senate at a time when Democrats controlled both Houses.

Senator Chafee became the Senate Chairman in 1979 and I was proud to serve

under him as staff director. I greatly admired the Senator and mourn the loss of

this great advocate of the bipartisan spirit that established our nation’s environmental policies.

That was a long time ago. My most recent management experience as Regional

Administrator of the Mid Atlantic States has provided me with experience vital to

the role of Deputy Administrator.

As the longest-serving Regional Administrator, I managed and directed a staff of

approximately 1,000 employees with a budget exceeding $700 million. In this position, I took an active interest in the efficient operation of the regional office, and

conducted an internal assessment of regional management and personnel practices

to make the region work better, and to make ours a better place to for employees
21

work. For example, I led the effort to restore the District of Columbia’s drinking

water system and directed EPA’s national approach to managing poultry waste from

factory farms. I co-chaired a subcommittee of the Agency’s Common Sense Initiative

that succeeded in streamlining permitting and pollution control measures to achieve

superior environmental performance for the printing industry. As Regional Administrator, I worked with EPA’s senior management team on na- tional strategic planning, budget priority setting, and public outreach. This provided

me with the ability to implement the Agency’s national priorities into a regional

context. It also provided me with an opportunity to bring the perspective I gained

from my day-to-day work with the States to bear on national policies and priorities.

Working closely with my colleagues around the country gave me a greater appreciation for the regional variations in environmental problems and unique approaches

used in resolving complex issues. In summary, my environmental policy expertise, management skills, and strong commitment to public service provide me with qualifications to do the work of the

Deputy Administrator. I look forward to working with the committee, the members

and your staff in our efforts to protect the environment and make a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren.

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Question 1. Considering the magnitude of the Comprehensive Plan, does EPA plan to dedicate full-time staff to work this vital issue?

Response. The EPA is firmly committed to providing the necessary resources to assist in implementing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Currently,

EPA’s Office of Water, Region IV and the South Florida office of Region IV provide

scientific, legal, and technical expertise to the Everglades restoration effort. EPA

also provides a full time staff person at the Army Corps of Engineers’ Jacksonville

Mississippi office to assist in the restoration effort.

Question 2. The Comprehensive Plan proposes the construction of two wastewater

reuse facilities for the superior, advanced treatment of wastewater to augment the

freshwater flows to the natural system. At the field hearing, the Administrator testified that these wastewater reuse facilities would be eligible for SRF funding, even

though the plants are designed to provide water directly to the natural system and

not for municipal use. Could EPA clarify this statement? Response. Generally, the costs of capital upgrades for wastewater treatment are eligible for loans under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. It is important to

note, however, that local communities typically are responsible for both repaying

SRF loans and covering the costs of annual operation/ maintenance for treatment

plants. In this case, other sources of funding are necessary because Miami-Dade

County is under no obligation to apply for loans or to improve treatment to a level

suitable for Biscayne National Park or the Bird Drive-Everglades Basin wetlands.

The purpose of the facilities is to provide clean freshwater to the environment during the dry season when the other restudy components will not have enough extra

water available for the restoration effort.

Arsenic Rule (Drinking Water)

Question 3. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 includes a statutory requirement for the Administrator to propose a national drinking water

standard for arsenic by January 1, 2000. Now a month past the deadline, the arsenic rule must still go through a 90-day OMB review process before release, which

could be 3–6 months from now. Can you explain the delay?

Response. Developing a new proposed regulation for arsenic in drinking water has

been an extremely challenging undertaking, requiring evaluation of an array of complex scientific and technical information. As the Agency has developed the new proposed standard, we have considered a range of points of view from both internal and

external stakeholders. This diversity of views is understandable, considering that

arsenic is a widely occurring contaminant with a number of adverse health impacts

of concern. This process has been somewhat more time-consuming than expected,

but we’re hopeful of initiating OMB review of the proposed rule very soon and publishing the rule for comment this Spring. We intend to meet the January 1, 2001

deadline for promulgation of the final rule, despite this delay in issuing a proposal.

Question 4. We’ve heard that there are disagreements within the Agency about

the benefits of the proposed standards versus the costs? Can you elaborate on this?

Response. The SDWA (Section 1412(b)(6)) requires an evaluation of the costs and

benefits of a proposed rule and a determination of whether or not the benefits of
22

the rule justify the costs. Assessing the costs of a new proposed standard is a somewhat more straightforward exercise than evaluating benefits but complicated, involving estimates of the total national costs that will be incurred by water utilities

to comply with a new standard. Estimating the benefits of a proposed rule involves

gaining an understanding of the health effects attributable to various levels of the

contaminant and the benefits of reducing these risks.

EPA charged the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) with providing expert advice on the health impacts of arsenic based upon a comprehensive assessment of national and international studies. The NAS provided quantitative (numerical) recommendations concerning the risk of bladder cancer to consumers of drinking water

containing arsenic. The NAS also provided qualitative (non-numeric) recommendations concerning a number of other potential adverse health effects of concern, the

most significant of which is lung cancer. In evaluating the benefits of a new, more

protective arsenic standard in drinking water, the Agency has examined both quantitative and qualitative benefits. Ascribing values to such benefits is a challenging

exercise that involves an element of judgment, based on an array of data and information. Discussion and resolution of these issues has been an important part of this

process—and, as is the case in any such complicated undertaking, experts can and

often do differ in their respective evaluations. While there has been internal debate

on these cost-benefit issues, this is not unusual in a significant rulemaking. Discussion has been encouraged and development of the rule has benefited. When it is proposed, we will solicit comment on our estimates of the costs and benefits of the rule

and on the underlying issues of concern.

MTBE

Question 5. I am concerned about MTBE in our groundwater. State officials in

New Hampshire say that as many as 7,000 private wells could be contaminated

with unsafe levels of MTBE and as many as 33,330 could be contaminated with

lower trace levels. It seems that we didn’t use good science when we decided to put

MTBE in our gasoline and now it has created another even bigger problem. What

is EPA doing to address MTBE in groundwater?

Response. In response to the growing concerns regarding MTBE, in early 1999 Administrator Browner appointed an independent Blue Ribbon Panel to investigate the

use of oxygenates in gasoline. On July 27, 1999, the Panel issued its recommendations. Specifically the Panel:

• Recommended improvements to the nation’s water protection programs, including over 20 specific actions to enhance underground storage tank, source water and

drinking water, and private well protection programs.—Agreed broadly that use of

MTBE should be reduced substantially and that Congress should act to provide

clear Federal and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of MTBE and

other gasoline additives that threaten water supplies.—Recommended that Congress

act to remove the current Clean Air Act requirement—that 2 percent of RFG, by

weight, consist of oxygen—to ensure that adequate fuel supplies can be blended in

a cost-effective manner while reducing usage of MTBE; and—Recommended that

EPA seek mechanisms to ensure that there is no loss of current air quality benefits.

EPA is working with Congress, the states and the regulated community to implement the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations and address the problem of MTBE

in groundwater:

• We will work with Congress to quickly phaseout MTBE while preserving a

market for renewable fuels and maintaining clean air benefits.

• EPA is currently evaluating all of its regulatory options under existing statutory authorities for addressing the contamination of groundwater from MTBE.

• A new drinking water standard for MTBE will be proposed within the next

year.

• MTBE is included in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. This rule

requires all large and a representative sample of small public water systems to monitor for MTBE in ground water and surface water beginning in 2001. EPA is strongly encouraging water systems to begin monitoring as soon as possible.

• EPA is developing maps of State Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) that can

be compared with water source locations to help assess the actual risk of potential

leaking USTs to public water supplies.

• EPA is working with States to develop an operation and maintenance manual

that will help improve the safety of UST systems and is conducting workshops

around the country with State water program officials for UST owners and operators.

• EPA allocated $1 million for demonstration projects to determine the most effective approach to MTBE remediation. MTBE remediation research efforts also cur-
23

rently are underway by other organizations, such as the American Petroleum Institute and the University of California at Davis.

Prior to MTBE’s use in Federal RFG, a consent agreement under the Toxic Substances Control Act required industry to conduct extensive research of MTBE. The

MTBE research included short and long term animal inhalation studies that did not

point to any exceptional acute or chronic toxicity. In the early 1990’s, human chamber studies on acute exposure to pure MTBE were completed by EPA, the Centers

for Disease Control, and industry. The studies provided strong evidence that MTBE

alone was not likely to cause acute health effects in the vast majority of the general

population. Additional inhalation research that includes testing of baseline conventional gasoline and nonbaseline groups including gasolines with MTBE and other

oxygen additives is underway. It is hoped that the results of this inhalation research

can be extrapolated and allow a greater understanding of MTBE ingestion health

risks.

While additional research will add to our understanding of the health effects of

MTBE, action to prevent further MTBE contamination of water supplies should not

await the results of this research. Due to its persistence and mobility in water,

MTBE is more likely to contaminate ground and surface water than other components of gasoline. Indeed, according to EPA’s Blue Ribbon Panel, MTBE has already

been found in up to 10 percent of drinking water supplies in RFG areas. To prevent

the escalation of a larger problem, EPA believes the use of MTBE should be quickly

phased out.

UST

Question 6. What is the status of EPA’s enforcement of the 1998 deadline for compliance with the UST regulations?

Response. EPA and the states worked together to coordinate our enforcement

strategy following the December 1998 deadline. As the primary implementing agencies, states pursued the majority of the inspections and enforcement actions related

to the deadline. In the first 6 months immediately following the deadline, EPA focused its enforcement resources on facilities that posed a threat to drinking water

or sensitive ecosystems; Federal facilities; large, multiple UST facilities; and owners

and operators with multiple facilities. Thereafter, EPA broadened its enforcement

efforts to all facilities that remained in noncompliance.

At the end of fiscal year 1999, 85 percent of the approximately 760,000 active federally regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) were in compliance with the

1998 deadline requirements. We expect the compliance rate will be 90 percent by

the end of fiscal year 2000.

Question 7. Do you know the percent of people (who) are in compliance with the

1998 regulations?

Response. We do not have data on compliance rates by facility owner, only by UST

system. As you may know, an owner or operator may have multiple UST tanks. Almost all states are the primary implementing agencies for the UST program, and

the states maintain the data bases that contain the notification and compliance information. The compliance data reported by the states is for UST systems, not for

facility owners.

Question 8. Where is EPA targeting enforcement resources?

Response. Since the states are the primary implementing agencies for the UST

program, they perform the vast majority of inspection/enforcement work in the program. States use a wide variety of methods for targeting their resources, often focusing on wellhead protection areas or other sensitive environmental areas. In addition,

EPA also targets facilities in areas where a state can not provide an active enforcement presence as well as facilities referred to us by the states.

In the first 6 months immediately following the 1998 deadline, EPA focused its

enforcement resources on facilities that threatened sources of drinking water or sensitive ecosystems; federally owned facilities; large, multiple UST facilities; and owners and operators with multiple facilities. Although these facilities remain an enforcement priority, EPA has since broadened its enforcement efforts to all facilities

that remain in noncompliance.

Question 9. Have you looked at the extent of leaking in those tanks that have

come into compliance with the 1998 regulations?

Response. Assessing the performance of compliant UST systems is one of the

highest priorities for the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). This includes measuring the effectiveness of our leak detection requirements, as well as

studying the release rate from compliant tanks, and identifying the cause of those

releases (e.g., faulty installation, failed overfill device, release from piping). A number of states and EPA regions are beginning to record this data at all new release
24

sites. In addition, EPA is funding a study with the University of California at Davis

to assess the effectiveness of various leak detection methods.

However, based on anecdotal data from the states we know that petroleum releases have occurred from UST systems that had met the requirements of the 1998

deadline. In addition, a preliminary assessment of California’s UST data base by the

University of California at Davis indicates that the annual leak rate for UST systems that comply with upgrading requirements was 0.07 percent per year, compared

to approximately 3 percent per year for all active tanks. It is reasonable to assume

that a certain number of releases will continue to occur from systems with new or

upgraded UST systems due to improper installation, improper operation and maintenance, or accidents. Ensuring proper operation and maintenance is another of

OUST’s highest priorities.

High Production Volume Chemical Testing Program

Question 10. In October 1999 an agreement was reached between EPA and animal rights groups to address many of the concerns raised regarding the EPA High Production Volume Chemical Testing Program (‘‘HPV Program’’). Although an agreement has been reached, I am concerned about how the program will be implemented

in a manner consistent with the agreement. In December 1999 animal rights groups

petitioned EPA to issue two rules which would require chemical companies to file

existing data and information on HPV chemicals prior to initiating new testing

under the HPV program. Has the October agreement been embodied in.the Inventory Update Rule? Response. The animal welfare principles outlined in the October 14 letter from

EPA to HPV Challenge participants are incorporated, to the fullest extent possible,

in the proposed High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Test Rule currently under

review at OMB. EPA encourages the fullest possible use of existing data in order

to minimize the need for new testing. Once this proposed rule is promulgated, the

public will have an opportunity to comment on all aspects of the rulemaking including issues related to animal welfare. The Inventory Update Rule (IUR) is a separate

rulemaking unrelated to the HPV Challenge Program and was not addressed by the

October 14 letter. The recently proposed IUR amendments do not require any testing. The IUR Amendments, which were proposed on August 26,1999(64 FR 46771),

would call upon companies to assemble and report existing exposure and use data

for their chemicals under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Question 11. If the purpose of the program was to gather toxicity data on those chemicals most commonly used in our country, why does a citizen group need to petition EPA to issue rules to carry out the primary purpose of the program? Response. In the HPV Challenge Program, the Agency has worked successfully in partnership with industry to establish a voluntary program to make this information available to the public. To date, this voluntary approach has yielded commitments from industry to provide the needed data on nearly 2100 of 2800 high production volume chemicals. As part of this program, EPA has intended to pursue a

TSCA test rule for those chemicals which are not voluntarily sponsored by industry.

Under Section 21 of the TSCA, citizens may petition EPA to initiate a proceeding

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under various other sections of

TSCA. In this instance, the petitioners assert that a voluntary approach to collecting basic screening level toxicity information on HPV chemicals will not be effective

in bringing forward all relevant existing data. They have thus called for a rulemaking approach to compel the disclosure of that information.

Question 12. Does EPA intend to issue such rules?

Response. EPA published a Federal Register notice (65 FR 2164, January 13,

2000) reporting that the petition had been filed and solicited public comments by

February 3, 2000. Under Section 21 of TSCA, EPA must respond to the petition by

March 28, 2000. The Agency is currently evaluating the petition and the comments

received, and has not yet responded to the petition.

MTBE

Question 13. The EPA is currently considering a waiver of the Clean Air Act’s 2

percent oxygen mandate for the State of California. We are working on legislation

to address this issue, but I want to encourage the EPA to give the California waiver

full consideration. California uses more gasoline containing MTBE than any other

state and they are quite concerned with the effect this might have on water supplies. Can you give this committee any sense of the status of the California waiver

petition?

Response. We share California’s desire to keep the State’s drinking water free of

MTBE and other contaminants. EPA’s goal is to protect public health and the environment by ensuring Americans have both cleaner air and cleaner water—and never
25

one at the expense of the other. On December 24, 1999, California officials provided

EPA initial documents in support of the state’s waiver request. EPA is reviewing

this initial information and stands ready to receive additional data the state is gathering that is necessary to complete its request.

On January 25, 2000, staff from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and

the EPA met to discuss the additional data and analysis necessary for a waiver to

be considered. CARB has indicated that it will supply this additional information

to EPA. Once EPA receives this information from CARB, EPA will be able to perform the technical analysis of California’s waiver request required under the Clean

Air Act. If the statutory requirements to receive the waiver are met, EPA is required to provide public notice of our decision. Such procedures include a public

comment period of a minimum of 30 days.

Utilities Emissions Bill

Question 14. Recently, I announced the start of a process to develop legislation

to improve how the Clean Air Act addresses pollution from the electric utility sector.

Developing a bill on this topic that will have broad bipartisan support is going to

be an enormous challenge. I would hope that the EPA will work with my staff in

an open and creative way as we all search for a more efficient system to deal with

these pollutants. If we can build on the Acid Rain model, I believe that we can improve the environmental results of our efforts—while at the same time lowering the

implementation costs for industry, the economy, and the government.

Response. As you examine this issue, EPA will, as always, be happy to work with

you and your staff.

Yucca Mountain

Question 15. NAS and NRC have recommended that standards for Yucca Mountain be based on sound radiation protection science (i.e., do not use old ICRP 2 dose

methods in setting standards). NRC has an overall approach for setting regulatory

limits that involves: 1) setting an overall goal for protection applicable to all regulated activities (i.e., 100 mrem public dose limit); 2) developing dose limits for particular activities (e.g., waste disposal) that are consistent with the overall goal; and

3) updating dose limits, as necessary, to make use of scientific improvements for estimating dose. EPA’s approach for setting radiation standards is not as clear. Although, EPA generally uses an overall risk goal (i.e., lifetime risk between one

chance in 10,000 and one chance in 1,000,000), EPA has and continues to set radiation limits that have little relationship to this overall goal (i.e., MCLs) and have

recently proposed standards for Yucca Mountain (40 CFR 197) based on outdated

methods for estimating dose.

Can EPA explain, what appears to be, significant inconsistencies and weaknesses

in their approach for setting radiation standards? What interactions has EPA had

with the NRC and NAS to address their comments?

Response. The EPA’s proposed Yucca Mountain standards are entirely consistent

with other standards the Agency has established and, in almost every respect, are

consistent with the recommendations of the NAS. In all its regulatory programs, the

Agency typically establishes risk in the 10–6 to 10–4 range (1 chance in a 1,000,000

to 1 chance in 10,000). This is the Agency’s guideline for establishing radiation regulations for involuntary risks over and above background levels. EPA’s generic standards for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste and the Agency’s proposed standards for Yucca Mountain assure protection of at least 15 millirem/year. The lifetime

fatal cancer risk associated with this dose is approximately 3 chances in 10,000.

With respect to EPA’s proposed standards for drinking water, EPA proposed to

adopt the Agency’s 4 millirem/yr dose limit for Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)

standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The lifetime fatal cancer risk associated with this dose is 1 chance in 10,000.

For Yucca Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) suggested a risk

level equivalent to an annual dose in the range of 2 to 20 millirem/yr. The annual

risk associated with EPA’s proposed 15 millirem standard and 4 millirem standard

for drinking water fall within this range. The 25 millirem/yr dose limit proposed by

the NRC would allow greater risk than that recommended by NAS. NAS has supported EPA’s proposed 15 millirem standard. In its November 26, 1999 comments

on the 15 millirem standard, NAS stated that ‘‘the magnitude of the proposed

numeric value of the individual-protection standard is consistent with the recommendations in the [NAS] report.’’

We realize that science has improved in the 20 years since the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards for drinking water were established and we are

working to update them based on current scientific understanding and legislative
26

direction under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment. All changes will be incorporated by reference in EPA’s final Yucca Mountain standards.

We have made and will continue to make every effort to consider all of the issues

which have been brought to our attention by the NRC, NAS, and other interested

parties. Both NRC and NAS have submitted written comments on EPA’s proposed

standards. EPA will work closely with NRC and NAS to address their comments in

EPA’s final standards.

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAPO

Yucca Mountain/Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Question 1. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have promulgated radiation exposure standards for a geologic repository, better known as Yucca Mountain, for the nation’s spent nuclear fuel

and high-level waste. The establishment of a permanent repository is of paramount

importance to the ability of the Department of Energy and Department of Navy in

meeting a court-ordered agreement with the State of Idaho. Legislation currently in

the Senate, S.1287, would identify the NRC as the standard-setting Agency for a

geologic repository, not the EPA. This proposal recognizes that the NRC is the nation’s expert in dealing with radiation and is supported widely and bipartisanly in

Congress. Is there any reason to expect that the NRC would not be capable of setting standards for the geologic repository that will protect public health and the environment?

Response. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave EPA responsibility for setting the

standards for a repository at Yucca Mountain and NRC responsibility for determining whether or not the repository meets the standards through a licensing process.

This arrangement of having EPA set the standards and NRC implement them is

how nuclear facilities have been regulated for the past 30 years. This is the system

of checks and balances that was established when EPA was formed in 1970.

While NRC is expert in the licensing of nuclear power plants, EPA was designated

by Congress to set the safety standards for Yucca Mountain. EPA has the expertise

to set appropriate health and safety standards for the disposal of radioactive waste

and has done so for decades. EPA also has expertise in implementing such standards successfully. In fact, EPA set the safety standards for, and certified, the only

operating geologic repository for permanent disposal of radioactive waste in the

United States—the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.

In addition, EPA has a wealth of experience in setting standards for, and licensing, hazardous waste facilities. This has informed our proposed Yucca Mountain

standard. Our Yucca Mountain proposal was designed to achieve the same level of

protectiveness, an increased risk in the 10–6 to 10–4 range (1 chance in a million

to 1 chance in 10,000), as all these other Agency standards.

NRC has issued draft standards for Yucca Mountain. These draft NRC standards

do not include specific protections for potable groundwater and would allow a greater risk to individual members of the public (25 millirem/yr dose limit vs. EPA’s proposed 15 millirem/yr dose limit). Based on these draft standards and NRC comments and statements of intent, EPA believes that EPA’s standards will more adequately protect public health and the environment than NRC standards.

Question 2. The EPA has been criticized for dragging its feet on issuing radiation

standards for the geologic repository. The Agency finally issued radiation standards

on August 19, 1999. The EPA does not appear to be promulgating needed standards

in the timeframe that is needed to make the repository a reality. Why did it take

the EPA so long to issue these standards? If the EPA remains the standard-setting

organization for the repository, what changes will you make to ensure the EPA is

responsive to necessary standards development?

Response. EPA recognizes that these standards are very important for assuring

the safety of any repository at Yucca Mountain. This project involves a unique facility with many complex technical issues. EPA has made every effort to consider all

of the issues which have been brought to our attention. This includes meetings with

interested parties and discussions within the Administration. A significant amount

of this time was spent addressing scientific issues in coordination with the National

Academy of Sciences, the Administration’s Office of Science Technology and Policy,

the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. EPA has

worked diligently to resolve the many complex issues. Additional time taken was

necessary to ensure that we prepared standards that were technically sound, legally

defensible, could be reasonably implemented, and were protective of public health

and the environment.
27

As you know, we already have proposed the standards and the public comment period has closed. We are now in the process of assessing comments received. We

plan to finalize the standards this year and, as we work to finalize the standards,

we will continue to make every effort to be responsive to the comments and concerns

of interested parties. Our current schedule will not delay DOE’s plans for licensing

the repository.

Question 3. For Yucca Mountain, the EPA proposed an annual dose limit to the

reasonably maximally exposed individual of 15 millirem with an additional 4

millirem dose limit for groundwater. Why did the EPA feel it was necessary to establish different, pathway-specific standards, as opposed to one comprehensive

standard as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences? Response. It is the Administration’s policy to apply existing environmental laws to protect all current and potential sources of drinking water. It is also the Administration’s policy that it is the responsibility of potential polluters to keep groundwater clean—not for users to treat water once it is polluted.

Yucca Mountain sits on a large, clean aquifer capable of supplying drinking water to thousands of people. It already is being used as a source of drinking water by

local inhabitants and likely will be used as drinking water for Las Vegas—the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country. EPA has proposed a ground-water

protection standard to prevent contamination of this valuable drinking water aquifer. Failure to do so could result in additional economic and health burdens to future generations and it is more prudent to prevent contamination than to rely on

clean-up. EPA applies ground-water standards to every hazardous waste site in the

country. In addition, EPA already has successfully applied ground-water protection

standards at the only operating geologic repository for disposal of radioactive

waste—the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. EPA believes that the people

of Nevada and their drinking water resources deserve the same level of protection

that is applied to the rest of the country.

