SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Tuesday, March 10, 1998.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR
FRED HANSEN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
SALLYANNE HARPER, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Chairman's Opening Remarks
Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the first of a two-day set of hearings on the fiscal year 1998 budget request of the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's spending request totals $7,795,275,000; an increase of just over $435 million above the 1998 level.
The Agency's actual request for new appropriation total some $7.14 billion, as their 1999 request includes an additional $650 million for Superfund, which was appropriated in the fiscal year 1998 bill, but does not become available for obligation until fiscal year 1999.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would add that in this regard, consistent with an agreement reached with between the committee and the Office of Management and Budget, these additional funds will not become available in 1999, unless the Superfund Program is reauthorized on or before May 15, 1998; just around the corner.
Testifying on behalf of EPA this morning will, again, be its very able Administrator, Carol M. Browner. Ms. Browner, we would like to welcome you back to what is, I believe, your sixth appearance before this subcommittee.
In that regard, I would like to note for the record that Ms. Browner has now served as Administrator for EPA longer than any other individual in over the 25-year history of the Agency. Such longevity which belies her appearance at any federal Agency, let alone at one as complicated and, at times, controversial as EPA, certainly speaks volumes about Ms. Browner's commitment to environmental concerns and her commitment to her country, as well as her capability.
Before calling on the Administrator, it is my pleasure to call upon my colleague and friend, Louis Stokes.
Opening Remarks by Mr. Stokes
Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Administrator, I would like to join our Chairman in welcoming you and all of your colleagues here this morning. The work of your Agency is of critical importance to this nation.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is always a pleasure to consider your work and your budget. Your goals of clean air, clean and safe water, safe food, preventing pollution, reducing risk in communities, as well as ensuring environmental justice are some of the most important programs of our government.
I am particularly interested in hearing about the progress that the Agency is making in the Superfund clean-up, brownfields, and the revolving funds exist for drinking water and clean water programs.
I look forward to your presentation. It is always a pleasure to welcome you before our subcommittee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. At the initial stages, I am going to take a little different tact. If my colleagues will bear with me, I may take a little longer than normal in my introductory questioning, but I think it is important.
Please introduce the two people who are with you.
Ms. BROWNER. Thank you for everything.
Mr. LEWIS. Members come and go, but the rest of us will be here forever.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We have Fred Hansen our Deputy Administrator and Sallyanne Harper our Acting Chief Financial Officer whom we hope to have confirmed at any moment now.
Mr. Chairman, also joining me, as we have done in years past, are the Assistant Administrators for each of our program areas. In addition we have the Associate Administrator for the Office of Reinvention, the head of our Children's Office, and Mike McCabe representing our regional offices.
Mike is the Regional Administrator for Region Three. I think many of you know Joe Crapa, who has joined us as Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.
PM RESEARCH
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes, I appreciate your patience from time-to-time. So, I am appreciating that at this moment. I first want to begin by publicly thanking Administrator Browner, and Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen, Acting Assistant Administrator Henry Longest, and all other people on both sides and outside of the government who had a hand in developing and implementing a very important issue facing us.
That is the Particulate Matter Research Program included in the 1998 bill. Shortly after passage of the legislation, EPA negotiated and signed a contract, ahead of our requested schedule, with the National Academy of Sciences to develop a consensus near term Particulate Matter Research Plan.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NAS is well-underway with this project. In fact, I received word just last Friday that the NAS Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter had unanimously approved its Draft Report No. 1, and sent it to the Academy's Report Review Committee and 12 peer reviewers.
Based on this announcement, they fully expected to submit their final draft on schedule around the end of March or early April. The process would then require EPA to integrate the NAS Plan with their original PM Research as proposed and adopted in the fiscal year 1998 bill.
I am aware that EPA has been actively involved in providing all necessary materials and assistance to the NAS. It is my understanding that you stand prepared to integrate the NAS Plan and push appropriate research funds out the door as quickly as is practical, once you receive those NAS documents.
As I have stated several times over the past few months, our purpose in developing this legislative effort was, and does not in any way diminish or contradict the fine PM-related research already being conducted by EPA's board staff.
Rather, we sought to provide the tools and resources to add to that research effort so that we could assure that the complete science possible was conducted prior to the development and implementation of any new PM regulatory scheme.
Such new regulatory requirements imposed on our states and local governments will undoubtedly pose significant financial concerns. I believe it is our responsibility to base those regulatory actions on the best and most complete science possible.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We obviously have a long way to go before this effort will bear fruit. There are numerous issues, including the timing of the next required PM review that may need to be discussed at a later date.
For now, however, I want to thank all of those people involved with this very important effort, particularly you, Ms. Browner, and your Deputy Administrator, Mr. Hansen. I particularly look forward to our continued work together to see this process through to its successful completion.
Ms. BROWNER. Mr. Chairman, if I might just also recognize the work of Frank Cushing in making this happen. This really is a testament to how the two branches of government can work together. He was invaluable in working with us and we really appreciate that.
Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate that. I wanted to make those introductory comments and lay that foundation as we turn to the Administrator. I know that you have an opening statement.
