THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 1 AND 8, 2007

Serial No. 110–11

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–829 PDF 2008

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 1 AND 8, 2007

Serial No. 110–11

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director

(II)

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART STUPAK, Michigan

LOIS CAPPS, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

Vice Chairman

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

GENE GREEN, Texas

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois,

Ranking Member

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

VITO FOSELLA, New York

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman

G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

Vice Chairman

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois,

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

(V)

C O N T E N T S

MARCH 1, 2007

Page

Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, opening statement ...................................................................................... 1

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 5

Hon. Tim, Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 6

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 7

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10

Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement ........................................................................................ 11

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 13

WITNESSES

Bill Roderick, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 170

J. Christian Bollwage, mayor, city of Elizabeth, Elizabeth, NJ .......................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 139

Robert W. King, Jr., president, Environmental Council of the States; deputy

commissioner, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control .................................................................................................................. 45

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 144

Andrew M. Langer, manager, regulatory affairs, Federation of Independent

Business ................................................................................................................ 59

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 150

Maurice McTigue, director, government accountability project, George Mason

University, Fairfax, VA ....................................................................................... 77

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 155

Patrice Simms, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council ................. 88

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 160

MARCH 8, 2007

Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, opening statement ...................................................................................... 183

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 186

Page

VI

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 187

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 189

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 190

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 190

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 191

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 191

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 192

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois, prepared statement ................................................................................ 194

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas, prepared statement .................................................................................. 195

WITNESS

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ............ 195

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 197

Answers to pre-hearing questions ................................................................... 255

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 271

(1)

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in room

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R. Wynn

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Pallone, Stupak, Solis, Baldwin, Butterfield, Barrow, Hill, DeGette, Green, Shimkus, Stearns,

Terry, Rogers, Sullivan and Murphy.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. WYNN. This is the first of two hearings on the fiscal year

2008 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Today we

will hear from a distinguished panel of stakeholders who are directly affected by EPA’s funding levels, and later on March 8 we

will have the honor and pleasure of hearing from the EPA administrator, Mr. Stephen Johnson.

For purposes of making opening statements, the chairs and ranking members of the subcommittee and the full committee will each

be recognized for 5 minutes. All other members of the subcommittee will be recognized for 3 minutes. Those members may waive

their right to make an opening statement when first recognized to

raise questions. They may add those 3 minutes to their time for

questions. Without objections, all Members will have 5 legislative

days to submit opening statements for the record.

Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to recognize

the premier of Bermuda who is with us, the Honorable Ewart

Brown. We are delighted to have you, Mr. Premier.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. It was just suggested we have an oversight hearing

in Bermuda. Thank you very much for stopping by.

Since at least 2003, there has been growing concern about the

ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to fulfill its programmatic mission in several critical areas including Superfund,

Brownfields, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, the Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving Loan Fund and environmental justice,

among other issues. However, this is the first hearing this subVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
2

committee has held on the EPA budget in 6 years and it is the first

under the current administration. I believe that it is part of

Congress’s institutional and constitutional responsibility to hold

oversight hearings on the EPA, and unlike the last Congress, this

subcommittee will enthusiastically pursue these responsibilities.

As we move forward, there are several realities we must consider. First, the President’s EPA budget request for fiscal year

2008, when adjusted for inflation and constant dollars, shows a

dramatic decline over the last 10 years. Second, the Superfund program has seen a precipitous drop in the number of sites being completed. And third, the President has expressed his opposition to reinstatement of dedicated taxes, resulting in all EPA-funded cleanups having to come out of general revenues.

It appears the administration has a less-than-serious commitment to environmental protection since the EPA is one of only two

agencies to see a decline in the President’s budget. First, in terms

of the Superfund, the fiscal year 2008 budget request for Superfund

is $35 million less than the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. These reductions come at a time when progress in completing construction activities of Superfund national priority list sites

has slowed dramatically. EPA has projected completion of 40 sites

in fiscal year 2007 but recently announced that it will achieve only

24 construction completions this year, a reduction of 40 percent. In

many instances, EPA has been unable to begin construction cleanup on new Superfund sites or more commonly, EPA has been unable to move to completion on sites already in the pipeline. What

this means is that EPA is unable to adequately meet its mission

of protecting human health and the environment and our constituents continue to remain at risk.

Turning to the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks program,

leaking underground storage tanks are the leading source of

groundwater contamination in the United States, posing a risk to

the Nation’s drinking water supply. Congress enacted the LUST

Trust Fund in order to deal with this growing threat to the Nation’s health. Interest on the LUST Trust Fund is estimated to add

an additional $109 million in fiscal year 2008, bringing the total

LUST Fund surplus to $3 billion. The President’s budget, however,

requests just $72.5 million from this trust fund for cleanup, slightly

less than last year’s appropriations. Gasoline taxes paid by consumers are not going for their specified purpose: the cleanup of

spills and releases and contaminated water supplies. Using this important trust fund to offset other administration spending is quite

frankly a farce on the American public. But in the meantime, there

is a backlog of 113,000 cleanups. The longer this contamination is

left unaddressed, the greater the adverse effect on human health,

increasing the ultimate cost of the cleanups.

In terms of Brownfields, the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget

request of $89 million for cleanup and assessment grants is 26 percent less than his request for 2006. Current law provides an authorization of $200 million per year but the President’s request for

2008 seeks only 56 percent of the amount authorized for cleanups

and assessment grants. This is troublesome when you consider that

in 2006 there were 694 Brownfield project grant proposals but only

slightly more than a third actually received funding. This is also

3

of concern because demand for cleanups has intensified, particularly with the increased focus on environmental justice for low-income and minority communities.

In terms of the drinking water revolving loan fund designed to

support States in helping public water systems finance the cost of

infrastructure improvements, again we see inadequate funding.

When adjusted for inflation in 2006 dollars, the President’s budget

request for 2008 is the lowest in the history of the revolving loan

fund program. These reductions lead to shortfalls in State resources and consumers are hurt. They either foot the bill or they

suffer outbreaks of waterborne diseases due to failing infrastructure.

Overall, there are concerns that EPA’s funding is insufficient to

meet its mission to protect the environment and the public health.

There are unfunded mandates for States, a backlog of polluted sites

and spreading contamination. In the face of chronic underfunding

of EPA’s core health programs, I am also concerned that EPA is expending significant resources on voluntary programs with questionable oversight and evaluation.

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses, the stakeholders who represent the interests of the States, the environmental

community and the small-business community and learning more

about their views of our efforts to protect the health of our constituents and the environment.

At this time I would like to recognize my distinguished colleague,

Mr. Shimkus, the ranking member.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to congratulate you on your chairmanship and tell you how much I look

forward to working together. We have already had a couple meetings and I think that is very important. I know there will be times

when we will agree to disagree, and if we do that amicably, I think

that is going to help us also in the movement of public policy. But

I am sure we both can agree that protecting human health, one of

the duties of our jurisdiction on this committee, is something members on both sides of the aisle want.

One thing we know is that no real progress occurs on environmental issues unless both Democrats and Republicans stand behind the same policy. In fact, Chairman Dingell and I talked about

this prior to the markup that we just left. I also want to be very

clear that I and the Republican members of this committee welcome congressional oversight by this panel and want to extend our

hand in cooperation to these efforts. We want the facts, both the

budgetary and the scientific, and we support thoughtful, reasoned,

deliberate and meaningful questioning that advances the needs of

our constituents, not Republicans or Democrats. It goes without

saying that efforts outside of these parameters are viewed by myself and my colleagues as partisan commercials that should not

have a place in this committee.

For this reason, I wanted to share with you my surprise at not

being asked to join you and other members of this committee on

a couple letters that were sent to the EPA and the Government AcVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
4

countability Office on waste generated at CAFOS. At least give me

the chance to say no, I won’t sign it. I am especially concerned

about CAFOS, the Combined Animal Feeding Operation Districts,

because the three signers of the letter, I have as many head of animals, poultry, beef, pork, as you all do people, plus 70 percent more

in my congressional district, so there is a different view of CAFOS

in rural America, and I think that is why we want to encourage

you to come out to southern Illinois, but I have already made that

invitation to you and we can see a part of the country in which

some of the issues may be a little bit different.

Certainly long before any pollution from a farm reaches an urban

setting, it passes through a rural one and we have the mayors here

or the representatives of mayors and they are mayors of small

towns that have to deal with these issues. That is why I would like

to follow up and encourage a visit by you and other members if we

can arrange it, both to the St. Louis metropolitan area and southern Illinois.

I only think it makes sense to focus our time and understanding

on the budget of the main Federal agency that our committee oversees. I applaud your decision to hold 2 days’ worth of hearings and

I would like to personally thank you for allowing the minority two

requested witnesses to appear on this panel. I made that personal

request and you agreed, and I do appreciate that. This is a great

start to our working together as chairman and ranking member.

I think the budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

is not an easy document to understand. I prefer things to be simple, and this budget, just like the budget of other Federal agencies,

is not. What strikes me is that nothing the EPA does happens in

a vacuum. It has ramifications for Federal, State and local regulators. It impacts large, medium and small business and it translates into how public health protections can and will be carried out.

Simply looking at the numbers does a disservice to the work of the

agency and its partners. Rather, we need to step back and ask ourselves if progress is happening, are people being protected and how

do we know: a result-oriented approach. We also need to decide of

the money we are spending is being spent wisely. Is it sapping resources from other potentially more crucial public health needs or

it is being used as a crutch for programs or stakeholders that no

longer need it or could do without it? We must admit that it is misguided to beat up the Bush administration when all appropriations

are required by the Constitution to begin in the House. So you all

are going to have a chance to submit a budget and address some

of these wrongs and we are going to see how well you guys do.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican members of this committee and I

pledge to be an honest broker on the issues that lie ahead. I welcome the witnesses and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. I want to thank the gentleman for his opening statement. I look forward to working with the gentleman. We have had

a good and cordial working relationship and had several conversations prior to this hearing. I also want to indicate that I am sorry

if you feel excluded from our correspondence. I am sure we will

have an opportunity to talk about that in the future.

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield, you can always say,

well, you never signed that letter.

5

Mr. WYNN. That was my intent, but I certainly don’t want you

to feel excluded.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Simms wants to make sure that I don’t sign

my letters. He will let me know.

Mr. WYNN. With respect to the appropriations, I do want to note

that it was the Congress under the Republican majority that was

responsible for some of the shortages that we have experienced.

But not to belabor that point, I want to move into the opening

statements by members of the committee, and at this point the

Chair would recognize Ms. Baldwin.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is exciting to be here today to finally discuss the operation of

our Nation’s Environment Protection Agency. Too many years, in

fact, 6 years have passed since our last public conversations about

EPA’s programs and priorities, and this body has been lax, perhaps

even negligent in its use of oversight power and it is certainly time

for us to exert our constitutional responsibilities and ask difficult

but important questions about the actions the EPA is taking, and

I commend the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for beginning

our discussions today with testimony from people who see firsthand

the impact of the EPA’s actions and funding decisions. Quite frankly, over the last 6 years it has been difficult for the EPA to fully

meet its mission of protecting human health and the environment,

given that the administration does not seem to place a priority on

its proper funding. In fact, the EPA’s budget has been stuck in a

downward spiral for years. The result has been that Superfund

sites remain dangerous, drinking water is threatened and air quality is jeopardized.

In my home State of Wisconsin, our environment is considered

precious. Our tradition is of stewardship, conservation, preservation and environmental protection, and that tradition is long. We

rely heavily on groundwater and freshwater from lakes. We believe

in protecting our wetlands and ensuring that our air is fresh to

breathe. However, lately our efforts to preserve and protect our environment have been jeopardized. Our State and local authorities

have expressed concern about the effects of cuts to programs like

the State and tribal grants program, the State Drinking Water Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. They are

worried that as funding levels for programs decrease or remain

stagnant, States are expected to provide a greater share of the

funding, and at the same time pick up responsibility for implementing new requirements promulgated by the EPA. It is simply

not fair to place unfunded mandates on our neighbors and communities back home.

Let me also add that in Wisconsin, we are deeply concerned

about the lack of attention that EPA is placing on efforts to reduce

mercury pollution. Exposure to and consumption of mercury-laden

fish can result in severe health effects. The EPA recognized this in

its 2006 roadmap for mercury and outlined a number of promising

programs to retire mercury-containing devices, address mercury reVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
6

leases to the environment and conduct mercury research and monitoring. Unfortunately, the administration’s budget does not appear

to provide the appropriate financial support or staffing levels needed to implement many of these initiatives. Meanwhile, we continue

to hear about the dangers of exposure to mercury in our school

classrooms, our water and our food supply. Mr. Chairman, I am

hopeful that by holding these EPA budget hearings we will be able

to able to refocus our attention back to environmental protection

and show that protecting our environment should not solely be a

State or interest group responsibility. Rather, the Federal Government has a role to play in ensuring that our air is clean to breathe,

our water is safe to drink and our communities are preserved and

protected for future generations to enjoy.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentlelady.

At this point the Chair would recognize Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. I waive.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Murphy for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this hearing.

Back in the 1800’s, I believe it was Charles Darwin that referred

to the city of Pittsburgh as ‘‘Hell with the lid off.’’ Up until the

1940’s and 1950’s, it was the city that when men came to work,

they brought with them an extra shirt and they would change it

at noontime because by then it was gray from the soot that was

in the air. Pittsburgh, which obviously has a legacy of steel, and

the region, which has a legacy of coal, of which we will have 190

years worth of coal long after Saudi Arabia is out of oil, still finds

itself in making the transition from a century-plus of bad environmental policies. We probably have one of the highest numbers of

environmental engineering companies in the Nation in Pittsburgh

and they have made some significant progress as we have looked

at how environment and health has worked to make positive

changes. This includes such things as coal mine sites and continuing coal mines being turned into botanical gardens, which will be

an economic engine for the region, large steel mill Brownfields

which have been turned into vital shopping centers and housing

areas of which the housing demand is so high in these areas people

can’t get them as far as they build them.

Pittsburgh was home to a national bass fishing tournament in

rivers that used to be ones that people would not even want to

stand by, let alone see any fish in there. We have gone from the

smoky city, Hell with the lid off, to an area that really as an example of one of the great, beautiful views of America. In fact, they say

that standing from Mount Washington is probably second only to

standing out and looking at the rocks in Arizona as a view.

That being said, it has been done by large investments and upgrading, incentives for positive change, building partnerships for

change with business and industries and public health, embracing

7

positive solutions and engine for economic growth and doing those

together, and not just with a heavy hand of ones that works to

threaten or destroy our local economy as moving toward these. We

all want, and our primary purpose should be looking at public

health but that also has to partner with making sure we do not destroy our industries and our jobs in the meantime. I think all the

public can agree on that, and sometimes I have questioned if EPA

has all those things in mind too. I hope it does but I think we do

best when we work together and we do worse when we work apart.

So given that case, as we work to recognize that we are going to

still need coal energy, we are going to still need to manufacture in

the United States, we should be looking at ways to help transition

from the legacy as opposed to just shutting it down. I suppose we

could clean all the air and streams in America if we shut down our

industry but then we would find everyone else struggling to even

survive from there. So let us hope that all the aspects of this budget and all the working towards will be money well spend and

money that is multiplied by working together with business and industry, communities and public health to clean our air, clean our

water, cleanup our Brownfields by making these positive economic

engines in place that we can be proud of.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. As a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh, I actually recognize the progress that you cite.

At this time the Chair would recognize my good friend from

North Carolina, who represents the district where I grew up, Congressman Butterfield.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don’t

have any prepared remarks. I simply want to thank you for your

leadership and look forward to working with you on the subcommittee. I thank the witnesses for coming forward today. This is

a very important subject, not only to America but to the world. And

so thank you for your testimony. I look forward to hearing from you

and look forward to working with all of you including my friends

on the other side of the aisle.

I yield back.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Rogers from Michigan.

Mr. ROGERS. I waive.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Barrow of Georgia.

Mr. BARROW. I waive.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair would recognize Ms. DeGette.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to echo Ms. Baldwin’s dismay at the fact that this is the

first hearing this committee has had on the EPA’s budget since the

Clinton administration and I think that is really shocking, but

what is more shocking is what the administration has done to some

of our most vital environmental and public health programs in that

short amount of time. I do appreciate the willingness of our panel

8

to come and testify today and tell us their views. I am pleased, Mr.

Chairman, to see that real oversight has returned to Capitol Hill.

I am also pleased to see Mr. Stupak here because I think between the two committees, the Environment and the Oversight and

the Investigation Subcommittee, both of which I serve on, we know

that your testimony will be very helpful to us as we begin to look

and see not only what this budget means but also what the administration’s environmental programs mean.

Last fall, I was privileged to attend a ceremony at a site in Denver, the Shaddock site, which had been contaminated by hazardous

waste and which had a Record of Decision where everything would

be scraped in a big football field-sized area and left in the middle

of a low-income residential neighborhood. I worked with Senator

Allard on a bipartisan basis to get that Record of Decision reversed

and now we are developing houses in that area, but while I was

at that happy event, I got to spend some time talking to my local

EPA staff in Denver and also to some of the activists and they confirmed what I have believed for several years now: we are not undertaking environmental enforcement at nearly the pace we should

be in this country to protect the health and welfare of our citizens.

There are a number of areas, and I hope to still be here to question

the panel about these areas of concern that I have.

I am concerned about the lack of reauthorization for the Polluter

Pays tax into the Superfund. We may have many Superfund sites

around this country that are not being cleaned up because there is

not enough money in the Superfund and so I think that I am interested in learning either today or later what the impact of shifting

the burden onto the taxpayer from the polluter has been in cleaning up these heavily contaminated sites.

A second issue that I have been working on many years ever

since I was in the Colorado State Legislature is the issue of

Brownfields, and I am very concerned in this budget about the severe lack of funding for the Brownfields program. In 2005, for example, the EPA received 673 requests for funding but it only funded a third of the projects.

And last, Mr. Bilirakis, the senior Mr. Bilirakis and I worked

hard on the integrity and independence of the EPA ombudsman

program and I am looking forward to knowing next week at the

hearing that we have what is going on with the ombudsman program and under the current structure at the Inspector General’s

Office is the ombudsman really independent.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing and yield back.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentlelady, who has been a champion on

environmental issues.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first congratulate you on becoming the Chair of the subcommittee. Having previously been the ranking member, I know the complex but critical

9

issues under our jurisdiction here and I look forward to working

with you. I know that several of us have mentioned how little the

subcommittee has done over the past several years, and just the

fact that you are having the EPA Administrator in front of us for

the first time in his career next week I think says a lot about

where we are going. In fact, I think it was already mentioned, for

the first 6 years of the Bush administration we didn’t even have

a hearing on the EPA’s budget requests, so obviously there are

going to be some big changes here.

President Bush’s budget request is no different than what we

have been getting in the past and I frankly think it is shameful because it is not going to allow the EPA to do its job in protecting

human health and the environment, and I am particularly upset at

the fact that there are cuts in programs that are critical to cleaning

up the toxic legacy that plagues my district and my home State of

New Jersey. For example, the request for the Superfund program

is $7 million less than the enacted level, even though the administration lowered its target number of site cleanups mid-year and is

clearly lagging behind in eliminating this most serious of environmental health threats. The Inspector General has previously noted

the serious backlog in funding plaguing the program and I am eagerly looking forward to updated figures from Mr. Rogers’ office.

I would also like to note that the more and more we learn about

funding problems with Superfund, the more urgent it becomes that

we reinstate the Superfund taxes as Mr. Simms indicates in his

written testimony, and I intend to reintroduce a bill that I have introduced in the past to bring back the taxes and put the burden

for cleanups on the backs of polluters, not taxpayers.

I am glad to welcome Mayor Bollwage from Elizabeth, New Jersey, here representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In your written testimony, Mayor, you make important points about the role of

local governments in environmental protection and I agree with

you about the need to fully fund the Brownfields program. I know

that has always been a major issue for you. You talked about it

with me many times. A few years ago when I was the ranking

member, I helped author the Federal Brownfields program so I

want you to know that I intend to introduce a reauthorization of

that program so that we can continue to strengthen it.

And finally, I want to recognize Mr. Langer here from the National Federation of Independent Business. In your testimony, you

discuss your support of the EPA’s recent changes that undermine

the Toxics Release Inventory program. You may know that I have

introduced a bill with Senator Lautenberg to restore this important

program and protect communities’ right to know about what toxic

materials are dumped in their backyards, and I think TRI is a successful program that has gotten companies to voluntarily slash pollution without imposing burdensome regulations, and I believe it

should be kept as it had been before the EPA’s changes.

So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

Congratulations. This subcommittee has a long history and under

the Democrats previously was a very significant subcommittee. I

remember our former Governor, Jim Florio, was once the chairman

of it and so many things were done and I know that will happen

again under your tutelage. Thank you.

10

Mr. WYNN. Well, thank you, and I look forward to leading the

committee to its former grandeur.

At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Stupak, who is also

the subcommittee chairman for Oversight and Investigations. Mr.

Stupak.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

After more than 6 years of little or no oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency from this committee, I am pleased we

are finally holding hearings on EPA’s budget proposals. As the

chairman of Oversight and Investigations, I look forward to working to improved congressional oversight with this subcommittee on

this very critical agency.

State and local governments face a daunting task in protecting

public health and providing a clean environment. They depend on

the assistance on the Federal Government to cleanup environmental problems, update their water and wastewater infrastructure and protect residents from environmental hazards. Unfortunately, rather than helping States reach these goals, the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget faces significant burdens on State

and local governments. By cutting funding for EPA and important

programs such as the State Drinking Water Act Revolving Loan

Fund, the Brownfield Revitalization Program, Superfund, Leaking

Underground Storage Tanks, Beach Protection and others, the administration has made it harder for State and local governments

to protect the public.

Across the country, communities are struggling to keep up with

the needs of their residents. Rather than cutting these programs,

the Federal Government should be increasing the assistance so

State and local governments can provide the basic health and environmental needs. Despite what the administration may think,

slashing Federal environmental assistance does not save us money.

Instead, we are merely passing the bucks onto States who are already struggling to make ends meet. More often than not, the

States don’t have the resources to fix environmental and public

health hazards. The end result is the American people suffer the

side effects, which usually include diminished health and poorer

quality of life.

In my district, preventing drinking water contamination is a

major problem. Communities are having a hard time keeping up

with the problems, whether they are aging infrastructure or polluted areas that are not being cleaned up. The Great Lakes is a

source of drinking water for more than 30 million people. Programs

that cleanup the Great Lakes developed by the Great Lakes Collaboration have been flat-funded in this budget as well as past

budgets. This flat funding completely ignores the needs outlined by

the Great Lakes Collaboration, which has recommended that water

quality funding should be increased exponentially. As a result, we

have community health departments and municipal water systems

in Michigan that are attempting to cope with higher bacteria

counts, closed beaches and sometimes even significant health concerns.

11

The American people deserve better. Rather than passing hazardous public health and environmental problems onto local governments, this administration should take some leadership and accept the responsibility it has for protecting public health rather

than ignoring it.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I will be in and

out but I hope to be back to ask questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with

you. I must say, I have been on this subcommittee for some time,

and when Ms. Solis was the ranking chairperson we tried many,

many times to have hearings on very important matters. We never

really got too far so I look forward to working with you, and in my

oversight role I am sure together we can move some good environmental legislation to help protect the American people and do the

job we should be doing for them.

Mr. WYNN. I want to thank the gentleman, and I concur. I look

forward to working with him as well. I think we can get some real

good things done.

I also want to echo his sentiment in recognizing Ms. Solis, the

former ranking member, current vice chair, who has been a tremendous leader on these issues, and it is with great pleasure that

I recognize Ms. Solis for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations. Boy,

how times have changed. I want to thank also Ranking Member

Shimkus and I also just want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman,

for having this hearing. I can tell you that this indeed has been a

long-awaited time, 6 years in waiting to have the EPA come forward so we could have an oversight hearing regarding their budget.

As policymakers and responsible parties, we know the importance of how we utilize our taxpayer dollars and it is our responsibility to understand what EPA has done in the last 6 years or has

not done, and over the 6 years I am seeing that many of the core

programs that EPA is supposed to be in charge of and implementing have not been diligent in implementing many of the laws that

they are supposed to be implementing and monitoring. In fiscal

year 2008 in their budget, which if accepted, States will have lost

over $1 billion in Federal support if you look back over to the year

2004. Under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, we

see more than $325 million below authorized levels. The administration has cut its request for the Brownfield program from $120

million to $89 million for a second year in a row, and the proposed

budget that funds the Safe Drinking Water Act is at its lowest

level.

Despite the 2003 needs survey which was released in 2005 iden- tifying $263.3 billion in needs, these budget cuts and funding decisions have had real impacts on our communities across the country. State and local agencies may be forced to lay off staff, leave

vacancies unfilled, shut down existing air monitors and otherwise

curtail very important monitoring programs. EPA can’t be sure

that the cleanup at Libby, the Superfund site in Montana, suffiVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
12

ciently reduces the risk to public health. Regional and contract personnel are making judgments at this time about water systems despite not being the most qualified, and according to an article dated

October 31, 2006, in the Seattle Times, EPA region 10, which includes Hanford Nuclear Reservation and 40 percent of all tribes in

the Nation, was forced to close its Environmental Justice Office because of budget cuts. Two-third of already burdened cities who are

working to create economic opportunities by revitalizing formerly

blighted areas are not getting Brownfields grants and more than

113,000 leaking underground storage tanks will continue to contaminate drinking water supplies and become even more costly

when we do consider cleaning them up.

I am concerned about the impact that our dereliction of oversight

duty has had on the culture of the Agency, and specifically, I am

concerned about the movement from funding core programs to

funding unauthorized voluntary contractor-based programs such as

Performance Track, a program which currently uses 32 full-time

employees and appears to reward noncompliant facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I am eager to address these issues and join in

that discussion with my colleagues on this committee such as the

Toxic-Right-to-Know program, the library closures and human pesticide testing in our hearings this week and next and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to get our Nation back

on track.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentlelady, and we look forward to having the benefit of her expertise as we move forward.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I have no opening statement. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, sir.

At this time I would recognize Mr. Green of Texas.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing today and

I welcome our panelists.

This hearing is the first oversight hearing on the Environment

Protection Agency’s budget in over 6 years and I am pleased that

we are having this discussion on the issues we are facing today.

The administration’s fiscal year 2008 EPA budget request is significantly lower than the previous fiscal year budget request. Most

people in this room are not surprised. I am particularly dismayed

by the fact that 13 percent of the EPA’s fiscal year 2008 budget request has been allocated to Clean Air. Of the $7.2 billion, the EPA

is requesting only $912 million be available for one of the most important issues facing our communities, air quality.