Question 4. The EPA has been criticized for establishing standards for Yucca Mountain that are more stringent than occurs in nature. Given the risk-based approach to individual exposure advocated by the National Academy of Sciences in August 1995, is the EPA ‘‘more stringent than nature’’ standard appropriate? Response. The EPA’s proposed Yucca Mountain standards govern the incremental risk associated with the presence of a nuclear waste repository at the site, not the

background risk associated with naturally occurring radiation at the site. Knowing

that individuals can be exposed to radiation risks from a variety of both man-made

and naturally occurring sources, EPA’s aim in promulgating standards is to minimize the risk to individuals from any one source; in this case, EPA’s goal is to minimize the risk to individuals from any disposal of radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain.

EPA’s proposed standards for Yucca Mountain assure protection of at least 15

millirem/year. The lifetime fatal cancer risk associated with this dose is approximately 3 chances in 10,000. For Yucca Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) suggested a risk level equivalent to an annual dose in the range of 2 to 20 millirem/yr. The annual

risk associated with EPA’s proposed 15 millirem standard falls within this range.

The 25 millirem/yr dose limit proposed by the NRC would allow greater risk than

that recommended by NAS. NAS has supported EPA’s proposed 15 millirem standard. In its November 26, 1999 comments on the 15 millirem standard, NAS stated

that ‘‘the magnitude of the proposed numeric value of the individual-protection

standard is consistent with the recommendations in the [NAS] report.’’

North Idaho/Coeur d’Alene River Basin

Question 5. Idaho is currently listed on the Clean Water Act National Toxics Rule (NTR). This status precludes Idaho from establishing site-specific water quality criteria and forces so-called Gold Book Standards, developed without the benefit of

knowledge of unique conditions and problems in Idaho. These standards will make

it particularly difficult for dischargers in the Coeur d’Alene Basin, including the

EPA’s own Bunker Hill Superfund Site, to meet. In order to proceed with removing

Idaho from the NTR, the EPA has requested consultations under Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. I understand that the biological assessment submitted by the

EPA in accordance with the request for removing Idaho from the NTR may be inadequate and there may be some delay in completing the consultations. Does the EPA

believe it has the authority to temporarily exempt the Coeur d’Alene River Basin

from the NTR and Gold Book Standards while consultations are underway?

Response. EPA does have the authority to remove Idaho from the National Toxics

Rule, despite the fact that EPA is still consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
28

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on Idaho’s water quality standards pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Given the fact that Idaho has

adopted water quality criteria as stringent as the NTR criteria, EPA believes that

removing Idaho from the NTR will not have any detrimental effects on endangered

or threatened species pending our completion of consultation and will not prejudice

our ability to act on the results of the consultation. We are approving Idaho’s standards under the Clean Water Act, subject to Endangered Species Act consultation,

and will be removing Idaho from the NTR within the next 60 to 90 days. EPA’s removal of Idaho from the National Toxics Rule (NTR) would provide the

state more flexibility in implementing various provisions of the Clean Water Act,

including development of site-specific criteria wherever appropriate within the state.

With respect to the Coeur d’Alene River Basin, EPA and the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality have been examining various tools available to the

state to provide regulatory relief, where appropriate, once NTR removal occurs.

These tools include site-specific criteria and permit variances.

Removal from the NTR, however, is simply one step in reaching final decisions about appropriate requirements to protect water quality in the Coeur d’Alene Basin.

Actual decisions about site specific criteria to protect endangered species still must

be made, first by Idaho, and then by EPA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the National Marine Fisheries Service also still have critical decisions to make regarding requirements to protect endangered species.

Question 6. Reacting to strong opposition in the Coeur d’Alene River Basin community and the proposed state-led settlement negotiations, in December, 1999, the

EPA agreed to delay its ongoing efforts to designate additional areas as Superfund

sites. Under what understanding is the Agency proceeding in this matter?

Response. EPA supports the State’s efforts to find a solution for the Basin that

includes bringing all involved parties into a settlement discussion. You are correct

that EPA has agreed to delay proposing further National Priorities List (NPL) listing in the Basin until the end of June, 2000. Please note however, that EPA is arguing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that all contaminated areas of the Basin are already on the NPL.

The State’s effort to initiate settlement discussions holds the promise of resolving

current litigation in a manner which will further our mutual goals of funding and

implementing long-term cleanup and restoration of the Basin. Achieving a binding

and workable cleanup plan remains EPA’s first priority. EPA also supports Idaho’s

participation in this effort to help develop a cleanup plan that meets the needs of

the citizens in the Coeur d’Alene Basin, including the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and all

the interested parties involved in the Basin.

Question 7. The original estimate for the current Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process in the Coeur d’Alene Basin was approximately $2 million.

How much money has the EPA spent to date on the RI/FS and what is the projected

final total?

Response. In the Spring and Summer of 1998, EPA conducted a series of public

meetings related to the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). In response to public inquiry at those public meetings, EPA reported that the Agency

had spent, to date, roughly $2 million to initiate the RI/FS in the Basin. At that

point in time the Region did not yet have an clear estimate of what the costs would

be to perform the entire RI/FS.

To date, EPA has incurred approximately $10.4 million in costs (incurred by EPA

contractors) associated with conducting RI/FS work in the Basin. In addition, EPA

has provided and will continue to provide funds to the States, the Tribes and other

Agencies through Cooperative Agreements and Inter Agency Agreements (JAGS) related to RI/FS activities. Under these vehicles, to date, EPA has provided approximately $4.2 million in funds, over $1 million to the State of Idaho alone. EPA

projects that the total RI/FS costs (EPA’s contractor costs) will be approximately

$16.5 million, plus costs associated with Cooperative Agreements and JAGS.

Question 8. The EPA has announced it will be issuing a ROD for the RI/FS by

December, 2000. State of Idaho officials have suggested that the ROD will be too

general because the EPA’s schedule provides insufficient time to review the science

to develop a detailed ROD. The State of Idaho is currently participating in the RI/

FS process to try to address this short coming. If the State of Idaho continues to

raise concerns about the sufficiency of the science used in the EPA’s RI/FS process,

will the EPA choose to release the ROD on schedule with insufficient data or will

the Agency delay releasing the ROD until all parties are confident in the sufficiency

of the data?

Response. EPA is committed to completing a Record of Decision for the Coeur

d’Alene Basin by December, 2000. The Agency is conducting the RI/FS in a manner
29

that will enable us to select an overall remedial approach to address the contamination in the Basin. By working closely with the State of Idaho during the Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study and Record of Decision development, Region 10 will

attempt to address the State’s concerns. It is also important to note that details associated with cleaning up specific areas will be developed during the Remedial Design stage. The State and local governments and community members will be critical partners during that stage. There is always the possibility that if circumstances

warrant, the remedy may be modified through ROD Amendments or Explanation of

Significant Differences (ESDs) or additional RODs may also be required.

Question 9. The EPA has been involved with the cleanup of the Silver Valley in North Idaho for over 15 years. During this time, the EPA has taken actions that

have engendered serious local opposition and distrust within the community. This

relationship clearly does not help in the ultimate goal of promoting locally supported

environmental activities. At the same time, the community appears increasingly to

favor the State of Idaho in the search for solutions to environmental problems within the state. Will the EPA support State of Idaho having the lead role in cleaning

up areas outside the boundaries of the Bunker Hill Superfund Site ‘‘box’’?

Response. EPA places a strong emphasis on state and local government involve- ment in Superfund actions. In fact, the cleanup at Bunker Hill is an example of a

successful Federal, state and local partnership. As you may know, the State of Idaho’s Division of Environmental Quality has the lead role on a substantial portion

of the Bunker Hill ‘‘box’’ cleanup (design, implementation, and community relations), including: the Smelterville Flats; Bunker Creek; Gulch removals and restoration; residential yard cleanup oversight; Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-way cleanup oversight; and Stauffer cleanup oversight. In addition, the Panhandle Health

District manages the Institutional Controls Program (ICP) which many believe will

serve as a catalyst for economic redevelopment in the Silver Valley.

Outside the Bunker Hill Superfund Site ‘‘box,’’ EPA is very aware that people in

the Coeur d’Alene Basin want the State of Idaho to have a leadership role in both

the current study and future cleanup actions. Through two Cooperative Agreements,

Region 10 is supporting the State’s involvement in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The Region is also committed to working actively with the State on

a comprehensive cleanup plan for the Basin.

TMDLs

Question 10. Does your interpretation of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act

permit anyone other than states (or in the case of disapproved state submissions,

the Administrator) from establishing total maximum daily loads in impaired waters?

Response. Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act provides that ‘‘[e]ach State

shall establish . . . the total maximum daily load . . .’’, and section 303(d)(2) provides

that, if EPA disapproves a State’s TMDL, ‘‘the Administrator’’ shall establish one.

Section 303(d)(2) also provides that, from time to time, ‘‘[e]ach State shall submit’’

TMDLs to EPA. Because the statute specifically says that States submit TMDLs

and that States and the Administrator establish them, EPA believes that other parties may not ‘‘submit’’ TMDLs to EPA for review or ‘‘establish’’ TMDLs.

EPA does not interpret the statute, however, as preventing other entities, such

as local governments, interstate commissions, or citizen and industry stakeholder

groups, from assisting States or EPA in the development of TMDLs. Indeed, such

participation is to be encouraged and these groups may, if the State or EPA desire,

do a significant portion of the TMDL development work. The developed TMDL, however, must be ‘‘established’’ by the State and ‘‘submitted’’ by the State to EPA for

review, or ‘‘established’’ by EPA in the case of a disapproved State submission.

Clean Water Act

Question 11. Because Idaho has not been delegated authority to issue NPDES permits, the EPA is responsible in our state for those applications. In the establishment

of a draft permit, the EPA recently sought to enforce a standard that the State of

Idaho suspects is inappropriately stringent because it suggests a temperature level

that may be lower than the range of natural temperature of the river. If true, the

permit holder would be required to spend money on cooling systems that may not

ultimately be successful. Do you believe it is appropriate for the EPA to seek to enforce a temperature standard that is not supported by scientific evidence?

Response. The temperature standard in question was adopted by the State of

Idaho. Section 301 (b)(l)(C) of the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR

122.44 require that permits contain limits that will ensure compliance with State

water quality standards.

The question of whether current Idaho temperature standards are appropriate is

a highly controversial one. A similar debate over temperature standards in neigh-
30

boring Oregon resulted in an agreement by EPA to pursue further scientific review

of the issue of appropriate temperature standards in the Northwest. This review,

just now getting underway, includes participation by Idaho. In the meantime, EPA is working with the State of Idaho and the discharger in question to explore options such as variances, total maximum daily loads, or other

means to provide a workable solution.

Clean Air Act

Question 12. Could you provide me with a detailed schedule of past and future involvement of EPA officials in matters surrounding Northern Ada County designation under the Clean Air Act?

Response. The schedule below identifies the major relevant events surrounding the Northern Ada County/Boise area designation: • November 1990—The Northern Ada County/Boise area in Idaho designated nonattainment for particulate matter (PM10). • May 30, 1996—EPA approves Idaho’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Northern Ada County/Boise area. • ? July 1997—Following extensive scientific review, the Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) revises the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter to more accurately reflect observed health effects. Both the previous PM10 standards and the revised standards were to remain in effect until the

previous standards were formally revoked for a given area. • July 1998—The State of Idaho requests revocation of the previous PM10 standards and the associated ‘‘nonattainment’’ designation for the Northern Ada County/

Boise area. Air quality monitoring data show no violations of the standards in the

area since 1991. • January 8, 1999—The Northern Ada County/Boise area falls out of compliance with the Clean Air Act’s air quality/transportation ‘‘conformity’’ requirements because the State has not demonstrated that transportation projects are consistent

with its approved air quality SIP. • March 12, 1999—EPA revokes the previous PM10 standards for the Northern

Ada County/Boise area. The revocation also removes other Clean Air Act requirements associated with the earlier standards, including the nonattainment designation, new-source review and air quality/transportation conformity requirements. • March 18, 1999—Environmental organizations file a petition for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit challenging EPA’s revocation of the

PM10 standards. • May 14, 1999—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacates EPA’s revised coarse particle (PM10) standards. • September 9, 1999—The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) files a motion with

the 9th Circuit court on EPA’s behalf for a voluntary remand of our decision to revoke the previous PM10 standard in the Northern Ada County/Boise area. The motion asks that the court remand the decision without vacating it, and that it hold

all proceedings in the consolidated cases in abeyance while EPA undertakes a rulemaking to reconsider the decision. The motion states that EPA intends to initiate

a rulemaking proposing to reinstate the previous PM10 standard, during which the

public, including the State, can comment, and issue a final rulemaking within 4–

6 months. Environmental groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) file

a reply opposing EPA’s motion for voluntary remand. EDF asks the Court to vacate

and remand EPA’s revocation action as their primary request for relief.

• November 19, 1999—The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denies the EPA motion

for a voluntary remand.

• December 17, 1999—EPA files brief opposing petitioners’ challenge and argues

that their primary claims, which are directed at issues decided by EPA in the 1997

rule promulgating the NAAQS, were untimely and, consequently, the Court lacked

jurisdiction to reach the decision on the merits. EPA also reiterates its request that

the Court remand the matter to the Agency so that the Agency can propose to reinstate the previous PM10 standard in Boise.

• February 1, 2000—Petitioners file a reply to EPA’s brief and again ask the

Court to vacate and remand EPA’s revocation action.

• Since September 1999—EPA continues to have discussions with the State and

local officials and with EDF to try and find a fair and reasonable solution to the

situation.

Question 13. Has the EPA committed to seeking a solution to the current dispute

that is agreeable to the State of Idaho and the local development planning authority?

Response. EPA is committed to and has worked diligently to seek a solution to

the current dispute that is agreeable to all parties concerned. The State and local
31

planning authorities are currently engaged in settlement discussions with the environmental litigants. The EPA has been supportive of these discussions and has been

and remains available for consultation.

Clean Air Act

Question 14. In the rural West, Federal land management agencies take actions

that have significant consequences in our air quality. Prescribed burns in forest

areas are undertaken by the U.S. Forest Service to ensure the health and viability

of forests. Nonetheless, communities that are adjacent to or surrounded by National

Forests are subject to the migration of air emissions from these and other forest

management practices. Will the EPA count smoke from these burns against the

state or region’s air quality allowances?

Response. On May 15, 1998 EPA issued an interim policy for addressing public

health and welfare impacts caused by wildland and prescribed fires. The policy,

known as the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, encourages State and tribal air quality managers to collaborate with wildland owners and

managers to mitigate the air quality impacts of prescribed fires and to develop and

implement smoke management programs (SMP’s) to prevent deterioration of air

quality and the violation of health standards, mitigate the nuisance and public safety hazards (e.g., on roadways and at airports) posed by smoke intrusions, and address visibility impacts in parks and wilderness areas. If States and tribes actively

implement SMPs, EPA will exercise its discretion under the Clean Air Act not to

redesignate areas as nonattainment because of smoke from prescribed fires.

Question 15. If no, how will the EPA work with state and regional authorities to

help quantify the impact of such practices on local air quality? If yes, what authority will state and regional officials be given to undertake actions on public lands to

mitigate air emissions for which they will be accountable?

Response. The State of Idaho has a Smoke Management Program (SMP) in place.

Therefore, smoke from Federal burns will generally be exempt and EPA will not redesignate Idaho areas as nonattainment because of smoke from prescribed burns.

However, if smoke from prescribed burns begins to cause PM air quality violations,

EPA will call on the State to review the effectiveness of the SMP and make appropriate improvements to mitigate future air quality impacts. If the problem continues, EPA will call for the SMP to be made part of the State’s air quality implementation plan (SIP) and be federally enforceable.

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

LAUTENBERG

Question 1. As you know, I have introduced legislation to improve the quality of

the waters we swim in at our nation’s beaches. I understand that EPA has a program underway to help states adopt water quality standards for coastal waters.

From your perspective having come from a region with several coastal states (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia), what improvements need to be made in how we protect

health at our beaches?

Response. EPA believes that improvements to beach monitoring and public notification programs to make them more consistent nationally are needed to provide better public health protection. As one way to enhance public notification, in consultation with States, EPA has established a public right-to-know data base about beach

water quality.

Moreover, EPA believes that consistent, scientifically defensible water quality

standards for states and tribes are very important. Some of these water quality

standards are intended for recreational use. These recreational water quality standards provide the scientific and programmatic framework for enhancing protection of

public health at beaches. To address another area of needed improvement, EPA is

working with states and tribes to ensure that they adopt state standards which incorporate the Agency’s published criteria for Escherichia cold and enterococci; research data support the use of these microbes as indicators of swimming-associated

gastrointestinal disease. The water quality standards program framework established by the Clean Water Act and continued by the Lautenberg bill is flexible, allowing for state variation consistent with protection of public health and good scientific practice, and revisions by EPA and States as new bacteriological indicators,

monitoring protocols, and models are developed.

OEI

Question 2. Part of your portfolio as Deputy Administrator would be oversight of

EPA’s new information office. Senator Crapo and I intend to introduce a bill shortly
32

that we believe is very much in keeping with the spirit of that office, and we would

appreciate having EPA’s support for it. The Streamlined Environmental Protection and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000

would require EPA to give each business one point of contact for all Federal environmental routine reporting requirements, and to otherwise minimize the administrative burdens of environmental reporting. This ‘‘one-stop’’ reporting system would

use a common nomenclature throughout and use language understandable to

businesspeople, not just to environmental specialists. Its electronic version would

also provide pollution prevention information to participating businesses. The bill

would also give each State, tribal or local agency the option of reporting information

to one point of contact at EPA.

My staff has discussed this bill with EPA, and received much thoughtful and constructive technical advice. We have been able to respond to the great majority of

issues raised by EPA. One important issue remains, however—the deadline by

which EPA is to perform the activities required by the bill. Our draft bill would establish a deadline 4 years after the effective date.

Would you be able to support a 4-year deadline? Otherwise, could you suggest a

more appropriate timeline, and agree to work with us as we move this bill through

Congress?

Response. While EPA staff have held discussions with your staff on technical issues related to your draft legislation, the Administration has not yet developed a

position on the bill. It would, therefore, be premature for me to comment on the

deadline contained in the draft language, or on other aspects of the bill. We are

happy, however, to continue to work with you regarding the draft bill.

Through the recently established Office of Environmental Information, EPA is

moving ahead on numerous information management and security issues, without

the need for legislation. We are, as part of our Integrated Information Initiative,

continuing development of a Central Receiving Facility. The Facility will provide the

option of one point of contact for both states and regulated entities which report directly to EPA. Central Receiving also will facilitate our move to electronic reporting.

We also are proceeding with plans to adopt, in partnership with states, data standards which will provide the common nomenclature needed to facilitate integration

of environmental data, and to aid analysis and interpretation for users.

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

GRAHAM

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Question 1. Everglades restoration is anticipated to be a major component of committee action this year. It is also a large priority for the state of Florida. I am concerned that EPA recently could not provide answers to detailed questions on the

Army Corps of Engineers’ Restudy restoration plan. Are you planning to dedicate

staff to ensure that EPA can participate in this committee’s debate on the Restudy

authorization?

Response. EPA thanks the committee for holding the recent field hearing on the

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and allowing the Agency to

provide its vision on restoring the Everglades and the CERP. We look forward to

a continued dialog with members of the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee, the Army Corps of Engineers and all interested parties in order to ensure the successful restoration of one our Nation’s most precious resources. The

Agency currently is preparing clarification and detailed answers to questions that

Members had in regards to the Administrator’s testimony. We are prepared to provide the committee assistance as it considers the restudy authorization.

The EPA is firmly committed to providing the necessary staff resources to assist

in implementing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Currently, EPA’s

Office of Water, Region IV and the South Florida office of Region IV provide scientific, legal, and technical expertise to the Everglades restoration effort. EPA also

provides a full time staff person at the Army Corps of Engineers’ Jacksonville Mississippi office to assist in the restoration effort.

TMDLs

Question 2. In passing the Clean Water Act the Congress expressly recognized the

primary responsibility and right of the States to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution and to plan the development and use of. . . land and water resources (33 USC

1251(b)(1972). The TMDL proposal however calls for EPA involvement in state implementation plans—which can be expected to result in EPA decisions regarding

local land use. In this regard:
33

Question 2a. What is EPA’s authority for involvement in TMDL implementation plans? Response. Section 303(d) requires that TMDLs, whether established by a State, Territory, or authorized Tribe, or by the Administrator, ‘‘be established at a level

necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards.’’ As the implementation plan provides a description of the voluntary and regulatory programs and authorities, EPA has proposed that one way to address this is to review the implementation plan and determine that there is ‘‘reasonable assurance’’ that the TMDL will

be implemented and will result in the achievement of water quality standards.

Question 2b. In what manner will EPA recognize the primacy of State and local involvement in the implementation of the TMDL program? Response. Section 303(d) requires states to identify waters and establish TMDLs, and submit them to EPA for review. EPA approves or disapproves the list and

TMDLs. If EPA disapproves, then the statute requires EPA to identify the water

or establish the TMDL. EPA expects States to take the lead in developing and implementing TMDLs and does not expect to be directly involved in development or

implementation of most TMDLs. As part of the process, EPA will work with the

States and other stakeholders.

Question 2c. Is it expected that EPA’s direct involvement with the States in the

TMDL implementation plans will be more efficient than state and local implementation solely under broad EPA guidance? Response. As noted in the response to the previous question, EPA expects States

to take the lead in developing and implementing TMDLs. EPA does not expect to

be directly involved in development or implementation of most TMDLs. EPA will, as directed by the Clean Water Act, review State-developed TMDLs to assure that they comply with the requirements of the Act. Under the proposed rule,

this includes review of implementation plans submitted by States as part of the

TMDL. EPA believes that this proposed approach, rather than reliance solely on

broad guidance, is needed to provide ‘‘reasonable assurance’’ that approved TMDLs

will result in the achievement of water quality standards.

Question 2d. Has EPA identified the economic costs of the TMDL proposals and

increased EPA staff requirements of implementing the plan? Response. EPA correctly certified that the proposed rule would not have a ‘‘signifi- cant impact on a substantial number of small entities.’’ EPA completed the economic

assessment of the proposed regulation revisions consistent with guidelines established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and published the proposal

for public comment following OMB approval. It is important to note that the economic assessment of the proposed rule defines

costs and benefits associated with the changes that the proposed rule would make

in existing regulations. EPA did not estimate, and was not required by law or Executive Order to estimate, the costs of complying with the requirements of section

303(d) of the Clean Water Act as passed by Congress in 1972 or the existing regulations that States and EPA now rely on to implement the TMDL program.

Our preliminary estimates, subject to additional work, are that state costs will increase by $10–24 million annually to implement the rule, and that the private sector

will expend approximately $17–65 million annually for on-the-ground actions needed

to implement the TMDLs. These costs are relatively low because the major assumption behind the estimated costs is that full implementation of required regulatory

programs—such as NPDES, including storm water and installation of best available

technology—as well as voluntary, incentive-based programs—such as section 319

grants and the Conservation and Wetlands Reserve Programs—will be sufficient, in

most cases, to achieve water quality standards.

EPA expects that each Regional Administrator will, consistent with other water

program priorities, provide adequate technical assistance and oversight for the

TMDL program. EPA will periodically evaluate its staff needs for TMDLs.

Question 2e. EPA’s proposed regulations on TMDLs would involve the EPA in

many strictly local decisions. For example, land use planning typically occurs over

many years as city and county plans are prepared, subjected to public notice and

comment and implemented. How does EPA intend to implement these programs and

provide, for example, timely review, approval and monitoring of all state and local

implementation plans so that state and local agencies can continue to respond in

a timely manner to their constituents?