As you know, we would prefer that you have that statement included in its entirety in the record. From there, if you would bring to us your priority concerns, in whatever form you would like, it is now my pleasure to recognize Ms. Browner.
Administrator Browner's Opening Remarks
Ms. BROWNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this subcommittee for this opportunity to appear before you today. I would ask that my statement in its entirety be inserted in the record.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Very briefly, I would like to call to this subcommittee's attention the budget priorities included in the President's 1999 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Before doing that, I would like to note for this subcommittee it is with this budget, for the first time ever, that we actually present the budget based on a set of goals. I think much of the discussion we will have today will be based on the way we have presented the budget previously.
We present it two ways this year; one based on goals and one based on traditional program allotments and undertakings. We are very committed to the work, looking at the goals, and the commitments we make to the American people in terms of protecting their environment, their health, and growing the economy.
For the first time ever, we present our budget in keeping with a set of goals. First and foremost in this budget is global warming. As the President has said many times, global warming is a critical challenge. It is, perhaps, the most serious environmental public health threat we face as a nation.
This budget reflects the President's determination that America will lead the world in meeting the challenge of global warming by reducing the pollutants that cause global warming and climate change. In doing, so we will continue to grow the economy.
New data shows that 1997 was the hottest year ever recorded. Nine of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1987. The vast majority of the world's scientists have warned us that we need to tackle the problem.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we fail to address this problem, we will leave a legacy of climate change and environmental damage that will greatly burden future generations. Included in this budget is an increase for EPA in keeping with the President's commitment across the government.
This request is part of a $6 billion program in tax incentives, research, and development that the President has proposed to encourage innovative technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.
This budget also includes a new Clean Water program designed to help us continue the job of cleaning up the pollution in our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Several weeks ago, the President announced the Clean Water Action Plan designed to address today's greatest threats to our nation's waters coast-to-coast, including pollutant run-off from urban areas, farms, loss of wetlands, and the restoration of our waterways.
Mr. Chairman, I know this has been a question in years past. What is the cooperation between federal agencies on issues such as this? This plan demonstrates the very strong commitment to working across department and agency lines. We will be happy to provide details on that.
Secretary Glickman, joining the President as I did in announcing this plan, pointed out that he may very well have been the first Secretary of Agriculture to ever appear at a Clean Water Act event and to commit Departmental resources.
Most of the budget increase that EPA seeks for this program would be passed on to the states to allow them to address the pollutant run-off challenges that they face. This budget also includes an $8 million increase to address the unique vulnerabilities of children to environmental threats.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are working there with the Department of HHS to establish six research centers for children's environmental health. The final area that I would point to is Superfund, the clean-up of toxic waste.
I know there will be many questions about this, particularly the $650 million advanced appropriation. What I would like to say in summary is that this budget is designed to have us complete 900 clean-ups by the end of 2001. We are more than happy to provide all of the details.
I'd also like to address the issue that you raised, Mr. Chairman, about the fine particles. Included in this budget request are the lion's share of the dollars necessary to continue the research effort and purchase, install, and turn on the fine particle monitors without a state cost share, as we committed to do last year.
There are other important areas of the budget which we will be more than happy to address in the course of this hearing. In summary, I would say that this is a budget for a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for our children and their children to come.
It builds on our past successes. It builds on our efforts to change how we do this job to find the common sense cost effective solutions. We are pleased to be here today.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Browner follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IG LETTER: TEN MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Browner.
On December 15, 1997, the House Majority Leader wrote a letter to the EPA Inspector General asking that the IG identify the ten most serious management problems confronting the Agency.
The Inspector General responded to this request. In their letter to the Majority Leader, the IG noted that, and I quote, ''If the areas of concern are not addressed in a timely manner, they could impact on the Agency's ability to accomplish its mission.''
While some of these ten are certainly less important than others, all ten represent serious management control weaknesses which serve to undermine the Agency's credibility; particularly as it relates to our faith that you are spending the taxpayers' money wisely and efficiently.
As reported by the IG, these are the ten most serious areas of concern. There are problems with reliability of data that make it difficult, if not impossible, for EPA's managers to assess progress in carrying out its environmental mission. That is number one.
Number two, enforcement actions have been implemented inconsistently in the air, water, and hazard waste programs resulting in varying penalties and numbers of enforcement actions taken.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Next, EPA has not demonstrated that environmental data collection at Superfund hazardous waste sites are based upon systematic planning or use of scientific methodology, even though a preferred data quality objectives process has been developed.
Apparently, EPA has not required the use of this systematic process, nor has it developed criteria to implement an alternative process.
Although EPA has significantly increased the number of emissions factors for the sources of air pollution, these factors are used to estimate a source's air pollution emissions when more reliable data are not available. Many have still not been developed and others have become outdated or unreliable. The net result is greatly reduced effectiveness of both government and industrial efforts to control air pollution.
Further, the lack of adequate cost accounting capabilities and cost information adversely impacts nearly every facet of EPA's operations, from budget formulation and planning to program execution.