In my statement I would like to highlight two important issues

that did not get enough attention at the EPA or the public discussion the EPA’s duty, air toxics control and EPA’s role in accident

prevention at chemical plants. In Houston we have significant high

levels of air toxics and some of the highest in the Nation, although

all major cities have levels that are too high. Many in my district

feel that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which

13

regulates air toxics in my State, has failed to focus on the air toxics

in Houston. The burden of reducing air toxics falls on the local

communities, which is not the most effective way to solve the larger clean air issue. Cities provide water, streets, police, firefighters,

so they do not have the resources to craft the best environmental

regulations and to conduct enforcement.

I believe the EPA needs to show more leadership on the air

toxics issue, especially after a 2005 Inspector General report critical and a 2006 GAO report both found that not enough is being

done at the Federal level. Some State agencies like our Texas Environment Quality with huge responsibilities and limited resources

are not meeting communities’ needs for all air toxic improvement

so they need more Federal help. The EPA has set a bad example

by repeatedly missing deadlines for setting the maximal achievement control technology standards and subsequent residual risk assessments. The EPA has recently tried to help out State and local

governments on air toxic monitoring, which is the least they can

do. However, we still have urgent needs for more monitoring information in my own area in Houston, which like large cities has a

high concentration of air toxics, and I hope to hear more from the

Inspector General on the issue.

In addition, I would like to note that the EPA has a role in improving chemical facility risk management plans that address accident risk outside the fence line. However, reducing risk outside the

fence line also reduces risk inside the fence line for workers at

chemical facilities, many of whom are my constituents. Our office

has heard that EPA has not fully implemented several of the recommendations over the years from the Chemical Safety Board. We

also understand the EPA is not providing the Chemical Safety

Board with the documents and information they are requesting for

their investigation of dangerous incidents in refineries and chemical facilities. Most people think of OSHA when they think of workplace safety but in the area of chemical facilities, the EPA has a

significant role. Perhaps the Inspector General should look into

also whether EPA is taking these responsibilities seriously.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be on the subcommittee and I look

forward to our hearings. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

Does any other Member wish to make an opening statement?

If not, any other statements will be included in the record at this

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for having two hearings to examine EPA’s proposed budget for this upcoming fiscal year. However, their appropriate sequence is

upside down. I think for a couple reasons the administration, regardless of party,

should testify first. It is our responsibility to have a dialog with the administration

directly, not through the filter of special interest groups . It is the custom of this

committee to afford the administration the courtesy of testifying first, regardless of

party. Once that testimony is heard and our questions have been answered by the

administration, then we turn to outside witnesses. In the spirit of inter-branch comity, I hope we can return to that practice in future hearings.

Although some will want to use these hearings to make definitive statements

about EPA’s programs or spending priorities, I find that understanding EPA’s efforts and priorities is akin to the job of herding cats.

14

EPA is not a perfect agency, and our efforts should be to achieve an EPA that

is competent, effective, and efficient. EPA is entering the middle of its fourth decade

of existence. Its infrastructure and organization is predicated on a collection of wellmeaning, but disparate laws. We need to ensure that EPA’s efforts are focused, competent, reasoned, cost-effective, and successfully achieving those program goals that

further public health protections.

For this reason, I think the most important issue for our hearing today is whether, as EPA’s mission statement proclaims: ‘‘public health’’ is being protected and ‘‘a

cleaner, healthier environment’’ is being produced for the American people. Next

week, I plan to be more specific in my questioning about individual programs when

the Administrator appears before our committee. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will

lead us in pledging allegiance not to the programs of this Agency for their own sake,

but rather to its mission and the people it serves.

I welcome all of our witnesses and thank them for their participation. Despite the

irregular order of the two hearings, I think it is essential that we hear from each

of these witnesses as they represent an important segment of our public, private,

and academic sectors. I am pleased to see the State and local governments here.

They are an important part of our Nation’s overall environmental strategy and we

should welcome and encourage that partnership. However, while States and localities have special understanding and expertise, in this time of tight budgets, we

should not hold the Federal Treasury out as a fund for pet projects that these levels

of Government can and should fund themselves. This principle also applies to well

funded private groups who receive EPA monies. We must maximize what we have

rather than rely on increased taxes for these programs.

I also appreciate the fact that small, medium, and large businesses are being represented on our panel today. EPA’s budget, whether discussing new regulatory programs or the maintenance of existing ones, is a crucial factor for many of these

groups and their employees. We cannot afford real environmental protection without

a thriving economy and business should not always be seen as the environmental

enemy. I believe there are productive voluntary programs that show American business can create, innovate, and grow as well as be good environmental stewards

without the hammer of mandatory programs hanging over their heads. We should

always encourage economic freedom when public health is not directly threatened.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can bring an engineer’s penchant for thoughtful analysis

and problem solving to these budget hearings. Let’s focus on making EPA’s efforts

help people as opposed to bean counting, statistical manipulation, and political posturing.

Again, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and thank the Chair for

his kindness.

Mr. WYNN. We will turn to our distinguished witnesses. I want

to welcome each of you and thank you for coming. On our panel

today, we have with us Mr. Bill Roderick, who is the acting Inspector General for EPA. We have Mr. J. Christian Bollwage, mayor of

Elizabeth, New Jersey, and speaking on behalf of the United States

Conference of Mayors. We also have Mr. Robert King, president of

the Environmental Council of the States and deputy commissioner

of South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control. We have Mr. Andrew Langer, who is the manager of regulatory affairs for the National Federation of Independent Business;

Mr. Maurice McTigue, director of the Government Accountability

Project and vice president of the Mercatus Center at George Mason

University, and we also have Mr. Patrice Simms, senior attorney

at the Natural Resources Defense Council. I would like to welcome

all of you.

We will now have 5-minute opening statements from the witnesses. The prepared statements of the witnesses have been submitted and will be made a part of the hearing record.

At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Roderick for an opening statement and wish to express a special appreciation to him for

accommodating us by appearing on the same panel as witnesses

15

who are not representing governmental interests, so Mr. Roderick,

we thank you for coming.

STATEMENT OF BILL RODERICK, ACTING INSPECTOR

GENERAL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. RODERICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Bill Roderick,

Deputy Inspector General of the EPA. I have been serving as acting Inspector General since March 2006. I am pleased to testify

during this oversight hearing on the EPA’s budget. The views I express here today are those of the Office of Inspector General and

do not represent the Environment Protection Agency’s final position.

An issue of primary and current concern in the Superfund program is whether there is sufficient funding for cleanups. Work that

we did in 2003 at the request of Chairman Dingell and Congresswoman Solis showed a funding shortfall for non-Federal Superfund

sites. We found that limited funding prevented EPA from beginning construction at all sites and providing additional funds needed

to address sites. We estimated that the fiscal year 2003 site-specific

funding shortfall was nearly $175 million. One of these sites was

Libby, Montana. The remedial project manager at the time indicated to us that an additional $740,000 was needed for sampling

and to conduct a study to determine the cost-effective method for

quantifying the amount of asbestos in the soil.

More recently, funding was again raised as a concern in a report

we issued in December 2006 that looked at EPA’s cleanup efforts

in Libby. In our limited review, we identified significant issues that

we believed were critical to the successful cleanup. EPA has not

completed a toxicity assessment necessary to determine the safe

level for human exposure to asbestos. Therefore, EPA cannot be

sure that the Libby cleanup sufficiently reduces the risk that humans may become ill. One of the reasons provided by OSWER officials for not performing a toxicity assessment was that while it was

proposed, EPA did not approve the budget request. We recommended that EPA fund and execute a comprehensive asbestos

toxicity assessment to determine the effectiveness of the Libby removal actions and to determine whether more actions are necessary. EPA responded that they are committed to beginning a toxicity assessment early this year.

Superfund mega-sites are taking a financial toll on the program

because their cleanup is costly, complex and lengthy. In 2004 we

identified 156 hardrock mining sites nationwide that have the potential to cost between $7 and $24 billion to cleanup. These costs

were over 12 times EPA’s total annual Superfund budget. Most of

these hardrock mining sites are located in the western and southeastern United States. These sites will impact those States because

EPA eventually turns over responsibility for long-term response actions to the States.

We noted several organizational and accounting obstacles that

impact EPA’s ability to efficiently and effectively manage the

Superfund resources. EPA has disbursed responsibilities for Superfund management and resources so that no single EPA office including OSWER, which is the office accountable for Superfund

16

cleanup goals, has full responsibility or control over EPA Superfund appropriation.

Another obstacle we identified is EPA continuing to maintain unliquidated Superfund obligations and money in special accounts as

a hedge against tough financial times. We made several recommendations to help address those issues.

I understand that the subcommittee is concerned about the resources being expended on EPA’s partnership programs. Some of

these programs report very small budgets and only a fraction of the

staff members’ time devoted to operating them. Other programs report more. We are currently evaluating one of these programs, Performance Track. We initiated this review to evaluate how the program contributes to EPA’s goal of improving environmental performance through pollution prevention and innovation and how

well it accomplishes its program goal of recognizing and encouraging top environmental performers. To do this, our approach was to

analyze a randomly selected sample of 40 member facilities to determine if they met their Performance Track commitments and assess how much progress they have made. In order to demonstrate

these facilities represent top performers, we also sought to compare

sample facilities’ compliance records and toxic release with others

in their sectors. We are compiling compliance information from

EPA databases and verifying individual facility data for sample

members with reasonable enforcement and compliance data stewards. Since this work is incomplete, I am unable to report on our

findings and recommendations at this time. We expect to issue a

final report in April. I will gladly brief everyone that wants to have

the details of that audit.

The OIG’s fiscal year 2008 budget request will enable us to meet

our statutory obligations and other higher priority work. However,

at these levels we will be challenged to meet every demand placed

upon us. We will need to make some difficult choices in order to

ensure the OIG remains a catalyst for improving the quality of the

environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We view all of you

on the committee as our customers and we would be pleased to answer any questions you have at this time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roderick follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Roderick. As you know,

we have a vote coming up but I think we have time to have testimony from Mr. Bollwage, so we will proceed with that. Then we

will recess until after the vote. Mr. Bollwage.

STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE, MAYOR, CITY OF

ELIZABETH, ELIZABETH, NJ

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First I

would like to request a technical correction in my prepared testimony on paragraph 4, page 3, changing it from $150 to $200 million. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Certainly.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Mr. Chairman, ranking member and my friend,

Congressman Pallone, members of the committee, I am Chris

Bollwage, the mayor of the city of Elizabeth for the past 15 years.

I also serve as a trustee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and cochairman of the Mayors Brownfields Task Force.

Mayors have an interest in broader environmental issues including increasing our energy independence in an environmentally

sound way and protecting our climate, and as chief executives of

our cities, we are in a unique position. We are on the front lines

protecting the health of our citizens. Unfortunately, however, we

are at the end of the line when it comes to unfunded mandates.

Mayors do not have a problem with passing good environmental

public policy. We have a problem with passing the public policy

without providing the necessary resources to pay for it. There is no

one left at the local level that we can pass on these costs except

to our constituents, which we often have to do.

So I wanted to take this opportunity as you deliberate the various environmental rules and regulations that come before you to

keep in mind that some costs will be incurred by local government

and our citizens and I hope that Congress is going to take a hard

look at where we are spending our money to determine what the

priorities should be for our Nation if we are to remain economically

competitive with the rest of the world. We need to balance our

budget every year and sometimes that means deciding the best

paths for the future with the limitations we have, and on this EPA

oversight hearing, I want to outline some of the priorities for the

Nation’s mayors and the most useful programs and ask that all of

you do your part in fully funding these programs.

Brownfields, which many of you mentioned in your opening

statements—I have been the co-chair of the U.S. Conference of

Mayors for 12 years, have had extensive conversations with Congressman Pallone about this issue and I want to commend EPA for

listening to the mayors at that time and establishing the EPA

Brownfields program. It has been extremely successful in cleaning

up thousands of acres of sites and turning formerly blighted areas

into productive pieces of property. There is still a lot of unrealized

potential. Currently the Brownfields law has authorized $250 million. It never received more than $162 million. It is estimated there

are 400,000 to 600,000 Brownfield properties in the United States,

and as you said, Mr. Chairman, currently only one out of three

qualifying Brownfield applications are funded. The Conference of

Mayors and members of a Brownfields coalition are pleased to hear

31

that Congressman Pallone is going to introduce the reauthorization

of the Brownfields Law.

On a related topic, the Superfund program, many properties are

still in the process of being assessed and cleaned up. Mayors who

have Superfund sites in their communities are anxious to have

these sites cleaned up and we urge Congress to reinstate the

Superfund taxes and assist EPA with its efforts to expedite the

cleanup of these severely contaminated sites, and we thank you,

Congressman Pallone, for those comments.

As this committee debates the issue of climate change, mayors

would like for you to consider a multilevel approach to help deal

with this problem. A cap and trade program as well as encouragement for alternative energy sources and fuel efficiency will be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the national level. However, there are many solutions that are coming from the local level.

The conference has held two national summits that brought together public and private sector to highlight what is currently

being done and what can be done to increase our Nation’s independence. Through the conference’s work we have determined that

much more could be done. That is why the mayors of this Nation

are proposing the formation of an Energy and Environmental Block

Grant, EEBG. Our proposal would require local governments to determine their carbon footprint and create a plan for reducing their

greenhouse gas emissions. Monies could be used to implement this

plan.

The Mayors’ Water Council conducted a survey that asked cities

to identify the most important resources and issues they face. The

top three: rehabilitating aging water and wastewater infrastructure, security protection of water resources and the water supply

availability. The MWC prepared a report on city attitudes about

the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund program and the Safe

Drinking Water State Revolving Loan program. The findings indicate that cities generally prefer to use municipal bonds and pay as

you go rather than the SRF loans. The primary reason for this is

because it is more cost efficient due to better finance terms and

greater time certainty in the finance process. As often cited figures,

local governments are responsible for 90 percent of the public-purpose water investments and the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports

that combined municipal expenditures for water and wastewater

infrastructure are second only to educational expenses.

While most mayors are not directly responsible for most clean air

programs, we have local and State agencies that are, and at the

city level we are responsible for implementing many of the programs that can have tremendous clean air benefits.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know I could have come here

today and identified programs at EPA that could be cut in order

to meet our environmental priorities. However, I hope you recognize that the needs of this Nation are great, as all of you do, to

remain a competitive nation. I know that budgets are strained but

I hope you will take up the Nation’s mayors’ offer on our offer to

work with you in solving a lot of these problems.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bollwage follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. WYNN. Thank you for your very constructive testimony. At

this time the committee is going to stand in recess until immediately following the last vote of this series of votes. Thank you.

[Recess]

Mr. WYNN. Mr. King, I believe you have the microphone.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. KING, JR., PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for providing the Environmental Council of States, ECOS,

the opportunity to present testimony on the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s 2008 budget.

My name is Robert W. King, Jr., and I am the deputy commissioner for Environmental Quality Control at the South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control. Today I am

here representing not only my State but all the environmental

agencies in the States belonging to our organization. Our comments

are primarily directed to the STAG portion of EPA’s budget.

States are co-regulators with the U.S. EPA and have the challenging job of frontline implementation of our Nation’s environment

pollution laws. EPA has delegated most of the work on the core environmental responsibilities to us. Today States are responsible for

managing most of the delegable environmental programs and rules,

issuing environmental and public health standards under Federal

laws and for State-specific laws, issuing most environmental permits, collecting nearly 94 percent of the environmental monitoring

data and conducting over 90 percent of all enforcement actions.

Funds have been provided to the States to assist them in the implementation of Federal programs. States also provide funds for

these programs, anywhere from half to 90 percent of the costs. Federal funds are important to States because they are targeted to

specific programs and help States meet Federal requirements such

as permitting, enforcement, monitoring, standards development,

rule issuance and reporting, in short, all the significant components

of our co-regulator agreements with the Federal Government.

In the 2008 budget development cycle, EPA for the first time involved the States in the early stages of the budget’s development

and we were very appreciative of this opportunity. The ECOS officers presented information to the Agency and proposed a tier of

priorities shown in figure 2 of our package. Our highest priorities

included programs mandated by Congress in the major environmental statutes. The EPA accepted some of these recommendations

but the 2008 budget continues a downward funding trend as shown

in figure 1.

If Congress accepts the 2008 proposal for STAG, it will mean

that States will have lost over $1 billion in Federal support since

2004. This has come at the same time U.S. EPA has promulgated

a significant number of new rules for the States to implement.

From 2000 to 2006, EPA issued and proposed 390 new rules with

a significant impact on the States. Figure 3 demonstrates the dilemma States are in with the rising number of rules for States to

implement while funds decrease.

46

While States are reluctant to return Federal programs to EPA

for many reasons, we have begun to see this happen as well as

delays in implementation of new rules. This is highlighted in additional information I have provided you regarding the problems

State drinking water and air programs are facing. Time does not

permit a thorough review of these details but let me say this. The

proposal in the EPA’s budget to cut the air programs by $35 million will be particularly difficult for States. Many will have to cease

operating existing monitors or curtail their monitoring programs. It

will also affect development of State implementations for ozone and

particulate matter standards, which reduce air pollution and protect public health. Declining Federal support and dramatically increased workloads in the drinking water program have resulted in

about half of the States simply unable to take on implementation

of some portion of these new rules.

ECOS has again proposed an alternative budget for the STAG

portion of the EPA 2008 budget that addresses our concern with

continuing reductions of congressionally-mandated environmental

statutes. This proposal is based on principles agreed upon by the

ECOS members which include in times of fiscal crisis when the resources are in short supply the core mandated environmental programs funded through STAG and infrastructure capitalization

must be funded first and reductions in EPA budget, if they must

occur, should be shared proportionately by EPA and the States

after STAG levels are returned to their 2004 levels.

The States are thankful for the opportunity to present our views

to the committee and hope that Congress can assist us as we implement the Nation’s environmental statutes as a co-regulator with

the U.S. EPA.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify and I

will be happy to answer any questions later. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. King.

Mr. Langer.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW M. LANGER, MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

Mr. LANGER. Chairman Wynn and members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on the issue

of the EPA’s budget.

I would like to say at the outset that while my prepared written

and oral remarks represent the collaborative views of NFIB, the

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, any questions I might answer following my testimony

will represent the views of NFIB and not the other two organizations. I hope that is alright.

I am here today to talk about the EPA’s relationship to America’s

smallest businesses. Businesses with fewer than 20 employees comprise roughly 90 percent of the universe of businesses in America.

These businesses want to comply with the Nation’s environmental

laws but invariably they find compliance to be a difficult and cumbersome proposition. The EPA’s proposal is to spend just over a

half-billion dollars on environmental enforcement this year. Their

term is ‘‘compliance improvement.’’ This number is dwarfed, however, by the mandates by EPA. If environmental regulations account for roughly 40 percent of regulatory costs and regulatory

costs last year were $1.13 trillion, then Americans spent more than

$400 billion in complying with Federal environmental regulations

alone.

In the private sector, we have learned that more money does not

equal more results, and our members constantly strive to achieve

more and better results with less money and fewer resources.

EPA’s budget does not exist in a vacuum. It represents choices,

choices between larger priorities in the Federal budget including

homeland security, worker safety and trade promotion. Through

that lens we view the EPA budget as one that makes tough choices

in an environment of limited resources, and there are a number of

ways one can look at regulatory costs both through efforts to reform regulation and in looking at ways to streamline the regulatory

compliance process itself.

For the purposes of today’s testimony, I want to focus on that

end of the pipeline, compliance assistance efforts. It is well established that regulatory agencies get a greater ‘‘bang for the buck’’

when they promote compliance assistance over enforcement. It is

more cost-effective than dedicating enormous resources towards investigations and prosecutions and gets us closer to the goals of

more comprehensive environmental compliance. In terms of giving

people foreknowledge of their responsibilities and walking them

through how they can fulfill their obligations, it is compliance assistance and not enforcement that will get us closer to our ultimate

goal of 100 percent compliance with 100 percent of regulations 100

percent of the time. The movement away from enforcement as a

primary tool of compliance improvement is one that will have to be

driven by Congress, however. Continued oversight, encouragement

and budgetary prodding are going to be necessary. The Agency

60

ought to be rewarded when they decide to shift money away from

sticks and directed towards blackboards.

Unfortunately, the regulatory state is so complex, I want you to

consider for a moment that the Code of Federal Regulations itself

is thousands upon thousands of pages, roughly 19 feet of shelf

space that is out there, and what a small-business owner needs to

do to figure out his responsibilities is next to impossible. It is next

to impossible for them to be in compliance with all the regulatory

requirements he faces. But imagine a system in which a smallbusiness owner can enter simple information about his business,

then that system takes this information and spits out each and

every regulation that applies to this business along with simple

compliance information. Yes, this is an ambitious idea but in an

era in which huge databases can be accessed from thousands of

miles away, it is not an impossible task. The current iteration of

this, the Business Gateway, Business.gov, is a solid step in the

right direction, but it must do more, far more in terms of offering

a simple way for businesses to determine what their regulatory responsibilities are and to make living up to those responsibilities as

easy as possible. What it will take is leadership from Congress,

funding, oversight and a political will to see it happen.

If Congress is serious about environmental compliance, then it

must do something about making a fully functional, fully realized

Business Gateway a reality. Once that is established, businesses

know their responsibilities and compliance is made as simple as

possible and then businesses will not only have the time and resources to devote to helping the Government craft smarter regulations, they will have an incentive to be invested in the process. And

while we believe that Business Gateway will be a tremendous tool

for truly improving compliance, we recognize that there are a number of interim steps that must be taken, steps that will also require

tremendous leadership on the part of Congress. Success of the

Business Gateway will hinge on the quality of the information it

provides, simple explanations and easy-to-understand-and-follow

step-by-step instructions on how to comply. That means a wholesale restructuring of the information that is conveyed to the public,

a comprehensive review of all regulations mandated by the Agency,

the review of all guidance documents, manuals and other publications the citizen uses to determine what their obligations are and

how to go about complying with them. Then the Agency will have

to start building from the ground up, creating plain-language

guides to each of their regulatory regimes, guides that are as short

as possible, guides that are easy to find, guides that take a commonsense approach to compliance, walks small-business owners

through their compliance process and offer them clear suggestions

of what they ought to be doing to be in compliance with a particular regulation.

There are no two ways about it: this will be a Herculean task.

Nevertheless, it must be undertaken. Heretofore the Agency has

balked at such reviews and it is not difficult to understand why.

They get no credit for it, simply put. Why put resources into developing easy-to-understand compliance guides when Congress and active stakeholders are going to ask them why they didn’t spend

more resources on investigations and prosecutions.

61

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Langer follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much.

Mr. McTigue.

STATEMENT OF MAURICE MCTIGUE, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, FAIRFAX, VA

Mr. MCTIGUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the

members of the committee for the invitation to be present here

today.

I have now been in the United States for 9 years and I have

spent those 9 years on the faculty of George Mason University and

my interest there has been to do research work on accountability

in government. It is from that perspective that I am going to speak

to you this morning. Preceding that 9 years that I have spent in

the United States, I was nearly 4 years in Canada as New Zealand’s ambassador to Canada and the Caribbean and that was preceded by 10 years as an elected member of Parliament in the New

Zealand Parliament, and some of that period of time I spent also

as a member of Cabinet where Cabinet members under parliamentary system were also members of the legislature. But one of my

portfolios was associate minister of finance and in that portfolio I

was responsible for controlling the Government’s spending and it is

from that background that I want to make comments to you this

morning about the process of budgeting.

Since I have been in America, there have been some innovations

which I think are important, particularly in terms of the quality of

the information that they put before committees when they make

decisions about budgets. One of them is GPRA, the fact that it requires results information to be produced. The move towards performance budgets as part of the President’s Management Agenda

and the Program Assessment Reading Tool are subsequent processes that produce us with better information.

The process of making budget decisions really revolves around

some very simple tasks and some relatively simple questions, the

answers to which are often very difficult. A department makes a

budget request. Congress must then decide whether or not to grant

the request. What should the committee know before it grants the

department’s request is the piece of knowledge that I want to address, and that encompasses four major questions. First, how big

is the problem; second, what progress has been made; third, how

much is left to be done; fourth, will the current tools and strategies

provide the remedy; fifth, how quickly can the current tools achieve

the result; and sixth, is this an acceptable level of progress.

The answers to these questions are a mix of facts and values.

The departments should be providing you with the necessary facts.

The value judgments should be made by the political process. In

the case of this budget request, the two value judgments to be exercised by the political process are: should we spend money on this

activity, and the second one, is this enough money to make acceptable progress.

Comments on the EPA’s information in their budget justification

are as follows. First, I would like to congratulate OMB on the decision to make budget justification information readily available to

researchers and the public and it is from information that I make

78

my comments. When I look at EPA’s budget request, what I find

are two problems, in my view, with the EPA’s budget information.

The first is the lack of information to demonstrate the scale of the

problem, how big is this issue. The second is the lack of information that would indicate acceptable progress on resolution of this

problem.

I am now going to quote you something from the EPA’s budget

justification and it is under the strategic objectives for clean air

and global climate change and it reads as follows. ‘‘By 2030,

through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere

will have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery and overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among

susceptible populations such as children, will be reduced.’’ That

sounds good until you ask the following question: So how many

people will contract skin cancer from this cause over the next 23

years and who will they be and from what populations. Without

that knowledge, we don’t know how serious that problem is or

whether or not progress is rapid enough.

Now I going to quote from some information that I picked up

from the science and technology part of EPA’s budget, and this is

about the air toxics program and here is what it actually says

when it looks at the measures. ‘‘The measure is the cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity weighted for non-cancer risk

emissions of air toxics before using the 1993 baseline.’’ First problem: the data for 2006 will not be available until 2009. That is not

acceptable. The target for 2006 was a 58 percent reduction. The

target for 2007 was a 58 percent reduction. The target for 2009 was

a 59 percent reduction. If zero is the goal, the problem will be

eliminated by the year 2048. Is that satisfactory progress? And I

don’t think it tells us that because it doesn’t tell us whether zero

is the right target if that is where we need to get to.

Here is a more serious one, in my view. Same issue, the cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighed for cancer

risk emissions of air toxics from the 1993 baseline. Once again, the

data for 2006 not available. But the targets are 34 percent for

2006, 35 percent for 2007 and 35 percent for 2008.

Mr. Chairman, if that is factual information, it means their problem never gets fixed. This is the kind of information I think should

be in front of the committee if it is able to do its job well.

Thank you for the opportunity of being able to present in front

of you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue follows:]

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. McTigue.