Response. EPA expects that states, in concert with local authorities, will develop

and implement TMDLs. For implementation of TMDLs, EPA recognizes that local

programs and planning processes will play a major role. We expect that these local

programs and processes will be integral in state schedules, which will also include

milestones for monitoring progress in implementation. With respect to EPA review
34

and approval, under the proposed rule EPA will take action to approve or disapprove a TMDL within 30 days of the state’s submission.

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL MCCABE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

THOMAS

TMDLs

Question 1. What is EPA’s Statutory authority for asking States to list and de- velop TMDLs for waters impaired and threatened by pollutants from nonpoint

source and by pollutants from air deposition? Response. EPA has the authority to ‘‘include NPS pollution’’ in the TMDL pro- gram under section 303(d). In the preamble to the August 20, 1999 proposed TMDL

rules, the Agency presents, in some detail, its legal analysis concluding that the

Clean Water Act provides authority to require listing waterbodies impaired by pollution from either point sources, nonpoint sources, or both, and establishment of

TMDLs for pollutants in these waters (see pages 46020–21 in the preamble of the

proposed rule). The key point is that section 303(d) is intended to identify waters where the appli- cable water quality standard is not attained and develop TMDLs for these waters

that ‘‘implement’’ the standards (section 303(d)(1)(A) and (C)). The fact that section

303(d)(1)(A)’s identification provisions reference ‘‘effluent limitations’’ required by

section 301 does not limit the section’s reach to waters impaired only by point

sources. Because nonpoint source-only impaired waters can never be returned to

compliance with applicable water quality standards simply by application of section

301 effluent limitations, identification of such waters on a State’s section 303(d) list

is consistent with the plain meaning of the words in section 303(d)(1)(A). This key conclusion is supported by several additional considerations——

In drafting section 303(d), Congress did not expressly exclude NPS impaired wa- ters from the Act’s identification and TMDL establishment requirements. By placing section 303(d) within section 303 (whose provisions include water qual- ity standards and implementation plans) instead of section 301 (which deals with

point source controls), Congress gave TMDLs and section 303(d) lists a broad, allsources ‘‘water quality-based’’ scope, rather than a more narrow, point source-only

focus.

The conclusion that section 303(d) includes NPS impaired or threatened waters

is also consistent with Act’s broad objective to ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity’’ of all the nation’s waters. Enactment of section

319 in 1987 in no way limits consideration of nonpoint sources in section 303(d).

Section 319 is designed to ‘‘reduce’’ pollution from nonpoint sources generally and

is not designed to result in attainment of water quality standards in specific polluted waters. The reductions in pollution accomplished under section 319 programs

reduce the extent of NPS pollution and reduce the number of waters that become

polluted. Thus, the program complements and supports more focused, waterbody

specific efforts under section 303(d) to bring together all sources in an effort to restore the polluted water and attain water quality standards. Finally, it is critical to note that the conclusion that the polluted waters lists and TMDLs should include NPSs does not mean that these NPSs are subject to any new

controls or the requirement to have a Clean Water Act permit.

Question 2. What is EPA’s statutory authority for applying drinking water standards in ambient waters?

Response. The TMDL proposal does not require that ambient water quality meet

drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels or ‘‘MCLs’’) established

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs apply to

treated drinking water delivered to customers by public water systems. The rule

does, however, reflect the Clean Water Act’s requirement in section 303(d)(1)(C) that

TMDLs be established at a level necessary to implement applicable water quality

standards. Such Clean Water Act standards include the waterbody’s designated use

(including public water supply) and numeric or narrative criteria adopted to ensure

the use is met.

In addition, Section 303(d) says that States shall establish a priority ranking for

establishing TMDLs taking into account ‘‘the severity of the pollution and the uses

to be made of such waters.’’ EPA’s TMDL proposal reflects the Agency’s belief that

demonstrable threats to human health, in the form of polluted drinking water

sources, be given high priority by States as they establish TMDLs. This is articulated in section 130.28 of the proposal which requires States to assign a ‘‘high priority’’ on their section 303(d) lists to a waterbody if it is ‘‘designated in water quality

standards as a public drinking water supply, used as a source of drinking water and
35

the pollutant for which the waterbody is listed as impaired is contributing to a violation of and MCL.’’
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

STATEMENT OF ERIC D. EBERHARD, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE A MEMBER

OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCEL- LENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased and honored to be

nominated to serve as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall

Foundation.

During the course of the nearly 30 years I have worked in the field of Federal Indian policy, I had the opportunity to come to know Mo Udall and to work with

him and his staff on a number of issues relating to Federal Indian policy, including

governance, health care, children and families, land and natural resource issues,

water rights settlements and the regulation and protection of environmental quality

on Indian lands. One did not have to be around Mr. Udall very long or very often

before it became obvious that he was a man of uncommon vision, ability and wisdom. I am humbled by the opportunity to help others carry out even a small portion

of the legacy he left our nation in the areas of Indian law and policy and the environment.

As the members of the committee know, the Udall Foundation has been charged by the Congress with numerous duties, including: awarding college scholarships, fellowships and internships to further public goals in the environmental and Indian

policy arenas; conduct research and assist in policy development; and, serve as the

Federal mediator in environmental disputes. Since its inception, the Foundation has

awarded hundreds of scholarships to college students planning careers in environment or Native American health care; developed and implemented a successful internship program to provide opportunities for Indian and Native American students

to work in the Congress and the Executive Branch; promoted new directions in environmental research and education; and, the Foundation has begun the work necessary to become an effective mediator of environmental disputes through the recently authorized U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.

I am hopeful that my experience working here in the Senate on the staff of the

Committee on Indian Affairs and the staff of Senator McCain, along with my experience working for and representing tribal governments before the Congress, the Executive Branch and in their relationships with state and local governments will per-
51

mit me to bring to the Board of Trustees a perspective which is helpful as the Board

guides the efforts of the Foundation to meet the mandates set forth by the Congress.

I welcome the opportunity to assist the Board with the challenges the Foundation

faces as it continues to build on its record of accomplishment.

I want to thank Senator Smith, the members of the committee and the staff for

your prompt consideration of this nomination. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have or to assist you in any way you deem appropriate as you conduct your deliberations.

RESPONSE BY ERIC EBERHARD TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR GRAHAM

Question. The position for which you are nominated relates to national environmental policy and education matters. Please share with the committee some of the

major specific environmental issues/projects that you have had direct involvement

within the course of your past work?

Answer. During the past 24 years I have worked on issues relating to NEPA compliance, solid and hazardous waste disposal, clean water, safe drinking water and

CERCLA on behalf of tribal governments. During the 1980’s I assisted in the development of amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, CERCLA and the Clean

Water Act to authorize the Administrator of EPA to delegate regulatory authority

under those acts to federally recognized tribal governments. While on the staff of

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I assisted in the development and enactment of the Indian Environmental General Assistance Act, the Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement Act and the Indian Lands Open Dump Clean Up

Act. I have not been involved in environmental litigation; however, I have participated in negotiations relating to the issuance of environmental permits and the establishment of standards for remediation and mitigation associated with development activities which impact both land and water.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

(65)

NOMINATIONS OF ELLA WONG-RUSKINKO,

ARTHUR C. CAMPBELL, AND JAMES V.

AIDALA

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room 406,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Smith, Warner, Lieberman, Chafee, Reid,

Hutchison, Voinovich, and Bond.

Also present: Senators Robb and Frist, and Representatives

Wamp and Thompson of Mississippi.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator SMITH. The hearing will come to order.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider three nominations.

The first is that of James V. Aidala, nominated to be Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances.

As the chairman of the committee, I am in the process of holding

a series of oversight hearings to examine the EPA’s budget,

prioritization of resources, and overall performance, and my colleagues and I will have a number of questions, Mr. Aidala, I think,

in that area on EPA-related concerns.

The second nomination is that of Arthur C. Campbell, nominated

to serve as Assistant Secretary for Economic Development for the

Department of Commerce.

The third nomination is that of Ella Wong-Rusinko, nominated

to be Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

I am pleased to report that Mr. Aidala, Mr. Campbell, and Ms.

Wong-Rusinko are well-qualified for their positions, and I welcome

them today, and also welcome my colleagues, Senator Lieberman

and Senator Roberts, who I think will be here, and Senator Warner

and Congressman Thompson, who will also be introducing witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
66

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE

Good morning. The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider three nominations.

The first nomination is that of James V. Aidala nominated to be Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.

My colleagues and I have a number of questions for Mr. Aidala today on EPArelated concerns that I hope he will be able to answer for us.

The second nomination is that of Arthur C. Campbell nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary for Economic Development for the Department of Commerce.

The third nomination is that of Ella Wong-Rusinko nominated to be Alternate

Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

I am pleased to report that Mr. Aidala, Mr. Campbell and Ms. Wong-Rusinko are

well qualified for their positions.

I welcome them today and I also welcome my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and

Senator Roberts who are here today to introduce Mr. Aidala; Senator Frist and Congressman Bennie Thompson will be introducing Mr. Campbell and Senator Warner

will be introducing Ms. Wong-Rusinko.

The President has nominated James V. Aidala to serve as Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. The Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Toxic Substances serves as the principal

advisor to the Administrator in matters pertaining to pollution prevention, pesticides, and toxic substances.

Mr. Aidala has been serving as Associate Assistant Administrator for the Office

of Toxic Substances since 1993. He also has worked as a professional staff member

of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and

Natural Resources and as the Director of Policy Development at the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. Before joining the Institute, Mr. Aidala was a Specialist in Environmental Policy for the U.S. Library of Congress. He received a received his B.A. and M.A. in Sociology from Brown University. He is accompanied

today by his wife, Abby; son, Sam; and sisters, Linda and Angela.

The President has nominated Arthur C. Campbell to be Assistant Secretary for

Economic Development for the Department of Commerce. The Assistant Secretary

for Economic Development serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Commerce on matters concerning domestic economic development activities, and as the

head of the Economic Development Administration.

Currently, Mr. Campbell is the Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development

at the United States Department of Agriculture. Prior to serving the Administration, Mr. Campbell was a County Commissioner in Hamilton County, Tennessee and

the Chief Executive Officer of ACC Development, where he established and operated

a planning, consulting and development business specializing in community revitalization.

Mr. Campbell received a B.S. from Tuskagee Institute and a Master’s of City

Planning from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is accompanied today by his

daughter, Nedra.

The President has nominated Ella Wong-Rusinko to serve as Alternate Federal

Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to support the economic and social development of

the 13 states with counties that fall within the Appalachian region. The Commission

is composed of governors from each of the 13 states and a presidential appointee

representing the Federal Government.

Ms. Wong-Rusinko has been serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Liaison, Program Research and Evaluation in the Economic Development Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce since late 1993. Previously, Ms.

Wong-Rusinko has served as Executive Assistant to Congressman Gene Green,

Chief of Staff to Congressman Albert Bustamente, and Legislative Liaison Assistant

in the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice. She

received her B.A. from Incarnate Word College in San Antonio, Texas. Ms. WongRusinko is accompanied by her husband, Paul; sons, Christopher and David; and

her sister-in-law, Shirley and her family.

Now we will hear the statements of other committee members. Then Senators

Lieberman and Roberts will introduce Mr. Aidala; Senator Frist and Congressman

Thompson will introduce Mr. Campbell; and Senator Warner will introduce Ms.

Wong-Rusinko. Then we will hear testimony from our nominees.

Senator SMITH. So let me start with you, Senator Warner.
67

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Senator WARNER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Senator SMITH. Wait a minute. Senator Warner, I apologize one second. I want to recognize my colleague from Kansas.

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that very much. I underscore ev- erything you said. [Laughter.]

Senator SMITH. Easy man to deal with.

Senator WARNER. Well, he’s a good man to deal with.

Senator SMITH. He is.

Senator WARNER. You can go to the bank on his word. Mr. Chairman, this is a particularly enjoyable moment for all of us gathered here today. These nominees have served well and are

deserving, hopefully, of confirmation. I anticipate speedy reporting

out and confirmation by the Senate. But this marvelous person on

my left here has just told me modestly she has 30 years of Federal

service.

Is that correct?

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. Just about.

Senator WARNER. Just about 30 years of Federal service, and this is but another step along that long highway of service to the public.

So, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, Senator Frist, Representative

Thompson, it is my pleasure to introduce to the committee this outstanding American as the Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. I also want to welcome the family here.

Would you introduce your family to the chairman and members of the committee?

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. Yes. Thank you, Senator.

My husband, Paul Rusinko; my son, Christopher Paul; and my

other son, David Elliott.

Senator SMITH. Welcome. Got ties and everything you guys.

Looking good.

[Laughter.]

Senator WARNER. You look good.

I understand that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas will

add her comments to the committee later today.

Now, during my tenure as chairman of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Subcommittee, I had the privilege of working directly with Ms. Rusinko when we crafted the reauthorization for

the Economic Development Administration. This 1998 reauthorization, the first in 15 years—that’s remarkable, isn’t it—implemented

significant reforms in EDA procedures and programs.

The nominee was directly involved in the development of this

legislation. She was responsive to the committee and effective in

advocating the Administration’s efforts to streamline the Agency.

I want to underline, because I have specific recollections, Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee, she was not only involved, she was very responsive. Each time we made an inquiry

into the preparation of this, she came forward promptly.

I believe her years of experience at EDA will serve her well as

the Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the ARC. EDA’s mission of providing economic development opportunities so that these commu-
68

nities can transition to long-term employment and growth are multiplied in the Appalachian region.

The challenges facing most of the Appalachian region today are

significant. It remains a region with high unemployment, dependent on a limited industrial base, and I know it well. I travel it with

great frequency, Mr. Chairman. It is not only in my State, West

Virginia, it is that whole corridor that goes down.

I know that the candidate’s experience in working with State and

local governments will serve her well with the ARC. Her talents

and knowledge in the field of economic development are well suited

to the demands of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the

needs to diversify the economy in that region.

I wish you well.

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. Thank you, Senator.

Senator WARNER. As a citizen of this country, I thank you for

your long public service, and I have every reason to believe that

this is another chapter.

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. I thank you, sir.

Senator WARNER. I thank the Chair and members of the committee.

You’re on your own, my dear friend.

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. Thank you, Senator, very much.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much.

I might just ask your sons, for the record, are you boys proud of

your mother?

Messrs. Rusinko. Yes.

Senator SMITH. Good.

Senator Frist and Congressman Thompson and Congressman

Wamp all wish to say a few words regarding Mr. Campbell, so, because we are in the Senate, I’ll start first with Senator Frist.

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL FRIST,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Senator FRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.

I, too, would like to recognize Mr. Art Campbell’s family who is

with him today, his daughter Nedra—Nedra, would you please

stand up, as well.

Welcome. Again, that comment on being proud, I know you feel

a great deal of that today about your father, as well. Thank you.

It is with great pleasure that I do introduce a fellow Tennessean

today, Mr. Arthur Campbell, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development with the Department of Commerce.

Listing all of his qualifications for this position simply would

take more time than I have been allocated this morning, but I am

certain that my fellow members, colleagues on this committee, are

familiar with his credentials.

Over his long and truly distinguished career in public service, he

has demonstrated tremendous leadership in establishing community-based revitalization programs in rural settings and urban settings. His current position with the Department of Agriculture as

the Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development allows him to

oversee—very effectively, I might add—over 6,500 people in rural
69

utility service, in rural housing service, and the rural business cooperative development service.

He has been a key figure in this country—and I should also add

in our State—in promoting sustainable rural development, and will

be missed as he leaves the Department of Agriculture and moves

to the Department of Commerce.

He has been very involved in the community. Whether he has

been working on the Tennessee Aquarium Plaza Committee, which

spurred a revival in downtown Chattanooga, to his guidance in the

State Rural Development Council, the commitment of Art Campbell

has been demonstrative of a commitment to public service and

leadership that is of the highest, highest caliber.

It was almost a half a century ago that Harry Truman said,

‘‘Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.’’ How well, I think, and how

aptly those words apply to Art Campbell.

It is with a great deal of pride that I introduce Mr. Art Campbell

to this committee.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Frist.

I’m going to go slightly out of order to accommodate Senator

Lieberman, who has another engagement, and then I’ll come right

back to the two Congressmen.

Senator Lieberman?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy,

and I thank my colleagues from the House. I welcome you and

promise to be brief.

I wanted to stop by, notwithstanding another commitment, to

welcome all the nominees and wish them well and say a particular

word on behalf of Jim Aidala, whom I’ve known for many years and

who was of really great assistance to me and to my staff and many

other staffs here on the Hill when he was at the Congressional Research Service. He provided superb counsel to us in reviewing environmental issues, particularly pesticide issues, in preparation for

testimony and hearings. I was continually struck by his thoughtful,

even-handed, and fair-minded advice.

Since the Congressional Research Service, Jim has gained additional experience with regulating toxic substances from the perspective—the refreshing perspective, I might say—of the U.S.

House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations,

where he worked from 1991 to 1993, and from the perspective of

Associate Assistant Administrator of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, a position he has held since 1993.

He is truly an excellent candidate for the position for which he

has been nominated. I recommend him without reservation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a serious subject. So much of what we do

here is serious, but Jim Aidala has been elevated additionally, beyond what I’ve said, by an extraordinary sense of humor, and I

hope that I don’t put his nomination in jeopardy if I reveal that he

has been over the years a very active contributor to the group

called the ‘‘Capitol Steps.’’

[Laughter.]
70

Senator LIEBERMAN. I think he has exceeded Senator Roberts in

his work with that—oh, no, that was somebody else.

[Laughter.]

Senator ROBERTS. Well, I fell down the steps, and then he’d pick

me up.

Senator LIEBERMAN. I see. I knew you would rise to the occasion.

Finally, I note that Jim is accompanied by his wife, Abby; his

son, Samuel; and the more quiet sisters, Angela and Linda.

Thanks, The CHAIRMAN. Good luck, Jim.

Senator ROBERTS. You made the baby cry. I hope you’re happy.

[Laughter.]

Senator SMITH. Senator Roberts, I didn’t see you earlier. We welcome the Senator from the State of Kansas.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Senator ROBERTS. I’m sort of a stealth Senator, Mr. Chairman,

but I follow Senator Lieberman everywhere he goes in admiration

and respect. I’m not as busy as he is, but I just appreciate the

chance to offer these words on behalf of Jim under the banner of

consistency.

To show Jim’s sense of humor, prior to Samuel and his wife,

Abby, making an exit, he put down here, when he wrote their

names for me, as he did for Senator Lieberman, ‘‘They sound like

a grower group wanting an emergency exemption.’’

[Laughter.]

Senator ROBERTS. Which is pretty humorous to those who have

worked on pesticide issues, and everybody else wonders what the

heck I’m talking about.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here this

morning on behalf of Jim. I met him over 15 years ago, when he

was the Congressional Research Service top gun in regards to

working on pesticide issues. I think he is an excellent choice to be

an Assistant Administrator at the EPA.

Mr. Chairman, I have worked on pesticide issues. I have been

sentenced to work on pesticide issues for over 30 years, and I understand how important a fair pesticide policy is to the Nation’s agriculture community and the Nation’s industry and consumers, and

also the environmental community.

Our farmers want many choices in their pest control toolbox, if

I could put it that way, and they want them to be available at a

very low cost. In my days on the sometimes powerful House Agriculture Committee, when we were considering various policy proposals, we always called Mr. Aidala for advice. He played a valuable role in the pesticide debates, and they were really debates in

1986. Was that FIFRA Light, Jim? I think it was FIFRA light.

Mr. AIDALA. That was Berkeley Bedell if it was 1986.

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, that was Berkeley Bedell from Iowa, and

1988, and most recently in 1996.

He was much more than just a technical advisor. He knows the

laws. He knows the way our Congress works and how to form important coalitions and then to find solutions for some very difficult

challenges and problems.
71

If you look back, Mr. Chairman, many of the compromises he

helped forge have withstood the test of time. This is an area that

is always fraught with strong emotions, strong feelings, and strong

differences of opinion, but his imprint I think continues to shape

the way we regulate pesticides and chemicals today on behalf of

safety and on behalf of the agricultural community.

Why is Jim the best choice for this job at EPA? First, because

he is the Nation’s expert on pesticide and chemical issues. Second,

there is no one who has the years of experience and insight that

he does. Third, because he is honest and level-headed and fair. He

knows how to balance the competing interests—and there are

many—and make fair and rational decisions. He has established

relationships on both sides of the aisle and knows how to tackle the

very difficult problems. And finally because, frankly, Jim is not

afraid to tell it like it is, whether it is to his boss at EPA or to the

agricultural community or to the environmental community or to

industry or to a Senator from Kansas. Sometimes a little disagreement is healthy to the debate, and he does have that rare commodity here which is so sorely needed, and that’s a sense of humor.

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention, the opportunity and the privilege to speak on behalf of Jim, and I look forward to a very swift confirmation process, and I thank you again

for the opportunity.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts, for being

here. We’re glad to have you.

Senator SMITH. Senator Hutchison?

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that Senator Warner has already introduced Ms. WongRusinko, but I just wanted to add my support for her. She is a native of Texas, although she has lived in Virginia for the last 15

years, but the reason I am here is because I have worked with her

and my staff has worked with her in her position at the Economic

Development Administration, and she has gone the extra mile for

us in so many ways that I just wanted to go the extra mile for her

today.

She brings exactly what this Commission needs to the table, and

that is she has taken on many of the areas of Texas, particularly

our border area, where we have needed strength in cleaning up

filthy conditions of living, and she has brought economic development assistance and creativity and infrastructure improvements to

those areas.

Also, when we have experienced particular areas in my State

where there have been economic upheavals, she has come in with

creativity and innovation.

I think this is something that would do so well for the Appalachian region of our country. This is an area that could use creativity

to improve the living conditions and the economic development.

I just wanted to come and say that I support her. Even though

she is not a Texan any more, it is always in our hearts. And I think

that she would do for the Appalachian region what she has done

for people all over this country in the Economic Development Ad-
72

ministration, so I support her and I hope that the committee will,

as well.

Thank you.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison.

Senator SMITH. Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, I

know you wanted to say some things about Mr. Campbell.

Welcome. We are glad to have you here this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Senator.

It is not often we get a chance to introduce someone we know a

lot about. I’ve known Arthur Campbell for more than 25 years. I

was a mayor of a small Mississippi municipality, and Art Campbell, in another life, walked in and said, ‘‘I’m here to help you.’’

That sort of signifies the career of Arthur Campbell in public service. He has always been there to help.

I’m happy to see Nedra again. I haven’t seen her since she was

in diapers.

[Laughter.]

Mr. THOMPSON. That says time marches on.

Arthur was the kind of person who brought to Mississippi, specifically, the knowledge and know-how and ability to communicate

with everyone on issues around rural development. He established

some of the first nonprofit community development corporations in

our State that now provide adequate housing for over 3,000 families.

I’m happy to support him also because I’ve learned a lot from Arthur—patience, tolerance, and a lot of things politicians tend sometimes to be remiss, but Arthur has been that direction for me. He’s

a good family man. He has sacrificed a lot for this country and to

his family because of his pursuits.

But, again, he is someone that I know, and I am happy to support him in his new position. I’m always challenged by him always

pursuing higher and loftier goals.

I have no doubt that he will do a good job in this new position.

He will represent this country well, and we can all be proud of him,

so I’m happy to add my voice to the chorus of voices in support of

Arthur Campbell’s nomination.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Congressman Thompson.

Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee, welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. ZACH WAMP,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. WAMP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

and the committee for holding this hearing.