The IG goes on. EPA has not made optimal use of contract types that are results oriented and provide better cost control. Instead, the Agency continues to rely excessively on level of effort, cost reimbursable contracts that essentially buy labor hours, not necessarily results, and places the burden of cost control on the government.
It is suggested that numerous recent audits have identified information systems' security weaknesses caused by lack of security plans for EPA's general automated support systems and major applications. Such security weaknesses leave EPA vulnerable to unauthorized access, use, manipulation, and/or destruction of its information resources.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, assessments have identified a critical need to take corrective action to prevent systems failures due to the inability to handle the upcoming century change in the year 2000. That is a question we have asked of every agency so far during our hearing process.
Further, assistance agreements or grants constitute almost 50-percent of EPA's budget. Yet, regular audits confirm that many grant recipients have wasted taxpayers' dollars and EPA did not get what it paid for.
This situation has occurred because such recipients have not fulfilled their responsibilities under the terms of the grant and EPA has not fulfilled its obligation to adequately monitor such grant agreements and apply available sanctions when recipients did not perform.
The last comment of the IG suggests that despite the fact that 1990 was the final year that funding was authorized for the Wastewater Construction Grant Program, and despite the fact that the lack of progress and close-out of the program was identified in 1993 as an Agency-level weakness, and despite the fact that in 1996 the close-out of the program was elevated to a material weakness in your Fiscal Year 1996 Integrity Act Report to the President and the Congress, your current plan, as I understand it, is to have the work ''substantially complete'' in fiscal year 2000.
In that regard, the IG has reported its belief that results provided to EPA's regional offices to close-out this program were sometimes used by the regions for other programs; something I could not even imagine occurring.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I suppose if the regions are aware of the quality of the Agency's cost accounting process, such irregular use of close-out funds would be more than possible.
Madam Administrator, I know that on a number of these issues, the Agency has agreed with the IG and has identified the problem as a management control weakness.
I also know that none of these issues are new issues. Many have been discussed in this forum in one fashion or another over the past several years.
The fact remains that these are serious issues which must be addressed. I would like to know specifically how and when you plan to respond to each and ever one of them?
I would appreciate your general response at this point. I would also appreciate a specific and detailed response, if you would include it in the record.
[The detailed response follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Ms. BROWNER. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we will be more than happy to give you a detailed account of what we are doing in each area to address the issues raised by the Inspector General.
We welcome the work of the IG, in terms of helping us better manage the Agency. I think that, as you pointed out, these are areas where in many instances we have been working over the last several years to correct the concerns.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONSTRUCTION GRANT CLOSE-OUT
For example, in the close-out of the Construction Grants Program, we have, in concert with the IG, established a schedule. For the Members who may not be aware, this is where we go back and we audit cities on how they spent waste water money, in some instances dating back to 1966.
Many of you have called me over the years about this when your cities have been audited. Reasonable people can see things in slightly different ways. But we now have a schedule for completing that work.
In 1997, we had 729 projects from all fiscal years that we were still working on. In 1999, we will be down to 175. Again, these are not easy undertakings. There can be reasonable differences. We are committed to resolving this particular issue.
You also raised emission factor developments under the Clean Air Act. Included in the budget before you is a $10 million request for funding for emission air factor development. We recognize that and we are here today asking for money.
YEAR 2000 COMPUTER COMPLIANCE
One issue that I want to briefly respond to here and, again, we will respond to all in writing, is the year 2000. I know this has been an issue of concern across the Congress, and appropriately.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are quite pleased with our progress. I think Congressman Horn recently graded federal agencies on their progress. I think we received a ''B.'' We are working toward the ''B-plus.'' That was better than a lot of our colleagues.
We can give you a breakout on where we are. We have 61 critical systems; 40 of those are now compliant with the year 2000; 14 more will be compliant by September 30th. We have 7 remaining.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Ms. BROWNER. One of the remaining systems is very difficult and, while we are now on schedule, we are also talking to other federal agencies about perhaps contracting with them to take over our payroll system. Our payroll system is about 25-years-old.
It is probably one of the biggest challenges we face in terms of the year 2000.
Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate that very brief and very general response. I must say the thrust of this and the reason I wanted to exercise the IG's questions was because usually the response when we ask the agency about ''X'' or ''Y,'' the response for doing ''X'' or ''Y'' is because it is ''good for the environment.''
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do not think there is anybody in this room that does not want to do what is good for the environment, including all of the Members at the dias, but making sure that in that mix we also are exercising ourselves in a way that really protects the interest of the people we want to serve; the communities, the constituents, and the taxpayer.
So, I raise these questions so that you will know that the Committee is very interested. We do want to pursue this matter. We will appreciate your responding as you suggested. Mr. Stokes.
SUPERFUND: REAUTHORIZATION
Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Administrator, the President's 1999 budget request for EPA totals $7.8 billion, compared with about $7.4 billion for the current fiscal year.
However, the $7.8 billion figure includes the advanced appropriation for the Superfund Program of $650 million, which was included in last year's act. That funding, however, was provided contingent upon reauthorization of the Superfund Program.
