U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

32–207 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–843

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 9, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director 

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 9, 2005

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 8

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 6

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New York ........ 13

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 4

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 38

Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois ............................. 14

Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota ...................... 15

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 11

WITNESSES 

Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Accompanied by: Charles E. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Tom 

Dunne, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ann Klee, General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jeff Holmstead, Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Susan B. Hazen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 52

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 41

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 50

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 133

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 70

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Brownfields program expectations and supporting budget documentation . 135

Funding requested for leaking underground storage tanks .......................... 136

General Information on EPA enforcement ..................................................... 137

Guidance and a proposed rule clarifying: Pesticides and the Clean Water 

Act .................................................................................................................. 138

National Academy of Science study on perchlorate ....................................... 139

Number of potential Brownfield sites ............................................................. 140

Sites ranked by the National Prioritization Panel that received funding 

in fiscal year (FY) 2004 ................................................................................ 141

Spill prevention control and countermeasure program ................................. 143

State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) .................................................................. 144

Superfund Budget ............................................................................................. 146

Wastewater Security ........................................................................................ 147

Why clear skies is the right approach ............................................................ 148
Page

IV

Letter from Kathleen C. Callahan, acting regional administrator, to Senator 

Lautenberg, in response to inquiry on Ringwood, NJ site ................................ 149
(1)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406, 

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe, (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Carper, Clinton, Isakson,

Jeffords, Lautenberg, Murkowski, Obama, Thune, and Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. The committee will come to order. We welcome 

Administrator Johnson. I am pleased to have you testify before the 

committee on the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget proposal for 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

I expect that each Senator on the committee will wish to make 

an opening statement, as well as your opening statement and then 

5-minute questioning, so we are going to confine opening statements to 5 minutes, and we would like you to confine yours to 5 

minutes. However, your entire statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

Our Tar Creek Superfund site in northeastern Oklahoma has 

been a top priority for me for quite some time, as well as for the 

EPA. Administrator Leavitt visited, and I think that is the first 

time that someone at that level has actually visited a site, the first 

Cabinet-level official to tour it. Tar Creek is a 40 square-mile disaster that we now can see the light at the end of the tunnel. The 

cooperation of the EPA, as well as the Corps of Engineers, the 

State of Oklahoma, the University of Oklahoma, and our consortium, it looks like it is going to be successful. 

The Administration considers the ultra-low sulfur diesel rule as 

one of its premier environmental successes, and they are right that 

once successfully implemented, the ULSD rule will have benefits. 

However, I remain as concerned today as I was some 5 years ago 

when I first questioned the EPA on the rule’s potential supply and 

deliverability impacts. 

Refiners and engine manufacturers have spent billions of dollars 

to develop technologies to meet the stringent 15 ppm sulfur standard, yet challenges still remain regarding the sufficiently accurate 

inline testing procedures and potential contamination in the pipelines and transportation infrastructure. So you have the pipelines 
2

with some problems, and others are complying with its intent. Millions of dollars have been invested, and yet that is a problem that 

we will want to discuss. 

I have already been working with the Agency on grants management for the past year, and it remains one of my top priorities. 

Each year over $4 billion, amounting to at least half the EPA’s annual budget, is awarded in nondiscretionary and discretionary 

grants. Last year, the committee received testimony concerning a 

lack of competition in grant awards, a lack of demonstrable results 

from grants, and a general lack of oversight. 

In fact, the EPA IG included in her testimony the results of an 

audit of a nonprofit group where the EPA was giving taxpayers’ 

dollars directly to a lobbying organization, that is a 501(c)(4) organization, which is illegal and certainly improper. This is the type 

of thing that we are going after. The EPA is competing grants, 

rather than freely awarding funds to groups that regularly engage 

in politics and to undermine this President’s environmental record. 

The EPA has also developed new policies to measure environmental results and provide closer oversight of nonprofit groups. 

However, new policies are not enough. They must be followed. Real 

reform of grants management requires the attention of the highest 

levels of the Administration within the EPA and its program officers to establish a consistent and transparent system of awarding 

and monitoring grants. This committee will continue to take its 

oversight responsibility in regards to grants management very seriously. I am pleased that the EPA is working with the committee 

to ensure new grants management that protects human health and 

the environment. 

The Government has a role in safeguarding the Nation’s infrastructure, which includes the roads on which we drive and the 

pipes from which we receive our water. I, like many of my colleagues on the committee, continue to be troubled by the Administration’s and its predecessor’s history of cuts to the Clean Water 

SRF, State revolving funds, the primary Federal clean water mechanism. We conducted a field hearing in my city of Tulsa last year 

during which 8 communities testified to struggles with both drinking water and clean water regulations. Just as I have tackled 

grants management, I intend to use this committee’s oversight role 

to continue examining the costs imposed on our local communities 

by Federal water regulations. 

Not only do we need to ensure these costs are necessary because 

they are addressing legitimate public health and environmental 

threats, but evidently we also need to convince some that Congress 

and the EPA have a role in this escalating cost crisis. 

I look forward to next week’s committee passage of the President’s Clear Skies proposal. As my colleagues know, this has been 

one of our priorities for a long time. It is the largest mandatory reduction in pollutants ever proposed by any President. Our goal is 

to expand the Acid Rain Program to achieve greater emissions reductions, without the endless lawsuits that have resulted under the 

Clean Air Act. I look forward to working with the Administration 

to get this bill signed into law. 

It is going to be a difficult budget year. Budgets are tight and 

the Nation is at war. The Administration is proposing a 5 percent 
3

cut to the EPA’s budget. I would encourage my colleagues who are 

tempted to criticize this alleged cut to look very closely at what has 

been proposed. Aside from cuts to the programs the Agency knows 

that Congress will put back, a few programs are given significant 

decreases. 

So Administrator Johnson, we are looking forward to your testimony, and we welcome you also Mr. Johnson, both Johnsons. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Welcome Administrator Johnson. I am pleased to have you testify before the Committee today on President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

I expect that each Senator on the Committee will wish to make an opening statement and will have several questions for the Administrator. Therefore, I am asking 

that opening statements be kept short under 5 minutes. 

The Tar Creek Superfund Site in northeastern Oklahoma has been a top priority 

for me and the EPA. When Administrator Leavitt visited the site with me, he became the first Cabinet level official to tour Tar Creek and see what we are dealing 

with there. Tar Creek is a 40 square-mile site that is the No. 1 listed site on the 

National Priorities List. While, much work has been done and much credit goes to 

the EPA and specifically the Region 6 Administrator, Richard Greene, there is more 

work left to do. I want to take this opportunity to get the EPA’s continued commitment to protect human health at Tar Creek and get this site cleaned up. 

The Administration considers the ultra-low sulfur diesel rule as one of its premiere environmental successes, and they are right that once successfully implemented, the ULSD rule will have benefits. However, I remain as concerned today 

as I was some 5 years ago when I first questioned EPA on the rule’s potential supply and deliverability impacts. Refiners and engine manufacturers have spent billions of dollars to develop technologies to meet the stringent 15 ppm sulfur standard. Yet, challenges still remain regarding sufficiently accurate inline testing procedures and potential contamination in the pipeline and transportation infrastructure. 

EPA projected that the rule will increase diesel prices 4 or 5 cents per gallon at 

the pump. Given some of the concerns raised about contamination and inadequate 

testing, I imagine that those initial cost projections will certainly change. I look forward to working with EPA to ensure that the rule is implemented effectively while 

guarding against supply shortfalls and price increases. 

I have already been working with the Agency on grants management for the past 

year and it remains one of my top priorities. Each year over $4 billion, amounting 

to at least half the EPA’s annual budget, is awarded in non-discretionary and discretionary grants. Last year, this Committee received testimony concerning a lack 

of competition in grant awards, a lack of demonstrable results from grants, and a 

general lack of oversight. In fact, the EPA IG included in her testimony the results 

of an audit of a non-profit group where EPA was giving taxpayer dollars directly 

to a lobbying organization for over 5 years. The EPA has responded positively to 

oversight in this area. By the end of this month, EPA will have finalized a new Web 

site with the most publicly available information ever offered on awarded grants. 

EPA is competing grants rather than freely awarding funds to groups that regularly 

engage in politics to undermine this President’s environmental record. EPA has also 

developed new policies to measure environmental results and provide closer oversight of non-profit groups. However, new policies are not enough. They must be followed. Real reform of grants management requires the attention of the highest levels of administration within the EPA and its program offices to establish a consistent and transparent system of awarding and monitoring grants. This Committee 

will continue to take its oversight responsibility in regards to grants management 

very seriously, and I am pleased that the EPA is working with this Committee to 

ensure new grants management that protects human health and the environment. 

The government has a role in safeguarding the nation’s infrastructure which includes the roads on which we drive and pipes from which we receive our water. I, 

like many of my colleagues on the Committee, continue to be troubled by the Administration’s and its predecessor’s history of cuts to the Clean Water SRF, the primary Federal clean water mechanism. We conducted a field hearing in Tulsa, OK 

last year during which 8 communities testified to struggles with both drinking 

water and clean water regulations. Just as I have tackled grants management, I in-
4

tend to use this committee’s oversight role to continue examining the costs imposed 

on our local communities by Federal water regulations. Not only do we need to ensure these costs are necessary because they are addressing legitimate public health 

and environmental threats but evidently we also need to convince some that Congress and the EPA have a role in this escalating cost crisis. 

I look forward to next week’s Committee passage of the President’s Clear Skies 

proposal. As my colleagues know, this is the largest reduction in utility emissions 

ever called for by an American President. The success of the Acid Rain program is 

the reason the President, Senator Voinovich and myself believe that Clear Skies is 

the best approach to reducing utility emissions. It will do so faster, cheaper and 

more efficiently than the Clean Air Act. Our goal is to expand the Acid Rain program to achieve greater emissions reductions without the endless lawsuits that have 

resulted under the Clean Air Act. I look forward to working with the Administration 

to get this bill signed into law. 

This is going to be a difficult budget year. Budgets are tight and the Nation is 

at war. The Administration is proposing a 5 percent cut to the EPA’s budget. I 

would encourage my colleagues who are tempted to criticize this alleged cut to look 

very closely at what has been proposed. Aside from cuts to programs the Agency 

knows Congress will put back, very few programs are given significant decreases. 

Administrator Johnson, I look forward to your testimony. I again urge my colleagues to keep their statements brief.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Jeffords. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Acting Administrator Johnson, it is a pleasure to welcome you 

here today. I look forward to working with you and whoever is 

named your successor, in these challenging budgetary moments 

and times. I am very concerned about this Nation’s fiscal constraints, but a budget that is about priorities and environmental 

protection must be a priority. 

Let me say right off the bat that the Administration’s proposed 

cuts to programs that protect our Nation’s environment go too far. 

If enacted, the EPA’s budget would decline 5.6 percent compared 

with last year’s enacted levels, and in real terms another 2.3 percent if inflation is taken into account. In the past 4 years, these 

serve as a guide. It would appear that there is no end in sight for 

cuts in EPA’s programs. Last year, the program that funds clean 

water infrastructure in the States was cut 19 percent. This year, 

the proposed cut is another 33 percent, or $361 million. 

The nationwide need for infrastructure dollars continues to far 

outplace the amount of funding that is available from all levels of 

government. In 2002, an EPA study assessed the spending for 

wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs nationwide to be 

$390 billion over 20 years. EPA has also estimated that the funding needs for operation and maintenance, which are not currently 

eligible for Federal aid, are an additional $148 billion. 

This dramatic reduction to the Clean Water Revolving Fund will 

unfairly shift the financial burden to the States, municipalities, 

and the public. For examples, States located in the northeast will 

see an approximate reduction of $106 million compared to last 

year. In Vermont alone, we will see a reduction of close to $2 million. In this and other programs, the spending austerity so evident 

in the President’s budget is accomplished by passing down costs to 

other levels of government. States and localities will be faced with 

a stark choice of either curtailing services or increasing their own 

taxes to compensate for the declining Federal funds. 
5

On the air front, I am interested in a full accounting of how the 

Agency’s proposed mercury pollution standards become so compromised that a recent report by the Agency’s own inspector general alleges that the health effects of mercury on children were 

overlooked. 

On related fronts, I hope we will learn why the Administration 

is moving so slowly on new source review enforcement actions, and 

on implementing a new rule for fine particulates. I am extremely 

concerned about a drastic cut in the budget of the program that 

phases out ozone depleting substances, and about the levels of 

funding for air pollution monitoring programs. We cannot afford to 

compromise on air quality. 

I know many members here are interested in the growing backlog of the Superfund cleanups. Last year, EPA candidly acknowledged that funding was insufficient to start work on 34 priority 

projects in 19 States. The needed resources to protect human 

health and the environment. The President requested $126 million 

less than last year for Superfund remediation. 

For the third year in a row, inadequate funds have prevented 

EPA from starting to clean up the Elizabeth Mine in Strafford, VT. 