As I began several months ago to discuss this possible day with

Art Campbell, we were concerned somewhat that the longer it went

in a critical election year like this, maybe it might not happen, and

so I’m just grateful that it is happening and that, even as we approach, obviously, some division politically this year, that we can

still move forward on things like this where we hope we can meet

at the water’s edge.
73

I assume Art is a democrat and that he is being nominated by

the President, but I never knew Art as a democrat or as a republican, which I am. I’ve known Art for, I guess, about 15 years.

When I was in the real estate business back in Chattanooga and

he was in community development and economic development, I

knew him then, and I knew Art when he served on the County

Commission in Chattanooga, and so for years we’ve known each

other before they attached the word ‘‘honorable’’ to each of our

names in elected office. We knew each other pretty well, and I’ve

known Art and seen Art up close and personal, but I never thought

of him as a democrat. I thought of him as somebody that was serving our community and not jaded in any way by partisanship, because he really doesn’t come across as a partisan. He just works

for the people, and he’s done a very good job.

I would believe that, while the rural development history that he

had that Bennie talked so well about was very helpful in his distinguished 5-year career over at the Department of Agriculture, I

want to say that in this new position, if you men and woman are,

I think, courteous enough to confirm him, that he will be very wellsuited there, too, because in Chattanooga our success in the last 15

years is enormous, incredible, the turn-around in that city, and it

is in no small way because of Art Campbell. Art Campbell has had

a great role in the establishment of public-private partnerships in

Chattanooga that led to our downtown redevelopment efforts,

which catapulted him to the County Commission, where he was allowed to serve in elected leadership, and then 5 years ago coming

to Washington, frankly, quietly, just doing the job, getting the work

done, coming up here, and establishing an excellent reputation

here, as well.

He is a quiet man and would not tout his accomplishments, but

I want to say that they are very significant, and I come in strong,

full support of his confirmation, and it is really a privilege for me

to come, I guess as his Congressman. He has been a Chattanoogan

for 19 years, and I hope that when people come serve in Washington they don’t have to necessarily be residents of Washington, D.C.,

so I hope I’m still your Congressman, Art, even though we want to

give you to this position for quite some time and loan you to the

Federal Government for continued service.

Congratulations on the work that you’ve done.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will look favorably on

his confirmation.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Congressman. We appreciate your being here today.

Let me say welcome to the witnesses. You had a lot of support

here from the House and the Senate, which is a tribute to all of

you—bipartisan support, I might add.

Ms. Wong-Rusinko, let me just, since I didn’t take the time to do

it before, just give a brief introduction of you to the Senate, because

I wanted to accommodate other Senators’ statements.

You are being nominated to serve as the Alternate Federal CoChair of the Appalachian Regional Commission, which was established in 1965 to support the economic and social development of

the 13 States with counties that fall within that region.
74

The Commission is composed of Governors from each of the 13

States and a Presidential appointee representing the Federal Government.

You have been serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs, Program Research, and Evaluation in the Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce since 1993. Previously, you have served as executive assistant to Congressman Gene Green, chief of staff to Congressman Albert Bustamente, and legislative liaison assistant in the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice.

I understand you received your B.A. from the Incarnate Word

College in San Antonio, Texas, thus the connection with Senator

Hutchison.

Ms. Wong-Rusinko is accompanied by her husband, who has already been introduced, Paul, and sons Christopher and David, and

sister-in-law Shirley and her family. Welcome to all of you.

I’ll start with you, Ms. Rusinko. You have an opening statement

which will be made part of the formal record, and please feel free

to summarize that in 2 to 3 minutes. We’d appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF ELLA WONG-RUSINKO, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO BE ALTERNATE FEDERAL CO-CHAIR OF THE

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Distinguished members of the committee and committee staff, I

am honored to be afforded the opportunity to appear before you

today as President Clinton’s nominee to the position of Alternate

Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. I thank

the President for this nomination and for the professional opportunity of serving for 7 years as an appointee at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this hearing and for the many

courtesies which committee members and staff have extended to

me in my current Federal position. I am grateful for the bipartisan

collaboration that produced Public Law 105–393, the Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998, historic reauthorization legislation accomplished by this committee and the leadership

of Senators Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe, original legislation

cosponsors.

Dr. Jesse White, Federal Co-Chairman of the ARC, is with us at

this hearing. I thank you, Dr. White, for your support of my nomination and for your outstanding leadership. I look forward to having the opportunity to work with you and the ARC staff on behalf

of the Appalachian region.

I am here today because of the very special support of my family

and friends. I thank the many EDA and ARC professionals who

serve loyally and faithfully to make a difference in the Nation’s distressed communities. I am grateful to my professional colleagues

with national organizations for their collaboration on economic development.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to share my mother’s vision with the

committee and how that vision became a reality. It was this unique

effort that has guided my commitment to public service and the

creation of opportunities.
75

We lovingly called her Mama. Her vision was to pave a road of

opportunity for her four children with a foundation made up of love

of God, love of family, love of country, and respect and understanding for your fellow man. Had she lived, she would have celebrated

her 77th birthday 5 days ago.

Mama had a plan for the children’s future—a thoughtful and

flexible master plan developed through an exceptional partnership

with Dad. The plan was updated periodically to account for changing priorities or a better way. For the plan to work, our parents

realized that the children would need a ‘‘nudge.’’

Mom and Dad were raised in rural areas of Mexico and China.

As legal immigrants to the United States, they faced many challenges, such as learning another language and earning a living. Securing credit or a loan in the 1940’s to start a business was an

enormous challenge. Thankfully, today it is easier because of the

availability of State and Federal programs.

My parents worked hard, but they saved and invested wisely.

Their goal was to give their children a good education. To achieve

that goal, they started out with a small business and diversified,

ultimately finding their niche in a grocery store. For them, the

businesses were the vehicles they would use to pave roads of opportunity for the family.

How did my parents succeed? First, they secured technical help

and developed and implemented a business plan that included

goals and objectives. Each business investment required an outside

financial partner and required concrete outcomes. Outcomes provided my parents with a sense of pride and the incentive to continue with their plan. Full implementation of the plan culminated

in the transition of a helpless, dependent child into a responsible

adult.

The availability of public infrastructure, the Federal Government

role, and the private sector investment, together with my parents’

commitment and initiative, yielded a formula for business and personal success.

My parents’ success is applicable to economic development. I believe effective economic development begins with thoughtful planning that generates partnerships. I maintain that the strength of

the country in a world economy is derived from the ability of our

communities to compete in a communications-oriented environment. The recent and remarkable expansion of the United States’

economy presents us with a unique opportunity—to make a real

economic impact faster by strategically focusing and targeting resources on the distressed areas of the country.

America is rich in new, untapped markets. Federal, State, and

local programs are making a genuine difference. Federal efforts

such as those at the ARC and the EDA are realizing economic opportunities in the Nation’s distressed communities.

I believe the Federal role in economic development is to provide

the nudge that creates partnerships, helps build consensus for implementation of state-of-the-art practices, and produces long-term,

sustainable results. On a project-by-project basis, the Federal Government should be a partner to deliver resources to fill the critical

gap and then withdraw and allow the private sector to develop the

project.
76

American communities with good jobs, access to education, and

technology are proficient at competing on a world market economy,

but what about communities or regions that lack the good jobs and

access to education and technology?

A November, 1999, Department of Commerce report, ‘‘Falling

through the Net,’’ concludes, ‘‘It is reasonable to expect that many

people are going to lag behind. Education and income appear to be

among the leading elements driving the digital divide. This reality

merits a thoughtful response by policy-makers consistent with the

needs of Americans in the information age.’’

The Department’s report raises several questions about the Federal role in economic development, especially in distressed areas

like the Appalachian region. The questions require answers, and I

hope to be involved in answering some of those questions as we

craft policies and approaches that will continue to effectively transition the Appalachian region out of its historic economic distress.

I believe economic development is about creating opportunities

and a fair chance for people. President Abraham Lincoln said it

best. On July 4th, 1861, in a message to Congress he stated, ‘‘This

is essentially a people’s contest. It is a struggle for maintaining in

the world that form and substance of government whose leading

object is to elevate the constitution of men, to lift artificial weights

from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to

afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race for life.’’

Mr. Chairman, in closing I reiterate my appreciation to the committee for this opportunity and fair chance.

To my family and friends, I thank you from the heart.

To my professional colleagues, I look forward to the opportunity

of working with you in a new capacity.

Thank you.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Wong-Rusinko. It is

nice to have you here.

Mr. Campbell, you are nominated to be Assistant Secretary for

Economic Development for the Department of Commerce. The Assistant Secretary for this position serves as the principal advisor to

the Secretary of Commerce on matters concerning domestic economic development activities and as the head of the Economic Development Administration.

Currently Mr. Campbell is the Deputy Under Secretary for Rural

Development at the United States Department of Agriculture, and

prior to serving the Administration Mr. Campbell was a county

commissioner in Hamilton County, Tennessee, and the chief executive officer of ACC Development, where he established and operated a planning, consulting, and development business specializing

in community revitalization.

Mr. Campbell received a bachelor of science degree from

Tuskegee Institute and a masters of city planning from the Georgia

Institute of Technology. He is accompanied here this morning by

his daughter, Nedra. Welcome to you, as well. And Mr. Campbell,

welcome.

Your statement will be made part of the record. Feel free to summarize it any way you wish.
77

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR C. CAMPBELL, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. CAMPBELL. Senator Smith, thank you very much. Senator Reid, ladies and gentlemen, the absent members of the committee,

I come here today aspiring to assume the stewardship of the Economic Development Administration, whose mission is assisting development of economically distressed areas of this country, both

urban and rural.

I am fortunate to arrive here now, after the historic 1998 5-year reauthorization of EDA, a timeframe that I think allows a realistic

approach to the work that EDA has been assigned. I anticipate my duties with a certain sobering respect for EDA’s mission and the challenges that it faces in fulfilling that mission.

I also have a deep appreciation for EDA’s 35-year history of improving the economic conditions of areas that have not thrived as

well as the rest of America.

Although it is a relatively small agency, EDA’s impact is mag- nified by the congressionally granted flexibility to administer its

programs in a way that is both responsive and sensitive to the realities of working with a wide range of local conditions throughout

the country. I think this flexibility allows an engagement of local leadership in a shared, interactive, and more cost-effective approach to economic development planning and implementation. I’m a product of both the old south and the new south—the old

south of racial segregation, of ‘‘cotton is king,’’ of widespread abject

poverty, of disenfranchisement of blacks, and a new south of

progress and optimism, of revitalization and renewal, of commitment to redress historical mistakes.

These two opposing environments have shaped and influenced

me and have convinced me of a need for reconciliation in human

affairs and a need to improve the fundamentals in economic affairs.

Neither I nor my cohorts would have dreamed of this occasion

unfolding in this chamber that a black boy from rural Alabama, a

student in the 1960’s—could grow to manhood and be nominated

by the President of the United States to head an important agency

of our Government.

What those of my generation would never have imagined my

children’s generation now expects, so I am thankful today that the

great arc of American democracy is forever bending toward justice

and that our collective actions have helped to change the expectations of a generation.

I am also thankful for this appointment by President Clinton,

whom I first met when he was a young, 31-year-old Attorney General aspiring to be Governor of Arkansas. The occasion for that

meeting, to my amazement, was his offer to help redress certain

roadblocks to my efforts to develop the economy of the predominantly black town of Madison, Arkansas. Mr. Clinton’s interest in

distressed areas has abided these many years.

I would not be here today were it not for the supportive actions

of families, countless colleagues, and friends. Mr. Chairman, I’m

convinced that heaven is brighter this morning because of the

smiles of my deceased parents, Johnnie Mae Burks Campbell and
78

Patrick Henry Campbell, as they witness these proceedings. And I

have been sustained by the unconditional love of my wife of 33

years, Gwyndolyn McZeek Campbell, who is this morning absent in

body but present in spirit.

As Gwyndolyn and I have nurtured our three children, Erika and

Nedra and Nicholas, to adulthood, we have, in turn, been nurtured

by the character of their unfolding lives, their level-headedness,

and their educational attainment—two attorneys. Well, some might

quibble with whether educational attainment would apply to attorneys—and one accountant. Nedra put aside her lawyer’s daily

quest for billable hours to come here today from Detroit.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CAMPBELL. The great narrative story of America, I think, in

a basic way, is about people and places and how both serve to create opportunity and freedom and realization of hopes and dreams.

It is about families and how they create rewarding personal lives,

and hospitable and nurturing communities in which we live.

I view EDA as not just a repository of yet another set of Government programs, but as an instrument in which to create a moreperfect union, by promoting the general welfare of sectors and

areas of this country which have not prospered economically. Restoring in some places, expanding in others, opportunity for a gainful life is the high calling of the EDA.

I believe government exists to help fulfill the ideals premised by

our Constitution. Government’s role is to help people help themselves, to help communities afford its citizens opportunity to decent

housing, to earn a living, to educate their children and obtain affordable health care.

EDA’s legislative mandate is to help people in places experiencing substantial and persistent unemployment in the most economically distressed areas. It has steadfastly implemented this mission

for some 35 years, and I believe that the legislative mandates and

the expressed intents of the Congress must continue to guide the

agency’s work.

We must be innovative in conducting EDA’s business, yet prudent and responsible in fiscal matters. I don’t believe one negates

the other.

EDA and government, generally, should facilitate, I think, public/

private partnerships which produce locally led economic development strategies. The experience of the empowerment zone enterprise community program demonstrates that communities that incorporate specific, measurable benchmarks in their strategic plans

produce a believable vision of that future and are more successful

in the implementation of their plans.

I don’t think economic development is just about the issue of

money. I think it involves greater collaboration among Federal

agencies, to help provide more efficient and cost-effective assistance

to local communities.

Similarly, I think more sub-state regional collaboration on economic development planning is needed to produce planning of economic ventures, which might obtain more scale and greater benefits to the participating communities.

I think it is important for us to build incubators, important for

us to build industrial parks, but I also think we must provide the
79

environment for entrepreneurship to take place. I do not believe

that if they build it they will necessarily come. I think education

is the cornerstone of economic development, and I think people

must be and can be viewed as assets. They can be viewed as assets

or liabilities, but I think they must be viewed as assets. Sustaining

economic growth depends on creating a well-educated population

and the opportunities for them to be productive.

Therefore, I think it is important for us to link education to economic development. I think too often the term ‘‘economic development’’ is interpreted as doing things to solely create jobs. Economic

development, I think, is building institutional and leadership capacity to create economic opportunity over time.

I do not believe that job creation, alone, is economic development.

It would take sound investments to follow sound planning by a

broad-based cross-section of the local public and private sectors and

not just follow the economic development vision of outside consultants.

Strategic planning draws upon the ingenuity and vision of local

people from the public and private sectors. These are necessary

preconditions of successful economic development.

I also think a concerted effort should be made to improve economic opportunity in areas experiencing persistent poverty. Persistent poverty is a major obstacle to equitable economic development. Poverty exists in many urban centers, but it is often more

severe in distressed rural areas. Some 540 predominantly rural

counties have poverty rates of 20 percent or higher, and approximately 200 of these have poverty rates of 30 percent or higher.

Some of the economists argue that restoring broadly shared prosperity is the No. 1 challenge that we face. Former Secretary Ray

Marshall says that, if you were to plot the population distribution

on a graph by income, that now it would resemble more of an hourglass, where it used to resemble more of a diamond shape, with a

larger middle, a smaller top, and a smaller bottom.

But we have in this country, in America today, a combination of

a powerful and peaceful military, a democratic and stable government, and a strong and vigorous economy; yet, in the midst of this

plenty we have people in places that have been left out and left behind.

I believe that a challenge facing EDA and the country at large

is to act in ways that produce more equal and equitable economic

outcomes. Economic equity is a public good. I think society is more

stable and strong in the way people are able to fulfill their basic

human aspirations.

My hope is that EDA’s value will not just be in a project that

it funds or the planning that it does, but that the projects and

planning are done in a way that expands the vision and hope of

people of distressed areas and communities. My hope is that agency investments will be driven by local vision and local control, local

ingenuity, and imagination. I’m convinced that when we engender

hope, enable those who hope to act on their dreams, we produce a

much more precious commodity than any governmental program.

Finally, I think what made us strong as a Nation was a spirit

of cooperation and civic participation of communal togetherness, of

a widespread commitment to create the common good, and a strong
80

belief that we could achieve it. This spirit I think must be brought

to the economic development process.

So I would lead this agency guided by a firm conviction that all

people possess a certain genius. I would act to unleash the creativity of the agency’s employees and engender the imagination of its

customers.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to come before this

committee and speak a little bit about my views about economic development.

Thank you.

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman?

Senator SMITH. Senator Reid?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Senator REID. There’s a unanimous consent order in effect that

I offer the first amendment at 10:30 in the Defense Appropriation

bill, so I’m going to ask your permission to be excused.

I’ve enjoyed very much this hearing today. I’ve read all the background material. I had no knowledge of Ms. Rusinko or Mr. Campbell prior to today’s hearing. Of course, Mr. Aidala and we have

had a number of meetings in the past and I know more about him.

From what I’ve learned here today, the country is well served with

these three nominations, and I apologize for having to leave early.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Reid.

Mr. Campbell, I might say I used to once in a while be guilty of

making a derogatory remark or two about a lawyer, but then my

daughter married one so I’m in trouble and I can’t do it any more.

[Laughter.]

Senator SMITH. Mr. Aidala, it is nice to have you here this morning. You are nominated, of course, to be the Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. This position serves as a principal advisor to the Administrator in matters pertaining to pollution prevention, pesticides,

toxic substances.

Senator Roberts gave you quite an introduction there in your expertise in that area.

Mr. Aidala has been serving as Associate Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

since 1993. He also has worked as a professional staff member of

the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment,

Energy, and Natural Resources and as the director of policy development at the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.

Before joining the Institute, Mr. Aidala was a specialist in environmental policy, U.S. Library of Congress, and received his B.A.

and M.A. in sociology from Brown University.

He is accompanied today by his wife, Abby, and son, Sam, who

is now very quiet, and sisters, I think, Linda and Angela are here,

as well.

Welcome to all of you.

Mr. Aidala, the floor is yours. As I indicated to the others, your

statement is made a part of the record. Please feel free to summarize it.
81

STATEMENT OF JAMES V. AIDALA, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE

OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. AIDALA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you,

Mr. Chairman, and to members of the committee.

I’d also like to especially thank Senators Roberts and Lieberman

for taking time out to introduce me to the committee—I greatly appreciate that—as well as with Senator Reid and a number of other

Members past and present. I, obviously, have had that pleasure

and opportunity to work with many Members in a variety of capacities over the years.

I am very pleased to appear before you today as the President’s

nominee to be the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances at EPA. I hope to continue the important environmental and public health accomplishments launched

by the Administration through fair and open implementation of the

Nation’s pesticide and toxic chemical laws.

Over the past 25 years, my career has focused on issues relevant

to that job—pesticide and chemical regulation and protection of

public health.

As already mentioned by Senators Roberts and Lieberman, the

majority of my career has been spent in a variety of jobs on Capitol

Hill, working in the Senate and the House and also the Congressional Research Service.

In these jobs, I have learned to balance competing interests

where intense feelings and perspectives are involved. As mentioned

already, I did have the opportunity to work extensively on the

amendments to our pesticide laws in both 1988 and 1996, which

were successfully enacted with widespread bipartisan support, even

though those legislative issues are very contentious.

I would like to mention a few of the key accomplishments over

the past 7 years of which I am proud to have been a part. These

include enacting the Food Quality Protection Act to bring strong

protections for infants and children regarding pesticide residues in

their diet, expediting the review of new and safer pesticides,

strengthening occupational protections for farm workers, increasing

the public’s right to know by expanding the Toxics Release Inventory, creating partnerships with farmers and others to promote use

of Integrated Pest Management and safer pesticides, and last, but

certainly not least, creating the high-production volume chemical

challenge program to increase the availability of chemical safety

and health information.

While it is late in the Administration, serving as the Assistant

Administrator presents many positive opportunities. Important

work remains.

This year alone we face an ambitious agenda with much more to

accomplish. Specifically, for example, this year we must continue

the important work of the Food Quality Protection Act. Our priorities in that area, alone, include completing the review of the

organophosphate insecticides, strengthening the scientific basis of

our decisionmaking, and enhancing public participation by establishing a new Advisory Committee on implementing FQPA.
82

I will ensure that FQPA decisions continue to be based on sound

science, include extensive consultation with our stakeholders, occur

in an open and participatory process, and provide a reasonable

transition that works for farmers. I believe that these principles

will guide us well as we move forward in reviewing the safety of

existing pesticides, while also ensuring that farmers have the necessary pest control tools to maintain a safe and abundant food supply.

In our Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances,

where we implement the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Pollution Prevention Act, we are reinvigorating chemical regulation

through voluntary partnerships, increasing the public’s right to

know by making more information available about chemicals and

their possible effects, and encouraging pollution prevention through

a number of programs to reduce pollution at the source.

Also in this office we implement the programs to reduce childhood lead exposure. This Administration has made significant

progress to increase consumer awareness, to reduce childhood lead

exposure, and to establish standards on lead hazards. This work is

important and will continue.

In the arena of pollution prevention, we must also continue to

nurture initiatives where we have found success, such as the green

chemistry and design for the environment programs. These and

other pollution prevention initiatives are ways to reduce pollution

and reduce the cost of doing business for the regulated community.

I would like to close on a personal note. All four of my grandparents immigrated to America through Ellis Island, and I was

raised in a relatively austere household. Both of my parents

dropped out of high school to make ends meet during the Great Depression. Fortunately, with some luck, some brains, and a whole lot

of student loans, I was able to attend some of the Nation’s leading

universities, and from there I have been fortunate to be able to develop my career in public service and environmental protection. For

me, serving in this position will provide an opportunity to give back

some of what society has afforded me.

I do look forward to working with Congress in a bipartisan basis

as we move forward on finding better solutions to today’s environmental and public health challenges.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you

today, and I’m glad to answer any questions you may have.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Aidala.

Before we go to the questions—I will yield to you in just a second, Senator Voinovich—I do have two questions that I have to ask

all witnesses who have come for positions before our committee,

and first I’ll just ask of you to respond together.

Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted committee

of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness if you are confirmed?

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

Mr. AIDALA. Absolutely.

Senator SMITH. The second question is: do you know of any matters which you may or may not have thus far disclosed which
83

might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed in

this position?

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. No.

Mr. AIDALA. No.

Mr. CAMPBELL. No.

Senator SMITH. Let the record show yes to the first question by

all witnesses and no to the second.

Senator Voinovich, I know you have an opening statement and

questions.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, first of all——

Senator SMITH. Go ahead and proceed.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I’d

like to welcome the nominees and the members of their families

and apologize that I wasn’t here for all of your presentations, but

I had the distinct privilege of presiding over the Senate this morning.

I know it is a special day for you and a special day for your families.

Mr. Aidala, I am very proud that someone who was born in

Akron, Ohio, from humble beginnings has risen to the place that

you have, and I can understand how good you feel about this country and the opportunity that you have to serve.

Mr. Chairman, two of the individuals that are being proposed

here today are involved with two agencies that I am involved with

here in the Senate. My Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure has the ARC and the EDA. I’d just like to ask a couple

of questions in that regard.

First of all, Ms. Wong-Rusinko, there were several attempts in

the last couple of years to eliminate the Appalachian Regional

Commission, and I’d be interested in knowing why you think that

we need an ARC and why it is just not adequate to have their

problems taken care of like other States in terms of their problems.

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. The Appalachian region, which covers a 13-

State area, suffers from historic chronic economic distress. As such,

the region needs dedicated resources to look at economic transition

in a holistic manner, and for that reason I believe that the ARC

needs to continue to exist.

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you think that the money that is being

allocated today by the ARC is being directed enough toward the

distressed areas?