The funding lapses after May 15, 1998, if the program has not been reauthorized by that date. First, tell us what do you think of the probability that reauthorization legislation for the Superfund Program will be enacted within the next two months?
Ms. BROWNER. Congressman Stokes, we continue to believe that a comprehensive rewrite of the program, of the laws, is in the interest of the American people.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last week alone, I think I probably spent more than 30 hours in hearings or in meetings. In one 48-hour period, I spent 20 hours in meetings with Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Borski in an effort to reach an agreement on legislation.
As of this time, there is obviously not an agreement. As I understand it, at 4:00 p.m; this afternoon, Mr. Boehlert will move to mark-up a bill which the Administration will oppose without significant changes.
Having said that, we stand ready and willing to work with any Member to find agreement on legislation. I would also point out, as I have in years past, that the Superfund program of today, the day-to-day operation, is significantly different than the day-to-day operation of the program ten years ago.
I would encourage Congress, in considering this budget request, to consider those communities, and we can provide the list of sites where we are ready to do the final clean-up. Without the money we will not be able to clean up those sites.
It is just that simple at this point in time. A lot of good work has gone into advancing sites to the final phase. It now comes down to a question of money.
That is what the $650 million that the Congress appropriated last year is designed to address, getting those sites done that are ready to go.
SUPERFUND: IMPACT OF FAILURE TO REAUTHORIZE
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Well, if we take the worst case scenario and assume that there is no reauthorization, tell us then what are your plans?
Ms. BROWNER. If there is no reauthorization by May 15th, as the language requires in terms of the 50/50, OMB will submit a budget amendment to see that money carried forward without reauthorization, because of our great concern for these communities and the sites that are ready to go to cleanup.
Mr. LEWIS. It is a very important item. Within the House, pretty clear direction has come to us from on high that before we find ourselves essentially authorizing on the appropriations bill, which essentially is what you are talking about, we must have the approval of the authorizing committee of the House.
That is not always available to us. So, the question is if it is not authorized, and if appropriation without authorization is not allowed, what do you do?
Ms. BROWNER. Well, we would work very hard, in a bipartisan manner, to secure that support from the authorizing committees, despite failure at reauthorization. At this time I do not want to speak for the authorizing committee.
I have spent a lot of time with the members of the authorizing committees. No one has said to me—although they may say they had intended to say to me—that it is their desire to appear before this Subcommittee and encourage you not to fund the program.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is not something that has been said to me. We are still committed to reauthorization. We have spent a huge amount of time trying to get it. I testified 15 different times in the last two and a half years on Superfund, just Superfund, in an effort to get a bill.
As I said, last week in a 48-hour period, I spent 20 hours in meetings with Members in an effort to get a bill. So, we are trying to get the bill. I guess the question I would hope that we can all consider is, without a bill, what happens to those communities?
Is it fair to those communities, who may have waited 10, 12, 13 years when the money was accounted for in the balanced budget agreement, to ask them to wait another set of years?
SUPERFUND: DOLLARS AVAILABLE
Mr. STOKES. Let me ask you this, Madam Administrator. I understand EPA hopes to have the Superfund Program financed at $2.1 billion in 1999, partly to honor the commitment made at Kalamazoo in 1996 to have 900 sites cleaned up by the end of 2001.
If the Superfund Program is not reauthorized, the tax not reinstated, and $650 million provided as an advanced appropriation in 1998 not available, what then happens to the program?
That is, specifically tell us how many sites will be delayed in their clean-ups. Will the balance of the money in the fund be adequate to finance the program?
Ms. BROWNER. If I might; there are two questions in there. Let me answer them separately. If I might start with the money available in the Fund.
Mr. Chairman, if you would bear with me. This is somewhat of a complicated answer, but I will do my best to simplify it. The 1998 appropriation from the Trust Fund, which is funded through the taxes, is $1.250 billion.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An additional $250 million comes from general revenue for a total of $1.5 billion. If you subtract the $1.5 billion from the Trust Fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year, it leaves you with a balance in the Trust Fund of $1.387.
Because that Trust Fund collects interest, because we are being reimbursed for expenditures that we made in prior years where there are now responsible parties, we collect money in the course of the year.
So, money goes into the Trust Fund, even though the tax is not being collected. Interest in 1998 will be $217 million. Collections from responsible parties will be $175 million which would give you a balance available for appropriation from the Trust Fund of $1.783 billion.
Then if you add to that the 250 million general revenue appropriation proposal for FY99 that has been a part of the history of this program, you would have a total at the beginning of fiscal year 1999 of $2.033 billion.
We would again in 1999 collect interest. We would again have responsible parties making reimbursements. Interest would be $157 million. Collections would be $175 million which would take the fund up to a total of $2.369 billion.
The appropriation we have asked for, when you add the $650 in, would be a total of $2.1 billion. So, there would be adequate funds, assuming that $250 million general revenue funding that continues to be available as it has for many, many years now to honor the $2.1 billion request.