Mr. Simms.

STATEMENT OF PATRICE SIMMS, SENIOR ATTORNEY,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Mr. SIMMS. Good morning, Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member

Shimkus, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to

speak with you today. My name is Patrice Simms. I am a senior

attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

I would like to address a few specific concerns that NRDC has

and I want to start with a couple of concerns that have a common

theme, and that theme is transparency, accountability and oversight. The two issues relate to, one, the outsourcing of important

functions within the Agency’s authority and, two, the increasing

use of voluntary programs instead of regulatory programs within

the Agency over the last several years.

Some clear examples of troubling relationships that demonstrably compromise quality of EPA’s scientific inquiry, and one of

those is the Agency’s relationship with the International Life

Sciences Institute. This is an example of the situation where the

Agency has farmed out some of its responsibilities in a particularly

troubling way. In 2003, the EPA issued some proposed guidelines

that were based almost entirely on a policy proposal that was

drafted by an ILC subgroup using EPA funding. Those guidelines

addressed how to assess the toxicity of certain chemicals, chemicals

that are used in, for example, Dupont’s Teflon. That report was

later rejected by an independent scientific panel and subsequently

in 2005 Dupont paid more than $16 million to settle charges that

it had hidden information for two decades about the toxicity of Teflon chemicals. And I just cite that as an example of a situation that

presents serious problems for the Agency in terms of its public accountability, the public perception of the Agency and the Agency’s

scientific credibility.

Congress should ensure that money going to EPA is used in a

manner that preserves the Agency’s scientific integrity and that

important science activities that the Agency funds are conducted

with adequate transparency and direct lines of accountability.

Another recent trend, as I mentioned, is voluntary programs.

While some voluntary programs produce important and substantial

benefits, NRDC is concerned with others that provide few real benefits and give the erroneous impression that important environmental issues are being adequately addressed.

The Performance Track program is a fine example of a voluntary

program that has gone awry. It has as a central feature some deregulatory off-ramps that potentially compromise the effectiveness

and integrity of existing regulatory programs. In addition, there is

little evidence to suggest that this program actually accomplishes

better environmental results.

In sum, NRDC is very concerned about EPA’s expenditures on

voluntary programs that are not subject to rigorous oversight,

allow for so-called regulatory streamlining and cannot demonstrate

meaningful environmental payoffs, especially where those programs appear to take the place of prudent regulatory alternatives.

I look forward, as I am sure you do, to seeing the Inspector GenVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
89

eral’s report on Performance Track and I hope it is a rigorous and

thorough report.

I would like to turn to a quick discussion of a few EPA programs

that are chronically underfunded. Chairman Wynn mentioned a

few of these at the beginning in his opening testimony and I would

like to echo some of them. Superfund, the Nation’s premiere program for cleaning up hazardous waste, has paid huge dividends

over the years, facilitating the cleanup of hundreds of the most contaminated sites in the country yet it is currently underfunded and

bankrupt. The current budget proposal is for $1.24 billion for

Superfund, $14 million less than requested in 2006. At the same

time the fund is dried up, cleanups have also slowed. During the

1990’s, the number of cleanups ranged from 88 cleanups in 1992

to only 61 in 1994. However, in 2001 there was a dramatic dropoff from the 2000 number, being 87 cleanups in 2000 and only 47

in 2001. In 2006, only 40 site cleanups were completed and EPA

has a target of only 24 site cleanups for 2007. Despite the meager

request for Superfund, there are still hundreds of sites on the national priorities list and more being discovered each year. Underfunding this program does a material disservice to the American

public and Congress should fund this program at least to the $1.7

billion that is recommended by Resources for the Future.

Another funding concern is the Safe Drinking Water Act, State

Revolving Fund. There is a tremendous burden on the States to improve the infrastructure over the next 20 years, $276 billion estimated by the EPA.

And finally, I would like to touch really quickly on the underground storage tank program, 117,000 known leaking underground

storage tanks now, some 54,000 of which will require public funds

for cleaning up. A total of $14.5 billion will be needed over the next

5 years. Clearly, the funds are there to do that, and that should

be part of what this Congress funds the Agency to do.

I see my time is up. I have just a couple other things I wanted

to point to in my written testimony. I wanted to mention that reduction in funding for environmental justice is very serious and upcoming needs for carbon sequestration framework and examination

of nanotechnologies.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simms follows:]

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

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Simms.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their excellent testimony.

This concludes our witness statements and I will now recognize

myself for 5 minutes.

I will begin with you, Mr. Langer. NFIB, I believe, represents

convenience store owners, gas station owners, truck stop owners

and they, to my knowledge, have taken a position that the Federal

LUST Trust Fund should not be used as a deficit reduction tool but

rather a trust fund, which totals $3 billion right now, and it should

be used for that purpose, that is to deal with the 113,000, I believe

it is, sites that need cleanup. Is that the position of NFIB?

Mr. LANGER. Well, we are a membership-driven organization, as

you know. We have lots of members, and before we can take a position on an issue we have to ballot our members regarding it, and

I actually went and looked throughout ballot initiatives over the

last 15, 20 years. We have never balloted the issue of underground

storage tanks. However, I can say if I had to hazard a guess in

terms of small businesses, as a rule, small businesses, if they are

collecting fees, excise taxes, et cetera, for a particular Federal program, they are going to want those fees to be used for that program

and not for something else. So if they are collecting fees for underground storage tanks, they are going to want it to be used for

cleaning up underground storage tanks.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Roderick, I believe you referenced the 2002 shortfall between

cleanup needs and actual spending. It is my information that in

2003 the shortfall grew to $174 million and the following year,

2004, this committee surveyed EPA regional staff and our finding

was a shortfall of $263 million in terms of the gap in Superfund

cleanup needs and actual spending. Have you projected the gap for

the upcoming year?

Mr. RODERICK. No, sir, we have not.

Mr. WYNN. Do you have an estimate of the gap?

Mr. RODERICK. No, sir, we have not done any further work since

the work that was requested in terms of estimating the gap.

Mr. WYNN. Would you in any way disagree with the $263 million

as of 2004?

Mr. RODERICK. I cannot verify that number without actually

doing work with it, sir.

Mr. WYNN. OK. Now, you are aware the EPA projected 40 Superfund completions for 2007?

Mr. RODERICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. WYNN. They now revised that to 24 completions. Has your

office done an evaluation of this reassessment by EPA?

Mr. RODERICK. No, sir, we have not done that.

Mr. WYNN. You did not mention in your testimony that in fact

this budget contains a 26 percent reduction in your budget. How

do you plan on completing your mission in light of the 26 percent

reduction?

Mr. RODERICK. The budget difference is about $5.1 million, or 10

percent, and I believe that will be sufficient for us to conduct our

highest-priority work and I think please most of our customers

with our products.

121

Mr. WYNN. Mr. King, you said the EPA accepted some of the

things that your organization recommended, some of the State’s

recommendations, but that the budget basically continued the pattern of business as usual. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. KING. That is a fair assessment.

Mr. WYNN. What do you mean when you say business as usual?

Mr. KING. Well, the concern we have is that a number of the programs that are congressionally-mandated are losing dollars when

other activities are being funded, and we are concerned about those

things, and as we noted in the written testimony, we did set up a

priority, high, medium or moderate and low priorities so that we

could hopefully direct funding to those high-priority areas that are

congressionally mandated.

Mr. WYNN. And I believe on page 6, you site those priorities as

the categorical grants, Brownfields, hazardous waste, financial assistance, underground storage tanks, under infrastructure, the

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Is it fair to say that you are

not satisfied with those funding levels?

Mr. KING. We would like to see more funding in those areas.

That is correct, sir.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Bollwage, you indicated on I think it is page 8

that about 15 percent of the cities cited red tape, burdensome paperwork in the State Revolving Fund. Are there any specific recommendations that you would make to us on that score?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. On the revolving loan fund?

Mr. WYNN. Right.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. One of the things that we would recommend is

that the mayors would need more tools and resources to meet these

costs and the conference recommends fully funding the SRF programs, grants, 30-year no-interest loans and a greater use of the

private activity funds.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

At this time I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start with, this whole debate on trust funds is

going to be an interesting dilemma that we have. I mean, we do

have trust funds. They ought to go for the intended purposes, they

never do, or at least only portions of it, and we have numerous

trust funds. So budget reform would be a good process. Does anyone on the panel disagree that if you have a trust fund, that that

money should go for its intended purposes? Mr. Roderick, you probably have to be given a request to do a review but do you want to

mention it or do you want to say ‘‘no comment’’?

Mr. RODERICK. It would probably be best to say no comment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mayor?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. It would be nice to have money.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you have trust funds in your mayoral capacity

and do you use some of those funds for other purposes?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I do not have trust funds.

Mr. SHIMKUS. If we have a trust fund, it is probably the Conference of Mayors’ position that it ought to go for that intended

purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I would tend to agree with that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. King?

122

Mr. KING. In South Carolina, we do have trust funds and the expectation is that those funds will be used for——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do they? Are they?

Mr. KING. Yes, they are, and those people who have oversight on

those funds look at that and——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Langer?

Mr. LANGER. I think it is fairly clear, taxes are a high issue for

my members and if my members are going to be paying taxes, they

obviously want them to be going to good Government services and

the services they are intended to go for.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. McTigue?

Mr. MCTIGUE. Absolutely, sir.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And there is some accountability there also.

Mr. MCTIGUE. Absolutely. If you set up a trust, you should abide

by the rules of the trust. If you no longer want the trust, you

should repeal it but you shouldn’t leave it there and just not honor

it.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And really use that money to fulfill other obligations that are not accountable for the trust itself.

Mr. MCTIGUE. That is even worse.

Mr. SHIMKUS. We do it all the time here.

Mr. MCTIGUE. You are taking it for the wrong purpose but it is

actually unethical.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would concur. We are so reliant on trust funds

here and using that money for other purposes that it does distort

the whole oversight view and the accountability. Mr. Simms?

Mr. SIMMS. I agree, it is hard to argue with the general principle

that when you allocate funding to a trust fund it ought to go to

what you have allocated it toward. I would add to that, when that

trust fund is being allocated to something that has significant and

intangible health impacts, if it is well-funded, then that is an even

greater reason to make sure that that money is spent the way it

was intended.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Like the nuclear trust fund to make sure we dispose adequately of high-level nuclear waste. I mean, nuclear power

is putting billions of dollars into a fund, right? We are using that

money for doing other things. So the trust fund is a way to address

funding and accountability and, well, it is. I appreciate my friend

letting you come because shouldn’t we be about cost-benefit analysis and making sure that we get the biggest bang for the buck and

make sure that we have some results from the analysis, Mayor?

Wouldn’t you like to see that? And you probably have to see that

in your budgeting.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. But it is real difficult when the Brownfields program, for an example, consistently gets cut and it gets lower and

lower so whether you call it a trust fund or whatever you call it,

the resources are just not there.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. Whether there is a trust fund or whether

the money gets appropriated out of the trust fund, that is the

whole debate that we just had. I mean, if you are going to have

a trust fund, it is ethically imperative to fulfill those obligations of

that trust fund, and if you have a trust fund and you only use a

portion of it, then you have a problem with that. Wouldn’t you

agree?

123

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I wouldn’t disagree.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will take that as an agreement then. My time is

going to go tremendously fast, and it is unfortunate. Maybe we will

get a chance to go again since we are so few members here. But

I also wanted to focus on the 1993 piece of legislation that you

quoted, Mr. McTigue, which I didn’t now about, the Government

Performance and Results Act which you credit as being a good step

forward in causing us—of course, that was in the old era—it is now

the new era here—when the Democrats were in control and they

passed legislation and said we ought to be accountable with the results. Can you talk about that one more time?

Mr. MCTIGUE. The legislation is really very simple and it is a

first internationally in that you have placed in the statute a requirement for government departments to, A, identify what public

benefits flowed from the actions that they took and then to publish

an account for those. I think that that is an excellent step forward.

From there you have now started to use some of that information

to inform the budget decision-making. That is even better. There

is a publication that we prepare each year as a matter of some of

the research that we do that looks at that reporting of all of the

agencies, and from my testimony you will see that EPA sort of falls

in the middle. It is not better or worse than the others but it is

certainly not great. But the quality of information being put in

front of the legislature is dramatically improving as a result of this

piece of law. It was passed in 1993 but didn’t become effective until

fiscal 1999. So you now are into your seventh year of results coming out of that piece of law.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

The Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask two questions of Mayor Bollwage, one about

Brownfields and one about the Energy and Environment Block

Grant Program that has been proposed by the U.S. Conference of

Mayors. I don’t know how familiar you are with Elizabeth. It basically includes most of the port facilities. It is known as the Port

of Newark and Elizabeth but people think of it as the Port of Newark and then it also includes part of the Newark Airport and then

it has a very dynamic downtown area in a traditional city. But in

his time as mayor there, it has seen a major transformation. A city

that a lot of people had left to move to other parts of the State has

grown and he has used some of the Brownfields areas to build new

developments and shopping centers, and if you go to Elizabeth now

at night, you can go there 9, 10 o’clock at night. All the stores are

open. It is dynamic. There is nightlife. It is a major transformation.

So he really can give us a good example of how to turn things

around.

But I want to ask you first, if you could give us, Mayor, an example of how Elizabeth or other neighboring communities have taken

advantage of the Brownfields program to try to redevelop blighted

industrial sites and maybe some examples of how the program

could be improved in terms of either funding or changes to the underlying law.

124

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you, Congressman, for those kind comments. I will take the second part first if I can because I think we

should focus on that and move forward, and one is the increase in

the cleanup grant amounts would be a good way to go, establishing

multipurpose Brownfield grants. These grants could be used up to

$1.5 million. Applicants could be required to demonstrate a plan

first and a capacity for using this multipurpose funding. Most importantly is increase the total Brownfield grant program funding,

overall EPA funding for Brownfields grants beginning with $350

million in fiscal year 2007 and then maybe increasing $50 million

annually to a goal of $600 million to fiscal year 2012 and beyond

so there is a constant attention. Reauthorization of the Brownfield

legislation that you spoke about in your earlier remarks,

Brownfield remediation grant sites, facilitate petroleum and UST

Brownfield cleanups are just some of the issues. We prepared a

document on that, Congressman, and we can forward it to you.

On the first part of your question, we took a 166-acre landfill in

the city of Elizabeth that was closed in 1970 and capped it and

built the Jersey Gardens Mall, which is 2 million square feet of retail. We have four hotels on this site. We now have a state-of-theart 21-screen cinemaplex plus restaurants working with the Port

Authority to, hopefully, have a ferry at that location as well into

lower Manhattan. We have used Brownfield grants and that type

of funding for the completion of our Hope Six grant which we took

550 units of dilapidated public housing, used some turnkey sites

with Brownfield legislation for new housing. We have used some of

it or at least tools of it for new schools in our city. We built nine

of them over the last 3 years, and plus market-rate housing. So

Brownfield tools and all the programs around it are important to

urban communities like myself to develop.

Mr. PALLONE. I mean, it is just amazing how the small amount

of money that comes from the program has been leveraged by them

to do so many different things.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PALLONE. It is just unbelievable, I have to say. I am just

running out of time so I want to get to the second question. The

U.S. Conference of Mayors had this idea you mentioned of Energy

and Environment Block Grant program similar to the existing

CDBG and I went to the mayors’ energy committee and they talked

to me about this more when they had their conference here in DC.

But if you could talk a little more about that and specifically what

types of activities would be funded by it.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Some of the things we could do is, integrate energy management for municipal buildings and municipal fleet of

automobiles. We could stimulate a discussion in growth, especially

green building programs and green building certification for code

enforcement. Replacing traffic lights would be key with the LED

technology that is existing. Emission reductions of the fleet, renewable energy. A new biodiesel plant just opened up in the city of

Elizabeth—the owners came to see me the other day—where they

are going to be bringing in the product and then shipping out the

product. This is a great way to reduce emissions as well. And we

prepared a book, Congressman, that I can forward to you on some

of the best practices throughout the Nation and how these practices

125

can be implemented on even a more broad scale for use in our cities if we had such a type of a grant.

Mr. PALLONE. And if I could just tell my colleagues, again, this

type of thing would be leveraged with State funds too because our

State, for example, New Jersey, has a lot that they are doing now

in terms of grants to towns for renewable resources and trying to

make buildings more energy efficient so it is just like a small

amount of Federal dollars really go a long way. Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. I certainly thank you. Mayor Bollwage, I would also

like to get a copy of that book on best practices, how they can be

a very useful tool.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. I would like to recognize Mr. Terry of Nebraska now.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

I actually have a unique position from amongst my colleagues

and our distinguished panel, that I spent 8 years on the city council and within those 8 years on the Omaha City Council. We did

a Brownfield project with the old Asarko Plant site of which I was

sued, being served in my law office by an organization represented

here today so that makes me unique probably. But also then dealing with a Superfund site for the city of Omaha that literally is 25

percent of the land mass of Omaha, Nebraska’s, city boundaries

that does affect children’s health in particular from lead contamination. So I have been through Brownfields and Superfund and I

have got to tell you that we have been—well, to put it bluntly, the

Superfund process is not an enjoyable process. It is still going on

years later when we were designated as such a site. It is a very

slow process. It is one where the Nebraska delegation comes crawling to the EPA every year begging that we remain a priority so

they don’t abandon the project. In comparison, doing it under the

State DEQ, Department of Environmental Quality, a different

project, the Asarko property, as a Brownfield where we partnered

with the city, then partnered with the State with oversight from

the EPA on an appropriate environmental cleanup, it was done in

less than a year. We have a great city park back to the river. We

now have the Gallup University campus there. We now have our

new Qwest Center on that property, and yet the EPA or the Superfund continues to drag out.

So I would agree with the conclusion of the panel that at least

on Superfund as well as the other funds that there is a funding gap

between the needs and what is appropriated. But it also begs the

question from seeing the process and being involved firsthand, I

question the efficiency of the spending of the dollars and I wonder,

Mr. Roderick, if any part of your investigation has determined the

efficiency of the dollars spent, maybe just cursory percentage of dollars appropriated versus dollars actually used in cleanup.

Mr. RODERICK. No, sir, I don’t believe we have examined that in

the terms you are speaking of but I think we determined in Superfund that more money was going to administrative costs and less

to programmatic or actually cleanup costs. That was one of the conclusions of our most recent reports. But as to dollars associated

with that, I don’t have the numbers.

126

Mr. TERRY. I think it would be interesting to know because the

perception is that we use a great deal of the funds appropriated,

as you said, for administrative overhead, defending lawsuits, as opposed to actually cleaning up so I wonder if appropriating more dollars really gets to cleaning up more properties, and perhaps we

could be looking at ways to streamline or create efficiencies within

the administration where we can more effectively use dollars.

I would like to know this question. Again, the panel seems generally in agreement that there is a gap. How do we make up that

gap then if it is simply appropriating more dollars? You may be exempt from answering that question. I will start with Mr. Bollwage

on down. How do we make up that gap?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Well, one of the things that Congressman

Pallone talked about earlier was doing the polluters’ tax and reinstituting that again. That is one way you can do it.

Mr. TERRY. The polluter tax was a tax where we taxed industry

in general to fund the Superfund?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Yes, because now it is coming out of the general

fund but you could reinstate it. You could recoup much more dollars. And we had a Superfund site in our city at Chemical Control

which has been cleaned up in the 1980’s.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. King?

Mr. KING. Well, quite truthfully, I can’t speak for ECOS.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Langer, do you have an opinion?

Mr. LANGER. Taxes hit our members disproportionately as do environmental regulations so we are loathe to endorse any sort of a

tax on anything, frankly.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. McTigue?

Mr. MCTIGUE. Sir, I served on a government where we moved

dramatically toward user pays and I still support that philosophy,

that as much as you can move toward user pays, that is a good

thing to do. There is a second thing though. I think in the case of

every site you seek to clean, you should look at how big is the problem, how quickly can we complete this whole operation and at what

cost, because if you don’t look at how quickly, then I don’t think

that you are going to give pressure on how could we more innovatively find ways of solving these problems. We are using processes and procedures that many instances I believe are old and archaic and there are probably better processes and procedures that

would be available, and they may well be much cheaper than what

is being used at the moment.

Mr. TERRY. Interesting.

Mr. Simms?

Mr. SIMMS. I would agree with a couple of the points that you

are making. One is that the Agency’s programs including the

Superfund program do deserve and require some evaluation for efficiency in how those programs are managed to make sure that we

really are getting the best quality that we can be getting out of

these programs when they go to a site, that that site is managed

well, it happens quickly and it is done effectively.

As for the funding question, I would certainly endorse what I

think I heard one of the other panelists say, that reinstating the

chemical industry tax, petroleum industry, chemical industry tax

for Superfund is, in my opinion, the one way to resuscitate the

127

monies in order to get this done and it ties those monies back to

the industries that are creating the chemicals. Clearly not all the

industries are contaminating but it is these chemicals that are ending up in the environment at some point and reintegrating those

costs at the front end of that process is a way that makes sense

and has worked clearly in the past.

I wanted to make one other observation. You are not alone here

in the fact of having been sued by someone on the panel. Before

I moved to NRDC, I was an attorney in the Office of General Counsel at EPA. I worked on several rulemakings that I was sued upon

by myself.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Stearns?

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So you were sued by yourself?

Mr. SIMMS. In a manner of speaking.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Mr. McTigue, you are a vice president at

George Mason, the director of Government Accountability Project.

Lots of times on EPA projects, we are always talking about more

money to get absolute success on these projects versus methodology, and I guess my question to you is, how do you find the EPA

measure, their way of measuring absolute success in environmental

protection? Do you have your own method or thoughts on how goals

and measuring of success can best be achieved? Is it by throwing

more money? Is that always the most appropriate way to do it?

Mr. MCTIGUE. No. Throwing more money at a problem, if you

don’t know what the problem is, how big it is and how it is best

rectified is not the right thing to do for a start. You should identify

those things.

Can I say as a compliment to EPA, from when I first became associated with it 9 years ago and looked at their first strategic plan

to where they are today, they have a much clearer view of the

world and what they are trying to do so they have improved dramatically. Where they are in my view still short of good performance is in identifying the scale of the problem, how big is this problem. For example, sir, with regard to Omaha, how much has the

health of people in Omaha deteriorated because of the lead problem? What is the increased fatality level there compared to other

places? What is the diminished wellness of the people of Omaha?

And the knowledge of that would then provide for us some idea of

what prioritization we would give to fixing that problem and how

much we might be prepared to invest in it, and in many instances

in my view, EPA falls short of scooping the problem and giving us

a good idea of what sound science tells us would be the way to fix

this problem permanently.

Can I just finish with this comment? When I was in the Cabinet,

we had a test for all proposals that came up to us, and one of the

questions in that test was, what is the problem, clearly define it,

what will remedy it, what action are you going to take, when will

we be finished and not have to spend money on it. You would be

surprised how many times that last question sunk all of the proposals because nobody was able to say we will be finished in X period of time. If you haven’t got that answer, I don’t think you are

properly addressing the problem. The EPA does not do that well.

128

Mr. STEARNS. If you can’t define when you are going to be finished with a problem, then you can’t define how much money you

are going to spend?

Mr. MCTIGUE. Exactly.

Mr. STEARNS. Do you have another example where the EPA may

have fallen short?

Mr. MCTIGUE. In my view, yes. If I look at the budget justification this year, and I think that it is great that we have got this

information available because it was never available before.

Mr. STEARNS. Because what you are saying is, the EPA oftentimes wants more money and Congress wants to give them more

money but there are cases where they haven’t defined the components you just mentioned and it makes no sense to give them more

money or to talk about an absolute success until all those things

have been defined.

Mr. MCTIGUE. Well, one of the weaknesses in their budget presentation this year in my view is the fact that for many of places

where there are changes, either increases or decreases in spending,

there is not good rationale to say what is the consequence of this

change. There is a presumption in many cases that this amount of

money can be withdrawn and the capability of the organization will

not be affected one way or the other. I think that that is a leap

of faith that we shouldn’t really be prepared to accept.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Langer, you are manager of regulatory affairs

at the NFIB and this question is dealing with voluntary programs.

Mr. LANGER. Sure.

Mr. STEARNS. A lot of people have talked about the merits or lack

thereof. I somehow think there is a lot of merit to them. You sort

of represent the small-business community. I was a member of

NFIB when I had my small business. So you have real-world experiences, and lots of times in a small business you have to comply

with a lot of EPA programs and lots of times you would like to

know if you could do it voluntarily without this huge mandate or

this threat of fines and everything. So how has the voluntary program worked and benefited the environment in your view and is

it a very useful tool?

Mr. LANGER. Well, I think one of the problems you have to look

at is, the scope of the burden that is faced by these businesses in

day-to-day operations. We know that regulations cost small businesses about $7,700 per employee per year for businesses with

fewer than 20 employees, and that is 90 percent of the businesses

that are out there. So if you are an average NFIB member with six

employees, you are talking about a roughly $50,000-a-year regulatory compliance cost, and that is the cost of when you know exactly what you are doing and the amount of time you have to spend

figuring out what needs to be done.

Mr. STEARNS. Fifty thousand dollars would take some of those

businesses and put them in bankruptcy.

Mr. LANGER. It does. It does. The bigger problem is, we are trying to reach this goal of 100 percent compliance and it is a lofty

goal. It is a laudable goal. I mean, we need to have that. We all

want environmental protection. But the problem is that these small

businesses simply don’t know where to go to get the information so

they spend a considerable amount of time having to ferret out what

129

they need to do, whereas if EPA took an active role—and I will give

you an example, OSHA, for instance. OSHA is about as big a bogeyman to small businesses as the EPA is and when it comes down

to it, OSHA has taken an active role. The new director, Ed Folk,

is going out and proselytizing to small businesses about the importance of occupational safety and health in their businesses and he

is getting a greater bang for the buck in doing it. He is investing

them in the process, showing them how they can save money by

being compliant with the regulations that are out there and showing them what they need to do in a non-punitive manner. You can

go out and you get an OSHA consultation, an OSHA inspector will

come out and review your business and show you what you need

to be doing.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. Since we don’t have too many Members

here, I think we will probably have a second round of questioning

and if Members want to stay and do follow-up, they can.

I would like to proceed and I want to ask you, Mr. Roderick, it

is the Inside EPA reprinted e-mail you sent out on February 9, and

it said that you anticipate losing about 30 employees, FTEs. Is that

correct?

Mr. RODERICK. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. WYNN. And it also said that very likely you will have to close

facilities.

Mr. RODERICK. That is a possibility, sir, yes, sir.