Several years ago, as Governor of Ohio, I was familiar with the

ARC, and there were some projects that were awarded in various

States that looked to me not to have too much to do with your distressed community, and I’d like you to comment on whether or not

you think today the dollars are being directed enough toward distressed areas.

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. I’m happy to do so, Mr. Chairman.

I believe that the ARC provides a balanced approach to the needs

of distressed counties through its existing allocation of funds process. ARC non-highway funds are provided for area development,
84

distressed counties—111 of them—the entrepreneurship initiative,

and 71 local development districts.

In 1983, ARC established a 20 percent set-aside for distressed

counties. In fiscal year 1996, the set-aside was adjusted to 30 percent. In practice, however, States have consistently exceeded the 30

percent set-aside and have spent about half of their total project

funds on programs that benefit distressed counties. This means

that about 50 percent of ARC project funds are being spent on programs to benefit the 11 percent of Appalachia’s population living in

distressed counties.

As you know, one year ago ARC initiated an in-depth look at its

distressed counties program. I commend ARC on their approach to

the development of sound policies for the distressed counties in Appalachia. The Agency has made great progress in gathering information throughout the region. Meetings have occurred in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, and I believe other meetings will

be held this year. I am hopeful that, if confirmed, I will have the

opportunity of participating in some of these future meetings.

In addition, I am optimistic that the process will yield some very

beneficial and thought-provoking recommendations about what is

needed to transition economically fragile counties to thriving resilient areas fully capable of competing in the new economy.

I anticipate that the outcomes and recommendations from this

process will be reflected in ARC’s next reauthorization, and I enthusiastically look forward to the opportunity of working with you

and the subcommittee which you chair on looking at how we integrate some of that thinking into ARC’s next reauthorization.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, one of the comments that I’d

like to make this morning is that I believe that some of the States

should be doing a lot more for the areas that the ARC is working

toward their needed areas in the States—in Ohio, 29 counties.

It seems to me that one of the things that ought to be given consideration to is perhaps some type of more-local participation in

order to get ARC money. I mean, if it is an area that is in need,

it seems to me that the States—particularly right now with the financial condition that States find themselves with, surpluses—

should be a little more interested in spending some of their money

in those areas that are most distressed.

The other thing that I’d really like you and your team to look at

is: how do you take and do a better job of taking all of the Federal

dollars that are available and State dollars and blend them so that

you have the largest impact on the needed region?

So often, ARC does their thing and then you’ve got money coming

in now under the new program that used to be the Joint Training

Partnership Act, but you have all this money flowing in to these

areas, and it seems to me that a much better job of coordination

ought to be made in terms of accessing those dollars, and I thought

that one of the things that ARC could be doing is taking a leadership role in trying to bring those resources together in a way that

will have the largest impact on the region, and I’d be interested in

seeing if something could be done in that regard.

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. We will definitely explore those options, Mr.

Chairman, and we will look forward to working with you on how
85

to best do that, either through a legislative route or administratively within the Agency.

Senator VOINOVICH. OK.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask a couple more?

Senator SMITH. Certainly. Go ahead.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Campbell, I have been the beneficiary in several capacities

of the EDA. I recall when I was mayor of Cleveland that we used

the EDA quite constructively to help our city. But one of the things

that I’m concerned about is that, under the Clinton-Gore Administration, there has been a major initiative in the area of

empowerment zones, and EZ zones, and a lot of money has gone

into those projects. I intend, perhaps not this year but for sure next

year, to have some hearings on the effectiveness of the spending of

those dollars and our urban dollars in terms of making a difference.

One of the things that has always bothered me is that I thought

that EDA did such a good job, and that, instead of the money going

into the ‘‘empowerment zones,’’ that that money could have been

better spent by allocating it to the EDA, who has had a long history of some very, very creative projects. I always used to refer to

the EDA as the yeast that raised the dough.

I’d be interested in your comment about the empowerment zones

and its relationship with the EDA.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, Senator, part of the strength of the

empowerment zones is the coming together by people from various

sectors in the community and producing a believable vision of what

that community can become.

The interesting thing that has happened is that many aspirant

communities for designation of those zones who did not get designated have done extraordinarily well in implementing strategic

plans that they put together. So there is a certain strength and

power that comes from communities getting a clear idea of what

they want to do and how to go about finding resources to carry that

out.

Part of the problem is the way we’ve always conducted business,

with the categorical loan and grant programs—first-come/firstserved basis. Those communities that for some reason have been

disinvested over time have been left out and left behind. They don’t

have the plans and they don’t do very well in seeking resources in

the normal course of things.

Now, I think EDA program works very well, but what is good

about EDA programs is that they are flexible and provide money

for actual planning. Often, the development districts are involved

in projects—putting them together and helping to make deals that

are sound investments. You know what can come out of it and

what ought to go into it in order to get the right outcome.

EDA brings a combination of resources that are helpful and

available across the country. There are a lot of places that I think

have benefited very well from the empowerment zones process and

that kind of approach.

But the point I want to leave with you is although we have complete coverage of the country in empowerment zones, EDA still can

impart the lessons of empowerment zones in other places.
86

Senator VOINOVICH. Have you observed that the communities

that have been designated empowerment zones have received less

EDA money than had it not been for the fact that they were

empowerment zones?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, I haven’t observed that. I would think we’ve

leveraged, like, some $10 for every $1 that has been put in on the

empowerment zone programs, and that has come from a variety of

places, including EDA and Health and Human Services and public

and private sector, so I wouldn’t suspect that I’d find that to be the

case. But I haven’t observed it. No.

Senator VOINOVICH. I’d be interested in that, Mr. Chairman, to

see just what dollars those empowerment zone areas have received

in terms of EDA, or have they received about the same as they

would have ordinarily, or because they are better organized that

makes them more qualified to take advantage of the EDA.

I think the point you made is a very good one, and I hadn’t

thought of that, but it is a very good one, and that is that the communities that were preparing for the empowerment zones have got

their act together, and even though they weren’t designated they

are doing a better job of utilizing their resources. That’s maybe a

good idea for the Appalachian Regional Commission, to think of

some way that you could require people to get together their resources and then come up with a plan for the region.

I remember back when I was mayor of Cleveland I was part of

the group that lobbied for Federal enterprise zone legislations.

Originally, Congressman Kemp was involved in that. We finally decided on 75 of them, and then we’d have 25 one year and so on over

a 3-year period.

Of course, that legislation was never passed, but as I think back

on it, we were trying to prepare to take advantage of one of them.

It’s amazing. This really gets to the point that you’re making. One

of the areas in the district that we were going to make application

for had the highest crime rate in the city of Cleveland, and because

that plan was put together a nonprofit organization was created in

the area called ‘‘The Midtown Corridor Development Corporation.’’

Today, that area that was awful, in terms of crime and in terms

of development, is the best area in the city of Cleveland—the lowest crime rate and the most development. In fact, people are clamoring to get in the place.

So getting people together and getting them organized and looking at things really does make a difference, and I sometimes think

that we forget about that on the national level. We mandate these

things down, and we don’t understand that the real action really

is taking place with the indigenous leadership in the community,

and the key is getting them together to take advantage of the resources that are available.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions except to ask if I

could have my statement put into the record.

Senator SMITH. Without objection, the statement will be made

part of the record.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
87

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

OHIO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today and I would like to welcome Mr. James Aidala, Mr. Arthur Campbell and Ms. Ella Wong-Rusinko to the

committee. I look forward to hearing their testimony.

The three nominees that appear before us this morning have been nominated for

three very different positions. Mr. Campbell, has been nominated to be the Assistant

Secretary for Economic Development at the Department of Commerce. Ms. WongRusinko, has been nominated to be the Alternate Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. And Mr. Aidala is here because he has been nominated

to be the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that Mr. Campbell and Ms. WongRusinko are here today. As you know, oversight jurisdiction for the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) fall

under the purview ofthe Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which

I chair.

In 1965, Congress created the EDA to bring opportunity to economically-distressed areas of the United States. The EDA has been working for the past 35 years

to generate jobs, support private enterprise and help achieve sustainable economic

growth by empowering distressed communities to develop and implement their own

economic development and revitalization strategies. Since 1965, EDA has funded

more than 43,000 projects, investing over $17 billion in more than 8,000 communities. It is estimated that EDA assistance has helped create over 4 million jobs and

leveraged more than $ 130 billion in private-sector investment.

Also in 1965, Congress established the ARC to bring the Appalachian region of

our nation into the mainstream of the American economy. This region includes 406

counties in 13 states, including Ohio, and has a population of about 22 million people. As a unique partnership between the Federal Government and these 13 states,

the ARC runs programs in a wide range of activities, including highway construction, education and training, health care, housing, enterprise development, export

promotion, telecommunications, and water and sewer infrastructure. All of these activities help achieve the goal of a viable and self-sustaining regional economy.

The ARC currently ranks all of the 406 counties according to four categories: distressed, transitional, competitive and attainment. These categories determine the

extent for potential ARC support for specific projects. They also help ensure that

support goes to the areas with the greatest need. Mr. Chairman, distressed counties

are the poorest of the poor, with unemployment at least 150 percent of the national

average, a poverty rate of at least 150 percent of the national average, and per capita market income of no more than two-thirds of the national average. This means

that a distressed county has an unemployment rate of greater than 8 percent, a poverty rate of at least 19.7 percent, and per capita market income of less than $13,674.

For fiscal year 2000, 111 counties in the region are classified as distressed, including 9 in Ohio. That is over one-fourth of the counties included in the region.

I know there is terrific potential in Appalachia, and I wholeheartedly agree with

one of ARC’s guiding principles that the most valuable investment that can be made

in a region is in its people.

I look forward to the next reauthorization of the ARC. In preparation, I am planning to hold a field hearing in Ohio on the ARC program under the auspices of the

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee sometime in August.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SMITH. I was just going to ask a couple of questions at

this point, since I yielded to him first.

Mr. Campbell, I just want to pick up for a moment on what Senator Voinovich was asking.

Oftentimes the criticism is that you get the infusion of the money

into these economically depressed areas and it has a temporary effect, but then you get slippage and the help that started with the

initial grant or moneys infused in, you get slippage after that and

we fall back and we don’t sustain the economic help that came into

that depressed area.

Could you give me any indication how we might be able to follow

through more to sustain that economic development that occurs

with the initial infusion of the dollars?
88

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, you start with the idea—included in my

statement—that economic development is not just about money.

You start with the idea of people at the local level creating a vision

of what can happen in that community. They start to bring organizations and institutions together to implement specific plans that

they develop over time.

Money is important to the implementation of that plan. However,

often the community focus is strictly on the project and the money

needed to create jobs, without attention to building management

capacity. Without proper management, projects can fail. Often that

happens.

I think you start with the notion of how to build a business stepby-step. Perhaps you begin with legislation and a locally developed

economic development strategy. Finding the money that goes in at

the right place, at the right time, and for the right use would help

a lot. But if we focus just on the pursuit of doing a project, getting

money in, without understanding what the overall scheme of the

development could be in that community, then it won’t work.

The other problem, Mr. Chairman, I might add, is that we get

so focused in some of these communities on the needs and the problems and the pathology of these communities that we don’t look at

what they can build upon or the available assets.

So I say to communities, ‘‘What do you have that you can build

upon?’’ I believe the strategy of always trying to find some industry

to come into a community has limited viability and is not always

a solution. I think you have to start with what you have. Start with

the assets you have in that community and build upon those.

Senator SMITH. How do you feel about new technology being part

of that building block?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Absolutely. It is a key part of it. I’ve talked about

education. Unless we focus on preparing these communities that

are distressed and poor, that they are going to be left out and left

way behind in the application of the new technology.

Technology potentially minimizes some of the disadvantages, especially for distressed communities. For example, with technology

the distance disadvantage minimizes the remoteness of some of the

small places.

Senator SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. Aidala, when Mr. McCabe was here a few weeks ago I asked

him the same question regarding my plan next year to use an authorization process for EPA, which we have not been doing in the

past. We basically have the smokestack—the Clean Air Act, the

Clean Water Act—all these authorizations of various bills, but

never really getting to see how they interconnect.

The response from Administrator Browner, as well as Mr.

McCabe, was positive in the sense that they felt that they would

be able to work with us in that area.

I’d just be interested in your reaction to that approach as to how

this would assist you in terms of your duties over there.

Mr. AIDALA. I think we would, obviously, also welcome that approach, certain to explore it and see what opportunities there may

be. In particular, it is relevant to our part of EPA because, as I

mentioned in my statement, part of our responsibility is the Pollution Prevention Act, which, by definition, is trying to cut across the
89

media programs. It is difficult, and we would look forward to working with you and other members of the committee on what are the

lessons learned, what do we need to do either more, better, or differently in order to meet some of those goals, so we would welcome

that opportunity.

Senator SMITH. One of the areas that has caused great concern

is asbestos. I have an example. In some cases you are seeing up

to $5,000 a day in fines or violations to schools even. I have been

contacted by one school administrator who had been threatened

with EPA violations for not having an asbestos plan for a school

that was built in 1995 and asbestos hadn’t been used in schools

since the 1980’s.

How do you address a situation like that, I mean, where a risk

is not present but you still have the regulation and somebody is out

there trying to enforce a regulation doesn’t even make sense?

Mr. AIDALA. Obviously, I am not familiar with that particular example. On the face of it, I think you are right. It sounds like it is

a technical term sometimes often used, which is called ‘‘it’s a mistake.’’ I’m not sure. That sounds——

Senator SMITH. I think it is more getting into the regulations and

updating them——

Mr. AIDALA. Sure.

Senator SMITH [continuing]. And not having to live with regulations that have just gone by the boards.

Mr. AIDALA. That’s part of our effort, in general. Asbestos has

been in the news for other reasons also recently, and it is forcing

us to re-examine where that issue has been in the past 15 or so

years at the Agency.

But, in particular, in all seriousness, about any time you have an

implementation program you have to use some kind of reasonableness and common sense. Again, I’m not familiar with the exact example you raised. On its face, you are absolutely right.

For example, our lead regulations, lead paint was stopped in

1978. If you have houses or an apartment building built in 1990,

it would be the same thing. And so it doesn’t mean that there is

absolutely no problem, but obviously you have to apply sort of just

basic intelligence on that.

Senator SMITH. This criticism or comment, perhaps better, comes

up frequently when we talk to folks in the field, and yet everyone,

including yourself, gives a reasonable answer to it. We shouldn’t be

doing such things, but it happens. It happens a lot. It happens in—

we test, for example, in many of our water systems for contaminants that aren’t even in the water, and yet we continue to have

to test for them even though they are not there. That’s just another

example, a generic one.

It happens a lot, and I think I would just encourage you to look

hard at that, because I think it makes us all look bad, any of us

who are in the employment of the Government one way or another,

to have those kinds of things surface which are just totally preposterous and make a joke out of what we are trying to accomplish.

Mr. AIDALA. I couldn’t agree more, Senator, especially the part

about credibility, shared credibility. This is not about whatever

branch of Government and what-not. It’s the Government that

owes the people more than simply the sort of, ‘‘Hold it, this makes
90

no sense. This is impossible by definition.’’ We need to respond to

that.

We have made—you know, it’s never enough, but we have an

ever-increasing effort to try to move away from everything from the

individual stovepipes to try to have more of a policy from headquarters that obviously incorporates those kinds of reasonable approaches, while I’m sure we’ll always be able to do better.

Senator SMITH. Thank you.

Senator Bond?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my

pleasure to join with you in welcoming the nominees and their families. I see some of the younger members are maybe a little bit less

thrilled with the boring nature of these lengthy discussions, but

this is what the folks that we are talking about have to go through

every day, so now you know some of the burdens that they face.

We are pleased that you could be here. I’ve had a good conversation with Mr. Campbell and talked about a lot of areas of mutual

interest. We have a few things that we want to followup on with

him, but we’ve had a good conversation there.

Mr. Aidala, this has to be one of the toughest jobs in the Federal

Government. You understand that, by being willing to undertake

this job, that may disqualify you by casting doubt on your judgment, and I trust——

[Laughter.]

Senator BOND. I’m sure this is a line the Capitol Steps could use.

I originally came here this morning to explore with you the mysteries of the Food Quality Protection Act, whose administration has

managed to keep almost all interested parties sullen and on the

verge of outright rebelliousness, but a pending floor amendment

forces me to put you on the spot here this morning.

You spent years reviewing scientific data, but we have overnight

to review the merits of a proposed amendment for the Defense appropriations bill. It’s very short. Let me just read it to you.

‘‘None of the funds appropriated under this act may be used for

the preventive application of a pesticide containing a known or

probable carcinogen or a category one or two acute nerve toxin or

a pesticide of the organo-phosphate, carbomate, or organochlorine

class in any area owned or managed by the Department of Defense

that may be used by children, including a park, base housing, a

recreation center, a playground, or day care facility.’’

You are responsible in this area. Do the data—does the information that you have support this amendment?

Mr. AIDALA. Senator, we just became aware of this proposal in

the past, I think, 48 hours or so and haven’t had time to take a

particular position. I think there are some issues about the crafting

of this language. For example, it is a rather broad brush of all the

different kinds of pesticides that are mentioned here.

I would be happy to sit down with your office or the offices of

the Members that are sponsoring the legislation and, in effect, see

what they’re really trying to get at and whether or not that’s something that makes sense to the particular situation at hand.
91

Let me mention one or two things.

The Department of Defense is one of the biggest users of pesticides as a single entity. At the same time, they’ve just reduced

their pesticide use over 50 percent over the past—I forget what period of time, 6 or 7 or 8 years, or even less. They’ve made great

strides in that arena.

I think the intent here is something we could all agree with,

which is obviously if there are dangerous pesticides you don’t want

to have them used around children. But whether or not this particular language does that and/or more I think we’d have to take

a look at a little more particularly.

Senator BOND. What troubles me is that you all are the experts,

and if this was clearly needed we would expect you to come forward

with it. I trust that there may be a couple in our body of a hundred

who know what the hell this is all about and can understand it and

interpret it, but I’m sure not one of them. I will be very honored

to meet any of my colleagues who really do understand all of the

ramifications of it.

It seems to me that this is something that is within your judgment and we’ve got to depend upon a lot better scientific understanding and knowledge than we have right now.

Nobody in Congress or the EPA wants children exposed to harmful pesticides or other chemicals, but we also don’t like disease-carrying roaches and spiders and ants and tics. We made a lot of

progress reducing the danger to children because we have been

able to kill many of those things which are disease carriers and can

even be fatal to small children.

This is an area where we count on your expertise, and I’m a little

bit concerned about the breadth of this.

Second, how long has chlorpyrifos been on the market, Lorisban?

Mr. AIDALA. Mr. Chairman, it was first registered, I believe, in

1965 or so.

Senator BOND. Let me ask some of the assumptions that went

into this study. For example, I heard that to determine exposure

one study assumed that a 1-year-old would drink eight glasses of

grape juice every day, and another study used a required dose well

above that allowed on the label, the equivalent of more than 500

applications in a home every day.

Is this accurate on the study, and are these realistic assumptions?

Mr. AIDALA. There may be some of the initial models that we use

in the case of any pesticide—not this particular case—that have,

shall we say, conservative assumptions. I don’t think they are as

overly conservative as you mentioned, but I’m happy to look into

that.

In the case of chlorpyrifos, which agreement was announced last

week, there were a couple of things that are very much different

than some of these sort of baseline assumptions. For example, we

had an additional 200 studies from the company. That’s on top of

the sort of normally required 120-plus studies, so there is a package of over 300 studies that we looked at.

A lot of that data came from, for example, USDA’s PDP—pesticide data program—which is the actual residues in foods. In other
92

words, you’re not assuming what may or may not be in the grape

juice. It is what is in grape juice as they sample it.

We had separate studies from USDA about food consumption, so

it is not an assumption about whether it would be 28 glasses of

whatever substance a day, but what do people really eat and drink.

Those are the real-world data that we put in the equations and

did in the case of chlorpyrifos when we did our assessments, and

especially supplemented by those additional 200 studies by the

company which, again, used less of the modeling assumptions and

more of the actual—for example, putting monitors on people as

roach spray was sprayed and see what’s in the air and things like

that. It was a whole lot of realistic data developed by the company,

themselves.

Senator BOND. Well, I had understood that the Vice President directed EPA to work with USDA in this area, but we hear from

USDA that they just learned about this announcement last week

as it was happening.

How well is USDA kept in the loop in making these determinations?

Mr. AIDALA. We work very closely with USDA all the way from

the top through the rank and file, if you will. For example, just

next week we’ll have our first Advisory Committee meeting, which

is the third in a series of Advisory Committees that we’ve had that

are co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Mr.

Rominger, and the Acting Deputy Administrator at EPA, Mr.

McCabe, all the way down to the rank and file.

In this case of chlorpyrifos it was a little bit different because the

primary issues of concern were not agricultural. That’s not to say

that we then didn’t work with them, but obviously if it is a crop

use and—much of our work, the majority of our work, obviously,

affects more crops than home and garden uses from the homeowners’ point of view, but chlorpyrifos was a little bit unique in

that way.

Senator BOND. Well, you talked about what is going forward.

Was it true that USDA just learned about it last week? I mean,

is this something that was sprung on them?

Mr. AIDALA. That would surprise me, actually. We had announced to the world, including—I mean, as well as USDA, even

informally, that we were preparing for what we call under the

FQPA process a ‘‘technical briefing,’’ and that is, by definition, announced 3 or 4 weeks in advance.

We obviously tell them long before that, and they certainly are

aware of our assessments. We ship again, for some of these processes that have been developed with a variety of stakeholders, ship

the assessments over to USDA, seek their input. Again, in this

kind of case, where the biggest concerns are home and garden uses,

they are not things that USDA would normally be very much engaged in, but they are aware of it.

Senator BOND. Last year we increased the Registration Division’s

budget 11 percent, but there were fewer decisions last year, nevertheless.

We need, as I think everybody agrees, to assist farmers in

transitioning from lost products to new products, and as products

are taken off the market we need to get the final determination on
93

what is safe so that we can deal with pests of all kinds, from insects to fungi to noxious weeds.

Is there anything that Congress can do to get the registration

process moving so we can get some final decisions?

Mr. AIDALA. It has been moving pretty well in the past. We are

at relatively historic levels. We’ve registered over 110 new active

ingredients since FQPA was enacted, and that’s very important, because by definition each one of those decisions meets the absolute

toughest law in the world for pesticide regulation, the FQPA.

At the same time, obviously we did take a hit in our budget 2

years ago, and what that translates into is you’re seeing less decisions right now because of the lag time from the time that we have

from sort of setting up the decision and getting the review packages together and moving them through our system.

One idea has been floated—and I know it has been talked about

at least among some Members of the Senate, but I don’t think the

Agriculture Committee has taken up any formal inquiry, per se,

have not done a hearing and things—is the concept of a fee-forservice contribution from the regulated community to help accelerate the decisions moving through our system.

At any given time we have about 3 years of applications, and obviously in one year we do one year’s worth. So if we do—if we were

to be able to find additional funds, by whatever means, we obviously could accelerate some of the decisions that we have pending

before us.

Senator BOND. Finally, I am advised that the vote on this

amendment on the Department of Defense bill is going to occur at

2:20 p.m. Any guidance for us on that measure?

Mr. AIDALA. I’m happy to do it now, do it here, do it in the back

room, do it wherever you’d like—happy to sit down with, again,

your staff and/or other Members and their staffs who are interested

and advise through that means.

Senator BOND. Well, this is our best shot. Give me your 60-second, ‘‘What do we do?’’ I’ve got two of my colleagues here. We’ve

got 3 percent of the Senate, and we can talk for the other 97.

Mr. AIDALA. So roll your sleeves up and get your yellow pencils

out.