Similarly, the Eli Copper Mine in Vershire, VT and the Pike Hill 

Copper Mine in Corinth, VT are waiting for funds for a full remedial investigation and feasibility study. How much longer are these 

communities going to have to wait to get the acid mine drainage 

from these sites cleaned up? 

Last but not least, I am tired of the kabuki dance the Administration and the Congress are playing with Lake Champlain. 

Senator INHOFE. What kind of dance? 

Senator JEFFORDS. Kabuki. 

Senator INHOFE. Kabuki. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Maybe kaduki. I am not sure. 

Senator INHOFE. Demonstrate it. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes, right. I will if necessary. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator JEFFORDS. The problems facing Lake Champlain are important and deserving of resources. Rest assured, I intend to find 

a way to adequately fund the EPA’s Lake Champlain program. 

Again, thank you for being here today, Acting Administrator 

Johnson. I look forward to your testimony. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF VERMONT

Acting Administrator Johnson, it is a pleasure to welcome you here today. I look 

forward to working with you and whoever is named your successor in these challenging budgetary times. 

Let me say right off the bat, that the administration’s proposed cuts to programs 

that protect our nation’s environment go to far. If enacted, the EPA’s budget would 

decline 5.6 percent compared with last year’s enacted levels, and in real terms, another 2.3 percent if inflation is taken into account. 

If the past 4 years serve as a guide, it would appear that there is no end in sight 

for cuts to EPA’s programs. Last year the program that funds clean water infrastructure in the States was cut 19 percent. This year the proposed cut is another 

33 percent or $361 million. 

The nationwide need for infrastructure dollars continues to far outpace the 

amount of funding that is available from all levels of government. In 2002, an EPA 
6

study assessed the spending for wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs 

nationwide to be $390 billion over 20 years. EPA also estimated that the funding 

needs for operation and maintenance, which are not currently eligible for Federal 

aid, are an additional $148 billion. 

This dramatic reduction to the clean water revolving fund will unfairly shift the 

financial burden to the States, municipalities, and the public. For example, States 

located in the Northeast will see an approximate reduction of $106 million compared 

to last year, and Vermont alone will see a reduction of close to $2 million. 

In this and other programs, the spending austerity so evident in the President’s 

budget is accomplished by passing down costs to other levels of government. States 

and localities will now be faced with the stark choice of either curtailing services 

or increasing their own taxes to compensate for declining Federal funds. 

On the air front, I am interested in a full accounting of how the Agency’s proposed 

mercury pollution standards became so compromised that a recent report by the 

Agency’s own Inspector General alleges that the health effects of mercury on children were overlooked. 

On related fronts, I hope we will learn why the Administration is moving so slowly on New Source Review Enforcement Actions and on implementing a new rule for 

fine particulates. I am extremely concerned about a drastic cut in the budget of the 

program that phases out ozone-depleting substances, and about the levels of funding 

for air pollution monitoring programs. We cannot afford to compromise on air quality. 

I know many members here are interested in the growing backlog of Superfund 

cleanups. Last year, EPA candidly acknowledged that funding was insufficient to 

start work on 34 priority projects in 19 States. Rather than request more money 

to provide EPA the needed resources to protect human health and the environment, 

the President requested $126 million less than last year for Superfund remediation. 

For the third year in a row, inadequate funds have prevented EPA from starting 

to clean up the Elizabeth Mine in Strafford, VT. Similarly, the Ely Copper Mine in 

Vershire, Vermont, and the Pike Hill Copper Mine in Corinth, VT, are waiting for 

funds for a full remedial investigation and feasibility study. How much longer are 

these communities going to have to wait to get the acid mine drainage from these 

sites cleaned up? 

Last but not least, I am tired of the kabuki dance the Administration and the 

Congress are playing with Lake Champlain. The problems facing Lake Champlain 

are important and deserving of resources. Rest assured, I intend to find a way to 

adequately fund the EPA’s Lake Champlain program. 

Again thank you for being here today Acting Administrator Johnson. I look forward to your testimony.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 

for having a hearing, and our thanks to our witnesses for being 

with us today. 

We are working on class action reform legislation on the floor, 

which is something that is of strong interest to me. I am going to 

be in and out fairly briefly, so I apologize for that. I hope you will 

understand. 

There are many parts of the EPA budget for 2006 that do concern me. I am glad we have the opportunity to consider some of the 

proposals before us and how they might affect our environment. I 

also look forward to hearing from our Acting Administrator. What 

is it like being an Acting Administrator of EPA? Is it everything 

it is talked up to be? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is a wonderful opportunity. 

Senator CARPER. A wonderful opportunity. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator CARPER. For the record, that is good. I talked to Governor Leavitt from time to time, and I think he is pleased to have 
7

his new opportunity and to give you this opportunity to fill the 

breach for a while. 

I would like to take a moment or two to just address a couple 

of fronts. One of those deals with the mercury rule. There has been 

some discussion of the mercury rule of late, and the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund. Again, we appreciate your being here to 

speak and to respond to some of our questions. I will probably ask 

to submit some questions in writing for the record. 

Last week, I believe the EPA inspector general issued a report. 

I am sure you heard about it. It is one that I, along with a number 

of members of this committee, requested. It is a fairly lengthy report, and I will just quote from one passage. It says, ‘‘Evidence indicates that EPA’s senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a maximum achievable control technology standard for mercury that would result in a national emission of 34 tons annually, 

instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination.’’ The 

report also said that the EPA’s cap and trade proposal could be 

strengthened to better ensure that anticipated emissions reductions 

would be achieved. It went on to state that the proposal does not 

adequately address the potential for hot spots. 

The EPA’s response to the draft report merely raised concerns 

about certain aspects of this report. Considering the fact that nearly every State in our country has issued, including my own, fish 

consumption advisories due at least in part to mercury-poisoned 

waters, I just believe the EPA needs to do more than say they simply disagree with the inspector general, and maybe you will have 

an opportunity today to say more than that. 

The inspector general recommended that EPA re-analyze much 

of their data and analysis, and strengthen the cap and trade proposal by more fully addressing the potential for hot spots, which, 

if you look at the legislation that Senator Jeffords, legislation that 

I have introduced for pollutant bills, we both speak to the need to 

do that. 

Moving ahead with the current mercury rule, in my view, would 

be foolish politically and scientifically, because the rule, I feel, has 

little credibility. Switching gears, if I could, in the President’s fiscal 

year 2006 budget proposal, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

is dramatically cut. This important program helps fund wastewater 

infrastructure projects such as sewer rehabilitation and treatment 

plant expansion. The budget proposal suggests $730 million for this 

program in fiscal year 2006. That is a reduction of about one-third 

from the current level. The current level, in my view, was inadequate. 

This proposal will hurt cities, big cities. Our biggest city is Wilmington. It will hurt Wilmington. It will hurt little cities as well, 

little towns, as they try to meet their clean water infrastructure 

needs, that I believe nationwide are about $200 billion. I feel that 

the longer we put this off, the worse the problem gets. 

Overall, the cuts in the EPA budget and the budget in its entirety represent, in my view, misplaced priorities. No one has 

fought harder for fiscal responsibility than some of us who serve 

on this committee. I, for one, would be prepared to support an austere plan if I thought it was a serious attempt to really balance the 

budget. This budget cuts spending for small, actually successful 
8

programs like the Clean Water State Revolving Fund in the name 

of deficit reduction, while indulging in huge new expenditures to 

privatize Social Security and to further extend tax cuts. We just 

need to come up with a more realistic plan that better reflects 

American priorities. One of those is a cleaner environment. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to be here with you and my colleagues, and to comment 

on the budget that has been submitted. 

Mr. Chairman, EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the 

environment. I have always believed, and the people of California 

have always believed, it is critically important, perhaps one of the 

most important things that we do as a government. I think that 

EPA’s proposed budget sends a very different message. That message is not one that I think is welcomed by the people of my State. 

We are looking here at a 6 percent overall cut. If we go back to 

2004, it is actually a 10 percent cut from 2004. That is less funding 

than when President Bush came into office, less funding on the environment. Without going back and checking on this, which I will 

do, I really believe this would be the first time in history that 

would be the case. 

I do not see the commitment to the resources that are necessary 

to assure the quality of life and clean environment that the American people deserve. It is hard for me to see how in times of rising 

rates of childhood cancer and asthma and neurological and developmental disorders, decreasing funding to public health and the environment is justified. 

As a Ranking Member for the Superfund and Waste Management Committee, I am very concerned about the growing backlog 

of toxic sites. Internal EPA documents have projected that if funding for Superfund construction projects continues at the current 

levels, the unmet need will be between $750 million and $1 billion 

by next fiscal year. The resulting hardship suffered by communities 

waiting for cleanup dollars is real. Ten million children, Mr. Chairman, live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Their health and welfare are at risk until they get those toxic sites in their neighborhoods cleaned up. 

EPA has admitted that there are unmet needs. In a January 18 

response to a letter I sent EPA, Tom Dunne, the Acting Head of 

the Superfund Program, confirmed that funding was insufficient to 

start work at 19 projects that were 100 percent ready to go. This 

is the first Administration that I am aware of that has opposed the 

polluter fee. What is happening is we see a very small increase in 

funding over last year, which is insufficient for the backlog, and we 

see that taxpayers are now picking up the whole freight here, 

which is wrong. I think polluter-pay is an American value. I certainly know that it is in my State. 

Why should Superfund be a priority? I think we have to look at 

the consequences of failing to fund these sites. The Washington 
9

Post this last Thanksgiving wrote about one example, a site in 

Omaha, NE, that is heavily contaminated with lead and on a very 

slow cleanup track. At the Omaha lead site, there are 9,400 children under age 7 living in the affected area of the site and threatened with lead poisoning. Whole neighborhoods were contaminated, 

so the problem is in thousands of backyards due to a smelter that 

deposited lead throughout the area. 

One of the consequences of the slow pace of cleanup is that several thousand children have high lead levels at the site today. The 

Washington Post story talks about one child in particular, who lost 

his ability to talk after exposure to the site. Obviously, this is a 

tragedy, but we have the power to do something about it. We 

should make cleanup of these sites a priority, and fund the Superfund program, not fund it at an anemic level, but go out there for 

the sake of the children and get it done. 

Mike Leavitt visited the Omaha site in October while he was Administrator of EPA. He said at the time, ‘‘The problem is our pocketbook. Our pocketbook does not stretch across all the places that 

our heart responds to.’’ Well, if we can have an open checkbook for 

a foreign war, we ought to have at least a sufficient checkbook 

when it comes to our children. That is really why I chose to be on 

this committee, because it is the children who suffer, really. We 

adults do not have the same impacts from these toxins and these 

pollutants. 

So I would ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my 

statement be placed in the record. Mr. Chairman, it deals with the 

cut in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is 83 percent. 

It is a disaster for my people. The underfunding of the leaking underground storage tanks, which is directly responsible for the 

MTBE poisoning that is going on, and the pattern that I see here 

which makes me really question the commitment of this Administration to the public health and the environment. 

I certainly hope that we on this committee under the leadership 

of our Chairman, can work in a bipartisan way to perhaps reverse 

some of these, let us call it, misplaced priorities. 

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EPA’s mission, to protect human health and the environment, is critically important. Unfortunately, EPA’s proposed fiscal year 2006—

budget along with the Bush administration’s never-ending attempts to roll back decades of environmental and public health protections—demonstrates yet again that 

this administration is not committed to protecting public health and the environment. 

The President’s 2006 budget request would decrease EPA’s funding $452 million, 

6 percent, from fiscal year 2005 amounts. This is an $804 million, or 10 percent, 

cut from fiscal year 2004 amounts. This is less funding than when Bush came into 

office. 

EPA’s overall 2006 budget does not commit the resources necessary to assure the 

quality of life and clean environment that Americans expect and deserve. I do not 

see how, in times of rising rates of childhood cancer, asthma, and neurological and 

developmental disorders, decreasing funding to public health and environment programs can be justified. 

As ranking member for the Superfund and Waste Management Subcommittee, I 

am particularly concerned about the growing backlog of toxic sites waiting for cleanup in the Superfund program. Internal EPA documents have projected that if fund-
10

ing for Superfund construction projects continues at current levels—the unmet need 

will be between $750 million and $1 billion by next fiscal year, fiscal year 2007. 

The resulting hardship suffered by communities throughout the country waiting 

for cleanup dollars is real. Ten million children live within 4 miles of a Superfund 

site and their health and welfare are at risk until they get the toxic sites in their 

neighborhoods cleaned up. 

EPA has admitted that there are unmet needs. In a January 18th response to a 

letter I sent to EPA last October, Tom Dunne, the Acting head of the Superfund 

program, confirmed that funding was insufficient to start work at 19 projects that 

were 100 percent ready to go. 

Yet despite the growing backlog, the President has substantially scaled back the 

budget request for fiscal year 06—compared to his requests in fiscal year 05 and 

fiscal year 04. The President’s request has actually dropped by over $100 million 

compared to last year’s request. The need is growing and the request is shrinking—

which tells us something about the President’s priorities. 