Mr. WYNN. Your term was ‘‘very likely,’’ and your characterization was ‘‘unwelcome and disappointing,’’ which is a little bit different from what you said here.

Now, you have staffers who work on this voluntarily Performance

Track program, right?

Mr. RODERICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. WYNN. And in fact, you studied 30 member companies and

found less than two out of 30 had fulfilled their commitments; 93

percent did not fulfill their commitments. Isn’t that true?

Mr. RODERICK. Well, sir, I don’t want to discuss that report until

it is actually completely completed. We want to complete our process.

Mr. WYNN. Alright, fine, if you don’t want to discuss it, but it

was characterized as a gold standard, this Performance Track program was characterized as a gold standard?

And also, this was not done by congressional statute, was it,

these voluntary programs?

Mr. RODERICK. No, sir.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

Mr. Simms, I think at the very end of your testimony you were

trying to mention a couple points about the voluntary programs

and also I think environmental justice. If you would kind of expand

on that, I would appreciate it.

Mr. SIMMS. Well, I wanted to mention environmental justice. Environmental justice is obviously a very important issue, and the

budget request reduces funding to the Office of Environmental Justice by, I believe it is 28 percent. This is a very troubling development, given that it is very clear from the data that is readily available that people in low-income and minority communities are still

130

disproportionately affected by pollution. In addition to that, there

are clear indications in recent IG reports that EPA is already not

living up to its obligations under the Environmental Justice Executive order. That was one of the issues I wanted to make sure that

the panel is aware of. That funding is very important to communities that in many cases are least able to protect themselves.

Mr. WYNN. And did you want to comment on the voluntary program?

Mr. SIMMS. Well, I believe I did comment on the voluntary program, and I can expand on that a little bit. One of the things I

want to make sure that this committee understands is that there

are a number of voluntary programs that are very good and that

have demonstrated very good results. There are a number of voluntary programs for what that is absolutely not the case, and there

are voluntary programs that have a deregulatory component to

them that allow otherwise regulated industries to take a regulatory

off-ramp that reduce the scrutiny of permanent reviews, reduce inspections and to the extent that that happens, to the extent that

these voluntary programs have a central component of the program, an element of deregulation. There has to be a heightened

level of scrutiny and accountability for those programs to absolutely ensure that if that program is going to exist and it is going

to remove otherwise applicable regulatory requirements, that it is

going to achieve the results that it is intended to achieve and I——

Mr. WYNN. Can I just interject here? What is the authority for

a non-statutory program to remove statutorily imposed regulations?

Mr. SIMMS. Well, the voluntary programs do not remove the applicability of the statutory requirements. What they do in many

cases is provide alternative compliance mechanisms the statute

itself does not require a certain schedule for inspections or a certain depth of process for permanent reviews and so the Agency has

the authority within its discretion to implement the statutory requirements to allow for different levels of scrutiny.

Mr. WYNN. Before my time runs out, let me interject, because

you make some very good points. Don’t you think then if they are

going to have these programs to create these, I think you described

them as detours or off-ramps, that they ought to be required to

submit—that the Agency rather ought to be required to submit

them to Congress so that we could review them before they are implemented?

Mr. SIMMS. Absolutely, and I will go back to my three themes

which are accountability, transparency, and accountability—and

those things are absolutely important both EPA holding accountable the participants in these voluntary programs and Congress

holding accountable EPA to make sure that the benefits of those

programs are actually realized.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. My time is up.

Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think one thing that we found in the hearing is there is a consistency by everyone in the panel, real information, real science,

evaluation of the response. Even with you, Mr. Simms, when you

were talking about these voluntary programs, you are saying there

131

are some good programs, there may be some bad ones, but until we

gather up the real information to make value judgments, likewise

on a cleanup site, the same issue on the flip side is, real information, real data, let us see if there is a real return on the money we

are spending. So Mr. Simms, I would encourage you to talk with

Mr. McTigue because I think some of those responses, it is really

the same formula, in other words, looking at it from different arenas but it is the same formula.

Let me go to the mayor for a second. As you know, Federal

Brownfields law does not allow States and municipalities to use

cleanup funds to pay for administrative costs, and I have been surprised by your organization’s argument that this provision was a

technical flaw that Congress did not intend. I noticed in your testimony that you are encouraging statutory changes to this law that

you have previously emphatically considered unamendable. Do you

consider this change, meaning a reduction of cleanup funding

grants in favor of municipal and State bureaucracy costs, one of

those you allude to in your testimony?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Could you go through that again?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, yes. I will put it in common language.

Brownfields funds go to cleanup. Your organization says we have

some administrative costs that we would like to use some of these

Brownfield dollars to go. That is really part of the basis of this

whole debate on how we budget and what kind of return on the investment. Do you agree with that position?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Well, we were one of the first cities to get a $200,000 Brownfields grant in the State. We were able to use that

grant administratively to characterize what our Brownfield sites

were, and going to what Mr. McTigue said, it would be a little difficult to cleanup a Brownfield if we didn’t know what it was and

that would have to be some type of administrative cost to assess

that problem.

Mr. SHIMKUS. But I am talking about the actual Brownfields

fund itself. Those monies go to cleanup. We don’t want those to go

to administrative costs, do we?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Well, if you agree with Mr. McTigue’s assessment, you are going to have to figure out what the problem is and

then know where you are going and that would be administrative

costs, and then after that if there is a fund dedicated for

Brownfield cleanup then that should be used for cleanup.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Going to the Superfund debate, which I have been

involved with for a long time since I have been on this committee

and we did small-business relief years ago back in 1998 through

the committee, there was a NCEP study that said 50 cents on

every dollar was spent on litigation in the Superfund. Now, if 50

cents of every dollar is going to paperwork, bureaucracy and court

claims, do we think there would be a better use of those dollars in

actual cleanup?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I can tell you in the city of Elizabeth, we had

Chemical Control, which blew up in 1980, and Superfund dollars

to the tune of $50 million were used to clean it up. It was not litigated in any way, shape or form. The Superfund dollars were used

to cleanup what is now a cement slab. So from personal experiences, we do not deal with a lot of administrative costs on legal

132

bills regarding a cleanup of a Superfund site, nor do we deal with

it in cleaning up the 166-acre site of the Jersey Gardens Mall,

which was a Brownfield’s site. We planned, we prepared and I

think if you do the things that Mr. McTigue was talking about, you

wouldn’t deal with lawsuits, but there has to be some type of administrative costs up front.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me see if I can get an answer——

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I answered. You just don’t like it.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, do you want identified cleanup funds to go

for cleanup or administration costs?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Do I want identified cleanup costs——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Cleanup funds to go to cleanup or administration

costs? In other words, bulldozers, workers to cleanup the site or

litigation, paperwork——

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Well, if you do the proper planning, the proper

planning would avoid litigation.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, why don’t you just answer the question?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I am.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Should cleanup costs go to clean——

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I am going to answer the question. Cleanup

costs, Congressman, should go for cleaning up the site. When you

do public-private partnerships, sometimes you can get other people

involved in this——

Mr. SHIMKUS. I don’t have a beef with that. My focus is making

sure that if we are going to do cost-benefit analysis, get a real return on our dollars, cleanup dollars should go to cleanup.

Let me just highlight some of Mr. Langer’s testimony in my last

10 seconds, is the Business Gateway program is a good program to

get the small businesses involved and encouraged in doing proper

compliance and an easy method, and I think that would be helpful.

I don’t have time to receive an answer but I wanted to highlight

that as a thing that I thought was important.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Certainly. I noted something that is kind of interest- ing. EPA spent about $23 million on administrative costs in this

budget.

Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Just following up a little bit on Mr. Shimkus’s comments. Mayor,

you mentioned something about partnerships and I think that is

the nice thing about Brownfields as opposed to being put on the

priority list where you really lose a lot of control at the local level.

On a Brownfield, you can see a partnership between the local community and State and I think that is a good way to share those

administrative costs. I think it is fair that if we have a grant program for Brownfields from the Federal Government, that those be

used or we could say those can be used strictly for the cleanup. So

actually my question, since Mr. King has been fairly lonely in this

discussion about the participation of State governments in the

Brownfields process and how they can lend their level of expertise

in the administrative parts, the environmental engineering studies,

for example. Would you care to comment on being a participant

and the advantage of Brownfields?

Mr. KING. I will do that from my position in South Carolina.

133

Mr. TERRY. Absolutely.

Mr. KING. I think Brownfields has been just tremendous. It really has helped in a lot of areas that probably would not have been

redeveloped or certainly would not be as far along as they are

today. We are actively engaged at the State level with helping communities in the Brownfields area and I think it has been a great

partnership.

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that.

Would you say that too as well, Mayor? Have you worked with

your State in the Brownfield cleanup that is now a nice mall?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Yes, but the Nation’s mayors would like to see

the Brownfields funds naturally directly come to the municipalities.

As a former councilman, you would understand that. But we have

very cooperative relationship in the State of New Jersey. We would

have never been able to build the Jersey Gardens Mall because

there was legislation to offset bringing private dollars to offset the

Brownfield dollars.

Mr. TERRY. Well, in all due respect, as one of the people that

voted to put up funds to do the administrative work, we were gladly putting those up to make sure that we didn’t get EPA and a priorities list on us. I think the little dollars that we spent—I

shouldn’t say little. It was probably a million or two.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. That is why you got sued.

Mr. TERRY. I was personally served by the sheriff at my law office. I thought I was being sued for malpractice, which I never was.

But I want to end with that.

Mr. McTigue, I will tell you, your comments here I think have

been the most intriguing of the hearing, and just a little bit of editorial comment. I think probably one of the areas that we can help

the EPA improve on are exactly the criteria that you set out. I

think on their priority projects, they set goals. I think they have

the right intent but sometimes they don’t have it clearly defined

what the objectives are, what the end game is, and we have seen

that just in Omaha where in the lead contamination Superfund

site, for example, they are still doing their research several years

later about the health impacts within the city and I am not sure

they have been able to determine what those are yet. In fact, the

criteria, parts per billion within the soil, has actually changed

throughout the process, which has led to a great deal of consternation within the community that maybe games are being played to

save dollars. It may be. I don’t know. I think it comes from the fact

that perhaps that sound science hasn’t been used at the beginning

of the process to set the levels of contamination that truly affect

the health that can all be agreed upon.

In fact, this is just an editorial, not a comment. My first meeting

with the EPA was on lead in water in small municipalities in Nebraska and we asked if the EPA could be more flexible, that the

city could take out the old piping and put in new piping instead

of having to put in a water treatment facility and they said no, and

then-Senator Kerrey asked the EPA representatives how were you

able to determine the particulate level, that that level affects

health; show me the study. They said we don’t have one but we will

get you one. Now, that established a great deal of credibility in my

mind that they just artificially set a level, then produced 90 days

134

later a study that wow, backed up that level. And so I do agree

with your level on sound science and perhaps maybe we can get to

a point where we work in here not only trying to get more dollars

but make sure that we set out some criteria to help them become

more efficient.

Mr. Chairman, can I just have a few more seconds?

I want to ask Mayor Bollwage, on the revolving fund, this is a

fund that many communities in Nebraska, not my district, but Nebraska use. My understanding of that revolving fund is that it was

to go to cities or allow cities that are smaller in nature, can’t really

go into the market with municipal bonds. You made a comment in

your statement that sounded like your city should not have been

forced to have to go out into the municipal bond market to do your

water treatment facilities. Did I understand your point correctly

there?

Mr. BOLLWAGE. With clarification, Congressman.

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that.

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I rushed through the comments because of the

time but in my written remarks, the SRF loans, we recognize the

importance that they are to the small municipality and we would

like to see it funded with 30-year no-interest loans and other

things. It was easier for a larger municipality like myself to go into

the private financing of the bond market but for smaller municipalities, that revolving loan fund is direly important.

Mr. TERRY. Alright. Because I didn’t want to have the League of

Cities saying that——

Mr. BOLLWAGE. The U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Mr. TERRY. When that wasn’t its——

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Oh, not at all, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the

panelists for coming today. I appreciate your time you spent today

here.

Mr. Simms, as I understand it, the Democrat-authored House

Resolution 20 only adds money to the Superfund account and the

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. Since your testimony is

very critical of the Bush budget proposal on area such as LUST

and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, in light of the constitutional mandate on the two branches of government, don’t you

have anything critical to say to Congress about the lost opportunity

to increase funding for those areas, especially considering the

weight your testimony gives them?

Mr. SIMMS. I am not sure I fully understand. It is a relatively

long question. I am trying to piece it together.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure.

Mr. SIMMS. Let me give you the gist of my testimony. The gist

of my testimony is, there is an absolutely critical need. The EPA

has demonstrated that need through some studies looking at the

upcoming costs for water infrastructure, the number of leaking underground storage tanks and the number of Superfund sites yet to

be cleaned up. My testimony is about making sure that those

issues get addressed. What I have before me is the budget proposal. That is what I am looking at. That is why I am criticizing

135

the budget proposal for its failure to do that. As a foundational

matter, what I am talking about is getting these environmental

issues addressed.

Mr. SULLIVAN. OK. I have got a couple more, if I got the time.

Also, Mr. Simms, you mentioned in your testimony that the EPA

is increasingly reliant on voluntary, as opposed to regulatory, programs and yet you acknowledge that less than 2 percent of the

EPA’s budget supports these activities. What percentage, Mr.

Simms, of the Agency’s budget would you appropriate in your view

to support partnership activities? What do you think is the proper

amount?

Mr. SIMMS. Let me clarify.

Mr. SULLIVAN. If not 2 percent, what do you think is good?

Mr. SIMMS. I understand your question but it is a bit of a misnomer in terms of what my testimony says, and let me just clarify

that for you so it is clear to this committee. I do not have a blanket

criticism, NRDC does not have a blanket criticism of the amount

of money going to partnership programs. There are some very good

partnership programs. The criticism is, if money is going to partnership programs, those partnership programs have to be transparent and accountable and subject to scrutiny both through a

functional process within EPA and an oversight function from Congress. It is not about how much money it is. It is about how those

funds are used and demonstrating that those funds are used in an

appropriate way that actually achieves the benefits that are

being——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Since they are transparent, you would advocate

more partnership programs and more budget money spent on them,

right?

Mr. SIMMS. Well, I think there may be a point at which there is

a tension between the Agency’s ability to institute its core functions

effectively and how many voluntary programs there are and how

effective they are you could have at the same time. I don’t know

what that number is and it is not——

Mr. SULLIVAN. But also if it is more transparent like you are saying, I agree that it should be, wouldn’t you agree that it could be

more than 2 percent should be spent on those programs if they are

more transparent? Wouldn’t you agree?

Mr. SIMMS. I have no categorical objection to 2 percent or some

level above 2 percent, as long the programs are being overseen.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Also, I got one more question, sir. You are asking

for $5 to $10 million per year starting in fiscal year 2008 for EPA

to develop regulations and guidelines appropriate for commercialscale CO2 disposal projects. You say that for the EPA to develop

some regulatory framework will take several years. I understand

that a task force put together by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission is months away from developing guidelines for

the States in this regard. It is almost complete. Before we start

spending Federal dollars on Federal effort at EPA, would it not

make more sense to take a close look at what the Interstate Oil

and Gas Compact Commission task force produces first, and aren’t

the States where this kind of expertise resides?

Mr. SIMMS. I would answer that in two parts. The one is, even

if the EPA starts now with this budget year focusing intensely on

136

what it will take to regulate CO2 sequestration, that feedback between the Interstate Compact and the Agency can happen and can

happen effectively. So I don’t think there is a tension between giving the Agency the money to do that and having a process that is

moving forward providing some information about that sort of a

guidance within another entity. So I don’t think that there is a real

tension between the two and the amount of money we are talking

about going to EPA to do this stuff is quite small and it is absolutely important that this get off the dime really quickly. If it does

not, we will be already behind the eight ball when we get to the

point where we really need to start putting the stuff in the ground.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it.

Mr. SIMMS. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. At this time the Chair would recognize Ms. Solis for

5 minutes.

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, and I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for being

late. I was in another meeting. My question, if I might, I would like

to pose this to Mr. King. The Congressional Research Service recently calculated that the President’s budget request of $842 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is only, in our

estimation, $802 million when adjusted for inflation for 2006 dollars. That is the lowest amount of purchasing power in the history

of the program, and at the same time the infrastructure needs of

the States, which EPA estimates to be at $263 billion in its 2005

report, are huge and apparently growing. Your prepared testimony

with respect to Drinking Water State Revolving Fund identified

eroding effects of inflation on the DWSRF appropriation. I would

like to have a clarification on what you mean with respect to the

effect inflation is having on this critical public health program, and

I know I don’t have enough time so if you could please be very

brief.

Mr. KING. I can do that. The message there is just the fact that

the dollar today does not buy the same amount as the dollar 5

years ago, and the monies that are allocated are at the same level

and that is not different than the other programs that we receive

dollars from EPA. The dollars are the same, and as inflation goes

on throughout the years, that buying power is not there.

Ms. SOLIS. But it does appear as though the level amount that

we are looking at obviously, there is a difference there in terms of

funding. You will admit that?

Mr. KING. Yes.

Ms. SOLIS. OK. Second question for Mr. King. One of the ECOS’s

principles is to first and foremost fund the core programs that have

been enacted by this Congress such as Safe Drinking Water, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, Air Quality Management, Hazardous Waste Management and the State Revolving Fund. Last

year the ECOS identified a number of EPA contracts where contractors were tasked to design and market voluntary programs including telemarketing recruiting activities. At the same time, EPA

cut core Clear Air grants to the States. Can you please explain

your concerns regarding the growing use of contracts for non-core

programs that have been specifically authorized by Congress?

137

Mr. KING. We believe that because of the congressionally mandated programs that we have an obligation to fulfill those requirements, and we just cannot address those requirements when dollars go down in those programs that were identified.

Ms. SOLIS. And are those competing programs then?

Mr. KING. In some cases they are, and as you will see in the testimony, we identified those priorities as a high priority and moderate priority and low priority and some of our moderate priorities

are mandated as well but we had to establish some priorities there.

Ms. SOLIS. But they would take precedent over, say, perhaps

statutory priorities?

Mr. KING. No, there are not statutory priorities that are in that

category.

Ms. SOLIS. This is a question for Mr. Roderick. My time is coming to a close here. Mr. Roderick, I think that the work your office

is doing on the voluntary Performance Track program is indeed important work. The program is not specifically authorized by any

statute and is costing at least $5 million per year using approximately 30 full-time employees. Last year a group at Harvard University reviewed the Performance Track program and made these

findings: ‘‘It is not clear that programs like the Performance Track

are encouraging companies to do more than they would anyhow.’’

That is a quote. We also have been unable to find such evidence

that Performance Track encourages facilities to improve their performance. The evaluation report prepared by your office studied

whether 30 or so member companies fulfilled the commitments

they made to improve environmental performance at their facilities. Your staff found that only two of the 30 member companies

met all of their commitments; 93 percent did not. Have you made

Administrator Johnson aware of these extremely disappointing results for the program that the Agency claims is a gold standard for

voluntary environmental programs?

Mr. RODERICK. Well, we do not want to comment or discuss anything to do with our ongoing work. We want to wait until it is fully

complete before we discuss the process that was used and the results that were——

Ms. SOLIS. Have you spoken to the Administrator about this?

Mr. RODERICK. No.

Ms. SOLIS. You have not, for the record?

Mr. RODERICK. For the record.

Ms. SOLIS. I want to be clear. The Administrator is not aware

that there is a report to this effect that I just——

Mr. RODERICK. Well, that is a different question. I am sure he

is aware that there is a report but we have not had a discussion

about it in any way.

Ms. SOLIS. Is there a statute that specifically authorizes EPA to

establish and implement Performance Track?

Mr. RODERICK. Not to my knowledge.

Ms. SOLIS. There is not. Thank you very much.

Mr. WYNN. I would like to thank all of our panelists for being

so generous with their time——

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that

Members may have an opportunity to submit written questions for

the record?

138

Mr. WYNN. Without objection.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. Again, I thank the panelists for participating. Thank

you for your time and your testimony. This concludes our hearing.

I would note that this subcommittee will meet next week, Thursday, March 8, at 9 a.m. to hear from the Administrator of EPA, Mr.

Johnson. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

(183)

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS JOINT WITH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, COMMITTEE

ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in room

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R. Wynn

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous

Materials) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Stupak, Capps, Allen, Solis,

Baldwin, Butterfield, Barrow, Green, Dingell, Inslee, Markey,

Shimkus, Terry, Sullivan, Murphy, Barton, Walden, Pitts, Pallone,

Hall, Upton, Whitfield, Hastert, Burgess, Deal, and Shadegg.

Staff present: Richard A. Frandsen, Lorie Schmidt, Karen Torrent, Ann Strickland, Chris Treanor, Erin Bzymek, Alec Gerlach,

David McCarthy, Jerry Couri, Tom Hassenboehler, Peter Kielty,

and Kurt Bilas.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. WYNN. Good morning. Today we have a joint hearing on the

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials and the

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality chaired by Mr. Boucher.

This morning we are very pleased to have with us the Administrator of the EPA, Mr. Stephen Johnson. The subject of this hearing will be the Environmental Protection Agency fiscal year 2008

budget request.

For purposes of making opening statements, the chairs and ranking members of each subcommittee and the full committee will

each be recognized for 5 minutes. All other members of the subcommittees will be recognized for 3 minutes. Members may waive

the right to make an opening statement, and then when first recognized for questions may add those 3 minutes to their time for questions. Without objection, all members have 5 legislative days to

submit opening statements for the record.

This is a somewhat momentous occasion. It is the first time in

6 years that the committee is hearing from the EPA Administrator

on the EPA’s budget submission. The EPA’s role as our Nation’s

steward of the environment is critical to America’s health, safety,

184

and economic growth, and we take our constitutional responsibility

at oversight very seriously.

The President’s budget requests have declined significantly during the last 6 years. This year, the EPA is only one of two agencies

to see a reduction in the President’s budget. This request is indicative of the administration’s attitude toward environmental protection. There is growing alarm about the administration’s lack of

commitment to environment and public health protection. We are

deeply concerned about whether the Environmental Protection

Agency can fulfill its mission in terms of its core health programs,

including Brownfields, Superfund, the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Act Loan Fund, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and Environmental Justice.

At our first budget hearing last week, we heard from several

stakeholders, including the Acting Inspector General of EPA, the

Environmental Council of States (ECOS), United States Conference

of Mayors and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The distressing overall message we received from these witnesses was that

EPA’s core environmental programs have been chronically underfunded and that this lack of resources places an undue burden on

the States and localities and puts our constituents’ health at risk.

Mr. Chris Bollwage, the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey, testified on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors. The mayors are facing unfunded mandates such as the Safe Drinking Water

Act, and as a result, are often forced to pass the cost on to their

constituents. Ironically, while we heard testimony on the difficulties States face trying to protect their citizens with less Federal

funding, the Inspector General testified that EPA has been spending money on voluntary programs such as Performance Track,

which yield questionable results.

Unfortunately, the EPA has failed to provide this committee with

complete information on the amount of money and the personnel

dedicated to these voluntary partnership programs. That is unacceptable. The EPA’s lack of response raises serious questions about

the diversion of funds and personnel to some of these programs at

the expense of the core public health programs mandated by Congress.

In terms of these core programs, of particular concern to me is

Superfund. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for Superfund is

$35 million less than the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request, yet the EPA Inspector General testified before this committee last week that limited funding prevented EPA from beginning

construction at all sites. The short-funding appears to have impacted projected completion rates. The EPA initially projected it

would complete 40 sites in fiscal year 2007, but recently backtracked on its initial estimate, indicating it would only have 24

construction completions in fiscal year 2007.

Not only has the administration underfunded EPA, it has also

expressed its opposition to the reinstatement of a dedicated tax for

polluters that would increase revenue for the Superfund. Another

concern is the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

Leaking underground storage tanks are the lead source of groundwater contamination in the United States, posing a significant risk

to the Nation’s drinking water supply. While the LUST fund surVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
185

plus is estimated at $3 billion in fiscal year 2008, the President’s

budget requests just $72 million from this trust fund for cleanup,

less than last year’s appropriation.

Gasoline taxes are paid by consumers, and these taxes are not

going for their specified purpose: the cleanup of spills and underground contamination. Yet, the President is using the taxes designated for this environmental trust fund to offset other administration spending, such as the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the

wealthy. In the meantime, however, there is a backlog of 113,000

LUST cleanups. The longer this contamination is left unaddressed,

the greater the adverse impact on human health, increasing the ultimate cost of cleanups.

The President’s fiscal year 2008 budget requests 26 percent less

than his budget request for fiscal year 2006 for Brownfields. Current law provides an authorization of over $200 million per year,

but the President’s budget request is only 56 percent of the amount

authorized for cleanup and assessment grants. This is troublesome

when you consider that in 2006 there were 694 Brownfield project

grant proposals, but only slightly more than one-third received

funding.

In terms of the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, this

is yet another core program that has faced cuts. The President’s

budget request is the lowest in the history of the State Revolving

Loan Fund in real terms. The Environmental Council of States testified that declining Federal support has caused many States to institute new fees for drinking water infrastructure and service.

Shortfalls in funding for the SRF program leads not only to rate

increases, but also increased risks of outbreaks of water-born diseases.

Overall, States are concerned the EPA funding is insufficient to

meet its mission to protect the environment and public health.

Superfund and Brownfield cleanups are declining. States face increasing pressure to pass costs on to consumers. Drinking water infrastructure continues to deteriorate in the face of declining funds.

The American public continues to face health risks from leaking

underground storage tanks. All a result of chronic underfunding of

EPA’S core health programs. Meanwhile, EPA, under this administration, is spending resources on voluntary programs with low oversight or accountability.

I look forward, as does the committee, to hearing from the EPA

Administrator today about these and other issues affecting the

health of our constituents and our environment.

At this time, I would recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus, for an opening statement.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I go into colloquy

real quick and ask, the Administrator has got a time constraint?

Is that true also?

Mr. WYNN. The Administrator has agreed to be here until 12:00,

which is one of the reasons we began this hearing at 9:00, to accommodate his need to depart.

Mr. SHIMKUS. The only reason I mentioned that is so Members

understand that the longer we talk, the less questions we get,

which may be good, but I am still going to use my 5 minutes. But

just so other people keep that in mind.

186

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate

you on the success of your first hearing and tell you how much I

look forward to today’s follow-up hearing on the EPA budget proposal for fiscal year 2008.

Our hearing last Thursday on this issue was very informative. I

was especially pleased to hear the agreement voiced by our witnesses that the amount of money allocated to a problem does not

signify commitment. Instead, we learned that clear objectives,

transparent actions, and focused resources mean more to improving

public health than the amount of money dolled out to each program. I was especially happy to hear that the EPA has improved

since 1999 in focusing its resources and defining its mission.