Having been a member of the Senate staff as my first Hill job

back for Senator Percy of Illinois at the time, obviously in this kind

of situation the question is whether or not you want to have an

agreement to perfect it over time sooner than later. I’m not familiar

with what the motivations of the sponsors are. I mean, we can sort

of infer some of this, given the language and all.

Senator BOND. I’m not interested in the motivations, but, I mean,

do we vote to put this in law, or is this something that requires

more work with EPA?

Mr. AIDALA. I would suggest it probably needs a little more work

with EPA, but that is obviously up to the Members of the Senate

and the sponsors.

Senator BOND. You aren’t ready to say that this is—EPA’s got

questions that have to be resolved.

Mr. AIDALA. I would say that—again, from its appearances it is

not an EPA amendment, it is a DOD amendment. I suspect DOD

would have questions wondering exactly what it is going to mean
94

and how they are going to implement it, if that helps you at all,

Senator.

Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, do you understand?

Senator SMITH. I think I do.

Senator BOND. OK.

Senator SMITH. You know, just as a followup on that, it would

seem to me the lawn care folks on the military bases—what if this

thing were the pass in this form, would that prohibit that?

Mr. AIDALA. No. Again, as I said, there have been over 100-plus

new chemicals registered since 1996, most of which, I suspect, are

not in these categories.

I suspect that the biggest difficulty, upon further sort of debate

and review, is sort of whether or not, as Senator Bond indicated,

the sort of sweeping breadth of it is whether or not you are sort

of putting in too much in certain categories. But, again, not knowing the intention of the sponsors, per se, that would be my immediate response.

Senator BOND. Attention is beside the point. The question is, this

is what—when you get the scientific evidence, this is what you are

supposed to do, right? If you find something that is bad that should

not be used in Defense Department playgrounds or school playgrounds or homes, you ban it, right?

Mr. AIDALA. And I think—again, I know we’re not talking to the

sponsors of this thing. I suspect the short answer is yes, Senator,

I guess, to get to your point. But other than that I think the concern is whether or not all these classes of compounds have been

through the full FQPA review, and they have not. I think that’s

part of what is the motivation here, but, again, I’m only speculating.

Senator BOND. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Bond.

Senator Voinovich, do you have any further questions? If you

don’t, I’ll bat clean-up and we’ll wrap it up.

Senator VOINOVICH. Wrap her up.

Senator SMITH. You all finished?

Senator VOINOVICH. Finished.

Senator SMITH. Let me just go back to a question for you, Ms.

Wong-Rusinko.

As you, I know, are aware because you responded to it in a private letter, but I want to give you the opportunity to respond to

it here publicly, the letter that Senator McConnell sent to the

President expressing concern that you didn’t grow up in the Appalachian region, therefore probably wouldn’t be a good nominee.

Since those letters are made part of the record, I wanted you to

have the opportunity to respond to it here publicly.

Ms. WONG-RUSINKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

opportunity.

I think that my experience, especially growing up in Texas, has

really allowed me to look at distressed communities. If you look at

some of their statistical data, you have unemployment rates, 24-

month unemployment rate anywhere from 24 to 30 percent. If you

look at the 3-year data for States in the Appalachian region, they
95

are not close. You have 17 percent and 18 percent unemployment

rates.

So I have seen what it is like along the U.S.-Mexico border. I

know what it is like not to have access to water, not to have good

roads. I believe that I bring a certain sensitivity to the position, as

well as, I hope, some creativity.

All I want is a fair chance to be allowed to do that, and I think

that’s my best answer.

Senator SMITH. All right. Just a final question for you, Mr.

Aidala.

The issue of animal testing has gotten quite a bit of prominence,

as you know. Speaking for myself as the chairman of the committee, I want to also indicate to you that it would make me very

happy if we could eliminate all unnecessary animal testing. I think

that we are locked into this 40 or 50 years back. We’ve always done

it; therefore, we will continue to do it. And we’re not really looking

at other alternatives. You know, there is a difference between what

is necessary and what is not.

I guess let me just ask you, what efforts will you make, as the

Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances, to address reducing

and ultimately replacing the use of animals in toxicity testing?

Mr. AIDALA. We make, will continue to make, extra efforts in

that regard, Mr. Chairman. We have been in the lead, not only

within EPA but within the Federal Government, on attempting to

pursue that policy of reducing, refining, and replacing animal tests

altogether. That’s a stated goal of ours and one that we spent a significant amount of time on throughout various parts of our programs.

We are very active in what is called the ‘‘Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee on Validating Alternative Methods.’’ It is a very important part of making sure that we have the scientific credibility

of whatever new test method, whether it be animal or non-animal,

but this is especially a good forum for the non-animal tests.

We also use that as a springboard to take a lead in the international forum, especially working with OECD and other international partners.

The difficulty sometimes comes in validating these non-animal

tests, besides the sort of obvious scientific questions. There are certain scientific standards that must be met.

Sometimes it takes a number of non-animal tests to replace one

whole animal test, and that sometimes is a misunderstood point.

But if you do it right—for example, notwithstanding you may not

have an altogether substitute for an animal test—we have situations in part of our programs, for example, where, by combining

guidelines, for example, of certain other test requirements, we can

reduce the use of animals by 70 to 80 percent compared to, as you

say, some time ago, even more recently than 50 years ago.

So getting reductions in the 70 to 80 percent range, looking for

these alternatives altogether, trying to sort of share some of your

concern about, ‘‘Are we just doing this because we’ve always done

it that way, or is there, again, shall we say, a particular valid scientific reason, given our regulatory duties, that we have to have

this kind of information?’’ And, notwithstanding that, have we

made every attempt to reduce or refine or eliminate animal tests.
96

Senator SMITH. This became quite a controversial issue, as you

know. There have been some ads run on it.

Mr. AIDALA. Sure.

Senator SMITH. I just want to tell you, in all candor, I have been

told by people in and out of the EPA, many inside, that a lot of

what you do, if not most, is not needed, and that there’s just basically a mind set that we’ve got more important things to worry

about than that, and I just want to let you know that I feel very

strongly about it, and if you are interested in pleasing me this can

help. If you’re not, then that’s another issue.

But as the inter-agency, I cosponsored that so-called ICCVAM.

For the purpose of those people who are watching and don’t know

what we’re talking about, the Interagency Coordinating Committee

on the Validation of Alternative Methods, which seeks to make this

a permanent committee.

Now, EPA has decided to use the ICCVAM to validate the nonanimal test methods for the endocrine disrupter screening program,

but intends to use an EPA review process for animal methods.

Now, the EPA review process is a lot less stringent than the other.

I think that’s a double standard, and I think you ought to apply

the standard to both.

If you don’t apply that standard, it won’t happen. You know that.

It’s not just EPA, it is also National Institute of Health. It is everywhere, wherever this stuff goes on.

Mr. AIDALA. Sure.

Senator SMITH. A lot of it in the Pentagon, as well, where I’m

also looking at it.

I think it says a lot about a society. A lot of people say, ‘‘Well,

we need to care about people more than animals.’’ Well, I don’t

know that that’s necessarily true. I’m saying that a lot of the problems that we have with abuse, for example, with children comes

from people who abuse animals first. Wife beaters tend to abuse

their dogs and cats and child abusers abuse animals before it all

starts. So I think it says a lot about a society to say, ‘‘If we don’t

need to use animals for testing, let’s not use them.’’ But it takes

somebody with some leadership in the Agency to say, ‘‘Enough is

enough. Let’s look at this. It is important. Let’s move on with it.’’

I think ultimately it saves money, frankly, if you can use nonanimal sources.

Let me just say thank you to all of the witnesses.

Does anybody have a final parting comment you’d like to make,

a reaction to what anybody has said?

[No response.]

Senator SMITH. Don’t be too concerned about the lack of attendance. This happens frequently because people are involved in so

many things. Usually when there is full attendance you should be

worried because somebody is mad about something and they’re

going to come after you.

[Laughter.]

Senator SMITH. That wasn’t the case here. I think you can expect, since I am the chairman and I can make this statement, a

timely consideration of your nomination.

With that, I’ll dismiss you and say we’ll leave the record open if

anybody wishes to provide questions to the witnesses, which you
97

may have to respond to if they come. We’ll leave it open until close

of business Friday. With that, the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to re- convene at the call of the Chair.]

[Statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in welcoming our nominees this morning. Each of them has demonstrated a strong commitment to public service

in their careers and I commend them for it. It is heartening to find such capable

people willing to serve the public. Mr. Aidala has been nominated to advise the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency on pollution prevention, toxics and pesticides. In my state of Montana we have had some very unfortunate incidents resulting from our lack of understanding and overseeing the use of toxic substances. I look forward to working with

Mr. Aidala to ensure that what has happened with asbestos contamination to Libby,

Montana, does not happen again elsewhere.

Mr. Campbell’s nomination to be the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development is of particular importance to me. EDA is a major source of economic development assistance in Montana. It has been instrumental in working with communities

around the state providing grant funding that helps to generate jobs, and stimulate

industrial and commercial growth. There are many Montana families today that

have directly benefitted from the work of EDA.

Ms. Wong-Rusinko will be a welcomed addition to the Appalachian Regional Commission, an organization that is of great importance to many members of this committee. This committee has worked with her over the years in her capacity with

EDA and her talents will be put to good use at ARC.

I look forward to hearing from each of the nominees.

STATEMENT OF ELLA WONG-RUSINKO, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE

ALTERNATE CO-CHAIR, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, Senators Baucus, Warner and Hutchison, distinguished Members

of the committee and committee staff, I am honored to be afforded the opportunity

to appear before you as President Clinton’s nominee to the position of Alternate

Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). I thank the

President for this nomination and for the professional opportunity of serving for 7

years as an appointee at the Economic Development Administration (EDA), one of

nine bureaus within the U. S. Department of Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this hearing and for the many courtesies which

committee Members and staff have extended to me in my current Federal position.

In particular, I am grateful for the bipartisan collaboration that produced Public

Law 105-393, The Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998 historic reauthorization legislation accomplished by this committee and the leadership

of Senators Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe, original sponsor and co-sponsor of the

legislation. Senators Warner and Baucus please accept my gratitude and sincere appreciation for your support of my nomination. I would also like to thank House of

Representatives Members who supported my efforts to secure this nomination The

Honorable Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, The Honorable Bob Wise of West Virginia,

and The Honorable Martin Frost of Texas.

Dr. Jesse White, Federal Co-Chairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission,

is with us at this hearing. I thank you, Dr. White, for your support of my nomination and for your collaboration, guidance and leadership. I look forward to having

the opportunity of working with you and the ARC staff on behalf of the Appalachian

Region.

First, I am here because of the unique and special support provided to me by my

family my husband, Paul Stephen Rusinko; my two sons, Christopher Paul and

David Elliott; my parents Ella Guadalupe and Pete Wong; my sister, Rose Mary,

and brothers, William and Jesse and their families; my aunt, Finora Fuu; my parents-in-law, Paul and Ester Rusinko; and my sister-in-law and her husband, Shirley

and Peter Brauning and their two children.

Second, I would like to express my appreciation to the employees at EDA and

ARC for their guidance and support. In particular, I would like to recognize the

dedication and commitment of many career and tenured professionals at EDA and
98

ARC who serve loyally and faithfully to make a difference in the Nation’s distressed

communities. In the time I have spent at EDA, I believe we have accomplished a

great deal and more remains to be done. My thanks to EDA field and headquarters

staff, and, in particular, to EDA research, analysis, web, communications and budget employees for the opportunity of working with you in a special manner. The talent of these individuals has allowed me to work on the development and implementation of innovative client-focused policies, processes and procedures at EDA.

Next, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the many national organizations that I have had the opportunity of working with on economic development issues.

In particular, I am grateful for the working relationships that I have been able to

establish with the National Association of Development Organizations, the National

Association of Regional Councils, the National Association of Counties, the U. S.

Conference of Mayors, the Public Works and Economic Development Association, the

League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the Council

for Urban Economic Development.

When I spoke with committee staff, I was asked to talk about ‘‘my vision.’’ If you will indulge me, I would like to share someone else’s vision and how that vision became a reality through a special partnership. It was this unique effort which has

greatly influenced my commitment to public service and to the creation of tangible

opportunities that can become a reality. My mother whom we lovingly called ‘‘Mama’’ had a vision for her family. That vi- sion was to pave a road of opportunity for her four children with a foundation made

up of love of God, love of family, love of country and respect and understanding for

your fellow man. Had she lived 3 years longer, she would have celebrated her 77th

birthday just 5 days ago. Mama had a plan for the children’s future: a thoughtful and flexible master plan developed through an exceptional partnership with Dad. This special relationship

involved sharing the benefits, making sacrifices and dealing with the challenges. It

meant working together in a consensus and creative manner toward implementation

of an overall plan. The plan had to be updated periodically to account for changing

priorities or a ‘‘better way.’’ For the plan to work, our parents realized that the children would need a ‘‘nudge’’ and that meant start-up capital, which was not readily

accessible.

My parents were raised in rural, farming areas of Mexico and China. As legal im- migrants to the United States, they faced many challenges: learning another language, earning a living, making new friends, finding a place to live, and providing

for their children. It was a difficult time. For them, getting started was not an easy

task. Securing credit or a loan in the 1940’s for business start-up purposes was an

enormous challenge. Thankfully, today it is easier for more people to obtain credit

as a result of the availability of state and Federal programs. Mom and Dad worked hard and saved religiously. They started out small by opening a restaurant, later they expanded and opened what we called an ‘‘ice-house’’ or

in today’s terms a ‘‘fast-stop convenience store.’’ What is more important, they saved

and invested wisely for the future. They continued to pursue their goal of providing

sound educational opportunities for their four children. Eventually they purchased

a mid-size business a grocery store. For them, the businesses were the vehicles they

would use to pave roads of opportunity for themselves and their children.

Since education was a parental priority, the youngest would stay at home after

school with my maternal grandparents who lived with us. As we got older, we would

have to go to the grocery store after school. Homework was always first, then work.

We stocked shelves, helped deliver groceries, and as we say today, other duties as

assigned. As the eldest, I was taught to help with paperwork and bookkeeping. The

grocery store was my parents’ last investment together. The business did well and

after decades of hard work, they sold the grocery store.

My parents’ story is one of business success, but how did they do it? First, they

secured technical help, from those knowledgeable about businesses. They developed

and implemented a business plan that included goals and objectives. My parents

took calculated risks. They initially put more than half of their money to work for

them in the business. In my parents’ case, each business investment required an

outside financial partner. They were diligent, persevered, planned and partnered to

implement their master plan.

Goals for the children and objectives for the business were interrelated and each

had milestones with projected outcomes. Plans were refined or changed which often

generated better results. The results showed accomplishment which provided my

parents with a great sense of pride and the incentive to continue with full implementation of the plan. A child graduating from high school or college was a milestone. Witnessing your child secure a job that took her away from home was an outcome. Observing your child become independent and self-sufficient were results and
99

measured the success of your master plan. Full implementation of the plan showed

that you had a key role with the transition of a helpless, dependent child to a responsible adult.

Noteworthy is the fact that the last family business, the grocery store, was strate- gically located in an area of mixed economic need. To the North were about ten

square blocks of Federal-government subsidized public housing. The downtown area

was about two miles East and residential housing South and West. The availability

of public infrastructure, the Federal Government role, and the private sector investment together with my parents’ commitment and initiative yielded a formula for

business and personal success.

My parents’ vision, how and what they accomplished, is applicable to economic de- velopment. I believe successful economic development begins with thoughtful planning that generates partnerships. Local, state, regional, and Federal partnerships

produce a shared responsibility for making sound investments that can transition

economically fragile areas of our Nation into self-sustaining, healthy communities.

Fostering partnerships that eventually produce vibrant, competitive economies are

inherent to the missions of ARC and EDA.

Economic development is a local, ‘‘bottoms-up’’ process which results in a quality of life environment that generates jobs through community and private sector partnerships. Traditional economic development investments are critical to communities,

especially those that lag behind more prosperous areas. All communities have

unique developmental needs and no easy formula exists to achieve or sustain economic resilience.

Advances in technology and telecommunications have posed new challenges for our children and the places they call home. Many American communities struggle

to provide essential services that include quality-of-life, sustainable economies. The

new economy is globally competitive and the opportunities are greater. However, so

are the barriers especially for those communities diligently working toward meeting

basic living needs, such as water, roads, schools and jobs. Many areas of the Nation

are out of the economic mainstream profile: high need counties of the Appalachian

Region, localities along the United States-Mexico Border, remote areas of Alaska,

much of the Mississippi River Delta, pockets of severe poverty in large cities like

Los Angeles and New York, lesser populated tracts of Mid-Western states, and Native-American tribal units.

My view is that the strength of the country in a world economy is derived from the ability of our communities to compete in a communications-oriented environment.

The recent and remarkable economic expansion of the United States economy pre- sents us with a unique opportunity: To make a real economic impact faster by strategically focusing and targeting re- sources on the distressed areas of the country accomplished through state, Federal,

and private sector partnerships.

I believe that collaboration, consensus, and non-partisan partnerships assure economic opportunities and lasting outcomes for American communities.

America is rich in new, untapped markets. Through many worthwhile Federal,

state and local programs, I believe we are making a difference. I am very proud of

having the unique seven-year experience of working with the EDA at the Department of Commerce. An agency with the mission of job creation and retention that

stimulates industrial, technological, and commercial growth in economically-distressed rural and urban areas of the United States. Through Federal efforts, such

as those of ARC and EDA, I believe we are creating economic opportunities for the

Nation’s distressed communities in different, but complimentary ways.

ARC is focused on the specific needs of a region of the country with a century

of historic poverty and economic distress a Region that has consistently suffered

from underdevelopment, geographic isolation, and out-migration. The challenges of

the Appalachian Region which includes 406 counties in 13 states (Alabama, Georgia,

Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) are longer-term requiring

longer-term, targeted solutions. The Commission through a unique Federal/State

partnership focuses on a broad-based approach to economic development and implements solutions that include transportation, education, training, health, and entrepreneurial development.

EDA, by contrast, is focused on the needs of distressed communities nationally

and responds to cyclical and structural changes in the economy, such as military

base closures, declared natural disasters, Department of Energy reductions, major

plant downsizing or shutdowns, Native-American needs, international trade agreements, depletion of natural resources, and brownfields, to name a few areas of need.

Through a strong, flexible portfolio of transition tools and a national network of 320
100

planning organizations, 69 university centers, and 12 trade adjustment centers,

EDA provides assistance on a cost-shared basis directly to eligible units of government and to non-profit organizations for economic development.

I believe the Federal role in economic development is to provide the mechanism

and ‘‘the nudge’’ or assistance that creates partnerships, helps build the consensus

necessary for implementation of state-of-the art practices, and produces long-term,

sustainable results. On a project by project by project basis, the Federal Government should be a partner to deliver resources to fill the critical gap and then withdraw and allow the private sector to develop the project. American communities

with good jobs, access to education and technology are becoming more proficient at

competing in a world market economy. But, what about communities or regions that

lack the good jobs and access to education and technology?

A November 1999 Department of Commerce updated report, Falling Through The

Net, issued by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA) focuses on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America. The report concludes that:

The Census data reveal a number of trends. On the positive side, it is apparent

that all Americans are becoming increasingly connected whether by telephone,

computer, or the Internet over time. On the other hand, it is also apparent that

certain groups are growing far more rapidly, particularly with respect to Internet

connectivity. This pattern means that the ‘‘haves’’ have only become more information rich in 1998, while the ‘‘have nots’’ are lagging even further behind.

. . . It is reasonable to expect that many people are going to lag behind in absolute

numbers for a long time. Education and income appear to be among the leading elements driving the digital divide today. Because these factors vary along racial and

ethnic lines, minorities will continue to face a greater digital divide as we move into

the next century. This reality merits a thoughtful response by policymakers consistent with the needs of Americans in the Information Age.’’

The NTIA report raises several questions about the Federal role in economic development, especially in distressed areas like the Appalachian Region. More specifically, what policies are needed to assure those American communities already economically strained do not lag even further behind? How do we integrate technologyled economic development into the planning and investment process? In this context, the term ‘‘technology-led economic development’’ means incorporating into comprehensive development strategies a thinking that allows communities to transition

to the next level of need that factors competing in a cyber economy. Do existing

state and Federal Government programs have the technical capacity and understanding to provide the type of assistance communities need to survive and thrive

in the new economy? For every region and community, affordable access is critical

to opportunity because without access there can be no opportunity.

The questions require answers and I hope to be involved in answering some of

those questions as we craft policies and approaches that will continue to effectively

transition the Appalachian Region out of its historic economic distress. For some

time now, I have sought out an appropriate quote that captures the essence of my

views on economic development, which I believe is about creating opportunities and

‘‘a fair chance’’ for people. I believe I found it. On July 4, 1861, President Abraham

Lincoln in a message to Congress in Special Session stated:

This is essentially a people’s contest . . . It is a struggle for maintaining in the

world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate

the constitution of men to lift artificial weights from all shoulders to clear the

paths of laudable pursuit for all to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair

chance, in the race for life.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I reiterate my appreciation to the committee for this opportunity and fair chance. To my husband and children, I thank you lovingly for

being there for me. To my family, especially my parents, I express my heartfelt

thanks for the opportunities and values that you have given me. To my professional

colleagues, I look forward to the opportunity of working with you in a new capacity.

Thank you.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR C. CAMPBELL, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

To Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Baucus, other honorable members, and la- dies and gentlemen, I come before you today aspiring to assume stewardship of the

Economic Development Administration (EDA), a Federal agency whose primary mission is to assist in the development of economically distressed areas of this country,

both rural and urban. I am fortunate to arrive here now after the historic 1998 fiveyear reauthorization of EDA, a time frame that allows a realistic approach to the

important work EDA has been assigned. I anticipate my duties with sobering respect for EDA’s mission and the challenges to fulfilling it. I have a deep appreciation of EDA’s 35-year history of improving the

economic conditions of areas that have not thrived as well as the rest of America.

Although a relatively small agency, EDA’s impact is magnified by the Congressionally-granted flexibility to administer its programs in a way that is both responsive

and sensitive to the realities of working with a wide range of local conditions

throughout the country. This flexibility allows engagement of local leadership in a

shared, interactive, and more cost-effective approach to economic development planning and implementation.

I am a product of both the Old South and the New South—the Old South of racial

segregation, of cotton as king, of widespread abject poverty, of the disenfranchisement of blacks; and the New South of progress and optimism, of revitalization and

renewal, of a commitment to redress historical mistakes. Those two opposing environments have shaped and influenced me, and have convinced me of a need for reconciliation in human affairs and a need to improve the fundamentals in economic

affairs.

Neither I, nor my cohorts, would have dreamed of this occasion unfolding here

today in this chamber—that a black boy from rural Alabama, a student in the sixties, could grow to manhood and be nominated by the President of the United States

to head an important agency of our government. What those of my generation would

never have imagined, my children’s generation now expects. So I am thankful today

that the great arc of our American democracy is forever bending toward justice, and

that our collective actions have helped to change the expectations of a generation.

I am thankful for this appointment by President Clinton whom I first met when

he was a young 31 year old Attorney General, aspiring to be governor of Arkansas.

The occasion for that meeting, to my amazement, was his offer to help to redress

certain roadblocks to my efforts to develop the economy of the predominantly black

town of Madison, Arkansas. Mr. Clinton’s interest in distressed areas has abided

these many years.

I would not be here today were it not for the supportive actions of families, countless colleagues and friends. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that heaven is a little

brighter this morning from the high voltage smiles of my deceased parents Johnnie

Mae Burks Campbell and Patrick Henry Campbell as they witness these proceedings.