In the year 2000, you have a problem because you only have available in the Trust Fund the $276 million. Again, there will be some interest, $94 million. There will be collections of $175 million plus $4 million in fees and penalties. With the general revenue appropriation of $250 million, you would only have available in the year 2000, $799 million for a request of something on the order of $1.5 billion.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The $650 million is a one-time request. So, the long and the short of this is that in the Trust Fund, with the general revenue appropriation that has been granted in years past, there are funds in fiscal year 1999 of $2.369 billion adequate to cover the $2.1 billion request.
I apologize, but it is a complicated account because interest and collections keep coming back into it as we continue to do what we are supposed to do, which is go out and get the responsible parties to reimburse us.
In terms of the sites, do you want me to run through those numbers quickly? Would that be helpful?
SUPERFUND: CLEANUP DELAYS
Mr. STOKES. It would be helpful if you would tell us how many sites would be delayed in their clean-up? I think that is important.
Ms. BROWNER. Without the additional $650 million, there would be 51 sites that we would delay in fiscal year 1999 and 120 sites would not be started. There are some things that we are finishing up. Then there are others that we start to keep the process moving.
So, failure to fund affects two categories. One is the completions that we can achieve, and the other is the starts. Both are crucial to the success of the program and to the communities where the sites are located. So, 51 completions and 120 start-ups that would be affected.
PULMONARY HEMORRHAGE
Mr. STOKES. I have a number of questions on the budget, but before I yield so the Chairman can recognize some of the other Members who are here, let me ask you this. This is sort of switching gauges a little bit.
As you know, there is an outbreak of pulmonary hemorrhage in infants in this cluster in my Congressional district. There have been 38 cases diagnosed in the Cleveland area, including 14 deaths and 122 cases nationwide in the past five years.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do we know why a third of the cases of pulmonary hemorrhage in infants have occurred in the Cleveland area and why half of the total number of cases are clustered around the Great Lakes area?
Ms. BROWNER. We are looking at this issue. We are working with the Centers for Disease Control and NIEHS. We all want to understand what is happening here. At this point in time, we do not have a clear answer, but we are continuing to look at the issue.
Mr. STOKES. There has been some evidence or at least some diagnosis that the disease is initiated by an airborne mold found in older housing that have bodies of standing water in the foundation or the basement. It also appears to be an indoor air pollution problem.
The issue crosses the interests and jurisdictions of the Department of Health and Human Services, HUD, and EPA. Can you tell me whether or not there are any collaborative efforts going on between those agencies relative to finding out the causes of this problem?
Ms. BROWNER. Yes, we are working with HHS. I am not sure that we are working with HUD and that is an interesting point that you raised. We will contact them and see what would be appropriate in terms of their involvement.
The issue of indoor air is an area of growing concern for us when we look at the human health consequences, particularly among children.
This may well be associated with indoor air. I do not think we know conclusively yet. We are certainly doing everything we can with these other agencies to see if we can understand the problem.
Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Stokes.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Going back briefly to your earlier question, as the Administrator outlined those zeros and the interest earned from the Superfund Trust Fund, et cetera, she was not suggesting she did not need the $650 million, I do not believe.
Ms. BROWNER. No.
Mr. STOKES. No. I am sure she was not.
Ms. BROWNER. I was saying there was enough money there to pay for it.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Mollohan.
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN (CWAP)
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Administrator, welcome to the hearing. I join my colleagues in expressing appreciation for your coming up.
Would you talk with us in a little more detail about the President's Clean Water Action Plan and what it means in and of itself, or what it might mean, with regard to any change in direction for EPA and how it moves forward to implement our water quality standards?
Ms. BROWNER. The Clean Water Action Plan was developed under the leadership of the White House with the Department of Agriculture and EPA as the lead agencies, but also including Interior, NOAA, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
It is designed to address the most pressing water problems as we understand them today. That includes the issue of polluted run-off. Some of you have experienced problems, particularly acute problems in your state, associated with polluted run-off.
Others of you continue to have areas where fishing and swimming is not allowed, in large measure, because of polluted run-off.
The mechanism that we believe is the most appropriate way to address these concerns is to use a watershed-by-watershed, region-by-region, state-by-state approach, recognizing what the most difficult problems are within a watershed, within a basin. This involves developing a basin-specific, a watershed-specific plan, working across Federal agencies to provide additional resources to the states.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The EPA budget request is $145 million for this new program of which $120 million would go to the states and tribes in the form of expanded section 319 non-point source program Grants and programs to develop these plans and to put in place the mechanisms to solve the problem.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. There are a lot of watersheds in the country.
Ms. BROWNER. There are over 2,000 watersheds in the Continental United States. What we believe, and I think what many of the states would agree with, is that not every watershed faces the same challenges.
Some are more at risk than others. Some are more polluted than others. Part of this program is to focus on those with the greatest problems, those at the greatest risk, and to not simply have a one size fits all answer to the problem.
We have done a lot with the one size fits all answer: command and control the end of the pipe. It has given us a tremendous sense of progress in this country, but it will not be adequate in and of itself to address the problems of polluted run-offs.
So, we are going to have to work basin-by-basin. Some, quite frankly, will not rise to the occasion and others will.
CWAP: GRANTS TO STATES
Mr. MOLLOHAN. So, how is it going to work? The grant program, does this go through the states?