Ultimately the EPA’s efforts should not be measured from the

size of their budget, but whether they are protecting human health

and the environment, and whether EPA is getting better and more

efficient at that job with each year.

Last week helped us set the table for our time with the Administrator, and I want to welcome him before our panel. Mr. Johnson,

our Republican members support congressional oversight by this

committee because we believe real accountability and oversight

should not be a partisan issue, and we are looking, as are our colleagues on the other side, for facts, both budgetary and scientific.

As a side note, I want to say how pleased I am that our Administrator is a scientist who understands the need for sound objective

science at the EPA. This was a clear thing that we heard from our

panelists last Thursday.

I also believe that having great scientific data is only so helpful

if we don’t know how clean we want our air, soil, or water to be.

We need to be able to place into context how one environment improvement fits in with another. This, to me, is especially important

because it speaks to the very heart of being able to prioritize our

public health needs, and I would guess the States would agree with

me after hearing how much they are feeling squeezed, trying to

meet their own objectives as well as trying to implement Federal

mandates.

One last item I want to touch on is the use of trust funds. I am

a big proponent of using money raised in a dedicated trust fund for

those activities a trust fund claims to address. I, and our witnesses,

unanimously agree that once raised, these monies should go to

their stated purposes. This includes a negative implication of having them being unused so they can cover deficit spending, a sin

committed repeatedly by White Houses and Congresses of both parties, and I can bet after the budget goes through the process, it will

be a sin committed again by the budget process here and our appropriators. We need to consider ways to make this money work for

the purpose it was raised, or put the charade of having trust funds

in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense to focus our time on comprehensively understanding the budget of the main Federal agencies that our committee oversees. EPA’s budget has ramifications

for Federal, State, and local regulators. It impacts large, medium,

and small businesses, and it translates into how public health proVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
187

tections can and will be carried out. Simply looking at the numbers

does a disservice to the work of the Agency and its partners. We

must admit that Congress is the constitutional home of Federal

spending, not the executive branch, and that pay-go rules forced

priority spending because they prohibit free spending without offsets. In this context, we need to be responsible and construct solutions that solve environmental problems rather than feed political

fires.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican members of this subcommittee

and I pledge to be honest brokers on the issues that lie ahead.

Again, I want to welcome Administrator Johnson, and with a

minute and 32 seconds remaining, yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. I want to thank you for that. Can I claim it?

Mr. SHIMKUS. You probably will anyway.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would like to recognize Mr. Dingell, who I believe is coming in

at this moment, the chairman of the full committee. We are very

honored to have him here, and without further comment, I would

recognize the distinguished gentleman from Michigan.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. Good morning, and good morning to my colleagues

on the committee. I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman Wynn,

and you, Mr. Chairman Boucher, for holding this hearing on EPA’s

budget request for fiscal year 2008. This is the first time during

this administration that the EPA Administrator has come before

this committee to justify the agency’s funding requests for environmental protection. I am sure we all welcome Administrator Johnson here for this new experience.

EPA plays a vital role in protecting the health of our public and

the Nation by ensuring that the water we drink is safe, the air that

we breathe is clean, the waste being generated is managed properly, and the legacy of toxic waste sites is cleaned up expeditiously.

After reviewing the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget, I can only

conclude that it fails to meet the administration’s professed goal of

accelerating the pace of environmental protection, and in many

areas, the budget falls woefully short of the needs previously identified by EPA. We look forward to Administrator Johnson telling us

why EPA was one of only two agencies, the other being the Department of Labor, that actually faced decreases in the President’s

budget. Clearly, the President has not made environmental protection a priority.

To cleanup leaking underground storage tanks that are polluting

the drinking water supplies of the Nation, the President’s budget

requests $72.5 million. In contrast, the trust fund to address these

matters will receive over $300 million in annual revenues, and the

trust fund surplus dedicated to these cleanups is projected to be

over $3 billion in fiscal year 2008. American consumers then are

being taxed, but the money is not being used for the specific purposes for which it is collected, or which the Congress intended it

should be spent.

188

The Government Accountability Office has recently identified a $12 billion public funding need, and EPA has acknowledged over

113,000 releases from leaky underground storage tanks that have

not been addressed. We want to hear why that is so.

For Brownfields grants to help communities with site assessments and clean-ups, the President continues his request from last

year of $89 million, even though the Conference of Mayors has testified last week that only one in three applications has been funded

over the past several years. The administration describes the

Brownfields program as a vital jobs creation and economic program. If that is so, why did the President then cut the Brownfields

grant budget request by $31 million or 26 percent from fiscal year

2006 when not only is it a job creation program, but it is an urgent

environmental necessity.

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund helps public water

systems finance the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to

achieve or maintain compliance and protect the public health.

EPA’s last drinking water infrastructure needs survey and assessment identified the total State need as $263.3 billion. The President’s budget request of $842 million is the lowest in the history

of the program, when it is adjusted for inflation.

In Superfund, the budget requests have been going down consistently over the past 5 years. There are numerous toxic waste sites

on the National Priority List where cleanup has been delayed for

lack of funds. Large funding shortfalls have been identified by the

EPA Inspector General and acknowledged by senior EPA officials.

Rather than expediting the rate at which Superfund sites are

cleaned up, EPA has failed to meet the agency’s own 2007 projections and has just recently announced that a reduction of 40 percent in construction completions. Only 24 Superfund sites will complete construction activities this year.

Now, the States carry out, enforce, and implement most of our

major environmental statutes. Last week, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials was told by senior State environmental officials that if Congress accepts the 2008 proposal for

STAG, that is, the State Territorial and Assistant Grants, it will

mean that the States will have lost more than $1 billion in Federal

support since 2004. This isn’t normal. This is an enormous list of

forgone opportunities to cleanup and better the environment.

The subcommittee should also examine the extent to which EPA

has been shifting money away from the States to pay for pet

projects or programs not specifically authorized by this committee

or by the Congress. We will look forward to comments on this matter from the Administrator.

The President’s budget would cut State and local air quality

management grants by $35 million, or 15 percent, from fiscal year

2006 levels. These grants provide the money needed to pay State

and local employees’ salaries, and other expenses to develop and

run State core and other local air programs. These programs,

which are required by Federal law, reduce the pollution which

causes asthma attacks, premature death, and other respiratory and

cardiopulmonary problems.

Serious cuts have also been proposed for EPA’s Office of Inspector General, which the Acting Inspector General has characterized

189

as unwelcome and disappointing. I would declare this to be a much

more serious matter, and one on which the committee will want to

have some rather strong answers, either here or at some later time.

Office of Inspector General employees have been told that the

President’s budget will likely result in closed offices and a reduction in force for personnel.

Mr. Chairman, these are important hearings. I commend you for

having them, and I observe that they are important in fulfilling the

oversight responsibilities of the committee. I look forward to Administrator Johnson’s testimony, and I thank you for recognizing

me.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Pitts.

Mr. PITTS. I will waive.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair would recognize Ms. Baldwin.

Ms. BALDWIN. I, too, will waive.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Walden.

Mr. WALDEN. I will waive, too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Mrs. Capps.

Mrs. CAPPS. I will waive.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. I waive.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Green.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent to have my statement placed in the record, and I did

make an opening statement the other day, but I am glad the EPA

Administrator is here and I just want to mention two things.

One, I have an interest in the Superfund sites. I have a very

urban district in Houston with petrochemical plants. That is our

job base and our tax base, and I have been proud, since I was a

State legislator, that we cleaned up what we thought was our last

Superfund site. But just recently we noticed one that is actually on

the border of our district in East Harris County with Congressman

Poe, and so I am going to become very interested in how we get

that site on, because it is actually a submerged site that is leaking

dioxin into the Houston Ship Channel and into Galveston Bay and

ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico.

But I know there is a concern, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also

mention that I know this is a joint hearing, so I can talk about air

quality, because our issues are only water quality, but I have also

requested a site hearing in Houston because some of the issues

that we are dealing with with air quality, air toxins in our area.

So I would hopefully look forward that we acknowledge some of the

few water problems. We also have a few air problems I would like

to have address, so I yield back my time.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Also without objection, his full statement will be entered into the record.

At this time, Chair would recognize Mr. Murphy.

190

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the rest

of my statement for the record, too, but just very briefly I would

like to thank Administrator Johnson for being here today.

One of the things that the EPA has done over the years is certainly pressure many cities and towns to cleanup their act, and

many industries to cleanup their act, and has done so with success,

particularly when there has been cooperative efforts. I mentioned

in a previous hearing here how Pittsburgh used to be such a polluted city that men would come to work with two shirts so they

could change at noon because it was pretty gray and dingy by

lunchtime. But we have in our region now beautiful views, rivers

full of fish, and still, we have a sizable coal industry that yields

50,000 related jobs in the Pittsburgh region. We no longer have the

strength of steel industry that we once had, but many other industries have replaced it, and what is important as we move forward

in anything is to make sure we have maintained the high interest

for public health that the EPA has, and our environment is part

of that, but also recognizing we need to also keep jobs in our country and remain competitive in our marketplace. We have lost so

many jobs in this Nation from manufacturing sector. Many have

gone overseas. It is not just a matter of how we handle things in

this Nation, but very much the competitive nature we see of what

happens in other nations with little or no environmental concerns

and our high ones, such that they can manufacture products without any of those costs that we see as so important to public health.

As you continue your position as the Administrator of the EPA,

I hope you will continue to keep this in mind: that we have to keep

jobs in this Nation, we have to keep public health as high priority

as working together and building the cooperation of our industries

in this Nation, as well as the EPA’s work in making sure we balance all these things together. I hope that as you spend your budget, that is part of what you do wisely, to multiply those dollars as

we work together cooperatively with industry in this Nation to

keep our manufacturing sector up in a competitive world.

And with that, I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

United States Steel Corporation’s Clairton Plant, located in Allegheny County in

Pennsylvania, is the largest coke producer in North America producing approximately 4 million tons of coke a year. As evidence of U.S. Steel’s corporate commitment to environmental compliance, Clairton has become the first heavy industrial

facility in the United States to be certified to ISO 14001 standard for environmental

management systems.

Integrated steel facilities, coke plants in particular, are one of the most heavily

regulated industries in the United States. Clairton is subject to not only Federal

and State regulations but also the more stringent Allegheny County regulations.

Clairton is subject to the Federal standards for coke oven topside emissions and for

by-product emissions and has been in compliance with these requirements since the

rules were promulgated in the early 1990’s. Recently, in 2006, Clairton became subject to the Federal standards for coke oven emissions from pushing, stacks and

quenching and is also in compliance with these new requirements. Allegheny County also regulates emissions from coke batteries and their standards are considerably

191

more stringent than Federal or State. Clairton maintains a very high percentage

compliance with these standards. In addition, Clairton continues to proactively develop and implement programs to address environmental challenges. U.S. Steel’s

Clairton Plant has been and continues to be a leader in environmental performance

and stewardship.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my statement and use

the time for questions.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

Chair will recognize Ms. Solis.

Ms. SOLIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will waive and also hold my

time.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Barrow.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Administrator, you may not remember when we met a few

years ago. Thank you for being with us today. I will make my comments very brief.

As we are looking at your budget, we are kind of looking at the

business plan for your agency over the course of the next year, and

I just want to encourage you all to look into the area of efficiency

standards for heavy duty class A trucks. Emission standards without any regard to efficiency can cost us in the long run. What we

gain in air quality by tightening up on emission standards, we can

lose if we have trucks running consuming a lot more fuel to cover

the same distances. So what I want to do is encourage you all as

you build your business plan for this year and for the next, that

you look into that area because I think that is an area that I am

getting a lot feedback from folks in my district that focusing on the

one without focusing on the other, we are losing at one end what

we are gaining on the other. If you could think about something

without thinking about the thing to which it relates, you have the

quality of being a good lawyer. What I want us to do is I want us

to be thinking about the things to which these things relate so we

are not thinking of this in a lawyerly fashion, but looking at this

from a common sense point of view.

That is all I wanted to share with you. It is good to be with you

again, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.

Butterfield.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First,

let me thank the witness for coming forward today and participating in this hearing. It is long overdue, to say the least. I also want

to thank Chairman Boucher for coming together with Mr. Wynn to

have this joint hearing. We need to do more of this. It should

produce good results.

192

I have only been in the Congress now for 3 years, but my staff

tells me that we have not had congressional oversight over EPA appropriations for at least the last 6 years. I hope my staff is incorrect about that, but if it is correct, we need to make sure that that

problem is corrected.

After reading through the Administrator’s testimony, I am somewhat alarmed, Mr. Chairman, by his assessment of our current situation. His opinion seems to be in line with the tenancies that we

have come to expect from the administration. Our environment is

doing better now than it was a generation ago, but not as good as

it could or should be doing.

When the EPA’s new Clean Air and Mercury rule was released,

I applauded that step as a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, in my State of North Carolina, it took a lawsuit from our

attorney general and strong rhetoric from the governor and the delegation just to get the EPA to enforce existing clean air standards

on the TVA, who for years has contributed to non-attainment in

many North Carolina counties. The statement that I have before

me says that ‘‘the President’s request continues the administration’s commitments to safe drinking water.’’ Unfortunately, the request is a $14.8 million decrease from last year’s request, and the

lowest it has ever been when you account for inflation.

The President’s proposal on land preservation and restoration is equally troubling. This year’s proposal includes $15 million less

than last year’s, even while EPA budget documents say that it will

not complete 40 percent of the projects that you expect to complete

last year. There are a number of sites where you acknowledge that

remedial projects are stalled, but you won’t say how many. I hope

you will mention that today. You point out in your written statement that around 1,000 national priority list sites have been completed. My concern is with nearly 700 sites where that is not the

case.

Are we seeing a pattern here? I hope not, but it appears to be.

What I am hoping to hear today is less about how great things are

going, and more about what we can do together to make sure that

the EPA is properly funded and given adequate guidance to make

sure that it can carry out its mission of serving the environmental

interests of the American people.

Again, I want to thank the Administrator for coming today, and

thank the chairman for his leadership in this area. I yield back my

time.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

At this time, the Chair would recognize the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing this morning. It is good to see our two witnesses here.

I think it is important that we focus on their budget for the upcoming fiscal year. I think it is also important that we look at the

results that the agency has achieved in its 30-year history to measure the environmental progress of the United States, in light of the

efforts and money that has been spent on achieving them. Last

193

week’s witnesses raised some important issues about priority setting within the agency. Recognizing current budgetary limits, few

themes arose from those witnesses that I hope we can look into a

little bit deeper today.

First, what public benefit has arisen from the expenditures that

have been made in the past? Many of the witnesses last week said

that increases in spending do not always directly correlate to increases in environmental protection.

Number 2, I think it is very important that decision making

should be grounded in the evidence and in science where the

science exists, and trust funds should be used for their intended

purposes. Finally, whenever it is appropriate, we should use costbenefit analysis to determine how well the money has been spent

and where to spend additional funds.

I understand that overseeing the EPA is something like herding

a herd of cats, or at least attempting to. The problem is that EPA’s

job is monumental, and we expect on some days literally an environmental miracle from our many, many dedicated people that

work at the EPA. It is not a perfect agency. We should help the

EPA to make sure that it can be as perfect or as competent as possible. It is entering its fourth decade of existence. Its infrastructure

and its organization is predicated on a collection of well-meaning

but disparate laws. We need to ensure that the EPA’s efforts are

focused, reasoned, cost-effective, and successful in achieving the

program goals that it is responsible for.

For this reason, I think that the most important issue for our

hearing today is whether, as EPA’s mission statement proclaims,

‘‘public health is being protected and a cleaner, healthier environment is being produced for the American people.’’ The proof is in

the pudding. Clean and safe water, increased land preservation

and restoration, improved research, better compliance, and increased corporate stewardship are all areas that we should have

measurable results, based on what EPA has actually done.

Speaking of air quality, I think this is an area where the EPA

has done very well. By any objective measurement, the Clean Air

Act has been a success. We have reduced emissions of most of the

pollutants that the Act targets, often quite substantially. These

emission reductions allow Americans to live healthier and longer

lives, and preventing tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of

thousands of illnesses every year. This is a major achievement. The

agency can be proud of it. Members on both sides of the aisle of

this committee can also be proud of it. It is important that as we

move forward, the EPA continue to improve its air quality, while

at the same time, ensuring that we improve the quality of life for

all Americans.

While I have got a little time, I want to comment on something

that is happening on the floor today that is relevant to the EPA.

Apparently, we are going to create a Select Committee on Energy

Independence and Global Warming. To quote my good friend Mr.

Dingell of Michigan, that’s like setting up another committee to

study feathers on a fish. I don’t believe it is going to serve any intended purpose, other than serving as a platform for some Members to grandstand and play to the politically correct constituencies

that are so—I can’t say the right word without being profane—are

194

so insistent that we destroy our economy in the name of political

correctness. By its own admission, this select committee is going to

have no legislative jurisdiction. It is only going to exist for 2 years.

It can’t report bills. It goes out of existence December 31, 2008. In

my opinion, it is a huge mistake. It is going to do nothing but

muddy the waters, waste a lot of resources, and valuable time of

the members that are selected to serve on it. I still hope that

maybe we will come to our senses and vote that particular select

committee down.

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing, and

I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement.

At this time, I would recognize the gentleman from Maine, Mr.

Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening and ask that

it be submitted for the record.

Mr. WYNN. Without objection, so ordered.

I believe that concludes our opening statements. Any other statements for the record may be included at this time.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Hastert and Mr. Burgess follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Thank you, Chairman Wynn.

I’d like to begin by thanking you, Chairman Boucher and Chairman Dingell for

calling this hearing. I look forward to hearing from Administrator Johnson and

working with all three of you to conduct appropriate oversight of the Environmental

Protection Agency to ensure that it continues to protect the environment in a manner that looks after the health and well-being of all Americans.

While the focus of this hearing is split between the jurisdictions of our two respective subcommittees, I will confine my remarks to my subcommittee’s jurisdiction and

discuss air quality. Specifically, I wish to highlight the dramatic improvements in

air quality seen over the last 37 years and the manner in which EPA has encouraged that improvement.

To paraphrase a noted economist—things are always getting better, but some will

always insist they are getting worse. The facts speak for themselves, things are getting better. Since the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, emissions of the six criteria pollutants addressed by the Act have been cut in half. Specifically, emissions

of lead decreased 98 percent, volatile organic compounds 54 percent, carbon monoxide 52 percent, sulfur dioxide 49 percent, and nitrogen oxides 24 percent. All this

was achieved even as the economy has grown by more than 187 percent, the number

of vehicle miles traveled in the United States increased by 171 percent, and U.S.

energy consumption grew by 47 percent. This is a record of success upon which we

can all share credit and be proud and constitutes the proper measure of EPA’s success. One cannot accurately measure the success of the Clean Air Act by merely

looking at the dollars appropriated.

I’m also pleased that EPA’s success in the air program goes beyond command and

control regulation. We have made significant progress toward cleaner air using voluntary programs developed in concert with stakeholders and State and local government. A prime example is Energy Star, a Government-backed program that improves the environment through promoting and recognizing greater energy efficiency. Through partnerships with hundreds of organizations, Energy Star has

eliminated millions of tons of emissions and saved consumers money at the same

time.

As we proceed, I would encourage my colleagues to use their time in this hearing

to learn about EPA’s successes and let the Agency know that it should continue to

pursue cleaner air in a manner that best benefits all Americans. Specifically, EPA

should continue to combine appropriate regulation with voluntary partnerships developed after input from interested parties.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing from Administrator Johnson and to the

exchange of ideas at today’s hearing. I also welcome additional opportunities to

195

work with Chairmen Wynn, Boucher, and Chairman Dingell, and Ranking Members

Shimkus and Barton to ensure that EPA continues to do its job in an appropriate

manner.

Thank you Mr. Chairman

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today.

One of my most important responsibilities as a Member of Congress is to ensure

that my constituents’ tax dollars are being spent wisely. It is for that reason that

I look forward to the ongoing debate about our national funding priorities.

Administrator Johnson, thank you for appearing before us this morning. As we

begin the fiscal year 2008 appropriations cycle, it will be helpful to hear from you

about the President’s budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.

My district is located in North Texas, and one of my region’s most important and

challenging issues over the next decade will be how best to cleanup our air, so I

am especially interested to hear your testimony on the EPA’s air programs.

Administrator Johnson, thank you again for appearing before us this morning. I

yield back.

Mr. WYNN. Again, I would like to welcome Administrator Johnson. We are delighted to have you here. As you can see, we have

lots of questions. We will allow you a 5-minute opening statement,

and your prepared testimony will be submitted and included in the

full record of this hearing.

At this time, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Administrator Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Dingell and

Chairman Boucher and Chairman Wynn, members of the committee. I am very pleased to be here to discuss the President’s fiscal

year 2008 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

The President’ $7.2 billion request builds upon EPA’s record of

accomplishments and funds its role as our Nation enters the next

phase of environmental progress. Over our 36 years, EPA has laid

a strong foundation to shift America to a green culture. Our citizens are embracing the fact that environmental responsibility is everyone’s responsibility. So today, instead of only having 17,000

EPA employees working to protect the environment, we now have

300 million Americans as environmental partners.

These are exciting times. Our air, water, and land are cleaner

today than a generation ago, and with this budget, our progress

will continue.

The evolution of environmental progress has come about in part

because we have proven that a healthy environment and a healthy

economy can, in fact, go hand in hand. But as the economy continues to grow, so do our energy needs. In order to meet the President’s ambitious clean energy and air goals, EPA’s budget requests

over $82 million to support our Energy Policy Act responsibilities.

This includes $8.4 million to implement the renewable fuel standards and $35 million for grants to cut diesel emissions from trucks

and school buses.

196

EPA also plays a vital role in advancing the administration’s aggressive, yet practical, strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has requested $117.9 million for EPA’s climate

change programs, including $44 million for the successful Energy

Star program, $5 million for the Asia Pacific Partnership Initiative,

and $4.4 million for Methane to Markets Program.

The evolution of environmental progress requires EPA to work

effectively with our State and local partners. The President’s budget builds on this cooperation by providing $2.7 billion to help our

partners improve their water quality. We are also promoting the

use of innovative tax exempt private activity bonds for capital investments and drinking water and waste water projects.

Additionally, collaboration is the key to protecting America’s

great water bodies. In order to strengthen the efforts of EPA and

our partners, the President is requesting $28.8 million for the

Chesapeake Bay, $56.8 million for the Great Lakes, $4.5 million for

the Gulf of Mexico, and $1 million for Puget Sound.

At EPA, we are working productively with our partners to deliver

a healthier, more prosperous future. The President’s budget provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund program to continue transforming hazardous waste sites back into community assets.

After highlighting some of our cooperative initiatives, we also

must recognize the necessity of vigorously enforcing our Nation’s

environmental laws. The proposed fiscal year 2008 enforcement

budget, $549.5 million is the highest enforcement budget ever.

As EPA helps shape America’s green culture, we understand the

need to advance environmental science. The President’s commitment to sound science is reflected in his $134 million request, an

increase of $9.4 million, to fund human health risk, clean air, and

nanotechnology research.

Finally, I must also mention EPA’s evolving role from being

guardians of the environment to also guardians of our homeland.

The President has requested $152 million for homeland security responsibilities in water security and decontamination.

While the Nation’s environmental progress continues to evolve,

so too does EPA’s role. This budget will fulfill EPA’s responsibilities

of being good stewards of our environment, and good stewards of

our Nation’s tax dollars. By making smart uses of our resources,

we are not only building on our Nation’s environmental accomplishments, we are creating a lasting legacy for future generations of

Americans.

Thank you, and I look forward to addressing your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much for your statement, and also

for the very positive attitude you have had about EPA.

However, I do have some concerns. I looked at your Web site and

it says ‘‘President Bush has charged EPA with accelerating the

pace of environmental protection while maintaining our Nation’s

economic competitiveness, and I am committed to this challenge.’’

That was your quote, but if you look at 5 years of decreasing budget request for Superfund, $31 million less for Brownfields, and basically the lowest funding in history for the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund, and being only one of two agencies with a budget

decrease, I have to ask you to explain to the committee how we are

going to do this acceleration that you referred to.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our fiscal year 2008 budget the President has proposed continues to deliver results while meeting a balanced budget.

As part of our budget, we are leveraging tax dollars for the environment. Examples of that is our Brownfields program. Leveraging

our Energy Star program, helping us deal with both energy security as well as greenhouse gas emissions. We have numerous examples of where our limited tax dollars are being used wisely to leverage other dollars.

Mr. WYNN. Well, despite this leveraging, on the subject of

Brownfields, you are doing only about one-third, maybe a little bit

more than one-third—you are responding to slightly more than

one-third of the actual requests, and this is according to the National Conference of Mayors. So how do you characterize that as an

acceleration of the Brownfields program?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, sir, our goal for Brownfields program is to

turn those community eyesores into community assets, and the

President’s budget, which is $138.6 million of State and tribal assistance grants, does that. What does that mean? We, in 2008, are

focusing on delivering results. In 2008, that means we project we

will assess 1,000 properties. We expect that to leverage 5,000 new

jobs, and also result in leverage funds of $900 million.

Mr. WYNN. Can I just interject and ask a question?

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure.

Mr. WYNN. How many more Brownfields applications will you be

able to do in 2008, because that is what the mayors are asking?

Mr. JOHNSON. Generally speaking, we get quite a few applications. For those that work through the screening process, I would

say generally twice the number of applications for the funds available.

Mr. WYNN. But how many more in 2008 than in 2007, because

that is basically my definition of acceleration.

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, my focus is given the funding that is available for Brownfields, we are focusing on the—and I gave you the

statistics. I think it is important to point out that over the past

number of years since Brownfields, in fact, the level of funding has

remained relatively constant, even though, in fact, in years past

the President has asked for more money for Brownfields, Congress

has chosen not to give us additional funds. And in fact, for the

2008 budget, I should say, this budget request is in alignment with

what Congress has been doing.

213

Mr. WYNN. Let me move on to Superfund briefly. You projected

40 completions and you now have adjusted that projection to substantially fewer. How do you account for that and how do you characterize that again as an acceleration in environmental protection?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well again, our focus on Superfund is turning

those problem properties back into community assets, and for construction completions, it is important to note that these are longterm construction projects taking 10 to 15 years.