I have been sustained by the unconditional love of my wife of 33 years,

Gwyndolyn McZeek Campbell, who is this morning absent in body but present in

spirit. As Gwyndolyn and I have nurtured our three children, Erika, Nedra and

Nicholas to adulthood, we have, in-turn, been nurtured by the character of their unfolding lives, their level-headedness, and their educational attainment: two attorneys well, some might quibble about whether being a lawyer is ‘‘educational attainment’’ and one accountant. Nedra put aside the lawyer’s daily quest for billable

hours to come here today from Detroit.

The great narrative of America, I think, in a basic way, is about people and

places, and how both serve to create opportunity, freedom and the realization of

hopes and dreams. It is also about families and how they create rewarding personal

lives and hospitable and nurturing communities in which to live.

I view EDA as not just the repository of yet another set of government programs,

but as an instrument with which to ‘‘create a more perfect union’’ by promoting the

general welfare of sectors and areas of the country which have not prospered economically.

Restoring in some places, expanding in others, opportunity for a more gainful life

is the high calling of the Economic Development Administration. I believe government exists to help fulfill the ideals promised by our constitution. Government’s role

is to help people help themselves, to help communities afford its citizens opportunity

to afford decent housing, earn a living, educate their children, and obtain affordable

health care.

EDA’s legislative mandate is to help people and places experiencing substantial

and persistent unemployment in the most economically distressed places. It has
115

steadfastly implemented this mission for 35 years. I believe that the legislative

mandates and expressed intents of the Congress must continue to guide the agency’s

work. We must be innovative in conducting EDA’s business, yet prudent and responsible in fiscal matters. One does not negate the other. EDA, and government generally, should facilitate public/private partnerships which produce locally-led economic development strategies. The experience of the

Empowerment Zone/ Enterprise Community program demonstrates that communities that incorporate specific measurable benchmarks in their strategic plans to

produce a believable vision of their future are more successful in the implementation of their plans.

Economic development is not just an issue of money. Greater collaboration among Federal agencies can provide more efficient and cost-effective assistance to local

communities. This is especially necessary in areas seeking to adjust their local

economies to: trade related downturns, military base closings, persistent and intractable poverty, dramatic out-migration and job loss, and environmentally triggered

economic changes. In these instances, holistic strategies requiring a variety of resources are needed in addition to the need to fund specific projects. Similarly, more sub-state regional collaboration on economic development plan- ning is needed to produce clusters of economic ventures, which might attain more

scale and viability with greater benefits to the participating communities. It is important to not only build incubators or industrial parks, but to also promote environments that foster entrepreneurship and market development. I do not believe that

‘‘if you build it they will . . .’’ necessarily come. Education is the cornerstone of economic development. People can be viewed as

assets or liabilities. We must see them as assets. Sustained economic growth depends upon creating a well-educated population and the opportunities for them to

be productive. Therefore, it is important to link education to economic development.

Too often the term ‘‘economic development’’ is interpreted as doing things to solely create jobs. Economic development is building institutional and leadership capacity

to create economic improvement over time. Job creation alone is not economic development.

Investments should follow sound planning by a broad-based cross-section of the local public and private sectors, and not just follow the economic development vision

of outside consultants. Strategic planning that draws upon the ingenuity and vision

of local people from the public and private sectors is a necessary precondition of successful economic development.

A concerted effort should be made to improve economic opportunity in areas expe- riencing persistent poverty. Persistent poverty is a major obstacle to equitable economic development. Poverty exists in many urban centers, but is often more severe

in distressed rural areas. Some 540 predominantly rural counties have poverty rates

of 20% or higher. Approximately 200 of these have poverty rates of 30% or higher.

Noted labor economists argue that restoring broadly-shared prosperity is the number one economic challenge that we face as a country. Ray Marshall, former Secretary of Labor, says that the population distribution by income when plotted on a

graph today looks more like an hourglass, with a shrinking middle and a larger bottom and top. In the not-so-distant past; it used to look more like a diamond, with

a larger middle and a small top and bottom.

We have in America today a combination of a powerful and peaceful military, a

democratic and stable government, and a strong and vigorous economy. Yet, in the

midst of this plenty, we have people and places that have been left out and left behind. I believe that a challenge facing EDA and the country at large is to act in

ways to provide more equal and equitable economic outcomes. Economic equity is

a public good. Society is more stable and stronger when its people are able to fulfill

their basic human aspirations. I believe that economic development that produces

broadly-shared prosperity is in the public interest, and that achievement of such

prosperity is a public purpose.

My hope is that EDA’s value will not just be in the projects that it funds or the

planning that it does, but that the projects and planning are done in a way that

expands the vision and hope of people of distressed areas and communities. My hope

is that the agency’s investments be driven by local vision and control, local ingenuity and imagination. I am convinced that when we engender hope and enable those

who hope to act on their dreams, we produce a much more precious commodity than

any governmental program alone.

Finally, I think that what made us strong as a nation was the spirit of cooperation, of civic participation, of communal togetherness, of a widespread commitment

to create the common good and a strong belief that we could achieve it. This spirit

must be brought to the economic development process. I would lead this agency

guided by a firm conviction that all people possess a certain genius, and would act
116

to unleash the creativity of the agency’s employees and engender the imagination

of its customers.
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124

STATEMENT OF JAMES V. AIDALA, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. I’m pleased to have

the opportunity to appear before this committee. Today I’m seeking your confirmation to serve as Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances at EPA. It’s an honor to have the opportunity to continue the important environmental and public health accomplishments launched by this Administration.

I’m also looking forward to the opportunity to work with the committee on a bipartisan basis.

If confirmed as an Assistant Administrator, I am committed to building on our

success in implementing our Nation’s pesticide and toxic chemical laws to protect

public health and the environment. Often in the contentious field of pesticide and
125

chemical regulation, where we routinely deal with tough decisions that directly affect consumers, farmers, chemical producers, and so many others, it is imperative

that we advance our work with everyone involved. Since I have been a deputy in

the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances for 7 years now, I believe

I am uniquely qualified to bring the different parties together to find sensible solutions that further environmental and public health protection.

My professional career has predominately focused on the issues relevant to this job—pesticide and chemical regulation and protection of public health. In 1975, I

started at EPA as a GS-4 summer intern in the pesticide program. Before my

present position, the majority of my professional career has been spent in a variety

of jobs on Capitol Hill. These positions included working for Senator Charles Percy

of Illinois, Congressman Mike Synar from Oklahoma, and the Congressional Research Service. During the course of my career, I have learned many valuable lessons about how to balance competing interests especially where intense feelings and

perspectives are involved. For example, I worked extensively on the 1988 and 1996

amendments to our pesticide laws, and while these legislative issues were contentious, the amendments were enacted with widespread bipartisan support.

In my current position as a deputy in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, I have helped to manage and direct a staff of approximately 1,450

employees with a budget exceeding $225 million. Our key role is to manage and implement the Nation’s pesticide and chemical regulatory programs. I would like to mention a few of the key accomplishments over the last 7 years, which I am proud to have been a part of. They include: Enacting the Food Quality Protection Act to bring stronger protections for infant and children regarding pesticide residues in their diet; Strengthening occupational

protections for farm workers;

Expediting review of new and safer pesticides; Creating the Pesticide Environ- ment Stewardship Program to partner with farmers and others to promote use of

Integrated Pests Management (IPM) and safer pesticides; Increasing the public’s right to know by expanding the Toxic Release Inventory; and,

Creating the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge program to in- crease chemical safety and health information. It has been my goal to find common ground by bringing relevant stakeholders to- gether and develop workable solutions. I believe that my efforts and successes are

appreciated by our stakeholders. While it is late in this Administration, serving as

Assistant Administrator presents many positive opportunities. Important work remains. This year alone we face an ambitious agenda, with much more to accomplish. Specifically, this year we will continue the important work of the Food Quality Protection Act. Our priorities include completing review of the organophosphates,

continuing to refine the FQPA science policies, and enhancing public participation

by establishing a new advisory committee on FQPA implementation. While pesticide

decisions will always invite close scrutiny, I am committed to ensuring that our decisions continue be based on the best science, continue to extensively involve our

customers, and continue to occur in an open and participatory process.

In our Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, where we implement the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), we are reinvigorating chemical regulation through

voluntary partnerships to increase the public’s right to know about the safety of

chemicals. EPA, in cooperation with the chemical industry and advocacy groups, is

implementing the High Production Volume Chemical Challenge. This voluntary program requires manufactures to generate basic health and safety data, and make it

available to EPA and the public.

Also in our office, we implement the Agency’s pollution prevention and lead programs. This Administration has made significant progress to increase awareness

and combat childhood poisonings from lead-based paint. However, much more remains to be done. We must enhance our efforts to increase the awareness about

lead-based paint hazards, and continue progress on the necessary lead regulations

necessary to protect children from lead exposure.

In the area of pollution prevention, I’m committed to continue a variety of initiatives underway with industry, consumer groups and others, to achieve voluntary reductions in risks associated with the use of chemicals, and to promote more sustainable technologies. During my tenure as an Assistant Administrator, I will continue

to develop voluntary and innovative partnerships with the chemical industry,

consumer groups, and others to expand the public’s right to know about potential

chemical hazards in the environment.

I would like to close on a personal note. All four of my Grandparents emigrated

to America through Ellis Island, and I was raised in a relatively austere household.

Both of my parents dropped out of high school to make ends meet during the Great
126

Depression. Fortunately, with some luck, some brains, and some student loans, I

was able to attend some of the Nation’s leading universities. From there, I have

been fortunate to be able to devote my career to public service and environmental

protection. For me, serving in this position will provide an opportunity to give back

some of what society has afforded me. I look forward to working with the Congress as we move forward on finding better solutions to today’s environmental and public health challenges. Thank you for the

opportunity to appear before you today. I’ll be glad to answer any questions you may

have.

RESPONSES BY JAMES V. AIDALA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

Question 1. As the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances at the Environmental Protection Agency, with oversight of all pesticide and industrial chemical

toxicity testing, what will you do to prioritize Agency funds and other resources toward the research, development, validation and implementation of non-animal test

methods into the programs you oversee? Response. The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) is working closely with EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), and with

other Federal agencies including the National Institute for Environmental Health

Sciences (NIEHS) (which has been designated by Congress as the Federal Government’s lead agency for alternative testing methods development) and the National

Toxicology Program, to address the validation of alternative, nonanimal test methods.

EPA has prepared an Interagency Agreement (JAG) with NIEHS in which EPA commits to provide $250,000 this fiscal year, and an additional $250,000 in fiscal

year 2001, for alternative test method development. EPA and NIEHS are sponsoring

a workshop this Fall under the auspices of the Interagency Coordinating Committee

on Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), to address the validation status of

various alternative non-animal test methods for predicting acute toxicity. The funds

committed through the IAG will be used to fund research on and validation of the

most promising techniques. In addition, the Office of Science Coordination and Policy within the Of lice of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances is examining

making available additional funds to support future workshops on alternative test

method development and validation.

Question 2. In 1999, the EPA invested approximately $70,000 into a rapid, cost- effective, humane test method, commonly referred to as the High Throughput PreScreen (HTPS). It is my understanding that Congress appropriated significant funds

for the research and development of the HTPS for incorporation into the Endocrine

Disruptor Screening Program. Why has EPA discontinued consideration of this promising method?

Response. The results of the Agency’s $70,000 feasibility demonstration study of the HTPS process were deemed unreliable following external scientific peer review

by a joint committee of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel and the EPA Science Advisory Board. Nonetheless, EPA continues to evaluate other methodologies to screen and prioritize chemicals under the EDSP. At this time, it appears that similar information can be more

efficiently derived from computer simulation models that predict endocrine activity

from the molecular structure of chemicals. The Agency is actively pursuing development of these models including their validation using non-animal receptor binding

assays.

The proposed use of a Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) computer simulation approach in lieu of HTPS was well received at a June 2000 public

workshop on endocrine disrupter priority setting. The workshop included representatives from industry, state government, and public health, environmental, and animal welfare groups. The Agency is continuing to develop several alternative nonanimal in vitro screening assays using conventional bench methods.

Question 3. Where is the remainder of the appropriation?

Response. The $70,000 appropriation for the feasibility demonstration study of

HTPS has been expended. No other funds were specifically appropriated for use in

the development of the HTPS.

The balance of the Congressional appropriation for the Endocrine Disruptor

Screening Program (EDSP) is being expended on a variety of activities. For example,

a portion of the funds are being expended in support of the development and evaluation of alternative test methods, including non-animal test methods. Further, EPA

continues to evaluate the potential usefulness of the HTPS as well as other methodologies to screen and prioritize chemicals under the EDSP. A significant portion
127

of the funds are being expended for the standardization and validation of test methods being considered for use under the EDSP. Because many of the endocrine disrupter screens and tests involve cutting-edge science, few of them have actually

been formally standardized or validated through inter-laboratory comparisons. Finally, to ensure continued public participation in the development and imple- mentation of the EDSP, EPA is supporting various workshops and will charter a

new Federal Advisory Committee to address standardization and validation of

EDSP screening and testing protocols.

Question 4. You may know of concerns I raised with Administrator Browner con- cerning the High Production Volume Chemical Testing Program. I have a copy of

the October 14, 1999 agreement between the EPA, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Environmental Defense Fund and animal protection advocates. In the agreement, the EPA commits to incorporating animal protection considerations into all

future EPA testing programs. What concrete efforts will you make as the Assistant

Administrator for Toxic Substances to address reducing and replacing the use of

animals in toxicity testing? Response. The Agency has emphasized on numerous occasions and in various fo- rums that it is committed to reducing the number of animals used for testing, and

to replacing animals in testing with validated in vitro (non-animal) test systems

when they are reasonably and practically available for use in the HPV challenge

program. These goals must be balanced with the need to conduct scientifically sound

chemical hazard/risk assessments in support of the Agency’s mission. The October

14, 1999, letter, which was written in the specific context of the High Production

Volume Challenge Program, embodies several key principles, designed to minimize

the use of animals, which are applicable to the Agency’s chemical information programs. The principles include: encouraging participating companies to conduct a

qualitative analysis to determine if there is sufficient data, maximizing the use of

existing and scientifically adequate data to minimize further testing, and encouraging the use of categories of related chemicals and structure-activity relationships.

These principles are intended to reduce the absolute number of chemical substances

that may need to be tested and ensure that duplicative testing is avoided.

In addition, EPA actively supports validation of alternative test methods through

the Agency’s role as a Co-Chair, along with the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on

Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)). For example, EPA recently concurred

with ICCVAM that the Local Lymph Node Assay (a test for allergic contact dermatitis) and the Corrositex method (a test to measure skin corrosivity) can be used as

valid alternatives under the appropriate circumstances. These alternative test methods will reduce pain and suffering of test animals and replace animals in testing

with validated non-animal test systems, respectively. In addition, as noted above,

EPA is committing $500,000 over the remainder of this fiscal year and next fiscal

year for research on and validation of promising alternative test methods for predicting acute toxicity. An example of EPA’s efforts in the international arena is the

Agency’s work through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) and ICCVAM to modify the Up and Down Procedure (OECD 425)—an alternative acute toxicity test which reduces the number of animals by more than 70 percent as compared to the standard LD50 test—so that it can be used to evaluate dose

response relationships (which are routinely used to evaluate the toxicity of pesticide

active ingredients).

RESPONSES BY JAMES V. AIDALA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR GRAHAM

Question 1. I have been informed of some concerns regarding EPA’s policies related to tolerance revocation for voluntarily canceled uses where the Agency has any

concern about the dietary risk from the product. Specifically, in addition to approving the voluntary cancellation of uses requested by the registrant, I have been told

that EPA now intends to revoke the corresponding tolerances within 180 days of

canceling the specific uses. This would make any food containing such residues adulterated.

We have been advised that numerous groups have indicated to you that the premature revocation of tolerances could cause significant market disruption both domestically and internationally. They have indicated that, without the protection afforded by a tolerance, commercial buyers will be reluctant to purchase foods (including fresh and processed foods) which may have been treated with the voluntarily

canceled pesticide.

I understand that in response to this concern, the EPA has referenced the ‘‘Safe

Harbor’’ or newly termed ‘‘channels of trade’’ provisions of section 408(1)(5) of the
128

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Can you describe exactly how this provision

will resolve the concerns raised by agricultural interests in my state?

Response. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) each recently published proposed policies for public comment on channels of trade. The channels of

trade provision you cite in the FQPA allows marketing of food crops which were legally treated with a pesticide, even if the pesticide is subsequently canceled and its

tolerances revoked. FDA recently issued guidance for public comment on how it intends to apply the channels of trade provision to crops treated with the pesticide,

methyl parathion. In essence, FDA will treat domestic and imported crops the same

and will make allowances for those commodities which may have methyl parathion

residues past the date of tolerance revocation, such as frozen foods, to remain in

trade. To minimize the burden of providing confirmation that crops were legally

treated, FDA cites examples of documentation which most processors regularly

maintain. FDA is considering issuing generic guidance to expand the principles of

the methyl parathion decision to other pesticides. As it has with FQPA decisions,

EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), FDA,

and other stakeholders, including the agricultural community, to ensure that legally

treated crops are not adversely affected by tolerance reassessment, and that food is

allowed to be distributed through commerce.

Question 2. Vice President Gore’s memorandum in 1997 recognized the need for

a transition period to newer pest management tools. General statistics aside, when

you cancel a use, what specific steps are taken to assure that an efficacious alternative pest management tool is immediately available prior to cancellation?

We are working closely with USDA and the agricultural community to ensure that

our decisions are based on accurate information, which includes analyses of available alternatives. EPA, in cooperation with USDA, is providing a transition that

works for agriculture. EPA and USDA are working to identify opportunities for reasonable transition and strategic management planning for agriculture and public

health use pesticides. EPA’s goal is to ensure greater protection of public health,

while also ensuring that farmers have the tools necessary for food production. To

address the concerns of all interested parties, EPA and USDA have established the

Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT), which met for the

first time June 23, 2000. This committee is bringing together expertise from all perspectives, including agricultural representatives, to help guide EPA and USDA implementation of FQPA. CARAT is developing recommendations for reducing risks

from older, riskier pesticides, with a focus on ensuring that farmers are provided

a reasonable transition to safer pest management strategies, including chemical and

non-chemical alternatives. CARAT will also discuss the process for developing strategic pest management plans for agriculture and public health uses of pesticides,

and work to ensure that high priority is given to risk management strategies for

pesticides most likely to lead to exposures to children. In creating CARAT, EPA and

USDA reaffirm their commitment to the key principles established by the Vice

President: use of sound science in protecting public health; consultation with the

public and other agencies; increased transparency; and, reasonable transition for agriculture.

EPA has also developed a priority system to expedite review of applications for

new pesticides to address pest control needs potentially impacted by FQPA. For instance, since organophosphate (OP) pesticides are one of the classes given priority

for tolerance reassessment, the Agency has instituted a policy to give priority consideration to applications for organophosphate alternatives. Since the passage of

FQPA, almost 25 OP alternatives have been identified—some completely new chemicals—and almost half of them have already been registered. For example, spinosad,

tebufenozide, methoxyfenozide, and pyriproxyfen have recently been registered as

OP alternatives for use on apples, a crop which has historically high OP use. In fact,

along with ‘‘reduced-risk’’ pesticides and other prioritized pesticide registrations,

hundreds of new uses are now available. Likewise, EPA gives priority to applications for new minor use pesticides, methyl bromide alternatives, and for pesticides

which may help address vulnerable crop/pest combinations.

In addition to the registration process, EPA has instituted programmatic changes

to facilitate transition for agriculture. For example, through its regions, the Agency

initiated an Agriculture Initiative program. This Initiative, currently being piloted

in four EPA regions, helps fund projects such as the gathering of use/usage data

and the education of growers regarding alternative methods of pest control. The

Agency also formed a Minor Use team to work more closely with minor crop growers

and USDA.

Question 3. I understand that before a pesticide can be on the market, it must

undergo up to 120 scientific tests required by EPA to determine human health, safe-
129

ty, and environmental effects. Once EPA concludes that a pesticide has met FQPA’s

safety standards is it EPA’s belief that the pesticide is safe for use? Does this safety

determination apply to all approved uses (i.e., on a farm, in schools, around the

home, on a golf course, and in other locations for which the product is intended)? Response. Yes, the decision to allow use of a pesticide means that EPA has determined that the uses specified on the label are within acceptable risk limits based

on EPA’s rigorous scientific review of available information. Still, those who are applying it and the public have to exercise caution and follow strict label requirements. In tolerance reassessment, FQPA specifically requires EPA to review potential risks to children, aggregate risks, and cumulative risks to ensure the pesticide

meets today’s more stringent scientific and regulatory standards.

Question 4. EPA-approved pesticides help protect Florida citizens from serious diseases such as malaria and encephalitis through vector-control programs. Loss of

these pesticides will threaten public protection from disease-carrying mosquitoes, rodents, and cockroaches. The Food Quality Protection Act specifically directs EPA to

work with FDA to ensure that public health pesticides continue to be available to

prevent such disease outbreaks. What is EPA doing to ensure continued availability

of these pesticides or reliable and effective alternatives in order to protect children

and adults?

EPA, in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), developed a

process to consult and advise on public health uses of pesticides so that critical public health use pesticides are available. To date, this process has been used in the

review of 11 pesticides. In addition, the Agency and the CDC have discussed processes to ensure availability of public health pesticides including possible fee waivers,

expedited processing of applications for new public health pesticides, and a possible

mechanism to coordinate development of supporting data for public health pesticides

facing regulatory action.

Following passage of FQPA, EPA appointed a public health official who is charged

with implementing the public health provisions of the law and serves as the point

of contact for coordination with FDA, CDC, USDA and state and local public health

officials. The Agency also established a public health steering committee which developed a consultative process with other Federal agencies and holds monthly coordination calls with CDC. EPA and CDC will shortly finalize a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOW) to provide a framework for joint efforts and coordination. Although the MOU is not final, the two agencies have already begun many joint activities. For example, CDC and EPA have worked closely together in responding to

West Nile Virus concerns and in the use of mosquito-control pesticides, and in addressing public health uses in the reassessment of OPs, such as chlorpyrifos and

methyl parathion. EPA and FDA have also worked together in the review of some

public health uses of malathion.

Question 5. The medical community strongly recommends a diet rich in fruits and

vegetables for better nutrition and disease prevention. How would the health of the

American public be affected if FQPA reduced the availability of fresh fruits and

vegetables, or priced them out of reach of low-income consumers?

The American food supply is one of the safest and most abundant in the world.

EPA strongly endorses the recommendations for a diet rich in fruits and vegetables.

The need to maintain the variety and productivity of U.S. agriculture is very much

a part of our approach. Implementation of FQPA will provide even more protection

for consumers, particularly infants and children, while maintaining the availability

for a wide selection of fruits and vegetables. While FQPA sets a tough health-based

safety standard for pesticides, EPA is committed to balancing the provisions with

the need to maintain pest control options for agriculture. EPA, in cooperation with

USDA, will ensure a that a reasonable transition responsive to the needs of agricultural producers is provided to ensure that this balance is maintained.

Question 6. As you implement FQPA, it is important to involve stakeholders, including farmers, mosquito control officials and others, to make sure their information and concerns are considered. What are your goals for the new Committee to

Advise on Reassessment and Transition and what do you want to see it accomplish?

Will this be a permanent advisory committee or will you allow it to sunset?

Response. We are working closely with USDA and the agricultural community to

ensure that our decisions are based on accurate information, which includes analyses of available alternatives. EPA, in cooperation with USDA, is providing a transition that works for agriculture. EPA and USDA are working to identify opportunities for reasonable transition and strategic management planning for agriculture

and public health use pesticides. EPA’s goal is to ensure greater protection of public

health, while also ensuring that farmers have the tools necessary for food production. To address the concerns of all interested parties, EPA and USDA have estab-
130

lished the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT), which

met for the first time June 23, 2000. This committee is bringing together expertise

from all perspectives, including farmers, mosquito control officials, industry representatives and others, to help guide EPA and USDA implementation of FQPA.