Why should Superfund be a priority? I think the answer comes from a look at the 

consequences of failing to fund these sites. The Washington Post this past Thanksgiving wrote about one example, a site in Omaha that is heavily contaminated with 

lead and on a slow cleanup track. 

At the Omaha lead site there are 9,400 children under 7 living in the affected 

area of the site and threatened with lead poisoning. Whole neighborhoods were contaminated so the problem is in thousands of backyards due to a smelter that deposited lead throughout the area. 

One of the consequences of the slow pace of cleanup is that several thousand children have high lead levels at the site today. The Washington Post story talks about 

one child in particular who lost his ability to talk after exposure to the site. Obviously, this is a tragedy, but we have the power to do something about it. We should 

make cleanup of these sites a priority and fund the Superfund program. 

Mike Leavitt visited the Omaha site in October while he was Administrator of 

EPA and he said at the time ‘‘the problem is our pocketbook does not stretch across 

all the places our heart responds to.’’

I do not believe that we have reached the point, despite our fiscal problems, where 

we have to allow this kind of threat to continue for years and years. We need to 

adequately fund Superfund—because the consequences of failing to fund this program are simply not consistent with our values. 

Superfund is not the only EPA program to be underfunded. 

Overall clean water programs are slashed a drastic $693 million, or 42 percent 

at a time when EPA estimates that these programs will need $388 billion through 

2019. This decrease includes a 33 percent cut for the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund and an 83 percent cut in funding targeted to specific projects. This means that 

money going to local governments to clean up water is gone with no alternative 

source for funding in sight. This means no funding for critical projects, such as 

wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements; watershed management 

plans; and combined sewer systems. 

Requested funding for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, which can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can contaminate the ground, aquifers, streams and 

other water bodies, is at $73 million. Although this is $3 million above fiscal year 

2005 funding levels, it is $3 million below 2004 levels, and it is insufficient to address the backlog of 130,000 sites awaiting cleanup. MTBE, which has wrecked 

havoc with water supplies across the country, has come from leaking underground 

storage tanks. There are approximately 675,000 tanks across the United States, and 

more than 445,000 confirmed releases from these tanks as of September 2004, nearly 43,000 of them in California. 

I see a pattern here—of decreasing funding to critical water quality and infrastructure programs, as well as decreasing funding to programs that can help prevent the contamination in the first place. This calls into question this administration’s commitment to clean and healthy water for all Americans. 

A budget that decreases funding for public health and the environment, stops 

funding local water quality projects, drastically slows Superfund clean-ups, and 

transfers the burden of cleanups to taxpayers forces me to continue to question this 

administration’s commitment to public health and the environment.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Vitter. 
11

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Mr. 

Johnson for your visit and testimony today. Certainly, the work of 

the EPA is vitally important to Louisiana, as it is to all other 

States. It is one of the prime reasons I worked very hard to get on 

this committee. I am very excited to be here. 

That certainly includes all of the macro issues, some of which 

previous speakers have focused on. I would also include some very 

specific Louisiana issues that I would like to follow up on after 

today. I will mention just a few for your information, to help you 

focus on it. 

Actually, the first bill I passed as a member of the House, which 

I am very excited about continuing, is Lake Pontchartrain Basin 

Restoration Program. Lake Pontchartrain is the largest lake in 

Louisiana. It is the second-largest body of water in the United 

States after the Great Lakes. It was a major pollution problem in 

Louisiana for very many years. Through a lot of work, really at the 

grassroots level, we began to turn the corner on that, through real 

grassroots community involvement initiatives. 

When I came to the House in 1999, I helped us take the next 

step by sponsoring this legislation, which became law. It set up a 

specific program within EPA to really get us to the next level 

through voluntary, proactive cleanup programs that bring all of the 

stakeholders together, again in a voluntary consensual proactive 

way, to rally around cleanup programs that help cleanup the lake 

and the entire Lake Pontchartrain Basin, which is 16 parishes in 

Louisiana, plus 3 counties in Mississippi. 

I am excited about it, first of all, because it obviously affects a 

big part of Louisiana, but also it is I think a new, positive model 

for addressing these sorts of concerns around the country, rather 

than simply dropping tons and mountains of regulation on communities that are an enormous burden, not just for the private sector, 

but increasingly for the public sector. It brings all the stakeholders 

together and forms consensus around proactive, voluntary cleanup 

initiatives. So I commend that to your attention as we reauthorize 

that and follow up on that. 

Another key Louisiana concern I have is Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment. This certainly goes to the Clear Skies initiative as 

well. Baton Rouge is a severe ozone nonattainment area even as we 

move from a 1-hour standard to a more stringent 8-hour standard, 

actually for reasons I am not sure I fully understand, that moves 

Baton Rouge from marginal nonattainment to severe nonattainment. So that is one of the quirks in present law and present regulations that we all want to help work through. Right now, there is 

a court-imposed stay in that case, and we all want to work toward 

a permanent solution that makes sense for citizens in Baton Rouge 

and for our policy nationwide. 

There are other issues, too. Just recently, I read reports that the 

town of El Dorado, AK has asked EPA to allow a project that would 

actually allow the dumping of millions of gallons of wastewater into 

the Washtar River in Louisiana that clearly has a major Louisiana 

impact. So if that project is approved, it would mean that every 
12

day, 20 million gallons would be dumped into a river that flows 

through central Louisiana into the Atchafalaya Basin. 

So I look forward to working with the Agency on all of the macro 

issues, as well as specific Louisiana concerns like these three I 

mentioned. Mr. Chairman, I will submit the rest of my statement, 

along with some specific questions about those 3 areas of concern, 

for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]

STATEMENT OF DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing, and, Mr. Johnson, we appreciate your being here today. The work of the EPA is very important in Louisiana, 

and I look forward to continuing to build on that work. 

One of the best examples of the EPA’s work in Louisiana is the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin is a 5,000 

square mile watershed encompassing 16 parishes in Louisiana and 4 counties in 

Mississippi. Lake Pontchartrain is the second largest lake in the United States after 

the Great Lakes and its 1.5 million residents make it the most populated area in 

the state of Louisiana. 

In 2000, Congress passed the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act, which 

was my first bill to pass Congress. This program puts Lake Pontchartrain’s restoration on the same status as other the restoration of other environmentally sensitive 

areas in our Nation, such as the Great Lakes and Florida Everglades restoration 

efforts. In addition, this program also created a partnership between the Federal 

Government and local stakeholders to further efforts to clean up the lake. The EPA 

is an active member of the Lake Pontchartrain Stakeholders’ Conference and is the 

chief Federal agency involved in the program. 

A great deal has been accomplished since the program began. There has been significant improvement in the water clarity in Lake Pontchartrain. We have seen the 

return of manatees, pelicans, oysters, clams and blue crabs to the lake. ‘‘NO SWIMMING’’ signs are coming down and beaches are being reopened. There has been an 

improvement in water quality on the south shore, however the same cannot yet be 

said of the north shore and the upper basin. Growing suburbs and inconsistent 

urban planning has dramatically increased pollution as well as affected some sensitive habitats. 

The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program has made great progress in 

cleaning up Lake Pontchartrain. We have come so far, but there is still much to be 

done. Various water-quality studies within the Lake Pontchartrain Basin have been 

conducted in recent years. While these studies have helped provide solutions to 

clean the Lake, we must move to the next phase: construction. 

I intend to introduce legislation soon that will not only reauthorize this important 

program but also allow funding to be used for construction much needed watershed 

projects. I am working with Senator Lott, because Mississippi is an important part 

of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator 

Landrieu, to draft this legislation. I look forward to working with the Chairman and 

the rest of the committee to reauthorize this important program. 

I wanted to bring up another issue important to Louisiana: ozone non-attainment 

in Baton Rouge. As we move from a 1-hour ozone standard to a more stringent 8-

hour standard, Baton Rouge’s classification could move from severe to marginal. 

Yet, under current law, even as that improvement happens, Baton Rouge will still 

be held to the existing severe restrictions under the old 1-hour standard. 

This situation seems inconsistent with the goal of cleaner air and nonsensical. 

Also, it creates litigation, which is ongoing and continuing to add costs and more 

delays in work to actually cleaning the air. I think this example proves that there 

is need for increased flexibility and for more efficiency and cost-effectiveness in 

cleaning up our air and meeting more stringent standards. 

Also, I have read recent reports that the town of El Dorado, AK, has asked the 

Environmental Protection Agency to allow a project that will dump millions of gallons of wastewater into the Ouachita River in Louisiana. 

If this proposed project is approved as proposed, it would mean that, everyday, 

20 million gallons would be dumped into a river that flows through central Louisiana and into the Atchafalaya Basin. To have that much waste flowing into this 

river—a river that is vital to Louisiana’s environment, economy, and culture—is unacceptable to us in Louisiana.
13

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

Senator Clinton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin by saying that there are a few bright spots in 

this budget. I am pleased, for example, that funding for building 

decontamination research has been restored. That had been zeroed 

out last year. The request for the Clean School Bus USA Program 

is up from the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. I think that is a very 

good sign, because this program does help school districts retrofit 

old buses or purchase new ones, in order to reduce children’s exposure to harmful particulates. 

From a macro perspective, I have to say this budget is disappointing and inadequate. Like my colleagues, I am dismayed 

about the very deep cuts for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

by $360 million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, to $730 

million. If Congress passes this amount, it would be a cut of more 

than $600 million from the average historical funding level of $1.37 

billion per year for the program. For New York alone, this reduction would mean a cut of $40 million. We know that the water infrastructure gap for the next 20 

years is in the hundreds of billions. In New York, we have an aging 

infrastructure. From the 1990 to 2000 census, we had an increase 

in population in New York City. This is an incredibly short-sighted 

cut. On the other end of our State, we have problems with the decision to zero out funding for the Rural Water Programs, which are 

critical to hundreds and hundreds of small rural systems in New 

York, and certainly thousands across the country, to help these 

small communities comply with the law and protect their drinking 

water. We have to find a way to provide that assistance as well. 

I join my colleagues’ concerns about some of the policy decisions 

embedded in this budget document, because after all budgets are 

value statements, as well as including numbers and statistics. I 

join my colleague, Senator Boxer, with concerns about the Superfund. I join my colleague, Senator Carper, with concerns about 

mercury. It really, I have to say, is shocking that the EPA inspector general’s report that was requested by Senator Jeffords, I and 

others, concerning the mercury proposal, found that EPA management ignored the Clean Air Act’s requirements. We do not have 

any other law at this time. There are lots of proposals floating 

around, but the law is the law, and that is the Clean Air Act. 

The direction by the EPA management to the staff to essentially 

game the mercury analysis so that the reductions would mesh with 

the expected co-benefits of the clean air interstate rule is absolutely 

outrageous. It is a slap in the face to Congress. It is a slap in the 

face to the American public. It is a real detriment to the 1 in 12 

American women who already have dangerous levels of mercury in 

their bloodstream. 

It is very troubling, because we need unbiased analysis. We can 

have arguments about what the best thing to do is. Obviously, the 

Chairman and I do not agree about what we should do to clean our 

air. We cannot permit government agencies to provide false and 
14

misleading information. If there were any oversight in this Congress, which there is very little of, we would get answers to this. 

It is wrong and it is unacceptable. 

Let me just mention two other issues very quickly. I worked with 

the White House in the fall of 2003 to secure an agreement to establish the World Trade Center Expert Technical Review Panel to 

address continuing concerns about contamination resulting from 

the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11. I then 

worked very successfully with Governor Leavitt to implement that 

agreement. The panel got underway last March under the chairmanship of Dr. Paul Gilman of the Office of Research and Development. Dr. Gilman did an excellent job, but he has left the Agency 

and the panel has been without a chairman. I hope, Mr. Johnson, 

that you will name a new chair of this panel expeditiously, because 

this is a success story. This is one of those issues where everybody 

has worked together. 

Finally, with respect to the Deutsche Bank demolition, I want to 

thank the EPA for stepping in and making clear that there were 

aspects of this demolition that were totally unacceptable. I would 

hope that the EPA has followed up with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to ensure that the suggested changes are 

made, and that you will continue to work to ensure that any demolition going on in Lower Manhattan is done to the highest standards. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Clinton. 

Senator Obama. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to indicate my concurrence with the statements of Senator Clinton and some of the previous speakers. I 

think there are good elements of this budget, but I am disappointed 

that we seem to be going backwards instead of forwards in terms 

of at least our financial commitment to protecting the environment. 

I think if there are arguments to be made that some programs 

are inefficient, as I have already heard from the brief time that I 

have been on this committee, I am happy to consider how we can 

make them more efficient. I am not wedded to one particular way 

of skinning the cat. I am not interested in wasting taxpayer money 

on programs that do not work. 

It strikes me, though, given the magnitude of some of the things 

that were mentioned by Senator Boxer and Senator Clinton, the 

notion that we are cutting back on our resources to not only enforce, but also cleanup some of these sites, is troubling to say the 

least. 