Ms. BROWNER. Yes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do the states handle the grant money?
Ms. BROWNER. The states will make applications, yes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. The states will make applications to the Federal government?
Ms. BROWNER. Yes. We are using existing grant authority.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is not a state allocation program.
Ms. BROWNER. Some of it is allocated and some of it is an application process.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. So, every state will get an allocation amount.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. How much of it is allocation and how much of it is application?
Ms. BROWNER. This is Bob Perciasepe from the Office of Water. He can give you the breakout.
Mr. PERCIASEPE. The $20 million increase for the operating grants or the so-called 106 Grants, which are authorized under 106 of the Clean Water Act, is an allocation formula that goes to the states for their normal ongoing operations.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is an administrative grant to the states.
Mr. PERCIASEPE. That is correct. It is to run their programs, and the increased work that they would have to do to do these basin-by-basin, watershed-by-watershed analyses that the Administrator is talking about.
The increase of $100 million to the 319 Grant, which is the Non-Point Source Grant would be doubling the amount that is in there. The existing $100 million would continue to be allocated based on a formula that we have worked on with the states.
Every state would continue to get what they have been getting. We want to target the additional $100 million, along with the agriculture money, to the highest priority watersheds on a state-by-state basis.
So, every state would get more of that, but it would be targeted to the priority watersheds, as the Administrator has described.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then each watershed would apply to the state to receive grants to, what; to study their watershed situation?
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. It could be for planning or it could be for implementation. It would depend on the watershed. I think you were saying this. So, let me just make sure.
We would look to the states to prioritize. So, the state would say, this watershed is the most at risk. So, we are going to increase funding for this watershed. There might be some that you would not fund.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. So, it would be a state led initiative in that sense.
NPS GRANTS: STATE MATCH
Ms. BROWNER. In terms of prioritization.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you would all be overlooking it. Is there a matching requirement to the current $100 million?
Ms. BROWNER. Yes. On the 319 Non-Point Source Grants, there is a 40-percent match.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am talking about the additional money that is going to go to the grant program under this initiative.
Ms. BROWNER. There is, but let me just be clear about what is considered a match. It can include in-kind work that people are doing in the States.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are very flexible about that.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I mean, I take it that is what you were saying.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes. The State match is not required dollars.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are projecting this to be a $3 billion program over five years. Am I understanding that correctly?
Ms. BROWNER. No. It is a $2.3 billion program with all of the federal agencies over five years.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NPS: ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND
Mr. MOLLOHAN. You know, we have a lot of Non-Point Source problems in West Virginia. This money, I mean, this money goes to studying it. You have got to get on to correcting it. I do not think you will ever have enough money to do that.
I would like for you to. I would like for us to draw down on that. We have this Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund that is out there. You are familiar with that; right?
Ms. BROWNER. Right. That is not an EPA fund, but yes, I am familiar with it.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, it is not. I am just going to ask you a little bit about that. There is about $1.6 billion in that Abandoned Mine Lands Fund which is collected. Did you know that?
Ms. BROWNER. I did not realize it had that much money in it.
Mr. LEWIS. How much is it?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is $1.6 billion, Mr. Chairman.
That is money collected from coal production that was dedicated to clean-up. The budgeteers are keeping it locked up in order to make our deficit look better.
Ms. BROWNER. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am going to ask you though. I mean that is really a big part of your responsibilities which is to get resources to help clean this up.
The technical issues are not the hurdles. It is getting the money that is the hurdles. Over $250 million a year is generated by this fund, but it is not spent in nearly that amount.
I just advise you of this and encourage you. We are going to be trying to shake this money lose. To help us do that, we are trying to get OMB and the Administration. If we are really concerned about cleaning up these areas, this money is there.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is for this. It is being used for budget purposes to make the deficit look better instead of for the purposes of cleaning up the environment. So, we will just call upon you to assist in that. Do you think that is something you can do?
Ms. BROWNER. We will discuss this with OMB. Obviously, in some parts of the country, abandoned mines can contribute to polluted run-off problems. I think you raise a valid point here.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. It can. In all coal mine producing areas, it does. I mean, it is the number one problem really.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Ms. Meek.
FLORIDA ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES
Ms. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms. Browner, Mr. Hansen. Sallyanne Harper, we are happy to see you again.
My concern right now is the importance of alternative water sources. I am from Florida. We do need some type of alternative source development of water in Florida, either reclaiming the water that we are already using, or in terms of some way to irrigate the large agricultural lands we have there.
I know Administrator Browner, you and the Chairman, and Mr. Stokes have over the years supported this. My question now is do you agree that we would continue to try to restore this effort of reclaiming this water and certainly adding more water to that to try to protect as an alternative source of water in Florida?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is your stand at this point on that?
Ms. BROWNER. I have long believed, that the reuse of treated waste water—sometimes referred to as brownwater or reclaimed water—is extremely important.
Pinniellas County, for example, was really at the forefront of that effort at Marco Island. The golf courses have been irrigated for 20 or 30 years now with reclaimed water.