CARAT is developing recommendations for reducing risks from older, riskier pesticides, with a focus on ensuring that farmers are provided a reasonable transition

to safer pest management strategies, including chemical and non-chemical alternatives. CARAT will also discuss the process for developing strategic pest management plans for agriculture and public health uses of pesticides, and work to ensure

that high priority is given to risk management strategies for pesticides most likely

to lead to exposures to children. In creating CARAT, EPA and USDA reaffirm their

commitment to the key principles established by the Vice President: use of sound

science in protecting public health; consultation with the public and other agencies;

increased transparency; and, reasonable transition for agriculture. The CARAT has been established for a 2-year term, through June 2002, and at that time EPA and USDA will determine whether to extend the committee.

Question 7. Can you describe the registration process that is underway for methyl bromide alternatives including timetables? Response. EPA gives expedited review and top priority registration review to all potential methyl bromide alternatives. Each new application of a potential methyl

bromide alternative is screened by EPA/USDA’s Joint Workgroup on Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Once a submission is verified as a legitimate methyl bromide alternative, it is placed at the top of EPA’s work plan for review by Agency scientists.

Actions receiving expedited review are typically ready for a registration decision

within 18–22 months, as opposed to non-expedited reviews which can take 32–40

months to complete. The EPA/USDA Workgroup has been actively meeting with

growers, academics, university extension experts, and registrants to identify potential methyl bromide alternatives, coordinate research, and identify regulatory barriers that have to be addressed. EPA is sensitive to the importance of methyl bromide in agriculture and stands ready to work with the agricultural community to

ensure that adequate pest control alternatives to methyl bromide are available.

Question 8. In your meeting with my staff you indicated that the process to iden- tify methyl bromide alternatives and the process of FQPA implementation are handled in different divisions of EPA. I am concerned that the process to register methyl bromide alternatives may be compromised in the push to implement FQPA. Can

you describe the difference between these two processes and describe how EPA is

ensuring that methyl bromide alternatives identification proceeds in a timely manner?

As mentioned above, EPA has assigned highest priority to reviewing registration applications for alternatives methyl bromide. Tolerance reassessment and pesticide

reregistration reviews are conducted by personnel dedicated to these separate activities. Generally, there is no conflict between the demands to review pesticide applications for methyl bromide applications and the demands posed by tolerance reassessment. Since these alternatives are the No. 1 priority, they receive expedited treatment, and are not compromised by tolerance reassessment or by any possible increase in registration review workload.

RESPONSES BY JAMES V. AIDALA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BAUCUS

Question 1. It is important that implementation of FQPA be based on the best

available and reliable information. For those cases in which pesticides or their uses

are canceled, what is EPA doing to help farmers identify alternative products that

can be used? With regard to the cancellation of chlorpyrifos, what action is EPA taking to prevent any disruption in grain marketing?

Response. We are working closely with USDA and the agricultural community to

ensure that our decisions are based on accurate information, which includes analyses of available alternatives. EPA, in cooperation with USDA, is providing a transition that works for agriculture. EPA and USDA are working to identify opportunities for reasonable transition and strategic management planning for agriculture

and public health use pesticides. EPA’s goal is to ensure greater protection of public

health, while also ensuring that farmers have the tools necessary for food production. To address the concerns of all interested parties, EPA and USDA have established the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT), which

met for the first time June 23, 2000. This committee is bringing together expertise

from all perspectives, including farmers, industry representatives and others, to

help guide EPA and USDA implementation of FQPA. CARAT is developing recommendations for reducing risks from older, riskier pesticides, with a focus on en-
131

suring that farmers are provided a reasonable transition to safer pest management

strategies, including chemical and non-chemical alternatives. CARAT will also discuss the process for developing strategic pest management plans for agriculture and

public health uses of pesticides, and work to ensure that high priority is given to

risk management strategies for pesticides most likely to lead to exposures to children. In creating CARAT, EPA and USDA reaffirm their commitment to the key

principles established by the Vice President: use of sound science in protecting public health; consultation with the public and other agencies; increased transparency;

and, reasonable transition for agriculture. EPA has developed a priority system to expedite review of applications for new pesticides to address pest control needs potentially impacted by FQPA. For instance,

since organophosphate (OP) pesticides are one of the classes given priority for tolerance reassessment, the Agency has instituted a policy to give priority consideration

to applications for organophosphate alternatives. Since the passage of FQPA, almost

25 OP alternatives have been identified—some completely new chemicals—and almost half of them have already been registered. For example, spinosad,

tebufenozide, methoxyfenozide, and pyriproxyfen have recently been registered as

OP alternatives for use on apples, a crop which has historically high OP use. In fact,

along with ‘‘reduced-risk’’ pesticides and other prioritized pesticide registrations,

hundreds of new uses are now available. Likewise, EPA gives priority to applications for new minor use pesticides, methyl bromide alternatives, and for pesticides

which may help address vulnerable crop/pest combinations. In addition to the registration process, EPA has instituted programmatic changes to facilitate transition for agriculture. For example, through its regions, the Agency

initiated an Agriculture Initiative program. This Initiative, currently being piloted

in four EPA regions, helps fund projects such as the gathering of use/usage data

and the education of growers regarding alternative methods of pest control. The

Agency also formed a Minor Use team to work more closely with minor crop growers

and USDA.

Regarding your question about the use of chlorpyrifos on grains, chlorpyrifos- methyl, not chlorpyrifos, is the primary non-fumigant type treatment used to control

grain pests. The registrant is voluntarily canceling the uses of this pesticide. Because this important grain-storage pesticide is being canceled, this crop/pesticide

combination is now classified as a critical pest management need by EPA, and alternatives will receive prioritized pesticide registration status. Further, potential alternatives will receive priority research funding status with USDA. Also, USDA’s Pesticide Management Alternative Program and its new Crops at Risk (CAR) and Risk

Mitigation for Major Crop Production (RAMP) programs provide funding to seek

both short- and long-term solutions to critical pest management needs like this.

Question 2. Organophosphates (OP) pesticides, which account for about 70 percent of the current market, are being reviewed under the FQPA. EPA has announced its

plans to complete the review of all OPs by the end of this year. How will EPA work

with USDA to find suitable replacements for any OPs that may be canceled or will

no longer be available as a result of the review? Response. EPA has developed a priority system to expedite review of applications for new pesticides to address pest control needs potentially impacted by FQPA. For

instance, since organophosphate (OP) pesticides are one of the classes given priority

for tolerance reassessment, the Agency has instituted a policy to give priority consideration to applications for organophosphate alternatives. Since the passage of

FQPA, almost 25 OP alternatives have been identified—some completely new chemicals—and almost half of them have already been registered. For example, spinosad,

tebufenozide, methoxyfenozide, and pyriproxyfen have recently been registered as

OP alternatives for use on apples, a crop which has historically high OP use. In fact,

along with ‘‘reduced-risk’’ pesticides and other prioritized pesticide registrations,

hundreds of new uses are now available. Likewise, EPA gives priority to applications for new minor use pesticides, methyl bromide alternatives, and for pesticides

which may help address vulnerable crop/pest combinations. Additionally, we are working closely with USDA and the agricultural community to address the concerns of all interested parties. Again, EPA and USDA have established CARAT to bring together expertise from all perspectives to help guide EPA

and USDA implementation of FQPA. In creating CARAT, EPA and USDA reaffirm

our commitment to the key principles established by the Vice President: use of

sound science in protecting public health; consultation with the public and other

agencies; increased transparency; and, reasonable transition for agriculture.

In addition to the registration process, EPA has instituted programmatic changes

to facilitate transition for agriculture. For example, through its regions, the Agency

initiated an Agriculture Initiative program. This Initiative, currently being piloted

in four EPA regions, helps fund projects such as the gathering of use/usage data
132

and the education of growers regarding alternative methods of pest control. The

Agency also formed a Minor Use team to work more closely with minor crop growers

and USDA.

Question 3. Please describe how EPA will work with USDA to evaluate the impact

on U.S. exports and commodity prices if U.S. growers cannot use discontinued pesticides but their foreign competitors can?

Response. EPA, in cooperation with USDA, is working to ensure that there is a

level playing field with our international trading partners. EPA has a policy of revoking tolerances for pesticides that are no longer registered in the U.S. This policy

is based on the Agency’s long-standing concern that retention of tolerances that are

not necessary has the potential to allow foreign growers to continue to ship treated

produce to the U.S., putting our own growers at a disadvantage. Also, FDA conducts

sampling and testing of imported foods to detect potential pesticide residues. If

there are detections of illegal pesticide residues the food is adulterated and seized.

EPA is working with our international trading partners to inform them of our regulatory decisions, and to help promote the use of safer alternatives. For example,

throughout the past 5 years, we have been working very closely with the Canadian

Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) in jointly reviewing new pesticide applications for registration, and sharing work on many other pesticides. The agencies

have completed four joint reviews of reduced risk pesticides, and seven other pesticides are either being jointly reviewed or in a work share mode, with several other

candidates in the pipeline.

EPA is also working to harmonize our regulatory standards among countries to

help ensure that our farmers are not at a competitive disadvantage. For example,

the U.S., Canada and Mexico have made a great deal of progress in pesticide regulatory harmonization as a result of work done under the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group (TWO) on Pesticides. The

work of the NAFTA TWO aims to develop a North American market for pesticides,

and make work-sharing the way of doing business between the U.S., Canada and

Mexico by the year 2002.

Question. In conducting a more rigorous, thorough scientific review of pesticides,

as required by FQPA, the cost of developing the necessary data, such as actual exposure and health effects, can be considerable. For some pesticides, especially those

with limited or specialty uses, the cost of those tests may outweigh the return the

manufacturer receives from the product. How serious a problem is the potential discontinuation of products due to the data development costs and how would you intend to address it.

Response. EPA considers the pesticides you mention to be ‘‘minor use’’ crop pesticides—chemicals with limited or specialty uses. EPA is concerned about the minor

use problem, and has a number of activities underway to help ensure that data development costs are considered in our data requirements. For example, EPA makes

every effort to reduce or tailor data requirements to reflect the degree of exposure.

Therefore, in many cases EPA has minimized data development costs.

Since FQPA passed, the Agency has worked even more closely with USDA to expedite review and register minor crop pesticide alternatives, promote research and

development of new safer minor use tools, and increase dialog with the minor crop

community. EPA has established a system that gives priority to products with minor

crop uses for conventional pesticides. USDA’s Inter Regional Project No. 4 (IR–4)

has been an important ally in accelerating the registration of alternatives to minor

uses, with special emphasis on reduced risk products. EPA/IR–4 partnership

projects include: developing blanket tolerances for selected reduced-risk chemicals,

significantly reducing review time; improving the tolerance petition format creating

new crop groupings; streamlining the reduced risk justification format for minor

uses; and, harmonizing registration data development with other countries. We are

making significant progress to expedite registration of minor use pesticides. For example, in 1999 EPA established 32 tolerances for minor crops, and plan to review

over 100 petitions on 40 active ingredients, which could result in 300 new registrations for minor crops in fiscal year 2000.

To help facilitate minor use registration efforts, EPA also created a multi-disciplinary Minor Use Team and a Public Health Steering Committee. The goals of this

group are to: provide greater coordination between EPA and minor use growers

prior to decisions; increase coordination with USDA, the JR–4, industry, growers,

and other stakeholders to promote registration of reduced-risk pesticides for minor

uses; and, encourage the development of pesticide use and residue data. The Agency

also appointed a minor use ombudsman within the Of lice of Pesticide Programs

who’s primary responsibility is to serve as liaison and advocate for minor crop grower needs.
133

Through the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), and now

CARAT, EPA has increased consultation with pesticide stakeholders, including

minor crop growers, encouraging comments on our implementation process and decisions. Working cooperatively with USDA, EPA has collected additional pesticide use

and residue data for tolerance reassessments. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service and Pesticide Data Program provide statistically sound, reliable pesticide use and residue data and develop data collection based on EPA needs, which

allows for better, more-informed regulatory decisions. We have also provided support to USDA’s development of integrated pest management strategies. In fiscal

year 2000, this includes over $10 million for pesticide alternatives programs at

USDA. EPA is an active partner with USDA in selecting projects which fulfill the

mission of these grants.

RESPONSES BY JAMES V. AIDALA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

HUTCHISON

Bt Cotton

Question 1. What process has or will EPA employ to ensure that the reregistration

decisionmaking process is transparent and timely? How has or will EPA involve

growers in this process?

Response. It is EPA’s goal to assure that we continue to make our regulatory decisions within an open and transparent framework, and that we are fully informed

by the most recent and best available scientific information. Specifically, EPA will

shortly announce our public process to reach regulatory decisions on the Bt corn and

Bt cotton expiring registrations. The process will include scientific peer review and

public comment of EPA’s risk assessment for the Bt products.

The Agency will assure a transparent and interactive review process for its decisions and will involve all of our stakeholders—the manufacturers, the growers and

the public, as we develop and implement a U.S. biotechnology program that provides

the public with confidence in EPA’s regulatory decisions, while providing U.S. farmers with the tools they need to continue to produce a safe and healthy food supply.

This Agency is also committed to providing clear and timely information to the

farming community to ensure our decisions are responsive to agricultural growing

conditions.

In fact, EPA recently held meetings with each of the stakeholder groups, including

grower groups, to get input on the process for considering the reregistration of Bt

corn and Bt cotton. In addition, EPA met with the National Cotton Council and the

National Corn Growers Association on several aspects of the registrations of these

products, especially resistance management. The National Corn Growers Association

and the manufacturers all played a significant role in strengthening the resistance

management plans for Bt corn for the 2000 growing season and beyond that were

announced in January.

Question 2. Does EPA have field data from commercial farming operations that

indicates resistance is building in target insect populations that warrants changes

in current refuge requirement?

Response. Fortunately, no Bt resistant insects have been found in the field. However, independent scientific experts believe that resistance could occur under certain

conditions, and that the development of resistance is significantly minimized with

updated refugia requirements. EPA and the manufacturers have already implemented strengthened refugia requirement for Bt corn. As part of these measures,

EPA is also requiring actual field monitoring as an early warning system to prevent

potential resistance. EPA, in cooperation with the cotton scientists, growers, and the

manufacturers have agreed to new and improved approaches to refuge management

in Bt cotton to help ensure resistance does not develop.

Question 3. What economic analysis has EPA completed to determine an economic

threshold for these products in regards to refugia options?

Response. An economic analysis to determine an economic threshold for these

products in regards to refugia options is not necessary. By way of background, economic thresholds determine when it is appropriate to use a pesticide so that such

use provides the farmer a benefit at or above the cost of the treatment. Refugia are

established to help prevent resistance to Bt, and are not directly related to economic

thresholds. Therefore, there is not an economic threshold per se in establishing a

refuge. Preserving the effectiveness of Bt is critical to maintaining this important

technology.
134

Question 4. Would EPA propose new refuge requirements that have not been extensively field tested by commercial farmers? What communications has EPA had

with growers to determine the feasibility of such proposals?

Response. Academic, USDA, EPA, and industry scientists have been working on

resistance management for the Bt crops since the development for these products.

Scientific testing to strengthen existing refugia and developing new refugia options

has been ongoing. New refugia options are typically tried on a small scale, and then

tested further on a larger scale. Any new refugia options are discussed extensively

with EPA, USDA, growers, and the manufacturers. Depending on the scientific results to prevent resistance and their practicality, are incorporated as necessary into

agricultural growing practices.

EPA has met frequently with the National Cotton Council, the National Corn

Growers Association, and the National Potato Council to gain their perspective on

resistance management, and to ensure the ongoing resistance management requirements are practical for growers to implement. As we move forward to review the

expiring registrations for Bt corn and Bt cotton, we are establishing an extensive

open and transparent process to provide input into our decisions. We encourage our

stakeholders to comment in writing and in public when we hold public meetings,

including meetings with our Scientific Advisory Panel meetings. We have also participated in meetings held by these grower organizations and visited field sites to

specifically discuss resistance management with growers.

Question 5. The registration of Bt cotton product expires with the current crop.

When can farmers expect to learn what rules will apply to use of Bt cotton for the

2001 crop year?

Response. EPA will shortly issue a Federal Register notice which will describe the

process for consideration of the expiring Bt crop registrations. EPA is planning on

using a process which will invite public participation from all interested parties, including farmers and grower groups. This process will include review of EPA’s risk

assessment by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel as well as technical briefings.

Farmers and all other interested parties will be invited to participate and comment

on the draft risk assessment and risk management decisions for Bt crops. The Agency is sensitive to the seasonal planning needs of farmers, and will ensure that decisions on any new requirements, or other information critical to growers, are announced well in advance of the 2001 growing season.
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146

RESPONSES BY JAMES AIDALA TO SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH

ENCLOSURE 1

Question 1. Is it accurate that EPA supports enactment into law of amendment

No. 3308 as written?

Response. As you are aware, EPA stated in a letter to Senator Boxer dated June

13, 2000, that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As noted at the hearing,

however, the amendment has not been subject to a full review by the Administration, nor has the Administration taken a position on the amendment.

Question 2. If EPA supports elimination of the products restricted in amendment

No. 3308, please outline and supply the scientific studies and other scientific basis

in detail which influenced your judgment.

Response. EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to children of

pesticides. EPA is ready to work with the Department of Defense (DoD) and others
147

to craft effective methods of pest control that will minimize exposures to children.

In fact, there is already a foundation of success to build on in this regard. In 1996,

EPA and DoD entered into a memorandum of understanding to form a partnership

to promote environmental stewardship by adopting integrated pest management

strategies. This effort has resulted in significant reductions of pesticide use by DoD.

The categories of pesticides included in the amendment correlate with Group 1

of EPA’s schedule for tolerance reassessment, consisting of pesticides which appear

to pose the greatest risk to public health. A copy of the Federal Register Notice explaining the division of pesticides into groups is enclosed. The Agency is giving priority to the review of these pesticides through its tolerance reassessment process

and will take appropriate action upon completion of the review. To date, the Agency

has reviewed approximately 3,485 of the 9,721 existing tolerances. When the Agency

determines, after extensive scientific review, that the risks posed by a pesticide do

not meet the FQPA standards it will move to eliminate the risk. For example, last

August, the Agency negotiated agreements with the manufacturers of methyl

parathion and azinphos methyl to either eliminate or reduce application rates on

foods to address such unacceptable risks. Meanwhile, many of the pesticides included in the amendment are still undergoing reassessment.

Question 3. If EPA opposes the amendment, supports changes to the amendment,

or has concerns with the amendment, why was that not expressed in the letter?

Response. As stated above, the June 13 letter reaffirms EPA’s support for the goal

of the amendment. Beyond that, the Administration has not taken a position on the

amendment.

Question 4. If the letter is neither supportive or in opposition to the amendment,

what was the purpose of the letter?

Response. Immediately after the June 13 confirmation hearing, EPA was asked

by Senator Boxer to provide its views in writing on the amendment prior to the

scheduled floor consideration of the amendment. As Mr. Aidala testified, the amendment had not received Administration review. Given the limited time available, the

Agency stated its support for the goal of protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure and to explain our current activities in that area. We also expressed

our willingness to work closely with the DoD on this issue.

Question 5. Were you aware of this letter at the time of your testimony and if

so, why was it not referenced before the committee?

Response. At the time of Mr. Aidala’s testimony, EPA was not preparing a letter,

it was only upon the conclusion of the hearing that a request was received from Senator Boxer for such a letter. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Aidala was only aware

that Senator Boxer was considering introducing such an amendment.

Question 6. If you were not, were you subsequently consulted?

Response. Mr. Aidala was subsequently informed that EPA’s Of lice of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations received a request from Senator Boxer to

clarify EPA’s views.

Question 7. If you were not consulted, why were you not consulted?

Response. Not applicable.

Question 8. Please reconcile your testimony with the letter.

Response. The letter and, to the best of our understanding, Mr. Aidala’s testimony

state that EPA supports the goal of protecting children from unnecessary pesticide

exposure, and that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As noted at the hearing, however, the amendment has not been subject to a full review by the Administration.

Question 9. Does EPA already protect children on military bases from harmful

pesticides?

Response. The protection of children is one of our highest priorities. When we register, reregister, or reassess tolerances for existing pesticides we try to ensure that

our actions are protective of all consumers, especially children. FQPA requires special protections for infants and children including: an explicit determination that tolerances are safe for children; an additional safety factor, if necessary, to account for

uncertainty in data relative to children; and consideration of children’s special sensitivity and exposure to pesticide chemicals.

Question 10. If not, why not?

Response. Not applicable.

Question 11. If so, why is this legislation necessary?

Response. EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to children

from pesticides and respects the authority of Congress to impose restrictions beyond

the current regulatory program.
148

Question 12. List the products that would be impacted by this amendment?

Response. As stated earlier, the products correlate with those on Group 1 of EPA’s

tolerance reassessment schedule. A copy of that schedule of information is enclosed.

Question 13. Describe the nature of the products in a range from threatening to

benign that would be affected by this amendment?

Response. Pesticides which were included in Group 1 were those that EPA identified as appearing to pose the greatest risk to public health. The Agency did not distinguish among products in this group in terms of their potential effects.

Question 14. Do any of these products have positive benefits to children’s health?

Response. When used according to label directions many of these products could

be used for pest control, sterilization of medical instruments, or other uses potentially beneficial to children.

Question 15. If so, is there any risk to children if Congress prevents the availability of these products?

Response. EPA is not sufficiently aware of DoD’s pest control needs to make that

determination. To make a proper assessment, the Agency would need to know what

products are used, and how they are used so that alternatives could be considered.

It should be noted that through EPA’s Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, DoD has committed to moving toward pesticide alternatives and less use of

pesticides, or use of less toxic pesticides. DoD has been recognized by EPA for their

tremendous progress in this area.

Question 16. What is the availability and cost of substitute products?

Response. Again, EPA would need to know more about the DoD’s pest control

needs to make that determination.

Question 17. Are any of the products affected by this amendment products that

were NOT restricted in an equivalent way by the chlorpyrifos agreement announced

by EPA last week?

Response. There would be many other products affected that were not part of last

week’s agreement, although chlorpyrifos products would be part of the list of affected pesticides.

Question 18. If so, which products/uses permitted under the chlorpyrifos agreement would not be permitted under this amendment?

Response. This would require detailed knowledge of DoD pest control needs, but

might affect any of the pesticides under Group 1, including chlorpyrifos.

Question 19. Did EPA consult with DoD prior to the 6/13/00 letter to coordinate

the Administration’s view on the amendment?

Response. EPA did not formally consult with DoD in preparing this specific letter.

The letter stated that EPA supports the goal of protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure, and that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As

noted earlier, however, the amendment has not been subject to a full review by the

Administration.

Question 20. Is EPA, in general, supportive of Congress substituting its own judgment in place of that of EPA’s by bypassing the existing regulatory system that relies on science and is already in place?

Response. EPA respects the role of Congress to enact laws and conduct oversight

on their implementation by the Administration. EPA stands ready to work with

Congress to ensure the necessary pest control tools are available while minimizing

unnecessary risk.

Question 21. In general, is EPA supportive of broad new regulatory requirements

added as legislative provisions to appropriations bills without the benefit of public

hearings and if so why was this amendment not opposed on that basis?

Response. In general, the Administration opposes riders to appropriations bills

that weaken environmental protections. As stated above, EPA supports the goal of

limiting unnecessary exposure of children to pesticides. This is consistent with the

emphasis of FQPA’s mandate to protect infants and children.
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165

Æ