I do want to say that I am pleased to see an additional almost 

$50 million going into Brownfields programs. I think that is something that will benefit communities all across the country. I will be 

interested in seeing how this program is managed and how it affects areas in the Midwest in particular that I think have been neglected. 
15

I am also happy that the Great Lakes is going to be receiving 

some additional money to clean up sediment there. I am going to 

be interested in finding out from the EPA how Illinois is participating in that, how EPA is making decisions about those sites that 

receive the highest priority. I will take just one example. Waukegan Harbor is an area which used to have a Johns Mansville 

plant there. There have been consistent reports of asbestos washing up on the beach, big chunks of it. Right now, Illinois EPA has 

had the beach closed down, but there does not seem to be a clear 

strategy in terms of how we are going to clean it up. So I am going 

to be interested in finding out how this Agency intends to work 

with the EPA, work with the State government to make sure that 

facility is cleaned up. 

With respect to clean water wastewater treatment, I will be interested in an explanation as to why we are cutting this money 

back. Is this just a matter of every agency having to meet its quota 

of cuts relative to the overall Federal budget? Or is there some legitimate rationale for these cuts? I have not heard those rationales 

as well. I will be interested in seeing if there is any good reason 

for it. 

Let me just end by saying this. I really want to emphasize the 

point that Senator Clinton just made about getting good information. We cannot do our job on either side unless we have good information. It seems as if there may be a trend or a tendency for us 

to manipulate numbers in order to make political points. It seems 

to me that there is no room to do that, especially when we are talking about environmental issues in which our children’s lives are at 

stake. So I hope you have some direct response in terms of how we 

are approaching that, and whether there is something in this budget that reflects some institutional mechanism to prevent that kind 

of stuff from occurring again. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Obama. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for being late. I apologize sincerely for missing the 

testimony. I will defer my questions until later, if that is possible, 

so I can get caught up. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Thune. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, would wait until the question-answer time. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. What I think we will do, we will 

close our opening statements now for any other members that 

come, in accordance with our rules. Since we are only going to have 

one round, Senator Jeffords, without objection why don’t we give 6-

minute rounds instead of 5-minute rounds. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Fine. 

Senator INHOFE. That would be all right? All right. We will do 

that, and we will go back to the early bird rule. 

Senator BOXER. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Could I just ask you 

a question? 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, we have to get the testimony. 
16

Senator BOXER. I know, but you were talking about one 6-minute 

round, and that is the end of the questions? 

Senator INHOFE. That is what I am talking about, yes. 

Senator BOXER. Could I suggest 10-minute rounds, because I 

think it is kind of hard, if you are going to have a give-and-take, 

to do it in 6 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. We will have 7.5-minute rounds. We 

will split the difference. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, you are so generous. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Your cup runneth over. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. We work well together. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, you have heard a lot of the comments. You will 

have a lot of questions to answer, I am sure. We will recognize you 

at this time to make your statement. Try to stay within your 5 

minutes, say 6 minutes. OK? 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY: CHARLES E. JOHNSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL 

OFFICER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; TOM 

DUNNE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ANN KLEE, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JEFF 

HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR 

AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; SUSAN B. HAZEN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

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

committee. I am pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss President Bush’s fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Environmental 

Protection Agency. I am accompanied by Mr. Charlie Johnson, the 

Agency’s Chief Financial Officer, and the rest of EPA’s leadership 

team. We would be pleased to respond to your questions after my 

brief remarks. 

Mr. Chairman, if it would please the committee, I would request 

that my full written statement be included for the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the President has requested a budget of $7.6 billion for EPA and its partners for fiscal 

year 2006. We are all well aware of the need for discipline in our 

Federal budget, and this budget request reflects the need to be a 

good steward of the taxpayers’ dollars. At the same time, I am certain that the President’s budget will allow us to continue the 

progress we have made in protecting public health and the environment. 

This budget engages the full range of partners, not just Federal, 

State, tribal and local partners, but also businesses, interest groups 
17

and educational institutions, to help leverage Federal moneys. Let 

me give you an example. The President’s budget contains a request 

for $15 million for the Clean Diesel Initiative. These funds will be 

used to expand the retrofitting of diesel engines in new sectors of 

the economy, such as construction, agriculture, mass transit and 

the Nation’s ports, and in fire and emergency response. These 

funds are expected to leverage significant additional investments 

from businesses and other sources to replace older, dirtier equipment, thereby accelerating our efforts to make that black puff of 

diesel smoke a thing of the past. 

The national Clean Diesel Initiative is expected to reduce particulate matter by 1,200 tons, achieving an estimated $360 million in 

health benefits by reducing premature deaths, heart attacks, 

chronic bronchitis, and asthma episodes. In fact, through numerous 

other collaborative networks and partnerships, EPA will be able to 

leverage millions of additional dollars to improve the Nation’s environment. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight just a few programs that 

illustrate the strong commitment the President is making to a 

clean and healthier America. First, President Bush is requesting 

$210 million for the National Brownfields Program, an increase of 

$46.9 million over the enacted 2005 funding. EPA is working with 

its State, tribal and local partners to meet its objective to clean up, 

restore, and revitalize contaminated properties and abandoned 

sites. These funds, together with the extension of the Brownfields 

tax incentive, will allow EPA to assess over 1,000 Brownfield properties, and cleanup 60 properties using Brownfields funding. Federal dollars will also leverage 5,000 cleanup and redevelopment 

jobs, as well as $1 billion in cleanup and redevelopment. 

With respect to the Great Lakes, we are proud of our efforts in 

the Great Lakes region over the past year, including implementation of the President’s Executive order calling for a regional collaboration of national significance. As you know, we helped initiate 

the collaboration with the conveners meeting in Chicago last December, and our work is continuing to develop a plan for protecting 

and preserving the Great Lakes. 

The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget increases funding for 

Great Lakes programs and the regional collaboration to $72 million. That amount includes $50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy 

Act Program to remediate the contaminated sediment in areas of 

concern, such as the Black Lagoon close to Detroit, MI. 

To help support sustainable wastewater infrastructure, the President’s budget provides $730 million to continue capitalization of the 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds. This investment will allow 

EPA to meet the Administration’s Federal capitalization target of 

$6.8 billion for 2004 through 2011, and it will enable the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund to revolve over time at a level of $3.4 

billion per year. 

To further address wastewater needs, EPA is supporting a range 

of voluntary efforts to achieve sustainable infrastructure, such as 

management improvements, full cost pricing, water conservation, 

and restoration through our watershed approach. To help ensure 

that water is safe to drink, the fiscal year 2006 President’s budget 
18

requests $850 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund. 

The President’s budget request also reflects a strong commitment 

to safeguard human health and the environment, with funds to ensure that EPA’s critical role in homeland security remains a top 

priority. EPA’s request includes $79 million in new resources for 

homeland security efforts. Among priority activities, $44 million 

will provide tools and training for our largest drinking water systems, and will launch in selected cities a pilot program of monitoring and surveillance to provide early warning of contamination. 

Environmental decontamination research and preparedness increases by $19.4 million, with an additional $4 million requested 

for the Safe Buildings Research Program. Over $11.6 million in 

new resources will support preparedness for our environmental laboratories. 

In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the goals 

and objectives as set forth in our strategic plan, to meet new challenges, to move forward EPA’s core programs as reflected in the 

Nation’s environmental statutes, to protect our homeland, and to 

identify new and better ways to carry out EPA’s mission, while 

maintaining national competitiveness. 

Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just take a moment to thank you and Senator Voinovich for your work on the 

Clear Skies legislation, which is currently pending in the committee, and to pledge to you and other members of the committee 

the Administration’s best efforts to help you move the legislation 

forward. The President continues to believe that Clear Skies legislation is vital and we know that States and localities are anxious 

to have Federal and regional tools to meet the standards we have 

established under the Clean Air Act. 

Of course, EPA will continue to meet its obligations under existing authorities and agreements, but I want to be certain that we 

are providing the committee with all the assistance necessary to facilitate consideration of this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to discuss 

EPA’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2006. At this time, I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I will go ahead and 

start the 7.5-minute rounds. 

Let me first of all thank you for responding yesterday to my call. 

I think Senator Jeffords and I had asked for quite some time for 

the enacted levels of 2005 so that we could look at that with the 

2006 budget. It should not have taken as long as it did, but we do 

have it now, and we do appreciate finally getting it. 

Let me get to just one opening question, because every year we 

go through this same thing. I know the intentions are good, but in 

terms of polluter-pays, I would suggest to you that the polluter 

does pay. We have a system, if we can identify who a polluter is, 

that polluter pays. I do not know of any exception to that, and I 

have asked this question before, so maybe something has happened 

in the last year that has changed this, but I will ask you the question. Can you identify any Superfund site in the past, in the 

present, or in the pipeline now, when an identifiable and viable 
19

polluter has not been held liable, consistent with the law, for their 

share of the contamination? Can you just identify one? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not aware of any one at all, Mr. Chairman. 

In fact, our policy and our practice is that the polluter pays. That 

is who we go after. If we can identify a liable party, we go after 

them. In fact, over 70 percent of the sites are undertaken by the 

polluter, not by the Federal Government, but by the polluter. That 

is the person we go after. 

Senator INHOFE. I just wanted to get that in the record and clarify that nothing has changed, and that has always happened. 

Now, you are going to be grilled by a lot of my colleagues, including myself on some shortfalls in the budget. I would like to talked 

about reducing the overall budget by $450 million, I would argue 

a different point here, because it seems like every year, and it happened in the previous administration, the Clinton administration. 

It has happened every time I have been up here, that there are 

cuts in programs that you know in your heart are going to be put 

back in. One is the congressional projects; the other is the State revolving fund. They cut them every year, and they put them back, 

so you know they are going to be put back. 

I would prefer that the Agency go and start making cuts in areas 

where I think there could be general agreement. We have reams 

of studies that really have not produced anything at all. One is the 

Accidental Injury and Inclement Weather: Defining the Relationship and Anticipating the Effects of Climate Change, and an epidemiological study, the Effects of Temperature on Violent Crime. 

These are things that I think most normal people would say you 

do not need to be wasting your money on. 

So why don’t you go out, and I think maybe you need to have 

the cuts in overall programs, but cut in areas that are serious cuts 

that you know are not going to be reinstated. 

Any thoughts about that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree. The EPA is always looking for opportunities to streamline and to take appropriate cuts. In fact, we have identified programs that are both not 

meeting their intent and not producing results. There is at least 

one example where one of the programs, the Alaska Native Villages, where there are needs, but through our own assessment, 

through the performance assessment rating tool that the government is using to evaluate programs, and through the State’s own 

investigation, it was determined that it was an ineffective program, 

both financially and programmatic. So the budget reflects those 

kind of cuts. 

Second is that certainly with your encouragement, Mr. Chairman, we have made great progress on our grant programs. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, you have. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But we have work to do. A part of that work is 

to take a very close look at all grant funds, particularly the discretionary grant funds, to make sure that those moneys are used for 

the highest priority activities for the Agency. I think that as we 

look at those kind of things, we will see additional savings. 

Senator INHOFE. Along that line, I would encourage you, and I 

would like to have your response like now, your willingness to do 

it, to continue, as I think you just said, that program. We had so 
20

many discretionary grants that we discovered that actually were 

going straight into 501(c)(4) operations, totally outrageous, as I 

mentioned in my opening statement. 

So there are a lot of areas where we can do it, but I do see this, 

and again this is not the Republicans or the Democrats. It is everybody. They will cut things that they know are going to come back 

in. That is not confined to this committee, I might add. 

There is something that is important to my State I want to just 

share with you. The Agency recently proposed a second extension 

in the compliance deadline for the small oil and natural gas producers to comply with the stormwater rule. What does the Agency 

plan to do during the new extension period? Further, the Department of Energy recently released a report detailing the underlying 

costs to the oil and natural gas sector and the Nation as a whole 

if the EPA goes forward with its rule to require them to have clean 

water permits for all their stormwater runoff, instead of just contaminated runoff as Congress intended when it passed the 1987 

amendments to the Clean Water Act. What is your intention on 

that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, on January 18 of this year, we proposed to postpone the requirements for NPDES permits for 

stormwater phase II oil and gas construction activities until June 

12, 2006. This will provide us with an opportunity to better study 

the economic, the legal, and procedural issues associated with oil 

and gas construction activities and NPDES permits. 

We have stated that we do intend to propose a rule by the end 

of September of this year that would lay out what approach we believe we should be taking for these types of activities and these 

types of facilities. We believe that it is appropriate for us to postpone the requirements while we sort this out. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, Mr. Johnson. Thank you. 

Senator Jeffords. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes, I would like to turn your attention to an 

issue that has raised deep concerns over this country, but most 

particularly right where we are here in Washington, DC. We are 

well aware of the damaging impact that mercury can have on 

human health and environment. According to the EPA inspector 

general’s recent report, during the writing of the mercury reduction 

rule, EPA senior management purposely ignored the law to benefit 

the industry. 