Mr. WYNN. I understand that. You projected 40 at the beginning

of the year. You are now readjusting that to say well, now we’ll

only do 24, and my question is, No. 1, why less, and 2, could you

have not anticipated whatever problem it is you are going tell me

caused you to adjust downward?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what we have found is the sites of today are

significantly more complex than they were yesterday, and as we

were projecting 40, we were assuming that the number of remedies

per site and the pace of construction was going to be far greater

than what it——

Mr. WYNN. Are you suggesting they are more complex than Love

Canal, which was one of the major cleanup efforts, and I guess the

other follow-up question is why didn’t you anticipate that they

would be more difficult when you told Congress you would do 40?

Mr. JOHNSON. You mentioned Love Canal. That is a great example. Congressman Terry from Nebraska is dealing with a Superfund site called Omaha Lead, and the Love Canal site was about

70 acres. The site in Mr. Terry’s home State is nearly 9,000 acres,

and so in terms of size, complexity, the measurements that we

have—and Mr. Chairman, if you would, I would love to present this

for the record. I apologize that I don’t have any bigger chart, but

what it shows is that from 1993 to 2000, the number of remedies

per site, which a measure of complexity, was 1.7. From 2001 to

2006, the remedies per site was 2.5. For those sites that are currently under construction, that is, constructions are not complete,

the remedies per site are 4.3 remedies per site. So we are seeing

very complex sites. The resources remain the same, the sites are

more complex.

Mr. WYNN. My time is up. I would only comment that I cannot

believe that you could not have anticipated, and did not, in fact,

anticipate the higher level of complexity when you projected the 40

completions. I don’t understand what happened in mid-year that

caused you to conclude, oh my goodness, these are more complex

than we thought.

That concludes my questions. I turn the questioning over to my

colleague, Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will just start by

saying I know that Superfund remediation is a 10 to 15-year program that goes back many years. I dealt with one up in Quincy,

IL, an issue.

But let me start with my questions. Some of my colleagues are

criticizing the Bush administration because during the 8 years of

the Clinton administration, the average number of Superfund sites

completing remedy construction was 76, but in the past 6 years,

that average number of sites has declined to 41.5, and you are projecting only 24 construction completions in fiscal year 2007. This is

214

kind of in addition to what we were just talking about. What

caused the increase in construction completions during the 1990’s

and the drop off in 2001?

Mr. JOHNSON. In fact, in the first 12 years there were 1,251 sites

that were identified, and it was acknowledged that these were

long-term construction projects of 10 to 15 years. In fact, it wasn’t

until 1993 that the agency put in place a new measure because

there was no interim measure of success, and so a new measure

was put in place in 1993 called construction completion, which

means when all immediate threats have been eliminated and no

further on-site physical construction is needed. It doesn’t mean that

it is safe for complete reuse. As the agency began its effort—I

shared with you statistics from 1993 to 2000, and 2001 to 2006,

and what we are dealing with today. These are considerably more

complex sites.

Mr. SHIMKUS. With regard to how we know or don’t know, what

we find is we get into the sites and we find that we discover the

site conditions change. We discover at a new site new contaminants, the extent of the contamination is sometimes found to be

greater, so in spite of our best efforts of planning and forecasting,

these are unknown sites and it is not until we physically get in

there looking at the groundwater or looking at the dirt until we

fully understand the extent and the complexity. Our construction

completion adjustment reflects the complexity and what we have

learned as we have begun to cleanup these sites.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I know you showed this chart earlier, and I

don’t know if my colleagues have that, and I would want to make

sure that we share this with the minority. You talked about the remediation issue, because he raised it up. I think that remediation

issue is key. Earlier sites were less difficult than sites that were

held over, and that is part of the reason why it is more challenging.

Second question is my colleagues think simply increasing revenues into the Superfund is the answer to speeding up cleanups. In

fact, many strongly support reinstating the Superfund taxes. Tell

me, would this help EPA cleanup Superfund sites?

Mr. JOHNSON. In our judgment, no. The Superfund tax expired

December 1995. It was never a tax on pollution, it was a tax on

the sale of chemicals and petroleum, and the amount of funds appropriated by Congress never matched the amount of funds coming

in for the tax. Again, I apologize, but I do have another chart that

shows the tax revenue coming in, and it shows the appropriation

level, and as you can see from the chart, the appropriation level

has remained relatively constant since 1992.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that be distributed. I think you all would probably want to see that, too.

Mr. WYNN. Without objection, we will include that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. I stepped on your punch line on that chart.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as you can see the congressional appropriations that remained relatively constant while tax revenue has gone

way up in the early days, then gone down.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you.

Let me just, for my final 20 seconds, let me just go to your bio.

You have been in EPA for over 20 years. You are a career service

215

employee. You have a bachelor’s in biology, and an M.S. in pathology. I want to recognize the fact that you are not a political appointee—you are, but you have come through the ranks in EPA

service and we appreciate the work that you.

I yield back.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

At this time, the Chair would recognize the distinguished chairman of the full committee for questions, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. Mr.

Johnson, welcome to the committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Johnson, we note that you are late in issuing

the fine particulate implementation rules that provide State guidance on air quality plans that they must submit in April 2008. We

have been in some correspondence on this matter. On January 19,

I wrote you requesting that you produce the following documents.

The letter said this. ‘‘All documents relating to this rulemaking

that contain or reflect discussions with, or comments from OMB, or

other parts of the executive branch as a part of formal or informal

review of the proposed final rule.’’ Have you received that letter?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. I believe you have responded to it, and on February 9, you said that you did not meet the deadline that I had

sent, but you would keep working on the response.

On March 1, Mr. Stupak and I requested you deliver these documents by March 7, yesterday. Were they delivered?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have committed to have a full response to you

by, I believe the date is April 2.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, let me try and understand, and let me know

whether you understand what we had requested. We simply requested through the committee the delivery of certain documents,

is that right?

Mr. JOHNSON. You asked for certain documents, that is correct,

sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Yes. Now, is there a reason why you cannot deliver

those documents to the committee?

Mr. JOHNSON. As is always the case, and certainly my 26-year

history with EPA, documents that are deemed deliberative need to

be reviewed before being released.

Mr. DINGELL. No, no, no, Mr. Administrator. Deliberative documents are within the purview of the responsibility of this committee.

Do you assert any privilege on the refusal to deliver these documents, and if so, what privilege do you assert?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, the volume of documents that you

requested has not allowed us to complete our search and review

process by this time, and that is why the vast——

Mr. DINGELL. So you are telling us then, Mr. Administrator, that

the reason that you have not been able to deliver these is that you

have not completed your search. Is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Alright. Now, have you found any of the documents

that we are referring to?

216

Mr. JOHNSON. Because I am not conducting the actual document

search myself, I would have to talk to one of our staff.

Mr. DINGELL. Well, the question here is very simple.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, we have found

some, yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Alright. What is there that precludes you from

making a partial delivery of the documents? Is there any reason

why you cannot deliver some and then make available the balance

of them?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to provide a partial response.

Mr. DINGELL. Then I will expect by the conclusion of business

today that those documents will be delivered in response to the request through the committee, those which you have. And I expect

that you will pursue with great vigor the balance of the documents

which you are still trying to find. Can you deliver those documents

which you’ve already identified as being in compliance with the request of the committee?

Mr. JOHNSON. My staff is advising me that in order to physically

get the documents to make sure that they are all together, I would

respectfully ask for tomorrow.

Mr. DINGELL. Alright, tomorrow will be a fine day.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. We look forward to them by the conclusion of business.

Now, is there any claim of privilege of any kind which would

foreclose you from delivery, any of these documents, including

those not currently identified, as being in compliance with the request of the committee?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not aware of any at this time.

Mr. DINGELL. Very good.

Have you been instructed by any person that you are not to deliver these documents to the committee or that you are instructed

in any way to delay or to in any way foreclose the committee from

the timely delivery of these documents by any person in the administration?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Mr. DINGELL. Very good.

Then how long will it take you now, Mr. Johnson, to identify the

balance of the documents to be submitted to this committee, if you

please?

Mr. JOHNSON. In my March 7 letter to you, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully asked that we respond to your full request by April 2.

Mr. DINGELL. Is there a reason why April 2 is the date by which

we would receive them? Is there any reason why they could not be

delivered sooner?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is my understanding, sir, just given the volume

of documents that you are requesting that it takes us time to try

to find them, research, and provide them to you. We want to be

complete in responding to your request.

Mr. DINGELL. Then, Mr. Johnson, I think I am to assume that

you are giving this committee the assurance that all of those documents will be made available to us by April 2, is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. Very good.

217

It is always the hope of this committee that we may deal in a

most friendly and a collegial and cooperative means and method

with our dear friends in the executive branch, and we hope that

you have the same good feeling towards us, that you share this

kind of feeling and this kind of cooperation does obviate a lot of unpleasantness which could otherwise occur. I hope as events go forward that you will keep these thoughts in mind.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am fully in support of that, too, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. I note that my time is expired. I thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. We will withhold our request until April 2. I know

that we will see those documents here, to the pleasure and appreciation of us all, on that date.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. At this time, I recognize the distinguished ranking

member of the full committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I ask my questions, I want the Administrator to know

document requests that are legitimate, the minority totally supports the majority in getting those documents. If for some reason

there is a request that you consider to be not legitimate, if you

would contact myself we will work with you and Mr. Dingell to alleviate it. But in general terms, this committee requests official

documents we expect them to be tendered in the timeframe that is

appropriate.

I would like to ask you about the CAIR Act.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. BARTON. The mercury rule that was promulgated and implemented, I think, several years ago, could you expound on how you

think implementation of that Act is going and what the results

have been to date?

Mr. JOHNSON. The Clean Air Interstate Rules are actually the

first regulations I signed as Administrator, and it will achieve close

to a 70 percent reduction of both SO2 and NOx emissions over the

coming years from coal fire power plants. This results in literally,

over time, hundreds of billions of dollars of human health benefits

to American citizens. This rule was put in place. States are in the

process of implementing it, some through State implementation

plans, some through partial State implementation plans, some

through adopting the Federal implementation plan. But we are seeing good progress and certainly want that to continue.

With regard to the Clean Air Mercury Rule, again, we are the

first Nation in the entire world to regulate mercury from coal-fired

power plants. We want to eliminate mercury as a health hazard

from the citizens of the United States. In fact, we are one of the

world leaders in taking on that challenge of dealing with the global

problem of mercury, and of course, the Clean Air Mercury Rule is

one of those examples of things we put in place.

Mr. BARTON. Are we actually in the stage where it has been implemented anywhere and reductions are occurring, or is it still in

the implementation stage?

218

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it requires technology and it is my understanding that companies are beginning to install the technology. I

will turn to Bob. Do we have any specifics of a company?

Mr. BARTON. Can you identify yourself?

Mr. MYERS. Bob Myers, Office of Air and Radiation.

We can provide specifics for the record. We are obviously at the

beginning of a program in two phases. The first phase is 2010, so

investments are made now to meet that degree to which equipment

is on the ground now specifically for that 2010 date. We will try

and provide some information.

Mr. JOHNSON. So far we are still kind of ramping up. There is

not an actual cleanup or mercury reduction that has occurred yet.

Mr. MYERS. There could be some reductions. It is a matter of assessment to try to see how exactly what the rule has produced. We

also have, obviously, the investments associated with CAIR and the

first 2010 date is the co-benefit level for mercury, so the investments in CAIR essentially get the mercury reduction. What I can

provide right now with specificity is exactly how many in the

ground in the plant investments are operating right now, but we

will try to do that shortly.

Mr. BARTON. It seems to me you ought to be up here instead of

down there, but that is a different story.

You said we are the first Nation. Have any other nations adopted

a similar rule on mercury since we have?

Mr. JOHNSON. Not that I am aware of, but that is an excellent

question. Bob, are you aware of any other countries?

Mr. MYERS. Not at this point in time that I’m aware of.

Mr. BARTON. The United States of America, it is routinely pilloried in international media for dragging our feet on environmental issues. Not only leading the way, we are the only Nation

even attempting to control mercury, is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would have to check the record to see what other

countries, because we have been aggressively pushing other countries as part of our international effort to deal with mercury from

a variety of sources, including air, including stocks of mercury, as

well as things including mercury that is included in little switches

of older cars that we have taken a very aggressive stance on here

in the United States.

Mr. BARTON. My time is expired. I will have some questions in

writing, Mr. Chairman, for EPA on the funding of the leaking underground storage tank program. I am dismayed that we have—the

trust fund is growing and expenditures for actual cleanup seem to

be declining, and I hope that is area on a bipartisan basis we can

work with the administration to increase funding, because we do

have many localities that have leaking underground storage tanks,

and that was one of the priorities in the Energy Policy Act, to beef

that fund up and to get the States doing inspections and actually

cleaning it up. So we will have some questions for the record for

that.

I yield back.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman. I concur that that is a likely

area for bipartisan cooperation. The trust fund is clearly being

underutilized and that is of detriment to our citizens. At this time,

the Chair would recognize Ms. Baldwin for a total of 8 minutes.

219

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Administrator, are you familiar with the Supreme Court case

Cooper Industries, Incorporated v. Aviall Services, Incorporated ?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I am familiar with it.

Ms. BALDWIN. In that case, the Court held that a private party

may not obtain contribution from other liable parties under

CERCLA section 113(f)(1) unless the private party has been the

subject of an administrative order or enforcement action by the

EPA. This holding is very important because it challenges the previous practices of parties initiating voluntary cleanups without

EPA intervention or involvement.

I am wondering if you could tell us what effect this case has had

on voluntary cleanups throughout the United States?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are currently monitoring the Aviall decision, because as you point out, in fact the Circuit Court split in

January 2007 and the Supreme Court has granted cert. So at this

point, we are monitoring the situation and I am unaware, at this

point, of specific impacts on particular Brownfield sites, but as I

said, we are currently monitoring.

One of the things that I would like to note, that is a program

very much akin to Brownfields and one that certainly urge members of Congress to pass, and that is our Good Samaritan legislation. There are over 500,000 abandoned hard rock mines in the

United States, key word abandoned. And we have Good Samaritans

who want to go in and cleanup, but because of liability provisions

associated with our Clean Water Act and CERCLA, they don’t want

to become the liable party for the entire site. And so we think it

is a good thing to allow Good Samaritans to get in and help these

sites, and so here is a great opportunity to accelerate environmental progress. And so I urge Members of Congress to help us

move forward.

Ms. BALDWIN. I want to continue speaking a little bit about

Aviall. Of course, my understanding is it goes beyond Brownfields

in terms of its impact. Attorneys in the field have described the impact of the case as having created a needless policy crisis, so I am

not sure that I am hearing from you the same level of concern

about the impact of this.

I guess since it has been over 2 years since the original Supreme

Court decision in December 2004, and you certainly responded to,

I think it is Chairman Dingell’s inquiries about the impact of the

Aviall decision. Have you made any real effort in the EPA to collect

data on the impact that this might be having on voluntary cleanups? Again, I would hope that the EPA is encouraging this type of

activity with regard to the 113(f)(1) section.

Mr. JOHNSON. We definitely want to encourage continued cleanup through Brownfields. It is a highly successful program, and as

I said, want to extend it to hard rock mines.

Let me ask my staff.

Ms. BUHL. Good morning. I am Lynn Buhl and I am in the Enforcement Program at EPA.

Yes, we were concerned by the ruling Aviall, and we have asked

our regional offices repeatedly if they are getting phone calls, if

they are getting a number of parties coming in and asking to enter

into an agreement with us when they may not otherwise have done

220

so, and the answer is not really. A couple of States have expressed

concern. It is very hard for us, though, to know what is not happening in the private sector that we simply are not a part of.

So we are worried about it. We are a little suspicious that a lot

of things may not be happening that we would like to see happening, but we just don’t have the anecdotal evidence.

Ms. BALDWIN. OK.

I am curious. The EPA has consistently said that the Agency

supports voluntary cleanups. Even in your testimony, Mr. Administrator, you talked about having 300 million partners in your efforts

to protect the environment.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Ms. BALDWIN. Does the EPA support the Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals decision in Aviall, and as you may recall, when it was at

the Fifth circuit, the decision would have encouraged voluntary

cleanups and subsequent contribution actions by allowing parties

performing cleanups to recover some of their costs without EPA’s

involvement through an enforcement action order. I am wondering

what posture you took at the 5th circuit.

Ms. BUHL. I believe we took the position that you need to take

a very strict interpretation of the statute.

Ms. BALDWIN. Did your agency, when DoJ was taking the position on behalf of the U.S. Government, did you express concerns

about the path they were taking in terms of the impact on voluntary cleanup, again, something I hope that you would want to

encourage?

Ms. BUHL. I apologize. I was not there at the time and not

present in the discussions, but I am happy to inquire and follow

up on your question.

Ms. BALDWIN. I want to switch to the issue of mercury. Last

July, the EPA issued its first ever comprehensive overview of the

Agency’s activities surrounding mercury. EPA’s roadmap for mercury focused on six key areas where the goal is to reduce health

risks associated with mercury exposure. Among them are research

and monitoring. The roadmap states that the Office of Research

and Development will continue to pursue its long-term goals to reduce health risks associated with mercury and to better understand the transport and fate of mercury in the environment. I am

wondering what is the Office of Research and Development’s current budget for mercury research specifically?

Mr. JOHNSON. I will ask Dr. George Gray to come up to the

microphone, who heads up our office’s research and development,

but in the meantime, as I mentioned to Mr. Barton, that mercury

really is a global challenge and EPA and the United States are

leading the way. I mentioned our Clean Air Mercury Rule, we have

now a partnership program for getting the mercury out of those old

automobiles. That is 75 tons of mercury that would have gone into

the environment, either the air, water, or land, that we have eliminated through this agreement.

Ms. BALDWIN. But I am sure you are interested in this issue and,

in fact, have legislation of my own on this specific issue.

What I am really interested in, though, is knowing the budget

level for the Office of Research and Development with regard to

mercury research.

221

Mr. GRAY. I am George Gray, the Assistant Administrator for the

Office of Research and Development.

This year’s presidential budget helps us accelerate our efforts on mercury and increases our budget to $4.3 million for our research

on mercury. That research ranges from looking at ways to further

implement the Clean Air Mercury Rule, looking at technologies for

removing mercury from power plant gases, to understanding the

way in which it moves around in geochemical cycles. We have a

strong program that has, as I said, an increase of about $500,000

in this year’s presidential budget.

Ms. BALDWIN. And then the roadmap also looks at——

Mr. WYNN. Excuse me, the gentlelady’s time is expired.

Ms. BALDWIN. Oh, I will submit my final question in writing.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentlelady.

At this time, the Chair would recognize former Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert.

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting, because what I found that the EPA probably does some of its best

work when it works together with other Government agencies. In

my home district in Illinois, the town of West Chicago, at one time

we had 13 billion cubic feet of fluorium tailings, and it was through

the cooperative efforts of the Illinois EPA, the U.S. EPA, not only

did we get those fluorium tailings moved to a safe place—these

were just dumped in the middle of a town, radioactive material, but

a lot of the other material that was produced during the 1950’s, nobody really knew about radiation then. It was taken for people to

use in sandboxes and dumped as fill and found its way into Crest

Creek and then the Dupage River, and a cooperative effort of the

U.S. EPA, the Illinois EPA and some lucrative regulatory agencies,

we have been able to clean this up, and we are almost there. It has

only taken us almost 22 years. I think that type of cooperation

when your agency doesn’t stand alone as an entity by itself, it really reaches out to State and local agencies to work together, you

have been, at least in my view, the most successful.

Which takes me to another issue. In the area of Missouri and

Wisconsin and Illinois, we end up every spring with an issue of

biofuels, and biofuels are a result of trying to meet clean air standards in changing climates. Of course, the winter blend of gasoline

is different than the summer blend of gasoline. But every year, we

see a spike in the cost of gasoline in those areas, especially the

metropolitan areas of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Madison, the areas of

Chicago and East St. Louis, and St. Louis area. And so it has been

a frustration for us to try to get some type of accommodation for

transition. Can you give us an idea of how that might be implemented?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, I can.

Of course, our goal with our fuel program is to both meet our air

quality standards as well as to make sure that we have an abundant and affordable fuel supply. The President asked me shortly

after our situation with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and concern

over gasoline shortage to work with our States, our governors, to

evaluate biofuels and to see whether there was a problem both in

222

availability and impact on price. Working with our State partners—and thank you for the great comments about our partnership—we looked at the issue of biofuels and I would be happy to

provide a copy of that to you and for the record, because what it

indicated was is that while on occasion there might be an issue

with availability of biofuels, by and large it was a tool that States,

particularly governors, wanted and needed to be able to manage

both air quality issues as well as fuel supply.

So I would be happy to supply——

Mr. HASTERT. I think probably the issue is not the biofuels themselves, it is the transition periods, and the peripheral vision of

blending those fuels, trying to get them in empty tanks and move

through the availability of pipelines to move this, stuff has to be

flushed, and there is a transition time where it is not really winter,

it is not really summer, I see a possibility of at least a leniency at

least blending these fuels so they are not completely separate, and

then moving into the complete fuel line as temperatures get warmer. So it is a consideration, it something we have talked about for

a long time. I appreciate your attention to it.

One last thing I would like to cover. You have the new diesel

standards coming into effect this year and I wonder, what kind of

cost analysis have you done as far as increased costs? What is the

increased cost to engines and operation, do you know at all?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have done extensive cost analysis on diesel engines, both on road, off road, and a proposed regulation that I just

proposed last Friday dealing with marine engines and locomotives.

I would be happy for the record to give you the specifics and our

detailed analysis.

Locomotives, for example, I do know that it is somewhere between about 2 percent of the cost of moving to a clean diesel locomotive and of course, the requirement is a number of years away

because we are in the process of——

Mr. HASTERT. Is that about the same for truck engines?

Mr. JOHNSON. Truck engines, Bob, do you recall? I don’t have the

specifics off the top of my head.

Mr. MYERS. Yes, we did perform a detailed regulatory impact

analysis associated with the cost increases in truck engines. It depends on the technology. Again, I would like to verify for the

record, but I think in terms of the high end of the range was along

the lines of roughly $1,500 and hundreds of dollars at the low end

of the range. That would be not necessarily the increase of costs

if somebody might price it. We do our analysis based on what we

think the actual cost to the manufacturer would be.

Mr. HASTERT. Alright, I appreciate it. I just want to say I think

that is a giant step in cleaning up air, and of course, diesel is one

of the most intrusive pieces of clean air. But on the other hand,

that cost is passed on to consumers and the consumers then pick

up that cost, whether it is the cost of freight, cost of buying a truck

or a diesel mower or whatever it happens to be, so I appreciate

what you have done. I appreciate your service. I would like to have

those cost analyses for the record.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just to add

to that, the cost for the diesel locomotive and marine would be

223

about $600 million is what our estimate shows. The public health

benefits, 20 times that, $12 billion per year, and so we see that

kind of significant ratio of cost and benefit throughout all of our

diesel, and of course, just to lastly add, we look at all of our diesel

regulations that we put in place and add that to the Clean Air

Interstate Rule, in fact, short of getting lead out of gasoline, these

are the most health protective and health beneficial standards to

our air in the history of the United States.

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

Mr. WYNN. At this time, the Chair would recognize Mrs. Capps

for 8 minutes.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mrs. CAPPS. I am going to be putting up a chart that is entitled

‘‘Hazardous Substance Superfund Account’’ and this is provided by

the Congressional Research Service.

[The chart follows:]

224

225

Mrs. CAPPS. If you have a chance to notice, the President’s request for 2008 is at the bottom of the chart. You see that it is actually less in terms of real dollars for cleanup than any of the previous 10 years, I will give you a minute to find it, but is this not

correct? The President’s request for 2008, the bottom of that middle

column——

Mr. JOHNSON. The President’s request is $1.2 billion.

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, which is, if you look at all of the numbers on

the right column, it is actually less in terms of real dollars for

cleanup than any of the previous 10 years. Is this correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know how this was——

Mrs. CAPPS. This was provided by CRS.

Mr. JOHNSON. Taking it at its root then it is what it is.

Mrs. CAPPS. Alright. Then my first question out of several, can

you explain to me what is going on here? Why is the President’s

request not keeping up with inflation?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the President’s request is focusing on, again,

for Superfund of turning problem properties into community assets,

and the President’s budget helps achieve—in fact, it achieves what

our goals and objectives are for——

Mrs. CAPPS. I don’t want to interrupt you, but I want to get on

to something more specific. It is true, though, that it is a decrease

in funding?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me also point out that I think it is also

important that if you look at Superfund, it is not just EPA, but

when you look at across the Federal Government, Department of

Defense, it is actually $8.5 billion.

Mrs. CAPPS. You are on the witness stand here today, sir, with

all due respect, and I am looking at this portion of the funding.

Now I want to turn to a more specific local situation in my district, but it appears to me that without funding, the pace of cleanups will be adversely affected. Two years ago, the Acting Assistant

Administrator, Mr. Dunn, commented that effects of the funding

shortfall—and this is his quote ‘‘For the last 3 years, EPA hasn’t

started cleanup at some new sites. If we assume that EPA’s budget

will remain flat for the foreseeable future, construction funding

could be delayed at more and more sites.’’ Another quote more recently from Assistant Administrator Ms. Bodine, announcing that

EPA would only achieve 24 Superfund construction cleanups as opposed to the 40 cleanups cited in the President’s proposed budget.

Yesterday EPA proposed the Halaco Engineering Company in my

district in California for listing on the National Priorities List.

Your proposal identifies to the surrounding communities that this

is, indeed, a dangerous place, would be probably hazardous to one’s

health, and yet, there is going to be a time lag by all of the facts

that we have. I want you to give me assurances to my constituents

that the Halaco site is going to be remediated anytime soon, given

that this EPA Superfund levels are effectively decreasing.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. With regard to the specific site, I will ask

Susan Bodine if she would come to the table. We will say for those

sites that we have identified that there is an imminent hazard,

then we aggressively pursue, making sure that we bring an interim

answer to a point so that we are eliminating that imminent hazard.

226

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Could I ask if you would please, I would

like to have these documents in writing so that I can convey them,

because I do want to go—well, go ahead and give me a brief answer, but I would like something more lengthy that I can share

with my constituents.

Ms. BODINE. Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator for Emergency Response.

You quoted former Acting Administrator on the concern that we

had unfunded new starts. In 2005, we had nine unfunded new

starts, in 2006 there were six unfunded new starts.

Mrs. CAPPS. Is this not a correct quote or a statement by you

that you would be achieving 24?

Ms. BODINE. Yes, that is accurate. We have actually provided information to Chairman Wynn and Chairman Dingell with respect

to the reasons as to why——

Mrs. CAPPS. Right, well, I would like to have those reasons as

well. I would like to get that in writing.