We have sought to be helpful across the country with states and communities in making use of this reclaimed water because we think it is so beneficial to sensible management of our water resources and, more broadly, our water supply.
Florida has a program, at least they did when I was there, of encouraging, for example, golf courses across the state to take this water as a way of diminishing the amount of water——
Ms. MEEK. That is still in progress.
Ms. BROWNER. Right. They were removing more water from the Aquifer that was being recharged. EPA has provided some funding in various parts of the state for these efforts through grants programs.
Ms. MEEK. I guess I should ask your Regional Administrator, a little bit later, where this money is going at this point in terms of what areas of Florida.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We could provide you with a list. Why do we not do that for the record, if that would be okay.
Ms. MEEK. That would be fine.
[The list follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
WATER PROGRAMS AT EPA
Ms. MEEK. Another interest I have is, in your budget this year, you want to spend $2.8 billion on clean water programs in 1999.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes.
Ms. MEEK. That is almost $100 million more than you requested for this same program in fiscal year 1998. How do you plan to spend that money?
Ms. BROWNER. The total water resources include our ongoing commitment to the states for wastewater treatment facilities and upgrades to those facilities, the new program that you have funded for drinking water facilities, and the President's Clean Water Action Plan.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those are the three big pieces of that program. The Clean Water Action Plan is focusing on polluted run-off as opposed to the waste water discharges that the historical clean water program sought to address. So, it is three programs, broadly speaking.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Ms. MEEK. My last question has to do with the Everglades. I cannot let you go without asking about the Everglades. What are your plans in terms of the continued restoration of the Everglades?
Ms. BROWNER. Well, we are very proud of the progress that has been made. The Administration, across a handful of federal agencies, seeks funding again this year for those efforts.
One important issue that we are focused on today is having the Army Corps of Engineers Study done in a timely manner.
Another issue is the acquisition of what is commonly referred to as the Talismen Property. We entered into an agreement with the owners of that property, St. Joe Paper Company and we have an option to buy it out-right.
We have recently received appraisals on all of the parcels. As we have said, and as the Vice President said in making the announcement, we continue to be interested in trades with the farming entities that would give us the land we need for restoration and give the people of South Florida the water quality that they need for a healthy existence, and allow farming where appropriate.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those discussions should begin shortly. We just got the appraisals that we need for those discussions.
Ms. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for this round. That is it.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Ms. Meek. Mr. Price.
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK (RTP) CONSTRUCTION STATUS
Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to add my welcome to Administrator Browner and your colleagues. We appreciate this chance to review your activities and plans. Of particular importance to North Carolina and to the national research effort, of course, has been the beginning of the construction of the new consolidated EPA research facility in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The new campus will allow EPA to fill in the knowledge gaps that currently exist in the field of environmental research and to ensure that regulation is based on sound science.
I am proud to say I was present, along with the Administrator, when the first shovels of dirt were thrown on that beautiful October day of last year. Mr. Chairman, there were some very kind words for you at that point.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was happy to praise the work that you, Mr. Stokes, and our subcommittee did to authorize the entire building as originally conceived. So, we do thank you for your support.
We look forward to working with you this year to obtain the final $72 million that is needed to complete the funding for this project.
Mr. LEWIS. I thought he was leading up to something else.
Mr. PRICE. I knew that would catch you off-guard.
Ms. Browner, could you give us an update on how the construction is proceeding? I am particularly interested in how the Agency is proceeding with the additional portions that were authorized in last year's bill: the High Bay Test Area, the computer center, and the child care facility.
Ms. BROWNER. We are moving forward. We are absolutely committed to honoring the Congress' direction, if you will, to include the High Bay Building, the computer center, and child care center in the main facility.
The initial work on construction is 8-percent complete now. We will start the High Bay Building at the beginning of fiscal year 1999. So, we believe that we are on track as we were directed to be by the Congress, in terms of the overall scope of the project.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, if I might just say, it really is a great thing we are doing down there. For the first time, EPA is going to have a state-of-the-art science facility in North Carolina where there are many other important efforts underway in terms of environmental sciences, including Duke University, and others.
We really do appreciate the support of this committee. I think this is something, quite frankly, that was long overdue. Finally, it is happening. The hole is in the ground. Construction has started. We really appreciate your help.
Mr. LEWIS. We thought it might work at Palo Alto, but it did not quite make it.
Ms. BROWNER. We would be happy to have a second one.
BAY CITY SUPERCOMPUTER MOVE: COST SAVINGS
Mr. PRICE. We are certainly eager to work with you in moving this project forward. We are looking forward to moving out of 13 rented facilities at last count, I think, and into this consolidated laboratory.
We are grateful for all the help that has brought us to this point. Let me ask a related question about the Agency's super computing resources because this is related to the construction of the new computer center in RTP.
It is my understanding that the Agency has been considering for some time consolidating its current super computing resources in an attempt to gain efficiency and save money.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OMB has sent circulars regarding consolidation. Madam Administrator, your own Inspector General indicated that savings could be realized by closing down the Bay City facility and consolidating these operations in RTP.