Let me quote you last week’s inspector general’s report, ‘‘EPA 

senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a maximum 

achievable control technology, a MACT, standard for mercury that 

would result in national emissions of 34 tons annually instead of 

basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the topperforming units were achieving in practice as required by the law 

in section 112.’’

Do you find this behavior acceptable, and what is the Agency 

doing to correct this problem and prevent such abuse of the law in 

the future? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Jeffords, first of all let me state that, as you 

well know, having confirmed me as the Assistant Administrator for 

the Pesticides and Toxics Program, I was not in the position that 
21

I am either as the permanent deputy or as the acting. So I, too, 

had the inspector general’s report, and several comments. 

One is that there is no disagreement that mercury is a toxic material that must be dealt with. Also, there appears to be no science 

disagreement that the exposure that we all need to be concerned 

about for mercury is through the diet, and specifically through fish. 

So while there may be aspects of the IG report of process, where 

there are differences of opinion and that the Agency does disagree 

with the way the IG has characterized the process, the point is that 

we are going to be regulating mercury from coal-fired power plants 

for the first time in U.S. history. Currently, mercury is not regulated, so we are taking steps to make that happen. 

Of course, the IG report was issued while we were in the midst 

of the process of final rulemaking. So for the IG report to say what 

we will or will not do is certainly premature because we are in the 

midst of regulating mercury for the first time in U.S. history. So 

I am sure that there are always process improvements. I have been 

dealing with regulations of EPA for almost 25 years now, and I always look for those opportunities to improve our process. It is clear 

that we need to move forward with regulating mercury from power 

plants, and that is what our focus is and what our final rulemaking 

is a part of. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Do you have any time schedule for trying to 

get that implemented? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our plan is to by mid–March move forward with 

our regulation. Of course, our preferred approach, as I commented 

in my opening remarks, is to see the passage of Clear Skies legislation. We believe that is a much more preferable approach for a 

number of reasons, not the least of which is certainty and the fact 

that it applies nationwide. So that is why we are certainly doing 

anything that we can to help Chairman Inhofe and the committee 

see Clear Skies passed. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Can you explain how a cut of $361 million in 

clean water infrastructure funds will lead to an improvement in 

water infrastructure? How will it reduce the spending gap as identified by EPA’s gap analysis? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Jeffords, you appropriately point out, and 

it has been commented on by a number of Senators this afternoon 

that there is a significant gap dealing with clean water across 

America and aging infrastructure. The Administration made a commitment that we would achieve a Federal capitalization target of 

$6.8 billion in 2011. When you look at the funds that have already 

gone into the Clean Water SRF, and then you couple that with 

what the President’s request is for 2006 of $730 million, that meets 

the Administration’s commitment for Federal capitalization target 

of $6.8 billion in 2011. 

You can look at it a number of ways. It also equates to that over 

time it will evolve at about $3.4 billion per year. In addition to 

those moneys, obviously Federal moneys, States, local communities, 

rate-payers, as well as additional voluntary programs that we at 

the Federal level and a number of Federal agencies and States and 

local communities also need to support, help to try to achieve a better sustainable infrastructure than what we have. 
22

Senator JEFFORDS. On Monday, December 13, when the President nominated Michael Leavitt for Secretary of HHS, Mr. Leavitt 

recorded a voice mail that was distributed to EPA employees. That 

message said that he had a meeting with President Bush where he 

personally made the decision to move forward on clean air interstate rule, and that the President had made the decision to finalize 

that rule by March. Is that still the schedule? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are still moving toward that target to finalize 

the rule. Again, our preferred approach is to see the Clear Skies 

legislation passed for the reasons I have already stated, sir. 

Senator JEFFORDS. The EPA budget contains documents that indicate that the agency intends to reduce its personnel level by 273 

employees. Could you explain why this is necessary, whether any 

parts of the agency have instituted hiring freezes, and whether reductions in force or buyouts will be necessary in the upcoming fiscal year? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The approximately 300 FTE reduction that you 

refer to is over 2 years, both this fiscal year as well as next fiscal 

year. When I look at what our current FTE level of employees is, 

we are right where we need to be. There certainly is no agencywide freeze. I am not aware of any local freezes, if you will, but 

I certainly would expect that all the managers across all our programs and regions would manage their resources accordingly. So as 

they hire up to their ceiling, they need to manage to that ceiling. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just for the 2 Mr. Johnsons. When I say Mr. Johnson, everybody 

is going to jump. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are unrelated, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. I thank you for coming. Thank you for your 

testimony. You made a comment with regard to mercury in answering the question from Senator Jeffords. Clear Skies is the first time 

that we have established targeted goals, I believe a 70 percent reduction, of mercury. That is correct. I applaud the President for his 

recommendation and you for the encouragement of that, because 

there is no question that mercury is something that we have got 

to regulate, and that Clear Skies is clearly an opportunity to have 

a significant reduction in that over a meaningful period of time. 

The second thing, in your written statement, and I am not sure 

you said this, because you were leaving some of it out, there is a 

sentence that says, this funding provides additional resources to 

States in order for them to contribute to the development of this 

baseline of water conditions across our country, and what you were 

referring to I believe is a $24 million program in terms of monitoring of water and clean water. 

My State of Georgia, and this may be unique only to my State, 

has more counties than any State in the country except the State 

of Texas. We have more incorporated municipalities than anybody 

I think in the world. So we have a lot of governments. Throughout 

your written testimony, you refer to watershed, rather than government, because water does not pay attention to political boundaries. 
23

Are there any incentive moneys to encourage multi-jurisdictional 

participation in storm water management, soil sediment erosion 

control and other water quality issues at the department? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, there are. If it pleases the Senator, I would 

like to invite our Assistant Administrator, Ben Grumbles, who 

heads up our water program, to give you some specifics. Ben? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, you have hit the nail right on the head 

in terms of one of the greatest challenges and opportunities, and 

that is if we truly want to manage our water resources on a watershed basis, it has to be based on both voluntary approaches and incentives, and also working together. The monitoring initiative that 

you pointed out, the $24 million which is additional funding being 

requested in the budget, is for States to develop tools to better 

monitor their water. 

It also complements the whole targeted watershed approach that we are trying to achieve. There is a $15 million request in the 

President’s budget, Senator, for collaborations, voluntary innovative approaches to respond to nutrients or invasive species or whatever the challenge is in a particular watershed to try to provide incentives for local groups, governments, local governments, watershed organizations to work together. That includes stormwater, as 

well as other types of water challenges. 

Senator ISAKSON. I commend you for doing that. I was hoping 

that is what it meant, because in our particular State and in my 

personal experience, we can move light-years ahead in terms of 

water quality if we get multi-jurisdictional cooperation within watersheds and have a team approach, rather than some of the problems we have in other areas where one community is directly hurting another community because of an absence of attention and cooperation. 

My other comment would not be a question, but it would be to 

thank the department. How long have you been there, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Almost 25 years, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. You were there, then. I will thank you, and I 

will thank you, Mr. Johnson, on general principles as well. Five 

years ago, we came to the department to ask for a waiver. The city 

of Atlanta, as you know, has been a poster child for nonattainment, 

and we have had significant clean air difficulties. We also had 

probably one of the dirtiest cleanup jobs known to man, known as 

the Atlantic Steel plant right downtown. We came to the department and asked for a waiver to allow us to construct a bridge 

across the dual Interstates 75 and 85 that go through the center 

of town, to open up that property to development. The department, 

and Secretary Browner, I think, at the time was the head of the 

department, granted that waiver. 

I would like to tell you what the result of that is today. The 

bridge is built. Traffic on the Interstate is reduced significantly because it now flows with people going from one destination to another downtown who do not have to get on the Interstate to go 

there. The dirtiest cleanup site in the State, in fact Atlantic Steel 

kept a skeleton crew employed and kept the plant open so as not 

to ever have to clean it up. The new buyers came in, completely 

replaced all the soil, completely cleaned the entire area up. It has 
24

now been redeveloped into one of the most successful residential, 

commercial, office, retail and entertainment mixed-use developments in the country. 

Five years ago, it was a wasteland and it was regulation that 

prohibited the cleanup. You all were open-minded, willing to grant 

that waiver, and I just want to let you know next time you are in 

Atlanta if you will drive by that, you will be very glad you did it, 

and we are very appreciative that you did it. 

My principle has always been in environmental management 

that there are best management practices and sometimes what 

someone might fight is sending a waiver, but it actually can take 

us to a period of time with far cleaner air and far cleaner water. 

That is a shining example of it, and we are grateful to you for your 

work on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Speaking of cleaning up the environment as Senator Isakson did, 

one of the greatest programs has been the Superfund program. 

Signed by Jimmy Carter, and actually the fund, the fee was expanded by Ronald Reagan, supported by George Bush’s dad, and 

very strongly supported by President Clinton. This is the first 

President in history since Superfund not to support the fee. 

Now, the fact is for one-third of the sites, you cannot find a responsible party. That is from EPA themselves. So there are polluters who are not paying at all. That is why it is very disturbing 

to see that the load is falling on the taxpayers, whether they are 

in Georgia or California or New York or anywhere. 

So it is a sad day for us. Of course, we have not seen a slowdown 

of the cleanups to 40. Under Bill Clinton, it was an average of 80 

sites cleaned. There are many of these sites all over the country. 

New Jersey has most of them, but California, New York and other 

places all have them. 

So this is a serious issue, and one that I am not going to belabor. 

Obviously, the President does not support the fee, and that is the 

way it goes. There is bipartisan support for the fee in this committee, not with everyone, but we will be pushing that issue. 

My question for you is, one of the problems we have had recently 

with the Bush administration is that we cannot get the list of the 

sites. We cannot get the list of what are your priorities, what are 

the most dangerous sites. Would you make that information available to Senators who may want that information? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to provide information on the sites as 

we go through our ranking and evaluation. 

[The referenced information can be found on page 141.] 

Senator BOXER. When will that be? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know how quickly we can do this, but let 

me ask our acting assistant administrator. 

Senator BOXER. That would be wonderful. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This is Tom Dunne. 
25

Senator BOXER. Mr. Dunne, thank you, because I have had problems with getting information out of EPA on your priority list, and 

what the most dangerous projects are. 

Mr. DUNNE. Senator, what we have is a number of career people, 

one from each regional office who sits on a risk panel. Every year, 

generally in the summer, they rank the projects based on health 

risk. 

Senator BOXER. Right. That is what I am interested in. 

Mr. DUNNE. That can change from year to year, because as new 

sites are added, you can fall down the list if you do not have as 

high a risk. We do not keep a list on a day-to-day basis, but I guarantee you all our decisions have been made. 

Senator BOXER. Can you send me your most recent list, then? 

Mr. DUNNE. I think we can show you what we have from the last 

fiscal year. 

Senator BOXER. That would be very helpful. What we are interested in, of course, is that your list is going forward. When will 

that be done? This summer? 

Mr. DUNNE. Sometime in the late spring or early summer. 

Senator BOXER. Will you make a commitment to get that list to 

those Senators who want it? 

Mr. DUNNE. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. That would be very helpful. 

Mr. Chairman, on the Brownfields question. I think all of us 

really applaud that legislation. I worked on it with Senators Chafee 

and Smith, and Senator Jeffords and others. What we see is that 

490 out of the 755 projects were not funded by EPA. Eleven of 

those were from my State. So we have many sites that remain idle 

and dirty, blighting neighborhoods and hampering local development, which is very important. I started out as a county supervisor. We want to be able to utilize these sites. Generally, they are 

infill. They are close to the cities and they are important economic 

potential. 

My question to you is, how many sites will remain unfunded 

under your particular proposal, which is a very small increase in 

this program? 

Mr. DUNNE. That is hard to tell. It depends on how many applications we get. Right now, there is a competitive process that is 

going on for local communities, and organizations have sent in applications. We expect that there will be a few hundred that will not 

be funded. The list has gone down in the last couple of years as 

community groups and developers understand the complexities of 

dealing with contaminated land. While it started out 2 years ago, 

in the first year of Brownfields, with over 1,000 applications. Last 

year, I believe it fell to about 700. The last figure I heard was it 

is falling further this year. 

Senator BOXER. How many sites are not going to be cleaned up? 

Mr. DUNNE. Sites, we could take a look at the number of sites. 

Senator BOXER. Could you get me that information, please, as 

soon as possible? 

Mr. DUNNE. We have issued actually a market report that came 

out in the last couple of months that is a very frank analysis of all 
26

contaminated sites as best as we can estimate. That is underground source, Brownfields. 

Senator BOXER. So you can get me that information? 

Mr. DUNNE. It is a book that we will be happy to send your staff. 

[The referenced information can be found on page 140.] 

Senator BOXER. Please, if you would do that right away. 

My other question on leaking underground storage tanks, one of 

the most serious threats to the nation’s groundwater. It can hold 

extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through soil. We 

know that MTBE, that presents a substantial risk to health and 

environment and economic growth. There are 670,000 underground 

storage tanks in the United States and 160,000 in California; 

437,000 are leaking; 42,000 in California. Cleanups have slowed 

down by over 20 percent in recent years. 