Ms. BODINE. I can provide that to you.

And then with respect to the Halaco site, yes, it has been proposed to the national list. We will take comment on that proposal

and presumably in due course it will be listed. As we have talked

about and as other members have discussed, Superfund is a longterm process so we would be proceeding with the investigation and

picking the remedy for that site. Those are not high-cost activities,

and at the point of that we would get to construction, it, of course,

would then be—if there are responsible parties, we would be asking

them to cleanup. The fund lead, at that point, it would go through

our prioritization process where we have our experts prioritize sites

based on their level of risk.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you.

Ms. BODINE. At the beginning of the process——

Mrs. CAPPS. Exactly, but there is now a delay, because there is

a backlog of sites.

Ms. BODINE. No, there is no delay in moving forward with listing

or with doing investigation or with picking remedies and I can’t tell

you what would happen 5 or 6 years from now when this would be

ready for funding.

Mrs. CAPPS. OK, thank you.

I do have another topic to bring up, since this time with Mr.

Johnson is very important to me. Turning to clean air, the EPA finally issued standards for ozone and fine particle pollution requirements, which now means that the State and local governments

need to meet these responsibilities. At the same time, in this budget you are proposing $35 million in budget cuts. Does this mean a

decrease in grants to State and local air pollution control agencies

who are charged with meeting these standards?

Mr. JOHNSON. What it means is that we certainly value the work

of our States and this is a shift of the monitoring network to the

States. It was never envisioned that the Federal Government

would continually pay for monitoring networks, so this represents

a shift of a portion of that to the States.

Mrs. CAPPS. So this would be a burden for States and local agencies to meet these standards?

227

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, with regard to the standards, we were just

talking earlier about the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which was the

Federal Government’s role in dealing with that trans-state boundary air pollution, but yes, the States for their local air provinces

would need to develop appropriate mitigation for the issues in their

State.

Mrs. CAPPS. And they will do this now with these new standards

being published? They have been in effect for several years but

they have now been published so that they now have new requirements to meet.

Mr. JOHNSON. There are new requirements to meet, that is correct, and they have to go through——

Mrs. CAPPS. It is hard for me to justify these cuts at a time when

States are right in the middle of developing and implementing

their own strategies for ozone fine particulate and many other programs, and I wish I had more time, because as a public health

nurse, I find the President’s budget so unacceptable. In times of

rising rates of childhood asthma, cancer, neurological and developmental disorders, decreasing funding for environmental programs—

I don’t see how we can justify decreasing them. I believe, Mr.

Chairman, that we have a lot of work ahead of us to restore funding in these very critical areas.

I have no more time, but I would love to have a response from

you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, if the chairman would allow, in fact, there

are a number of items in our budget, for example, one that I want

to point out is that we—actually as part of the President’s budget,

there is an increase of $6 million to fund children’s health research

centers, so we are going from seven to nine to help in that. As I

mentioned in my opening testimony, for research and development

we have additional funds in there to help particularly air research

for children by way of roads, because of the concern over asthma.

So there are a number of very specific programs in our budget

which are designed to help us better understand and better protect

our most sensitive subpopulations.

Mrs. CAPPS. But in this area, which is your responsibility, there

are cuts.

Mr. JOHNSON. In air monitoring, it is a shift to where responsibility to the State, which was always something that the Federal

Government would never pay for all State monitoring, but that was

a responsibility that was shared by the States and the Federal

Government——

Mrs. CAPPS. So it is a shared responsibility.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is a shared responsibility.

Mr. WYNN. The gentlelady’s time is expired.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair would recognize Mr. Pitts for 8 minutes.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Administrator, there appears to be some confusing regarding

the Agency’s efforts to address climate change. Could you describe

the Agency’s efforts in this regard?

Mr. JOHNSON. If I could, sir, I would like to put in the context

of the administration, in fact, our Nation’s commitment to—we

have an unparalleled commitment, international commitment in

228

the United States to address climate change. From 2001 through

2006, we as a Nation have spent $29 billion to fund science, technology, and even providing some tax incentives to address climate

change. At EPA, we have a part of the program which deals with

issues such as Energy Star, Methane to Markets, climate leaders,

Asia Pacific Partnership. We are an active participant, and as an

administration, we have an aggressive program to address climate

change.

If I might, Energy Star, for example, in 2005 by consumers buying products with the little Energy Star label, they saved $12 billion in energy costs. If you want to put that in terms of greenhouse

gas emissions, they reduced greenhouse gas emissions equivalent

to 23 million automobiles.

And so what we are finding is our programs are working. Of

course, the President in his State of the Union has now put two

charges before you members of Congress, and that is to pass the

alternative fuel standard, as well as the CAFE standard, both of

which help not only energy security, but also help us on the environment, particularly greenhouse gas.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you.

Another line of questioning, Brownfields. Brownfields funding is

an important program to many of us on this committee, and I have

a couple of questions based on the testimony our committee received last week from the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

First, Mayor Bollwage seemed to suggest that anyone who sends

a Brownfields application to EPA should automatically get a Federal grant. The first question is, is it the Agency’s experience that

every grant application it receives is worthy of funding?

Second, Mayor Bollwage claimed that EPA denied two-thirds of

the Brownfields applications because it did not have the funding,

and the mayor suggested that if EPA had more money, these sites

that were denied Brownfields grants would be able to obtain Federal grants. Is it true, second, that EPA denied funding to these

sites solely due to the lack of Brownfields funding?

And lastly, Mayor Bollwage suggested that Federal Brownfields

cleanup grants should be used to help fund cities applications for

Brownfields grants, as well as the administration of the grants

once received. This is not an allowable use under the law, and cities, especially those that tap the success of the existing Brownfields

program have willingly put up their money for these purposes. Do

you support changing the statute to allow cleanup grant dollars to

be siphoned away from cleanup, and instead allowed to go to administrative costs?

Mr. JOHNSON. Alright, yes, sir. Let me try to take each of your

questions in turn.

First, to make sure that everyone is aware that the fiscal year

2008 budget request is actually higher than what the President’s

budget request was for Brownfields last year. In fact, as I already

mentioned, as you look through the history of Brownfields, in fact

that in spite of the President’s request for much larger sums, Congress has chosen to keep this program relatively stable. We think

it is a great program. It leverages dollars, it converts those eyesores into sources of pride.

229

With regard to administrative costs, we do not support. In fact,

as you are well aware, the current legislation prohibits those administrative costs from—being able to use the funds for administrative costs. The reason why we don’t support it is that we want

to see those dollars not go to administrative costs, but we want to

see them go to cleanups. And, in fact, as you appropriately point

out, what we are finding is that people are willing to invest in the

administrative costs to be able to get a grant to go forward with.

With regard to the grants that we receive, we receive a great

number of grant applications. Not every one of them is worthy for

funding. I don’t have the statistics, but I would be happy to share

with you for the record what information we have as to the numbers and which ones have been evaluated and found to be worthy

or not.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, I appreciate you providing that information.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Does the gentleman relinquish the balance of his

time?

Mr. PITTS. Yes, I yield back.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone of New Jersey for 8 minutes.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to quickly go back to the Brownfields issue, and then

move on to Superfund.

My own interpretation of history here, because I was involved in

the authorization of the Brownfields program, and it was really the

first and maybe the only pro-environment bill that the President

signed. So I am a little sympathetic to the fact that the President

does support the Brownfields program. I am not going to disagree

with you. But it is true, of course, that the Republican majority in

the last few years since it went into effect has not been funding it

adequately. So I guess my point I am trying to make to the Administrator is if it was possible to get significantly more money for

some of these applications that Mr. Pitts mentioned, you clearly

would fund more of these. In other words, these applications have

merit, they are just not being funded because you only have limited

resources.

If you could just answer that question.

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, there is a lot of work to be done and there

are a number of potential Brownfield sites, and again, the President’s 2008 budget continues the progress and we are looking forward to having the budget passed so we continue that progress.

Mr. PALLONE. I know you can’t say you want more money, so all

I am asking is a lot of these applications that are not being funded

clearly do have merit, is that true?

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know what the statistics are, but again, we

will be happy to provide it for the record. I do know that a number

of applications come in that have not been completely well-thought

through, if will, and others that have merit. But I would be happy

to provide that information for the record.

230

Mr. PALLONE. OK. I mean, I would point out that when it comes

to the assessment and there are these other grants, so these assessments and another kind of grants where the President’s budget

actually is less. I mean, in that category there was $120.5 million

in 2006 but in 2007, the budget request was only $89 million, and

now it is $89 million again. So that account has gone down.

But I am not looking to criticize the administration on this. I

think more of the blame rests with the Republican majority in not

providing more funding and actually limiting some of the funding,

as you suggest.

With regard to Superfund, my concern is that according to your

own site managers, there are 15 Superfund sites in New Jersey

where human exposure is not, I stress not, under control, more

than any other State. But there are a number of these sites around

the country where the human exposure is not under control. My

concern is that I would think that protecting human health is probably the most important issue when it comes to these Superfund

sites, and yet it seems like controlling exposure to people has not

been a top priority.

So I just wanted to ask you, isn’t it time that you get human exposure under control? If you had, again, more funding, would you

do more to get human exposure under control in New Jersey and

across the country? Why isn’t that seemingly a priority? Is it because of the money, or is there another reason?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, it is a priority. I think that it would be helpful

and beneficial to have Susan Bodine come up and explain what we

mean by Superfund sites that are not under control.

Mr. PALLONE. That would be helpful, if you would. I know my

time is running out, but——

Ms. BODINE. Again, beginning in about 1993 we identified sites

as where there was a complete exposure pathway. It doesn’t mean

that there is actual exposure, because of course, we are not going

to go in and test people to see if they have actually been exposed,

but where we find a complete exposure pathway and we have identified all of those as human exposure not under control.

We do take everything possible to take steps to cut off that exposure, but for example, if we put up a fence and we see evidence

that someone is cutting through a hole in the fence and getting on

the site, we will list that as exposure not under control.

For example, if we put a community on bottled water, or if they

are all on a community water system but one person refuses, at

this point we will say that is not under control because we have

this one outlier.

So there are a variety of reasons why a site may be not under

control. Where we have immediate acute exposures, we take action

right away through our emergency removals, our time critical removal programs. That doesn’t mean there may still be long-term

risks——

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that and I appreciate your response,

but I just want to give you one example. One of these sites is the

Ringwood Mines Landfill site in New Jersey, this is in my opinion

one of the biggest Environmental Justice tragedies in the country,

and I use Environmental Justice. It involves a minority low-income

community, actually Native American, in our State of New Jersey,

231

that has toxic paint sludge dumped on them by the Ford Motor

Company, and the Agency came in and said they have conducted

an Environmental Justice assessment, and said that the site is ‘‘an

adversely impacted area’’, but really nothing was meaningfully

done, in my opinion, to do anything about the human exposure,

other than to say OK, it is adversely impacted from the Environmental Justice point of view.

I just want to use that as an example. Do you plan to do more

work and comprehensively address the injustices, and in this case,

the human exposure? I could go through all 15, but I think this is

one of the worst. As you know, this is one where you did relist the

site and I do appreciate that. It was off the list and now it is on

the list, but now that it is back on the list, something has got to

be done about the human exposure, because everything that she

described is true. I mean, there are immediate problems, there are

long-term problems, but I don’t really feel that any of them are

really being significantly addressed at this time. I don’t know if you

can comment on this.

Ms. BODINE. Yes. Ford Motor Company is taking actions at that

site under an administrative order issued by EPA. I have statistics

which I have provided for the record on the thousands of cubic

yards of sludge, and yes, this is a problem. There is paint sludge

and other materials that were on the site and that have been removed as part of the administrative order actions, as part of these

emergency actions, and we are continuing to do more site characterization at some of the mined areas around it. But all of that

work is proceeding and it is a priority.

Mr. PALLONE. Alright. Let me just ask one more thing. I only

have a minute left.

This goes back to the Toxics Release Inventory Program. You

know that myself and the two New Jersey Senators introduced a

bill, and Ms. Solis also playing a major role in trying to go back

to the original regulation as opposed to the changes that the EPA

promulgated.

I was concerned because the GAO found that the EPA did not

adhere to all aspects of its rulemaking guidelines when they developed a new TRI reporting requirements. What is your answer to

the GAO report on that? I mean, it seems to confirm the fact that

not everything was done properly in this rulemaking, which obviously we now want to overturn.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the GAO also points out in the report that

the Administrator and Assistant Administrators have flexibility in

the rulemaking process, and in fact, we did follow the Agency process. There is flexibility and we went through the appropriate notice

and comment rulemaking. We certainly had an active program in

the Agency to come to the final recommendation and my final decision on TRI.

I should note that since this is a budget hearing, that TRI is an important program. This year’s 2008 request is $15.7 million,

which is the highest request in 5 years. So it is a program we certainly support and believe in, and certainly is reflected in the

President’s 2008 budget.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

232

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

The Chair would recognize Mr. Terry for 8 minutes.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I do appreciate that opportunity, Mr.

Chairman, and like a couple of my colleagues on this committee,

I want to focus on Superfund in my district, and I do appreciate

that you brought it up in our discussion or answer to the chairman,

considering the complexity of it.

I will make one comment that I think is shared amongst all of

us on this committee that have Superfund or other environmental

issues, and this is we want it done yesterday. We don’t like it done

over a 10-year or like the Speaker said, 22 years. We want it done

in 1 day and we want it done perfectly, and ours should be the priority over everybody else’s. I realize you have those political complexities on top of the scientific complexities.

I am generally pleased with the dedication of the EPA to the

Superfund site in my district. As you mentioned, Administrator

Johnson, it is 9,000 acres and makes up, I think, almost about 15

percent of the geographic area of my district. It is a changing area.

It is mostly African American. There are a lot of young families in

that area. I appreciate that you have made those households with

children the priority and cleaning those properties first.

So I appreciate your dedication. I will, with every one of my colleagues in the delegation, continue to hound you to make sure that

it stays on track and isn’t diverted for political purposes because

some other district becomes a political hotspot or something. So you

have been above that political fray and I appreciate that, because

it really is a safety issue within my district.

Now, with funding, I would support additional funding within

the Superfund so that you don’t have to make as many priority

choices between projects. But I am a little bit unsure how your

budget works. I just want to ask a couple of questions within the

Superfund fund.

There has been discussions with the panel we had up here last

week that suggested that the tax on chemicals and petroleum

should be reinstated to bring the amount of your budget up to past.

Well, you have proven that it is at least equal using general funds

as it was in the past. So I appreciate you showing that.

So my follow-up would be the other part of making industry just

levy a tax on industry because they exist, the alternative is what

is currently written in the law, and I know firsthand because of my

district that you have been very aggressive in making polluters

pay, and in my view, you have even gone so far, it is like if you

brush by one of the potential responsible parties on the street, you

would then become another potential responsible party. It is down

to the point where I think you have gone way beyond what we

think of polluters.

My question then is in that regard about how aggressive you

have become or the administration has become on making sure

that the polluters are paying the full cost of remediation in a

Superfund site, is that reflected, those dollars that come in, are

those reflected in your budget or is that just the Government dollars? And how effective is your aggressiveness in making polluters

pay in? Now, certainly in our blood sight you have an issue of the

SARCO leaving the country and folding and defaulting on their obVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
233

ligations, so I just wonder how effective that has been, whether

that is on budget or off budget, how are those dollars accounted

for?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have been very successful and we do aggressively go after the polluter, because we do believe that polluters should be the ones paying. On average, we are achieving about

70 percent polluter pays, we have a responsible party. Certainly

the law charges us to seek that responsible party and have them

pay, and that is what we do.

Having said that, we also try to be reasonable, particularly for

those that are, if you will, the small contributors to it. Is there a

diminimus threshold? We certainly prefer to settle. As I have often

said, the air and the water and our land get any cleaner when we

are sitting in a courtroom, and so we continue to try to negotiate

settlement.

With regard to numbers, let me ask Marcus, my deputy, to share

with you the number that we now——

Mr. PEACOCK. Just to get a sense of how large the breadbox is

here, Congressman, the total PRP commitments for cleanups from

fiscal year 2001 through 2006 was almost $6 billion, so those dollars are not reflected in the President’s request. In fact, PRP

spends money on PRP lead sites, we never find out what that

amount of money is, and that is most certainly in the billions as

well.

Mr. TERRY. Very good. So actually, there is more investment in

cleanups than what we are discussing here today within the budget?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, and as I pointed out that that is

what is in EPA’s budget. The PRP lead is another pot of money

which Marcus Peacock just went over, and then when you look at

our other Federal partners, it is $8.5 billion. So as a government,

between our $1.2 billion in Superfund and then our other Federal

partners, $8.5 billion, we as a Nation are investing a great deal of

money in cleaning up these hazardous waste sites.

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that. Certainly, in my particular version

of justice, I think you should go after those that cause the pollution. The polluters should pay for the remediation, and I appreciate

your aggressiveness.

I will just make a quick editorial comment on Brownfields, because Omaha—and I was involved in the City Council, as I mentioned, when one of the authorities on our panel last week actually

sued me personally and in my capacity as a City Council member,

which I will never forget, but the Brownfields that we cleaned up

really was a partnership between the State and the city, and both

of us put up some money as well as the polluter. And that was

done and cleaned up within about 2 years from beginning to end.

So there are times, at least in my view, that when the local communities take control of a site, and no offense, but leave the EPA

out except for being advisory, it actually works better. And so when

we pound our chest about more Federal involvement in the

Brownfields, I sit there and cringe. No offense to that, but sometimes the local folks when they want to step up can actually do a

darn good job of making a Brownfield useful for the community.

And that ends my time.

234

Mr. JOHNSON. That is one of the reasons it is one of the most

complicated sites.

Mr. WYNN. At this time, the Chair would recognize distinguished

vice chair of the subcommittee and a leading advocate on environmental issues, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis.

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr.

Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning.

Ms. SOLIS. I just want to go straight into a line of questioning

and hopefully, you will be able to respond yes or no on some of

these questions.

When were you first informed by the Inspector General about his

draft evaluation of Performance Track?

Mr. JOHNSON. My recollection of the first discussion that I had

with regard to Performance Track was actually with the head of

my policy office, who said that he had had a discussion with the

Inspector General with regard to Performance Track.

Ms. SOLIS. But you have not had that particular conversation

with the Inspector General yourself?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, following that conversation, I did meet with

the Acting Inspector General and talked about Performance Track,

but really more in the sense of as the Inspector General performs

program evaluations. By the way, I believe are very valuable to the

Agency and are very appropriate, and encouraging our Inspector

General to do more, that in the program evaluations what is helpful for me as a senior manager is to not only know and understand

what is wrong or what areas need to be fixed, but also highlight

those things that are going extraordinarily well so we continue to

do those things.

Ms. SOLIS. Did you think that the evaluation was fair and balanced?

Mr. JOHNSON. I didn’t see the evaluation, so——

Ms. SOLIS. But when you spoke to the Inspector—what date was

that?

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know, I would have to go back and look at

a calendar.

Ms. SOLIS. Can you get me that information?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to.

Ms. SOLIS. OK.

Moving on, my next question. Mr. Johnson, as I understand the

eligibility for Performance Track, a facility supposedly is not allowed to be a member if it or its parent company is under investigation or has convicted an environmentally related crime within

the last 5 years. If that is true, how are three Monsanto facilities

members, despite their parent company having paid $1 million in

fines as a result of criminal indictment by the Department of Justice? How are they then eligible for this program?

Mr. JOHNSON. On the specifics, I would have to defer to Brian

Mannix, the head of our policy shop. Let me say, the Performance

Track which was launched in the year 2000 now has 470 members.

It was recognized by Harvard University in 2006 as one of the top

innovations in Government.

I think it is important to put it in perspective. It is an outstanding program. It is beyond compliance, and the specifics, Brian?

235

Mr. MANNIX. I wouldn’t want to comment on the enforcement

record of a particular company without a chance to review it, so I

would be happy to answer that for the record, but I don’t know the

answer.

Ms. SOLIS. But they did remain a part of the performance track

program, in spite of the fact that according to your old standards

they would have been outside of the bounds of the program?

Mr. MANNIX. Some facilities are part of the Performance Track

program, yes.

Ms. SOLIS. That fall out of the restrictions that you place on

them for being a part of it, that is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. MANNIX. I am sorry?

Ms. SOLIS. For example, in the case of Monsanto, they have been

convicted of environmentally related crimes in the last 5 years, and

yet they are a part of this program.

Mr. MANNIX. Again, there are facilities in the program as to

what the enforcement record is at other sites in the company, I

would have to review that before——

Ms. SOLIS. OK, and you could give us that information?

Mr. MANNIX. Yes.

Ms. SOLIS. OK.

This week, EPA announced new members with a press release

stating that Performance Track facilities must meet all environmental regulatory requirements, and you praised Members as environmental leaders, because they go beyond what is expected or required by law. I have a chart that I would like to share with you.

[The chart follows:]

236

237

My chart shows one example of a facility which is a member of

the Performance Track despite compliance problems. The company,

U.S. Steel/Clairton Coke Works has paid over $140,250 in fines for

10 separate Clean Air Act violations in just the past 3 years. Is this

the kind of compliance history that a company is allowed to have

and still qualify to be a part of the Performance Track program?

Yes or no.

Mr. MANNIX. Again, I would have to review the record of the

company before commenting on the specifics.

Ms. SOLIS. Please provide the committee that information.

My next question, in your testimony, the Agency is supposedly

a good steward of taxpayer dollars, but my understanding is that

EPA has awarded contractors millions of dollars to support Government employees implementing this program Performance Track.

Contractors run telemarketing call centers to recruit applicants for

this program. They draft press releases, templates, and articles to

promote Fortune 500 companies and design advertising and motivational posters to hang at Performance Track workplaces, such as

these that are noted here before the committee.

Are you spending the taxpayer’s dollars to pay contractors to do

public relations work for corporations?

Mr. MANNIX. In part, Performance Track is a recognition program, and yes, we do provide posters to companies so that they can

proudly display their membership and their accomplishments.

Ms. SOLIS. Even when those same groups are found in violation

of the law?

Mr. MANNIX. We don’t tolerate violations of the law.

Ms. SOLIS. OK, next question.

The California Air Resources Board estimates that each year

there are about 5,400 premature deaths and 2,400 hospitalizations

and about 140,000 cases of asthma. This is a filter that I would like

to demonstrate to the committee that is currently being used, a filter that is a monitor located near the ports of Los Angeles and

Long Beach in a residential neighborhood that is predominantly

low income minority. The filter was white, white as this paper, and

now it looks like this, and there are three little dots to show you

what it looked like when it was placed at the facility. Twenty-four

hours later, which is equal to the amount of a typical human would

breathe in 21⁄2 half months, this is what it would look like, that accumulation in just that one cycle of 24 hours. The black color is

largely diesel exhaust, and a toxic air contaminant in California,

due to its carcinogenic risk.

While I am pleased that EPA proposed a rule for locomotives and

marine vessels, I am very concerned that it will not protect the

health and well-being of minority and low income communities. My

staff has reviewed this new rule that you just issued, and for the

life of me, we can’t find any discussion that would speak to the

issue of Environmental Justice for review under this proposed rule.

So could you please speak to that? Is there any mention at all?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am pleased to, because this rule applies to all

Americans, and in fact, the good news is because of our aggressive

stance on diesel, on road, off road, and the proposal that I just

signed on a week ago Friday, we will see significant health benefits

238

across the population, particularly those sensitive subpopulations

near or around port cities.

Ms. SOLIS. But is there an exact area in the 800-page document

where that is cited? That is what we want to know.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would have to look. As I said, I know that it applies to all Americans, and in fact, anyone who is close to a port

or to where locomotives are will benefit even greater than those

that live further away.

Ms. SOLIS. Well, this is a very, very critically important issue for

many of us across the country, but in particular, in Long Beach

and the Wilmington area, and as just noted, this filter is quite

alarming to know that just in the course of 24 hours, this is the

same impact that is occurring with those young families that reside

around the area. Many of them, I have to tell you, are military

families.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is why we have been aggressively going after

diesel and in fact, urge you to support the President’s 2008 budget

request, because there is $35 million in that budget to help deal

with legacy engines, whether they be from trucks, school buses, or

construction equipment.

Our goal is to have that black puff of smoke which you see evidenced on that filter something you only read about in a history

book.

Ms. SOLIS. Very deadly carcinogenic.

Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. The gentlelady’s time is expired. I thank the

gentlelady.

Next speaker will be the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get back to the issue of Clairton Coke Works, because

it is a Pittsburgh company, in a moment, but first I want to ask

a couple questions.

First, how does the EPA work with industry when your are implementing some new standards that may impact upon them financially and also impact upon our job and manufacturing base? How

do you go about that?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have a number of programs that range from

enforcement to compliance assistance to education, training, outreach, to partnership, and my experience after 26 years of being at

EPA is that when we can come together to work collaboratively to

address environmental challenge with our partners, it works a lot

better. In fact, the results are cheaper, faster, and better results.

We do have, as part of that effort, we have identified 13 sectors

in our business community where we have been aggressively reaching out to them to help and to work with them to achieve greater

environmental results while maintaining economic competitiveness.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

Also, earlier you were referring to the mercury issue and the

work that the United States has done as a Nation to really work

at eradicating mercury through automobiles, air, et cetera. I know

it is a significant concern for coal companies in trying to eliminate

and reduce that, and yet, my understanding of the science of mercury is that it floats in the atmosphere, such as China, which is

239

opening up a power plant every week, does not have controls on

that, and the mercury that they produce—correct me if I am wrong

on this, but even if we eliminate all of it from our factories we

would still see a significant amount of mercury coming in, drifting

in from other places around the world that do not scrub out or

eliminate their mercury. Am I correct on that?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. There is trans-boundary air pollution. Pollution knows no political or geographic boundaries; that is

precisely why the President asked a number of us, myself included,

to be part of the strategic economic dialog with China. In my case,

to work with them to help address the pollution, which obviously

affects their citizens, but also creates trans-boundary air pollution.

One of the initiatives of the President’s 2008 budget is the Asia Pacific Partnership, which our $5 million is part of the President’s

overall $50 million request, to help in this very effort, so it is a critical effort that we work with our international trading partners,

particularly China, India, South Korea in particular.

Mr. MURPHY. I hope that continues because I know it concerns

me that when we are taking measurement samples of our air to

compute in there, a lot of what is measured is not even coming

from the continental United States.