I am concerned. Since there is, in my understanding, a trust fund 

for the cleanup of these tanks, and my understanding of the information I have, looking at the unspent money, it is over $2 billion. 

So in face of the 130,000 needed cleanups, why did the Administration fail to request additional funding from this special reserve, 

which is collected specifically to clean up leaking underground storage tanks? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Boxer, we will have to get back to you for 

the record. 

[The referenced information can be found on page 136.] 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving 

me 7.5 minutes. I am glad, because the fact is I am not getting answers to these questions, and they are very important to me. So 

please, as soon as we can, this is key to economic development. It 

is key to the health of our people, the health of our kids. We will 

work closely with you. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for this opportunity. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate the 

testimony of the Johnsons. I feel very at home, being from South 

Dakota, being surrounded by Johnsons. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. I appreciate your testimony and your responses 

to these questions. I am also interested in a number of the programs that are under this committee’s jurisdiction. I would point 

out, and correct me if I am wrong, that when the Superfund tax 

or fee expired in 1995, that there was not a request for it to be reinstated under the Clinton administration at a time when the 

Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. Actually, that 

would be prior to 1995. I guess that is right. We had the Congress 

by then. In any event, the point being that the Clinton administration did not request an increase or the reinstatement of that fee. 

The other thing I guess I would point out, and I think it is important, is that we have some issues in South Dakota with respect 

to Superfund sites, too, sites that have been for the most part 

cleaned up, almost complete, anyway. We have received a considerable amount of funding, and in most cases there are situations 

where you cannot identify a responsible party. That was the case 
27

with one of the mines in South Dakota. I think it is a program that 

has been used effectively to do some very successful cleanup sites. 

The same thing is true with respect to Brownfields. I was just 

noting the increase, as I understand the numbers here, in 

Brownfields funding, the Administration has requested $210 million for the Brownfields Program, an increase of $46.9 million over 

the enacted 2005 funding level, which is, if my arithmetic is correct, about a 28 percent increase in funding for that program, 

which I do not think is inconsequential in light of where the overall 

budget numbers are this year and the constraints that we have to 

live under. 

I look forward to working on these issues. These are issues that 

will fall under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee, and I look forward to working with the Senator from California, who I think has 

since left, on these issues that are important to her State as well. 

A couple of points with respect to issues that I have particular 

concerns with in South Dakota, one being, and I appreciate your 

agency’s help regarding the tier II sulfur issue. I am hopeful that 

we can work together to find a solution to the issue in Pierre and 

Fort Pierre, SD. That is a community that is divided by a river, but 

because of complications that have come up regarding the geographic phase-in area, fall under different regulations and different 

standards, which does not really make any sense if you understand 

at all the geography of South Dakota. So I look forward to working 

with you, and would appreciate your assistance on that matter. 

The other concern I would like to express is having to do with 

the clean water SRF program. Based on my calculations, South Dakota would lose roughly $3 million compared to the funding that 

it received last year. Clearly, Congress continues to fund this program at a higher level than the Administration supports. I think 

that has been demonstrated historically, largely due to the overwhelming needs not only in my home State of South Dakota, but 

across the country. 

If you look at South Dakota, 50 percent of the assessed rivers 

and 84 percent of the assessed lakes are designated as having impaired water quality. The leading sources of water pollution include 

erosion, agricultural runoff and non-point source pollution. 

Now, having said that, we did I think some significant good work 

in the Farm Bill in 2002 in improving. In fact, there was a piece 

of legislation I introduced on the House side which was incorporated in the Farm Bill called the Conservation Security Program, 

which is designed to provide incentives for farmers on farmable 

lands to practice conservation. It is an incentive-based program. I 

hope that we can continue to move incentive-based approaches 

when it comes to cleaning up our groundwater in places like South 

Dakota. 

Of course, the CRP program has been very successful, not only 

with respect to erosion, but also in wildlife production, something 

that is also important in my State. The EQI Program, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, is also something that has been 

fluffed up significantly in the 2002 Farm Bill. Those programs are 

all I think having a very positive impact. What we are talking 

about here is the Clear Skies legislation, and I am hopeful that we 
28

can continue to make progress toward cleaning up our water and 

cleaning up our air. 

In coming back to the whole question of the SRF, that is a program that has been used significantly by a lot of States. South Dakota, I know in my experience, has made considerable good use of 

that program. I guess I am just curious to get your reaction about 

what the rationale was for the reduction in that particular area of 

the budget. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. As we looked at the Clean Water SRF 

and looked at the funding that was provided in 2004 and 2005, we 

reflected on the Administration’s commitment to, one, have a revolving fund that would both have a Federal capitalization target 

of $6.8 billion in 2011, and achieve around a $3.4 billion per year 

revolving amount. As we calculated those numbers to achieve that 

commitment, in light of the commitments made last year and the 

year before—this year, the number is $730 million. 

So when you take and calculate that out through now and 2011, 

it honors that commitment. Obviously, we are in a fiscally restrained budget, but it was important, because this is an important 

area for States and local communities, but it was also important 

to honor our commitment. 

Senator THUNE. I expect I am going to be hearing from my Governor, as well as our Department of Environment and Natural Resources in South Dakota as they begin to pore over this budget. As 

I said earlier, Congress has demonstrated an inclination, a willingness in the past to plus-up the Administration’s budget in that regard. It is a program that has been very well used by the States, 

and I think done some very good things with respect to cleaning 

up the environment. 

On that note, thank you again for your testimony and I look forward to working with you and this committee as this process moves 

forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Senator Clinton. 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, just 2 points to clarify the record. Every Clinton 

budget post–1995 assumed the reinstatement of the polluter-pay 

tax, and in fact the Administration consistently supported reinstating the polluter-pay tax. Unfortunately, there was not much appetite for doing that in the Congress. Second, with respect to Senator Isakson’s point, it is my understanding that EPA does control 

mercury coming out of incinerators. We have had recognition of the 

control of mercury for quite some time. We have just never taken 

it to the stage it needs to be moved foward, which is to control the 

emissions from dirty power plants. 

Mr. Johnson, let me ask you specifically, when do you think a 

new Chair will be named for the World Trade Center panel? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Clinton, first of all, thank you for your 

kind remarks with regard to the effort by Dr. Gilman and others 

on the World Trade Center, an important topic for all of us, and 

to do what we all need to do to address that situation. 

Since we are in the midst of the President looking for an Administrator for EPA, and also there are several key positions that we 
29

are actively looking for highly qualified individuals, including the 

Assistant Administrator for our Office of Research and Development, while that process is going on, I have asked Tim Oppelt, who 

is the director of our Cincinnati lab who oversees all of our research in homeland security, if he would serve as an interim Chair 

for this upcoming meeting, and then report back to me directly so 

that the important progress that we have made thus far will continue. 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I also made a conscious decision that rather than 

waiting for people to be in positions, that I thought it was important for us to move forward with having our next panel meeting. 

So we have announced that we are having our next panel meeting 

on February 23. Mr. Oppelt will be filling in to chair that for me, 

reporting directly back to me, so that we can move forward with 

the important progress. 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much. I know that my constituents appreciate that as well. 

Mr. Johnson, with respect to the Deutsche Bank Building, has 

the EPA followed up with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to ensure that the suggested changes that EPA made with 

respect to the technical considerations about the demolition, has 

that been followed up with the Lower Manhattan Development 

Corporation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our Region II office out of New York, as you are 

well aware, was following this and in fact were the ones who were 

instrumental in achieving what you had said. I am not sure whether that follow-up has or has not occurred. 

Senator CLINTON. Could you get back to me on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to get back to you for the record. 

Senator CLINTON. I think it is important. There was a great 

cheer that went up from Lower Manhattan when the EPA set forth 

its concerns. I would like to keep getting you good press in Manhattan. 

Last August, I wrote to the EPA to ask for attention to a Title 

VI claim that had been filed by the Syracuse University public interest law firm on behalf of a group called the Partnership for Onondaga Creek, a grassroots community group including neighborhood residents from blocks where Onondaga County plans to build 

an above-ground sewage plant. I was very pleased to learn, after 

I sent my letter, that EPA contacted the claimants to indicate that 

a review of the claim had begun. Can you tell me when the review 

of this claim will be completed? Can you get back to me with that 

information? I see someone nodding who looks very knowledgeable 

back there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have Ann Klee, who is our General Counsel. 

Since she was the one who was nodding, come up to the table. Ann. 

Ms. KLEE. Senator Clinton, we are reviewing the document. We 

just received it and we expect to have it finalized, I would say, 

shortly, probably within a month. I think the deadline is March 17, 

but I could be wrong on that. 

Senator CLINTON. Great. Thank you. That will also be good news 

to my constituents. 
30

Mr. Johnson, usually we have expected in the Congress every 4 

years a report on the reduction and deposition rates of acid rain, 

the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program report. The 

last report was in 1998. When can we expect this report to be delivered to the Congress? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, let me ask Jeff Holmstead, who is our Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Senator, what I can tell you is that there is a 

draft of that report that is undergoing review right now. I think it 

is actually produced by the Office of Science and Technology, and 

we have been one of the agencies that have been reviewing it. It 

is actually the subject of pretty intense scrutiny by a lot of science 

agencies. So what I can say is that it is undergoing review. I do 

not know exactly what the timeframe is, because it is not our document, but I do know that folks in my office have been looking at 

it, so I would assume it would be out relatively soon. 

Senator CLINTON. It would be helpful to have it on a fast track 

since it is somewhat overdue, if we were to keep the 4-year schedule. I appreciate that. 

Finally, Mr. Johnson, last week when CEQ Chairman 

Connaughton testified before this committee about Clear Skies, he 

said at that time that the Administration had not taken a position 

with respect to S. 131. You have made several references in your 

testimony today to Clear Skies. Are you indicating that the Administration has made a decision to endorse and support S. 131? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, do not misunderstand from my comments. Obviously, the President submitted Clear Skies legislation now 2 

years ago, and we know through Chairman Inhofe’s leadership that 

markup is next week. 

Senator CLINTON. So you were using that as a sort of generic? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I was using that as a generic, that certainly we 

support Clear Skies legislation. The President put a proposal on 

the table. I know that there will be a markup next week and we 

look forward to seeing the results. 

Senator CLINTON. Could I ask you specifically, with respect to 

the fact that we are having a markup next week, section 407(J) of 

S. 131 includes a provision that carves out exemptions from current Clean Air Act requirements for 4 entire source categories, 

more than 70,000 units. This removes these units from Clean Air 

Act regulations for hazardous air pollutants, including carcinogens 

like benzine, probably carcinogens like formaldehyde and other 

nasty things like arsenic. I asked Mr. Connaughton whether the 

Administration specifically supported that provision and whether 

the EPA had produced estimates of how many facilities would qualify for exemptions under this provision, and whether there had 

been any modeling about potential health impacts of those exemptions. 

Mr. Connaughton said he would get back to me with answers, 

which he has not yet done, but I think the committee needs answers to those questions. I do not see how we can proceed with a 

markup next week on a piece of legislation that creates such a big 

carve-out that could have deleterious health impacts. So could we 

expect to get answers before our markup next week? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will have an answer for you, yes. 
31

Senator CLINTON. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will also point out that the analysis for the air 

program activities, particularly as we get into modeling particulate 

and all the rest, are very intensive, and in fact take weeks to accomplish. 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, it is budget time, and I have been since Monday, I think, 

humming that Rolling Stones tune, You Don’t Always Get What 

You Want, but if you try real hard you just might get what you 

need. 

I want to talk about something that we need in Alaska. The proposal before us now is a two-thirds cut in the EPA funding to bring 

safe water and wastewater disposal to Native villages in the State. 

In fiscal year 2005, we funded this program at $45 million, but for 

2006 we are looking to set this funding at just $15 million. I guess 

if we had, with regard to this program, received a small increase 

or no increase at all, like so many of the other domestic discretionary programs have, I could understand, but the two-thirds cut 

of the money that EPA is spending to really alleviate third-world 

conditions that remain in so many of our Native villages I think 

is something that we really need to closely scrutinize. 

As we look at what we have been able to accomplish up in the 

State through the construction of the sanitation villages, we know 

for a fact that it reduces infant mortality. We know for a fact that 

it reduces the incidence of disease. The Indian Health Service 

makes this point every year to the Committee on Indian Affairs on 

which I sit. The section of the President’s budget on Indian Health 

Service again reiterates the importance of this. 

What we have seen with this program over the years, we have 

in terms of the percentages of homes in rural Alaska now with running water and sewer, we have seen an increase. In 1995, we were 

at 51 percent of the homes in our villages that had running water 

and sewer, up to 77 percent in 2003. That is the latest year for 

which the data is available. As we look to the contributions in 

terms of the communities, these are not sizable communities. These 

are villages. We are at approximately 135 villages now with active 

projects. This is 135 out of the 231 federally recognized Alaska Native villages that are currently receiving the funding. So we have 

over 200 of our villages that have received funding under this program, the benefits extending to close to 95,000 Alaskans. 

As I understand the reason for this cut was not necessarily to 

help with the deficit, but it was more out of a controversy between 

EPA and the State of Alaska in terms of a disagreement about how 

well the program is operating, a concern that may have been presented before this previous Administration at the State level, concerns relating to deficiencies in EPA’s management. I can understand why some in OMB might think that this program is ineffective, but when it comes right down to the individuals and to the 

communities, the people in rural Alaska do not believe it is ineffective. 
32

We view this as a program that will eliminate the honey bucket, 

and for people that do not know what honey buckets are, they are 

five-gallon buckets where people put their waste. The only way 

that you can dispose of that waste is to walk out your front door 

and walk down to a community central disposal, or down to the lagoon. You slop the stuff on the ground, amungst the kids and the 

dogs. This is happening in this century in the United States, in my 

State. We need to continue the progress that we have had. 

If EPA and the State have differences or disagreements as to 

how we operate the program, let’s work that out, but let’s not penalize the Alaska Natives that are living in this village. 

I want to know that we can work with you on this. I do not know 

if you have had an opportunity to come and visit the State. Secretary Thompson when he was the Secretary, really made an effort 

every single summer to come up to the State and visit some of the 

most remote places in the State to really get a sense of what is 

going on. I would invite you to do the same. 

I want to make sure that we are able to truly eliminate the 

issues of disease, of infant mortality, that come about when we in 

this very primitive way are disposing of our waste. If we could even 

continue the village safe water funding that we had at the 1995 

levels, we would be able to complete the agreed-upon State EPA 

project list in 3 years. If we do not, we are going to wait for at least 

an additional 8 years to get minimal water and sewer in to these 

villages. 

So I wanted to take this time to stress to you that it is not an 

experimental program that does not have clear results. It is not 

fancy. In most of these villages, people get their water by going to 

a central well somewhere, and again taking their five-gallon bucket, hopefully not the same one that has been used for other things, 

but it is a very primitive system. It is the best we have at this 

point in time, and we want to be able to continue that progress. 

So I am asking for a receptive ear. I am asking for you to work 

with us on this. 

The other portion of our funding is coming from USDA and we 

are seeing cuts there as well, so these are very real issues for us 

in the State. I hope that you are going to work with us. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely. Senator, I certainly look forward to 

working with you and certainly have our commitment. There is 

real need there, and so we certainly want to help you and certainly 

help the Alaska Native villages in whatever way we can. I think, 

as you have already said, as we look through a number of important budget issues, we were faced with in this case, and we have 

an IG report. We also have a program assessment rating tool or an 

evaluation of the performance. In spite of some of the good progress 

that has been made, it was not matching up and we were not able 

to fully demonstrate the results. So I certainly look forward to, and 

you have my commitment for the agency to work with you so that 

we can strengthen the program, get the kind of results and most 

importantly, meet the needs. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate that commitment. 

Let me advise my colleagues that we have 10 minutes left on the 

first of several roll-call votes. I will stay here until they have con-
33

cluded their questioning, but if you can cut it short we can all three 

make these votes. 

Let me go ahead though and get something in the record I think 

is important. It is my understanding that the IG report on mercury 

spoken of earlier was extremely poor quality, and the IG’s office 

criticized the FACA process for failure to even ask a cross-section 

of members whether they agreed with the IG’s conclusion, which 

apparently they did not. I wanted to have that into the record. 

We will recognize Senator Obama. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, I am going to have to be quick. I understand I have 

4 minutes, so if we could keep the responses brief. Something very 

specific to Illinois, and that is Waukegan Harbor, I mentioned earlier. Can you tell me how the decision making with respect to the 

Great Lakes Legacy money is going to be allocated, and what do 

we need to do as members of the Illinois delegation to make sure 

that the case is made with respect to Waukegan? How can we 

make sure, and then how can we get an assurance from you that 

Waukegan is going to get its fair share of those dollars? 

Mr. JOHNSON. You certainly have my commitment that everybody will have the opportunity to get its fair share. There is a priority-setting mechanism. Let me ask Ben Grumbles, who is very familiar with that system. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, what we are going to do is follow the 

statutory criteria that are laid out in the Great Lakes Legacy Act. 

The focus is on, I think we have about 14 proposals so far, but the 

focus is on a couple things. One is areas of concern, of which there 

are 31 areas of concern in the Great Lakes. Another one is risk. 

What is the risk-benefit analysis, what can we do working with our 

partners to reduce the risk and to get environmental results? 

Another important criterion is the statutory cost-sharing, 65 percent Federal, 35 percent non–Federal. So those are some of the factors, but it is spelled out and our Great Lakes National Program 

office is tracking it far more closely than I can. I can certainly commit to work with you and your interests in Waukegan Harbor. 

Senator OBAMA. I would appreciate that. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Thune is presiding. Excuse me. 

Senator OBAMA. OK. If you can ensure that your office contacts 

whoever it is that our office needs to talk to to make sure that this 

is moving down the pipeline, I would appreciate that very much. 

The second question, which is related, has to do with homeland 

security and protecting our water supply. I know that it has not 

been discussed yet, but my understanding is there is a substantial 

boost in funding for protecting the water supply. Obviously, there 

are cities like New York and Chicago that are of particular concern 

as targets generally with respect to homeland security. When I met 

with the upcoming Secretary of Homeland Security, I talked to him 

about that. 

How is the selection process going to work with respect to these 

pilot programs? Are you in the process of making guidelines for 

that? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, we are in the process of developing 

guidelines. My understanding is that we will be selecting several 
34

cities. We will not publicly disclose the identity of those cities, similar to the BioWatch Program. 

Senator OBAMA. I understand. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. The points you are making about population and 

risk in largely populated areas are very much a part of the discussions about the guidelines for this new Water Sentinel Program to 

monitor for contaminants in distribution systems. 

Senator OBAMA. I recognize the need to not fully disclose the approach here, but is there going to be any means by which Senators, 

Congressmen, legislators have some sense of how this money is 

being spent? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Since this is a new program and funding is being 

requested for the first time in the fiscal year 2006 President’s 

Budget, there will be a lot of opportunity for us to provide guidance 

that explains our thoughts to you and all members of this committee as well as the appropriations committees. 

Senator OBAMA. I would be interested in follow-up from your office on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THUNE. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks. 

Mr. Chairman, first the unanimous consent request that my 

opening statement be put in the record as if read. 

Senator THUNE. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

I have significant concerns about the President’s budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency. I understand the difficult choices we have to make, but 

from my perspective, the President’s EPA budget will not meet our responsibility 

to protect human health and the environment. 

Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than the President’s request for the Super- fund Program, which would be cut by $100 million. Superfund is already strapped 

for cash. The cut in next year’s budget comes on top of a 35 percent cut in funding 

over the last decade. 

Mr. Chairman, Superfund is not just about a few select States. It affects the entire country. One out of every 4 Americans lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site 

and 10 million of those are children. The Washington Post ran an article a few 

months ago reporting on a visit by former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt to a 

Superfund site in Omaha, NE. As with so many others, that clean-up is barely moving. At a news conference, Samantha Bradley, a feisty 8-year-old, confronted Administrator Leavitt. She felt the government was ignoring her and her family and the 

health risks they faced. Samantha said, ‘‘If the president or the mayor lived in this 

neighborhood, they’d probably get it cleaned up like that.’’ The President’s EPA 

budget leaves Samantha and many other children across the county behind. 

Mr. Chairman, I have many other concerns about this budget request. For instance, there isn’t sufficient funding for the nation’s water infrastructure, which is 

overwhelmed and allows billions of gallons of untreated sewage to flow directly into 

our rivers. This is a serious public health issue and now is not the time to be cutting 

back on this program. Given the current rate of sewer overflows, within the decade 

our rivers will resemble the cesspools many of them were in the 1970’s. We must 

stop this backward slide. 

I could go on and on, but I’ll stop here to stay within my allotted time. It looks 

like we have a lot of hard work to do to restore adequate funding for crucial programs that protect the health of our children and the environment. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Since there is very little time available, I will try to get to a couple of things that are of particular interest. I would again ask that 
35

the record be kept open, Mr. Chairman, so we can submit questions 

in writing and that the witnesses will be instructed to respond to 

those. 

Senator THUNE. Without objection. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. On a local problem, Mr. Johnson, and I 

thank both of you, the Johnsons, for being here and for testifying. 

Mr. Johnson, you have been a long-time EPA person, and I was a 

long-time EPA person, but I graduated to freshman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Over 2 weeks ago, I wrote a letter asking 

that the agency help break a deadlock between Ringwood, NJ and 

EPA over how many properties to test for toxic contamination. This 

small community of a few hundred resident properties in 

Ringwood. Can we be assured that all of these sites will be tested 

so that we can get on an assessment and a decision about how we 

get this community cleaned up? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If I could ask Tom Dunne to quickly come to the 

microphone and give you a status update. 

Mr. DUNNE. Senator, I have not seen that particular letter on 

that particular community, I don’t believe. We are planning on in 

fiscal year 2006, as we are in 2005, to continue to do the preliminary assessment site investigations on all sites that come to our attention. That has fluctuated over the years. Currently, it is 500 for 

this year, and I believe it is going to be 500 for 2006. So I will talk 

with the Region II office and reply to your letter. 

[The referenced document can be found on page 149.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This has been lingering for some time, and 

I would ask that you proceed with it as quickly as possible. I am 

anxious to get a response to that. 

Mr. Johnson, I do not know whether to refer to you as Johnson 

I or Johnson II. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, the question was discussed here 

briefly about Superfund and how we would continue cleanup programs. It is pretty hard to see quite how we do it. You did respond 

to the Chairman, Senator Inhofe, about his interest in making certain that no polluters were let off the hook and so forth. However, 

isn’t it true that before a decision has been made, finalized, to identify a polluter and get on with this work, that there are often lots 

of lawsuits that those technically responsible get into, trying to direct blame elsewhere or delay the process? Is that so? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, that is my experience, but that is also 

the life at EPA. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We do not want life at EPA to be cut 

short. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I think in fairness, that there are some responsible parties who acknowledge that they are, and they step up 

to the plate and they do the appropriate thing, obviously working 

through. Then there are others that want to take the litigation 

route. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right. So as a consequence, we wind up 

with these orphan sites and they have to be treated out of the trust 

fund, and that is diminishing, the pace for cleanup has slowed 

down considerably. Would you acknowledge that? 
36

Mr. JOHNSON. The pace has slowed down in one sense, but also 

the sites have significantly changed over the years, from the early 

days of Superfund where the sites were fairly small, were fairly circumscribed. The contaminants maybe were 1 or 2 chemicals. Now, 

they are multiple, multiple acres and very complex. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But there is also a question of funding, is 

there not? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, for each of our issues there is always a question of funding. Again, as we look at——

Senator LAUTENBERG. Could we cleanup more sites if we had 

more money? Do we have the capacity to do it? 

Mr. DUNNE. Yes, I think so, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I don’t mean to cut you short. 

Mr. DUNNE. We have been open for 2 years in terms of what has 

not been funded by site. Last year, I went public very early in the 

year, as soon as we knew what our limitations were, and there 

were 19 sites that were ready for construction that could not make 

it, and we saw another 15 coming down the pipeline that were in 

some kind of a design phase that we thought would be eligible. So 

I think that is a fair statement. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Because time has run out and red lights 

here mean what they do on the street, and that is you speed up 

when you see a red light. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. In 2004, 265 Brownfield sites were granted funding. It is estimated that are somewhere over 500,000 sites. 

I expect to have a long life. I am just getting started with things, 

so if we divide 265 into 500,000, it could take a long time, and by 

then I should probably be back to my senior status on the committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator THUNE. I thank the Senator. 

I thank our witnesses. I would also make one point of clarification for the record. I had said earlier that President Clinton did not 

seek to reinstate the Superfund fee. The Senator from New York, 

who would know, correctly pointed out that he did in his budgets 

include that proposal to reinstate the fee. She was right and I was 

wrong, so I thought I would point that out for the record. 

Thank you all very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to discuss 

the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request of $7.6 billion reflects a 

strong commitment to protect human health and safeguard the environment. This 

includes moving forward EPA’s core programs as reflected in the nation’s environmental statutes. This request will also ensure that EPA’s critical role in homeland 

security is made a top priority. 

Mr. Chairman, the Agency has accomplished a great deal. We have cleaned the 

water, improved our air and protected and restored our lands. While the nation’s 
37

environmental well being has shown a steady improvement, there is more to do. 

Much of what remains is enormously complex and more expensive. 

Bringing a healthy environment to our communities is a responsibility we all 

share. Engaging the full range of partners—not just Federal, State, tribal, and local 

but also businesses, interest groups, international and regional authorities and educational institutions—leverages our Federal moneys through collaboration. New 

science, innovation and technology development, regulation, and market-based solutions that support these efforts are all a part of this budget request. 