On the issue of so much that we are working on with air pollution, it is so important we work together on this. We still have to

recognize 50 to 55 percent of our energy comes from coal. The

Pennsylvania seam may have had more of an economic impact in

the United States than almost any other geological formation on

Earth, and we continue to be dependent upon it. I know there are

forces who are trying to shut down coal’s role, but we need it, especially in manufacturing, one of those being coke, and I am sorry

that the gentlelady from California has left, because I wanted to

ask—my understanding is the Clairton Coke Works that U.S. Steel

owns, which is actually in Mr. Doyle’s district, and many of the employees are from mine and many from U.S. Steel Works are also

in my district as well. My understanding is that they are in compliance. They worked for several years with the EPA on this. I hope

that is something you can get back to us and——

Mr. JOHNSON. We have to get back to you on that.

Mr. MURPHY. Because it should be one of those things we have

to find out if working together with the EPA has yielded a positive

outcome, which we all want to see, but we also want to make sure

we are not shutting down an industry. The steel industry in Pittsburgh is obviously important, and this Clairton Coke Works has

been around for a long time, working and producing a vital element

to make steel. So I hope that is something you can get back to us

on and see. Because if there is some good news of how the compliance and working together has yielded some positive results, we

would like to know about that and see how money is spent on that.

Thank you very much. I yield back.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

Next we will hear from Mr. Allen, distinguished gentleman from

Maine for 8 minutes.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Johnson, for being here.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

240

Mr. ALLEN. I want to begin by going back—your testimony is

that the budget request for the Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund is essentially the same as the 2007 level, but it doesn’t appear that any of your budget considerations have taken into account the concerns expressed by the State environmental directors

last week. Their basic point was that a dollar today doesn’t buy as

much as a dollar 5 years ago.

We have a chart, and I would like that to be put up.

[The chart follows:]

241

242

This chart is prepared by the Congressional Research Service,

and what it shows is that when you look at the fiscal year 2008

budget request, adjusted for inflation, and this looks at the last 10

years of funding for this particular program, adjusted for inflation

in 2006 dollars. When you look at that, your budget requests to

$802 million, or the lowest in the history of the program.

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct.

Mr. ALLEN. Do you agree with that?

Mr. JOHNSON. It meets the President’s commitment for a sustainable infrastructure and remember, this is a revolving loan fund and

so as time goes on, that account continues to be built. The President’s commitment was for drinking water between the years 2004

and 2018 that there be $12 billion revolving at $1.2 billion per

year. The President’s request of $842.2 million, which I believe is

a $5 million increase, helps achieve the President’s commitment.

And may I also add, I think one of the important things that I

would certainly urge Members of Congress to take a look at is the

notion of private activity bonds. We have an outside group of financial advisors as well as a number of others, including mayors and

others, have said if you could fix the private activity bond issue on

the revolving loan fund, we believe we will get more investment.

Mr. ALLEN. But we haven’t fixed that yet, have we?

Mr. JOHNSON. We haven’t fixed it yet and that is part of the

President’s 2008 budget request is to fix that is actually amending

section 146 of Internal Revenue Tax Code, so it would eliminate

that cap.

Mr. ALLEN. Right. I understand that, but you wouldn’t disagree

that the amount of money requested because of the factor of inflation is—the amount of money that can be put through this program

buys less each year. That is what the chart says.

Mr. JOHNSON. Having not seen the chart, just taking it by its

face value, that is what the chart indicates. However, again, what

the 2008 budget does do is it meets the President’s commitment of

revolving at $1.2 billion a year, and that is——

Mr. ALLEN. But the only point I am trying to make, and I don’t

think you disagree with this, is if you have a flat commitment year

after year after year, you can do less each year because everything

costs more. That is the basic point. I think that is pretty simple,

isn’t it?

Mr. JOHNSON. The point I was trying to reach is that in the case

of our water infrastructure, this is another case where environmental responsibility is everyone’s responsibility. The Federal Government has a role. Certainly rate payers have a role, and we have

been looking for innovative ways to help accelerate the pace of

dealing with our infrastructure. Private activity bonds is one.

The other one which I just want to mention is a partnership program which we have initiated called Water Sense, and it is modeled after Energy Star. In fact, I just launched it this past year because I thought that it was important for consumers to be made

aware of and to have a certification process so that consumers

could make the preferential purchase that they are more efficient,

and so we see a number of efforts to help ensure that our infrastructures——

243

Mr. ALLEN. I understand those programs are fine, but my understanding is if you look at overall water infrastructure funding by

the Federal Government, it has declined over the last 4 years by

about 50 percent overall. Your Agency did a need survey and assessment in 2005 and concluded the total drinking water infrastructure needs stood at more than $263 billion. In Maine, it is

$300 million alone. I mean, I think what you are saying is somebody else has to pay for that. It can’t be the Federal Government

because we are going to keep our commitment flat. That seems to

be what the President’s commitment is and what you are suggesting the Agency should do.

Mr. JOHNSON. What I am saying is I agree that the needs are

great and in the range of $300 billion. Also, pointing out that it is

not just the Federal Government’s responsibility, but from individuals to——

Mr. ALLEN. I hear you.

Let me ask you another question before my time runs out.

The Department of Defense, I understand, in contrast to previous

BRAC grounds, has decided to withdraw funding to EPA for oversight of the 2005 round of BRAC cleanups. Traditionally, DoD has

funded oversight by reimbursing EPA for full-time equivalent staff.

For example, in fiscal year 2006, EPA had 75.5 FTEs dedicated to

oversight work at 73 sites from the first four rounds of BRAC, and

most of that was allocated to the regional offices. The DoD’s intention in the 2005 BRAC ground is not to fund these FTEs.

Now, if that is the case, the burden of paying for oversight of

BRAC related cleanups moves to you, and given the meager EPA

budget request, it is hard for me to see how that occurs, which

means those costs would now be born by States or localities, making property transfer and disposal much more difficult, and in

many cases, endangering people who live near those sites. My basic

question is, were you consulted? Do you agree? Is this a good thing

for DoD to pass those costs on to you?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we at EPA continue to participate and seek

reimbursement from Department of Defense, and Susan, if you

would have some additional comments to provide?

Ms. BODINE. Yes. As the Congressman pointed out, we have reimbursable FTEs for BRAC 1 through 4, and not for BRAC 5. We

did consult with our regional offices as to the impacts of BRAC 5

and were told that the additional resources, the reimbursable FTEs

wouldn’t be necessary, but that we are going to continue to monitor

the situation so if it turns out that we do need additional resources,

then we will go to DoD and seek reimbursement. But we were told,

based on our review, that it wasn’t necessary.

Mr. ALLEN. So but if they are not necessary, does that mean that

you are just taking people who are doing other things for EPA and

moving them into that work? I mean, the work doesn’t go away, I

don’t think.

Ms. BODINE. No, but it is much—the BRAC 5 have many fewer

NPL sites, national priority list sites. The work is much less and

it is work that we can do within our existing resource base.

Mr. ALLEN. OK. Do the States agree with that conclusion?

244

Ms. BODINE. I believe the States expect us to still participate in

the BRAC process, and we will continue to participate in the BRAC

process.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. My time is expired.

Mr. WYNN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Next we go to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being

here today.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Johnson, as you may be aware, the attorney

general of my State of Oklahoma, has sued a number of poultry

companies for the natural resource damages under CERCLA. Because of the downstream liability concerns for smaller contract

poultry producers, this case has caused many in my State to question whether manure is really a hazardous substance within the

definition of pollutant or contaminant under CERCLA. I personally

think we should see if there are ways to ensure environmental protection without the default assumption being that the courthouse

is the first stop in these efforts.

I have two questions for you, sir.

First, I understand that you testified before the House Appropriations Committee about an administrative effort the EPA was

undertaking in regard to animal waste and CERCLA. Could you

please explain that effort and its scope for me?

Second, if my State of Oklahoma is successful in its suit and

other parties use the courts to establish that manure is the constituent or contaminant under CERCLA, could you please explain

the enforcement predicament that this would place on the Agency.

How much would EPA have to increase enforcement staffing and

funding to patrol farms that EPA has historically, as a group, not

considered an environmental threat?

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Again, our interest is to make sure we

are providing environmental protection while at the same time supporting agriculture.

In the case of the comment that I made is yes, we will be proposing a regulation that would exempt air releases from animal waste

from CERCLA emergency notification requirements. We have

heard from our 26-State emergency planning commissions that

they believe that it is a waste of their time to hear a report from

an emergency because there is a farm, if you will, nearby. And so

we are going to be proposing a regulation that does not exempt

farms from regulation under CERCLA. It does not exempt farms

from regulation under the Clean Air Act, and of course, we have

an ongoing science process to better understand what the air emissions may or may not be from agriculture. We are looking to try

to have effective regulations that are efficient, while at the same

time, focusing on where problems may be and not where they are

not.

And so, soon we will be having that draft regulation coming out

for public comment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will tell you, what I am really interested in—

and for 5 years I have been here, is we have a problem with the

poultry industry. We are downstream from them and they have

been dumping litter and runoff and all that, and we have had misVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
245

management practices at the State which haven’t really helped

that much.

I will tell you what is frustrating, sir, is that EPA will come

down in our area if someone has—let us say a developer has some

silt fences that aren’t working and someone calls. Well, the region

6 people come up and find those builders, but they will not get involved. And this thing, I think the EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency for the entire United States. What they say is that

you need to work this out. Well, you wouldn’t tell a developer and

someone complaining about those silt fences failing, you would

come and find them. Well, how come the EPA has not gotten involved in this effort? Why don’t they step in and try to do something about this, because my city of Tulsa is looking at changing

and redoing their water supply. It is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to do that. Our lakes and streams are terrible. I

don’t know if you have seen them, but you can’t even see your foot

if you are standing in four inches of water, and it is just absolutely

atrocious that nothing has been done.

Can you answer that, why the EPA will not get involved? They

say you guys figure it out.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask Ben Grumbles, who is the head of our

water program. He can give you a good up-to-date report.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Is the problem too big for the EPA?

Mr. GRUMBLES. The problem, particularly when in an interstate

context, it involves a great deal of collaboration. EPA, as I know

you know when you first came to Congress and I met with you to

respond to and address various concerns, we have a couple of key

areas where we are involved and Congressman, we commit to continue to stay involved and to help work out the water quality

standards issue, for one, about when there are different standards

for different States upstream, downstream, it is important for EPA

to be involved in that.

In the context of runoff or non-point source pollution, the way

the Clean Water Act is written, it really does put a greater role for

the States. There is not a Federal EPA regulatory role, but that

doesn’t mean we don’t step up and help, through science and a collaborative process. There is also the watershed approach, the planning that I know is a focus for us to work with you and your constituents, and the upstream constituencies.

I also would say that when there are large CAFOs, it is important to regulate them, and that is why we are committed to finalizing a regulation on nitrogen and phosphorus under the Clean

Water Act for concentrated animal feeding operations, including

poultry.

Mr. WYNN. The gentleman’s time is expired.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we really need your help.

Mr. WYNN. At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Stupak,

the gentleman from Michigan, for 5 minutes.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I believe it would be

8 minutes.

Mr. WYNN. Did you waive originally? You claimed the time you

sat in the chair.

246

Mr. STUPAK. No, I didn’t give an opening statement, but I will

take 2 minutes for sitting in the chair, so I should be up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WYNN. I think we are going in the wrong direction, Mr. Stupak.

The gentleman is recognized for 8 minutes.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Johnson, thanks for being here.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. STUPAK. Two weeks ago, the General Accounting Office re- ported that it would cost $12 billion in public funds to cleanup half

of the 54,000 leaking underground storage tanks. Michigan’s share

would be $1.64 billion. American motorists are being taxed on

every gallon of gasoline to pay for the leaking underground storage

tank trust fund to cleanup petroleum and MTBE leaks from these

tanks. The trust fund will have a surplus of over $3 billion in fiscal

year 2008.

I want to direct your attention to the chart here, and I believe

they are just handing you a copy right now.

[The chart follows:]

247

248

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, thank you.

Mr. STUPAK. It was prepared by the Congressional Research

Service, using EPA budget numbers. It shows annual revenues of

$300 million to the trust fund, $200 million from tax revenues and

over $100 million from interest on existing trust fund corpus. With

over $300 million in annual revenues, why is the EPA only seeking

$72.5 million from the LUST fund when there are over 113,000

cleanups not completed? Why wouldn’t you ask for $300 million?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, this is a prime example of why we don’t

want the Superfund tax, because while the tax revenue has come

in, as you look even——

Mr. STUPAK. Well, this about LUST.

Mr. JOHNSON. Exactly precisely the point is that this is exactly

what has happened with the Superfund tax, as is what is happening with the underground storage tank tax is that while the revenues have gone up, Congress has appropriated considerably less

money.

Mr. STUPAK. What did you ask for? You only asked for $72.5 million. Have you ever asked for $300 million?

Mr. JOHNSON. We continue to ask for and align ourselves——

Mr. STUPAK. Asked for how much? How much did you ask for?

Mr. JOHNSON. We asked for $72.4 million. That is for cleanups,

and $22.3 million for inspections.

Mr. STUPAK. You asked for $94 million.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are urging Congress to take a look at the requirement for inspections every 3 years, and in fact, what we have

heard from the States is that it would be much more efficient to

allow self certification——

Mr. STUPAK. But you have all this money here to cleanups. We

have over 113,000 leaking underground storage tanks. How come

we are not asking for the money to cleanup when the money is

there?

Mr. JOHNSON. We don’t have the money. Congress has the

money. What we have asked for is—and what the President has

asked for continues the steady progress towards addressing underground—leaking underground storage tanks.

Mr. STUPAK. It doesn’t look like any steady progress to me on

that chart, it looks pretty flat or actually going backwards. I mean,

the frustration of American people is they are paying for every gallon of gas and putting $200 million in this fund, and we still can’t

get the leaking underground storage tanks cleared up. So why don’t

you just ask for the $200 million, and we’ll leave $100 million in

for interest. Why don’t you just ask for that so we can get this program done?

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to continue to make steady progress

while achieving a balanced budget. We estimate that 350,000 of the

leaking underground storage tanks have already——

Mr. STUPAK. Well, you believe it is proper to place a gasoline tax

on the public, but instead, use those funds as a Federal deficit reduction device rather than cleaning up contaminated leaking underground storage tanks?

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, that is a decision for Congress, and what

I can say is even before 2003 and 2001, Congress has chosen to apVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
249

propriate a relatively level of source. Let me just give you another

statistic, if I could——

Mr. STUPAK. I don’t want you filibustering here. I have 8 minutes. I’m trying to get 2 more from the chairman and he won’t give

it to me, so I can’t let you filibuster.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, please.

Mr. STUPAK. The EPA decelerated the pace of environmental protection by dropping the Agency’s annual cleanup performance goal

of leaking underground storage tanks from 22,000, that is what it

was in 2003. You were going to do 22,500. Now, you went down to

13,000 in 2008. That is a 42 percent drop. It seems like the Agency

is not making any progress. You are going backwards. The goal is

22,500 in 2003, now you are down to 13,000 in 2008. That is a 42

percent drop over 6 years. Why?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have to ask. Susan, do you want to come up?

While Susan is coming up, the one I wanted to point out was this

President’s budget is higher than any amount appropriated in all

but 6 years since 1987.

Mr. STUPAK. No, my question, sir, is fiscal year 2003, 22,500

were targeted for cleanup. Fiscal year 2008, the budget year we are

in, it is 13,000. That is a 42 percent drop. Why?

Ms. BODINE. Thank you, Congressman.

The underground storage tank program is a State run program,

and——

Mr. STUPAK. I am very familiar with it. Just answer the question. Why is it going down 42 percent in 6 years? No filibustering,

please.

Ms. BODINE. We rely on the States to tell us how many tanks

they are going to be cleaning up, and they are telling us that they

will cleanup fewer because the ones that are left——

Mr. STUPAK. So if the States ask for more money, you will give

them more money?

Ms. BODINE. They are telling us that with States——

Mr. STUPAK. Have the States asked for more money? Yes or no.

Ms. BODINE. I would have to get back to you on that. I don’t

know that, but I can get back to you on that.

Mr. STUPAK. Alright. Let me ask this question. In 1992, there

was an agreement between Michigan and Canada, solid municipal

waste moving from Canada into the United States. In 1982, the

EPA was going to put forth a proper framework for notice and consent of the movement of waste and the flow of trash between our

two countries. EPA has never done it. In 1993 in a question to Mr.

Dingell, when asked when those rules and regulations would be

put out, the EPA said ‘‘shortly’’. It is now 14 years. We still do not

have a program. And everybody who came from EPA—and over the

last 6 years we haven’t had many EPA hearings, but each time I

ask and each time I use the word shortly, and each time I get back

these nice letters saying we are working on it. We have the pilot

program. We will have this completed shortly. It is 14 years. We

still don’t have the rules or regulations.

Mr. JOHNSON. We lack the authority to ban municipal waste imports.

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, I have heard that before so I asked for language, and we never get any language from the EPA. If you lack

250

authority, how could you do a pilot program if you didn’t have authority?

Mr. JOHNSON. Our pilot program went to look at to see whether,

in fact, they were——

Mr. STUPAK. Moving trash?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what the movement was and did it contain

any hazardous waste, or was it indeed municipal solid waste as it

was. And we concluded that the report inspections was completed

in fiscal year 2006, and I would be happy to provide another copy

of that for the record, if you would like.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, when are you going to put forth the rules and

regulations, 14 years?

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, we lack the authority to ban municipal

solid waste imports.

Mr. STUPAK. But do you support Mr. Dingell’s bill, then, H.R.

518?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have taken no position on that bill.

Mr. STUPAK. You haven’t taken a position on any one of the bills

we have introduced for the last 6 years on this issue. Will you take

a position on Mr. Dingell’s bill, H.R. 518, which is a bipartisan bill

signed by Great Lakes members who want to see the flow of Canadian trash greatly curtailed into this country?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have not taken a position.

Mr. STUPAK. Will you take a position? Six years you have been

trying to take a position. We change the numbers every 2 years,

the same bill. Will you take a position on that bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. I will be happy to get back to you for the record.

Mr. WYNN. The gentleman’s time is expired.

Mr. STUPAK. Fourteen more years I am going to have to wait? I

don’t know if I will be here that long.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Deal of Georgia.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield to Mr. Murphy briefly.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the gentleman.

I just want to clarify. I have been checking this issue about the

Clairton Coke Works, because they have been around for many

years. The Clairton Coke Works is operated by U.S. Steel and is

actually in full compliance with the EPA and full compliance with

the National Emissions Standards. Not only that, it actually operates under stricter standards than the EPA or the National Emissions Standards, because the State of Pennsylvania has stricter

standards and Allegheny County has even stricter standards than

the State of Pennsylvania, and it is operating under strict standards for all of those.

Mr. Chairman, I would like with unanimous consent to be able

to provide all this information, as well ask the gentlelady from

California to provide her information, because it may be an example of how the EPA and industry can work together to make sure

they are working for the public health and achieve the things that

we wish.

I yield back.

Mr. WYNN. Since the gentlelady from California is not here, for

her I am happy to include without objection, and I will certainly

ask her if she would like her information included.

251

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here today.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. DEAL. Very briefly, since the issue of poultry waste and

CERCLA has come up, as a representative from perhaps one of the

largest broiler producing districts in the entire United States, my

communities have serious concerns about the expansion of authority, regulation or otherwise, under CERCLA, which we do not think

was initially intended to address this issue.

So a little bit different perspective than perhaps what you have

heard earlier references made to that, but moving on to another

consideration. And it would be primarily observation, followed by

a very brief question or two. We have heard from many of my colleagues, many on the Democratic side of the aisle, about issues

that relate to Superfund, relate to Brownfields, et cetera, and it

has been with criticism that enough money is not being spent, actions are not being taken fast enough, and then, of course, criticism

of existing industries, such as Mr. Murphy has already tried to

clarify, the issue about alleged continuing pollution.

I would point out that in this concept that we have heard of Environmental Justice, I would like to insert another term for your

consideration, and that is geographic justice. My constituents in

rural areas don’t really complain about spending Federal dollars to

cleanup these sites, but I would point out that in most instances,

those are sites that are the result of industrialization in this country, and they provided, even though they polluted in hindsight,

they provided good paying jobs for those parts of the country that

benefited richly from those job sites. Just as the jobs that are now

being complained about industries that they don’t particularly like,

many of my constituents would welcome them to the rural parts

because they need those kind of jobs. We are not complaining about

spending money for these geographical sites that have benefited in

the past but now have pollution problems.

But there is an issue of geographic justice that I don’t think is

being paid much attention to. For example, I think we ought to, in

our environmental policies, not promote further concentrations of

population, further concentrations of industry in areas that are already polluted, but I am afraid that many of the policies that we

have in place are doing exactly that. Instead of dispersing, we are

promoting further concentration. Let me give you specific examples

of that.

My congressional district in the northwest corner borders Alabama and Tennessee. That portion is in the Chattanooga metropolitan statistical area. Several of my rural counties are now in noncompliance under air quality. They have very good information that

it is not because of things that are coming within their area or

things they have any control over. In fact, they had a study from

NASA that showed that one of their non-compliances was because

they were burning wheat fields in the Midwest and it was simply

blowing there.

My time is running out.

My question is this. You indicated that there is going to be a

shift of responsibility for air monitoring to the States. Many of

those counties, the one in particular that is in non-compliance, has

no testing site within the county. They have testing sites in anVerDate 11-SEP-98 10:11 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Q:\DOCS\110-11 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
252

other State, Alabama and Tennessee, and they are concerned. They

feel like if you want to get a good reading, get one from them and

not penalize readings coming from somewhere else. In fact, one of

the readings in my State is in the middle of a national forest, and

it is in non-compliance because of pollen in the air.

Who has the authority to determine the location of air monitoring sites? Is it the State or is the Federal Government? Whose approval has to be obtained?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is done in cooperation. Again, we work with our

State partners to make sure these we are trying to achieve national——

Mr. WYNN. The gentleman’s time is expired.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, let him answer my question, my only

question.

Mr. WYNN. Because of the pending vote, I am trying to get another Member recognized. I am sure he would be happy to submit

his answer to you or give you an answer in private.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to have my staff also sit down

with you. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Administrator Johnson, the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change has determined that the planet is warming as a result of carbon dioxide pollution and other emissions of

greenhouse gases, by mankind, and that we could face a potential

environmental catastrophe of severe hurricanes and other storms,

droughts, rising sea levels, and massive species extinction if we do

not reverse current trends.

Do you agree with the IPCC’s findings?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we do. In fact, and because of investment by

the United States and——

Mr. MARKEY. Do you do agree?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you support a mandatory cap and trade program to curb carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions?

Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, what I do support is what the President announced at the State of the Union, and that is an aggressive yet

practical strategy——

Mr. MARKEY. No, you support a mandatory program to?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, in fact, support a mandatory program in the

sense of CAFE standard, as well as a mandatory——

Mr. MARKEY. Do you support a mandatory 4 percent annual increase in CAFE standards over the next decade?

Mr. JOHNSON. Support an increase in CAFE standards——

Mr. MARKEY. Mandatory.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mandatory increase in CAFE standards, yes.

Mr. MARKEY. So you support a mandatory 4 percent?

Mr. JOHNSON. Four percent.

Mr. MARKEY. That is what the President used in his State of the

Union address. So you support a mandatory 4 percent increase?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is what I support.

Mr. MARKEY. OK. And that is very helpful to me.

So do you support a mandatory cap and trade system?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I do not.

253

Mr. MARKEY. No, you do not, OK.

Would you support a Federal renewable portfolio standard to

mandate that electric utilities get 20 percent of their generation

from clean renewable sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal or

biomass by 2020?

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me just make clear on the CAFE. The proposal

from the President is to ask Congress to defer to Department of

Transportation to actually——

Mr. MARKEY. So you don’t support mandatory——

Mr. JOHNSON. The President identified is part of a 20 percent in

10 years, the 5 percent would come from CAFE——

Mr. MARKEY. So you don’t support——

Mr. JOHNSON. I just want to make it clear——

Mr. MARKEY. No, you are not clear. You don’t support a mandatory 4 percent increase in CAFE, is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. I support what the President asked for.

Mr. MARKEY. Is that mandatory or not mandatory?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is a mandatory CAFE standard through the Department of Transportation to determine the percentage to achieve

what the President has outlined——

Mr. MARKEY. Alright. I can’t let you go on. The answer is either

mandatory or non-mandatory, not mandatory except that the Department of Transportation decides it is not mandatory. Which is

it for you, sir, mandatory or not?

Mr. JOHNSON. For me, I support the President.

Mr. MARKEY. OK. That’s all we need to know.

Would you support mandating a 10 percent increase in overall

electric power sector efficiency and a 5 percent increase in natural

gas utility efficiency by 2020 to be achieved by demand reduction

programs, more efficient power generation, transmission, and distribution systems, accelerating introduction of more energy efficient

buildings and appliances? Would you support that?

Mr. JOHNSON. I support increased energy efficiency.

Mr. MARKEY. But again, we need goals. Everyone supports it. Is

it a goal that will deal with catastrophe or is it——

Mr. JOHNSON. I support energy efficiency.

Mr. MARKEY. Well, that doesn’t help us again.

What you are telling me, again, Mr. Administrator, is that the

Bush administration’s policy of denial and delay is continuing as

you sit there today. It is little wonder that today is the first time

in nearly 6 years that the EPA Administrator has actually appeared before this committee. The FBI does not have as good a witness protection program as the Bush administration and the Republican Congress has had to keep the EPA from actually testifying on these issues.

Today we can see why. You really don’t have a policy to deal

with the number one environmental challenge now facing the planet, the threat of global warming. I can only hope that this policy

soon comes to an end and that your administration, Mr. Administrator, becomes serious about working for mandatory goals that are

set in each one of those areas rather than this non-specific, completely useless testimony in terms of helping Congress understand

what the goals of this administration are.

254

You also have a requirement to set standards for the underground sequestration of emissions from coal-fired plants. When do

you plan on providing those specific guidelines?

Mr. JOHNSON. With regard to geologic carbon sequestration, EPA

and Department of Energy have been working on guidance that

would guide the pilot projects so that we can evaluate the technical

aspects for these class 5 experimental technology wells. We have

started the public dialog. This is an issue for underground injection——

Mr. MARKEY. How many years before you can give a——

Mr. WYNN. The gentleman’s time is expired.

Mr. MARKEY. Can you provide the answer so the committee has

it?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to provide one for the record.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. The subcommittee has no further members seeking

questions.

I remind members if they have additional questions, they can

submit them for the record to be answered by the witness. The

questions should be submitted to the committee clerk in electronic

form within the next 10 days. The clerk will notify your offices of

the procedures.

I want to thank the Administrator, Mr. Johnson, and his team

for appearing before us today, and without objection, this hearing

is now adjourned.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412