This budget, Mr. Chairman, will enable us to carry out our goals and objectives 

as set forth in our Strategic Plan and help us to meet our challenges. It supports 

the Administration’s commitment to environmental results by identifying new and 

better ways to carry out EPA’s mission while protecting our national competitiveness. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Three years ago we took on significant new responsibilities in homeland security 

work that was necessary to protect human health and the environment from intentional harm. In fiscal year 2006 we are taking another big step toward filling the 

gaps we’ve identified. EPA’s request includes $79 million in new resources for critical homeland security efforts. EPA plays a lead role for addressing the decontamination of deadly chemical, biological and radiological contaminants. The nation 

must have the tools and procedures in place to respond effectively and swiftly to 

another terrorist event. 

One of our most important homeland security responsibilities is to protect our 

drinking water supply. Forty Four million dollars will launch pilots in cities of various sizes to explore technology and systems that detect contamination before it 

causes large scale harm. The program includes resources to create the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction to train and prepare our nation’s drinking water systems 

operators throughout the country. 

Response to terrorist events may call for decontamination from many new haz- ards. Environmental decontamination research and preparedness increases by $19.4 

million, and an additional $4 million is requested for the Safe Buildings research 

program. Over $11 million in new resources will support preparedness in our environmental laboratories. Working with Federal partners in Homeland Security, EPA 

will plan for certain fundamental laboratory network needs, such as appropriate 

connectivity between member labs and standardized methods and measurements for 

environmental samples of terrorism-related agents of concern. Resources also support training and continuing education for member laboratories, as well as accreditation and accountability. 

CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CHANGE

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $969 million to implement EPA’s 

Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal through national programs designed to 

provide healthier outdoor and indoor air for all Americans, protect the stratospheric 

ozone layer, minimize the risks from radiation releases, reduce greenhouse gas intensity, and enhance science and research. EPA’s key clean air programs particulate 

matter, ozone, acid rain, air toxics, indoor air, radiation and stratospheric ozone depletion address some of the highest health and environmental risks faced by the 

Agency. Also in this area, I look forward to working with you Mr. Chairman, in 

passing Clear Skies legislation. 

Clean fuels and clean technologies are also an integral part of reducing emissions 

from mobile sources. The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget provides $15 million 

for the Clean Diesel Initiative. EPA and a coalition of clean diesel interests will 

work together to expand the retrofitting of diesel engines into new sectors by adopting a risk-based strategy, targeting key places and working with specific use sectors 

to identify opportunities to accelerate the adoption of cleaner technologies and fuels. 

The $15 million proposed for this program will be leveraged significantly by working 

with our partners. Reducing the level of sulfur in the fuel used by existing diesel 

engines will provide additional immediate public health benefits by reducing particulate matter from these engines. 

EPA’s Climate Protection Programs will continue to contribute to the President’s 

18 percent greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal by 2012. A fiscal year 2006 funding initiative for the Climate Change Program is the Methane to Markets Partnership a United States led international initiative that promotes cost-effective, nearterm methane recovery and use as a clean energy source. The program provides for 

the development and implementation of methane projects in developing countries 
38

and countries experiencing economic transition. This initiative also has the opportunity to significantly leverage our proposed funding. 

CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

In fiscal year 2006, the budget requests $2.8 billion to implement the Clean and 

Safe Water goal through programs designed to provide improvements in the quality 

of surface waters and drinking water. In fiscal year 2006, EPA will work with 

States and tribes to continue to accomplish measurable improvements in the safety 

of the nation’s drinking water, and in the conditions of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. With the help of these partners, EPA expects to make significant progress in 

these areas, as well as support a few more focused water initiatives. 

In fiscal year 2006, EPA will work with States to make continued progress toward 

the clean water goals through implementation of core clean water programs and acceleration of efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis. Efforts include 

innovative programs spanning entire watersheds. To protect and improve water 

quality, a top priority is to continue to support water quality monitoring to strengthen water quality data and increase the number of waterbodies assessed. The Agency’s request includes $24 million to build on the monitoring initiative begun in fiscal 

year 2005 by establishing a nationwide monitoring network and expanding the baseline water quality assessment to include lakes and streams. The initiative will allow 

EPA to establish scientifically defensible water quality data and information essential for cleaning up and protecting the Nation’s waters. The funding provides additional resources to States in order for them to contribute to the development of this 

baseline of water conditions across our country. 

To support sustainable wastewater infrastructure, EPA will continue to provide 

significant annual capitalization to the Clean Water State Revolving Funds 

(CWSRF). The budget provides $730 million for the CWSRF, which will allow EPA 

to meet the Administration’s Federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion total for 

2004—2011 and enable the CWSRF to eventually revolve at a level of $3.4 billion. 

During fiscal year 2006, EPA, the States, and community water systems will build 

on past successes while working toward the fiscal year 2008 goal of assuring that 

95 percent of the population served by community water systems receives drinking 

water that meets all applicable standards. To help ensure that water is safe to 

drink, the fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $850 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. 

LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

$1.7 billion of the fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget will help to implement the 

Land Preservation and Restoration goal through continued promotion of the Land 

Revitalization Initiative, first established in 2003. Revitalized land can be used in 

many beneficial ways, including the creation of public parks, the restoration of ecological systems, the establishment of multi-purpose developments, and the establishment of new businesses. Regardless of whether a property is an abandoned industrial facility, a waste disposal area, a former gas station, or a Superfund site, this 

initiative helps to ensure that reuse considerations are fully integrated into all EPA 

cleanup decisions and programs. Through the One Clean-up Program, the Agency 

will also work with its partners and stakeholders to enhance coordination, planning 

and communication across the full range of Federal, State, tribal and local cleanup programs to promote consistency and enhanced effectiveness at site cleanups. 

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget funds the Superfund Appropriation at 

$1.3 billion. Within this total, the Superfund Remedial Program provides significant 

resources in EPA’s effort to preserve and restore land to productive use. In fiscal 

year 2006, the Superfund Remedial Program will continue its clean-up and response 

work to achieve risk reduction, construction completion and restoration of contaminated sites to productive use. In fiscal year 2006, the Remedial Program anticipates 

completing construction of remedies at 40 Superfund sites. 

Enforcement programs are also critical to the agency’s ability to clean up the vast 

majority of the nation’s worst hazardous sites by securing funding from Potentially 

Responsible Parties (PRPs). The Agency will continue to encourage the establishment and use of Special Accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund to finance 

cleanups. These accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible 

parties that complete settlement agreements with EPA and total a cumulative $1.5 

billion. These funds can create an incentive for other PRPs to perform work they 

might not be willing to perform or used by the Agency to fund cleanup. As a result, 

the Agency can cleanup more sites and preserve appropriated Trust Fund dollars 

for sites without viable PRPs. 
39

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $1.3 billion to implement national multi-media, multi-stakeholder efforts needed to sustain and restore healthy 

communities and ecosystems, which are impacted by the full range of air, water and 

land issues. Programs such as Brownfields, the Great Lakes collaboration and the 

targeted watersheds work must reflect local priorities and local stakeholder involvement to be effective. 

Proper use and careful selection of chemicals and pesticides influence air quality, 

clean water and the health of the land. Carefully targeted research is necessary to 

keep the Agency at the forefront of the science that will point to tomorrow’s concerns as well as tomorrow’s solutions. 

Fiscal year 2006 will be a key year for the chemicals and pesticides programs. The 

High Volume Production chemicals program will move from data collection to firsttime screening for possible risks. Many of these chemicals entered the marketplace 

before the Toxics Substances Control Act was passed and EPA’s screening process 

was put in place. Fiscal year 2006 also marks the final milestone in the 10-year pesticide tolerance reassessment program, which ensures older food-use pesticides meet 

the latest scientific standards for safety. 

The Brownfields program is a top environmental priority for the Administration. 

EPA is working with its State, Tribal and local partners to meet its objective to sustain, cleanup and restore contaminated properties and abandoned sites. Together 

with the extension of the Brownfields tax credit, EPA expects to achieve the following in fiscal year 2006: assess 1,000 Brownfields properties; cleanup 60 properties using Brownfields funding; leverage an additional $1 billion in cleanup and 

redevelopment funding; create 5,000 jobs; and train 200 participants, placing 65 percent in jobs related to the Brownfields efforts. 

There is great population and industrial pressure on the areas surrounding our 

large water bodies—the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and 

our wetlands in general. EPA has established special programs to protect and restore these unique resources by addressing the vulnerabilities of each. 

The Great Lakes program will build on collaborative networks to remedy pollution, with a budget proposal to increase funding for the Great Lakes Legacy program to $50 million in order to remediate sediment that was contaminated by improperly managed old industrial chemicals. Chesapeake Bay resources in this budget total over $20 million. EPA’s work in the Chesapeake Bay is based on a regional 

partnership whose members have committed to specific actions aimed at reducing 

both nutrient and sediment pollution. Wetlands and estuaries are increasingly 

stressed as coastal population density grows. The fiscal year 2006 budget provides 

over $40 million for our work to protect these ecosystems. Again, effective collaboration is key to protecting these primary habitats for fish, waterfowl and wildlife. Our 

work with the Corps of Engineers will be instrumental in protecting these valuable 

natural resources. 

Toxic chemicals reduction is also the emphasis of Community Action for a Renewed Environment project. The requested increase of $7 million will offer many 

more communities the opportunity to improve their environment through voluntary 

action. EPA expects to establish 80 CARE programs across the Nation in fiscal year 

2006, building on experience gained from 10 projects started in 2005. 

In the research area, over $5 million is requested for the Advanced Monitoring 

Initiative. This initiative will combine information technology with remote sensing 

capabilities, to allow faster, more efficient response to changing environmental conditions such as forest fires or storm events, as well as current ecosystems stressors 

in sensitive areas such as the Great Lakes or the Everglades. EPA also continues 

to make progress in the area of computational toxicology. In fiscal year 2006, the 

program expects to deliver the first alternative assay for animal testing of environmental toxicants, a major milestone toward the long-term goal of reducing the need 

for animal testing. Other major research efforts include human health risk assessments, which will inform agency regulatory and policy decisions, and research for 

ecosystems, which will emphasize evaluating the effectiveness of restoration options. 

The President’s Budget also includes $23 million for a new competitive State and 

Tribal Performance Fund. The Performance Grant Fund will support projects that 

include tangible, performance-based environmental and health outcomes—and that 

can serve as measurement and results-oriented models for implementation across 

the Nation. 
40

COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $761 million to implement national programs to promote and enforce compliance with our environmental laws, 

and to foster pollution prevention and tribal stewardship. The Agency will employ 

a mixture of effective inspection, enforcement and compliance assistance strategies. 

Also within this goal, EPA will protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the 

public to promote environmental stewardship. In addition, EPA will assist federally 

recognized tribes in assessing environmental conditions in Indian Country, and will 

help build their capacity to implement environmental programs. 

The Agency’s enforcement program works with States, tribes, local governments 

and other Federal agencies to identify the most significant risks to human health 

and the environment, address patterns of non-compliance, and work to ensure communities or neighborhoods are not disproportionately exposed to pollutants. This 

flexible, strategic use of EPA’s and our State and tribal partners’ resources brought 

over 1 billion pounds of pollution reduction in fiscal year 2004, and helps to ensure 

consistent and fair enforcement. 

EPA also strives to foster a culture of creative environmental problem-solving, not 

only with our State, tribal and Federal partners but also with industry, universities 

and others. The result is a high capacity for implementing collaborative results-driven innovations and the organizational systems to support them. One hundred forty 

two million dollars supports pollution prevention and other efforts to improve environmental performance, looking at the full range of possible interventions that 

would reduce waste created, reduce highly toxic materials in use, and reduce the 

energy or water resources used. These changes also make good business sense, often 

improving ‘‘the bottom line’’ for participating companies. 

Agency resources for tribal programs support their environmental stewardship 

through a variety of means in every major program: air, water, land and others. In 

the Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal, General Assistance Grants 

develop tribal capacity to implement environmental programs in Indian Country in 

line with local priorities. In fiscal year 2006, EPA will support approximately 510 

federally recognized tribes through these grants. 

EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT

Throughout its operations, EPA is working to maximize effectiveness and efficiency, implementing new information technology solutions and streamlining operations. The research and development areas, for example, will see changes geared 

toward maximizing the effectiveness and relevance of applied research throughout 

the Agency. Continuing to improve internal controls and accountability is another 

priority. Fiscal year 2006 marks the next phase in our financial systems replacement which will enhance our internal systems. For our work with external partners, 

the Exchange Network and the Integrated Portal will provide the foundation for 

States, tribes, the public, regulated community and EPA to increase data availability, collect better data and enhance the security of sensitive data. 

Finally, EPA is making our grant programs work better. We are using new tools 

to help us achieve our goals: increasing competition for discretionary grant awards, 

making grants more outcome-oriented to meet Agency performance goals, strengthening oversight and accountability and providing more transparency to promote an 

open process.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151

Æ