We are talking about the next five years, to say nothing of the out years' savings. The savings over the next five years of immediately moving the current computer from Bay City to RTP would be over $2 million.
If you waited for the new National Computer Center to be completed at RTP, there would still be savings, but the amount of savings over the next five years would drop to something under $500,000.
Now, do those numbers sound right to you? In any case, how is the effort to consolidate proceeding and what is the time line for a decision on this matter?
Ms. BROWNER. As you well know, and as you have reported, we have been engaged in a comprehensive analysis of whether or not to relocate that facility. We are awaiting some additional information before making a final determination. It is not an easy decision.
You are correct that based on what we know today, there does appear to be some cost savings. We believe there is some additional information that may be made available to us. We are trying to get that as quickly as possible.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PRICE. Any idea when the decision could be finalized?
Ms. BROWNER. We hope sooner rather than later. As I have said, we are awaiting some information. I do not know if we have a date yet for when we will receive that information. Let me try and get that for you.
Mr. PRICE. I would be happy to have that fuller accounting placed in the record. I do think we need that. I stress, I am not now talking about the out years. The out year savings are considerable from this kind of consolidation.
[The 5-year savings information follows:]
BAY CITY: TIMELINE, COST SAVINGS
EPA has completed the analysis to determine the location of the Agency's Supercomputer, currently housed in Bay City, MI. The study, conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers, shows that consolidation of the Supercomputer with EPA's National Computing Center was the most cost-efficient option, saving the Agency $2.4 million over five years, or about $800,000 per year after the initial move costs are borne. Additionally, there would be substantial savings in the outyears.
On February 5, 1998, EPA briefed the Michigan Congressional delegation about the study findings. On March 13, 1998 Senator Levin and Congressman Barcia raised questions about the report. EPA is now preparing its response. We anticipate making the decision on the location of the Supercomputer no later than early summer in order to prevent having GSA extend the current lease beyond the December 31, 1998 completion date.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PRICE. What we are talking about is the savings over the next five years. Making the move immediately would achieve savings in the $2 million range. I know there has been some discussion about possibly waiting until this new computer center is constructed in RTP.
There would be some savings if the move takes place then, but the savings would actually be less than would be achieved by moving now and then having a further move when the center is ready to occupy.
Ms. BROWNER. Based on the information we have now, we would agree with the numbers that you have articulated. There is no disagreement with what you have said.
It is simply that one of your colleagues has made us aware that there may be additional information which they are supposed to get to us. Once we receive the information we can complete the analysis.
Mr. PRICE. Well, I would think these are not just numbers. These are, of course, genuine dollar savings that we are talking about. It also reflects increased efficiency and effectiveness of those computer operations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Hobson. Mr. Hobson.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DANIS-CLARKO LANDFILL
Mr. HOBSON. Thank you; welcome.
Last year, we discussed the Danis Clarko Landfill to be sited in Tremont City, Ohio, in my Congressional District. As you may remember, the Ohio EPA has granted the Danis Company a variance from the state law allowing this landfill to be sited over an Aquifer.
First of all, I want to thank you and your agency for meeting with my constituent and for Region Five taking a look at this. It had not turned out the way, so far, that I wanted it to turn out or the people in the community would like for it to turn out, but the Ohio Environmental Review and Appeals Commission recently concluded several weeks of hearings on the Danis Landfill.
We are anxiously awaiting the decision of the Commission. This is still a contentious issue in my District. I still have grave concerns about the unnecessary risk of siting a landfill over an Aquifer using the variance technique when other sites exist in the area.
I just wanted to remind you of my concerns and hope that the Agency continues to monitor this; not just for my District, but for other states and areas where people may be using variances over an Aquifer.
If they are wrong, and the science is not really definitive in these areas, we have done something to the next generation in an area that is going to be very difficult to clean-up. So, I want to thank you for the help from your staff on that.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We will continue to monitor the situation.
VISUAL ANTI-TAMPERING VEHICLE EMISSIONS TEST
Mr. HOBSON. I hope the review board comes out all right.
I want to ask you another, more contentious, question. I understand that the U.S. EPA recently gave preliminary approval to the State of New Hampshire to run a visual anti-tampering vehicle emissions test instead of the Enhanced Auto Emissions Test that was mandated for the state under the Clean Air Act.
Why was New Hampshire, a state with a more serious air quality problem than Ohio permitted to use the visual test, when your Agency urged Ohio to eliminate the same type of test because it was supposedly ineffective?
Ms. BROWNER. When we make decisions about state efforts, we look at their plan as a whole; whether it be Ohio or New Hampshire.
In the case of New Hampshire, in terms of the steps they are taking within the state to reduce their pollution they have, for example, looked to a coal-fired utility for NOX reductions, which we were able to certify.
In the case of their other pollution problems, a large measure of those are transported. They are not generated from within the state.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOBSON. Let me ask you this question. I understand that. If you use the words ineffective for the test, is this an ineffective test?
Ms. BROWNER. No. We believe it is an effective test.
Mr. HOBSON. You believe it is an effective test.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes. As you all have encouraged us and we have sought over the last several years, we look at the whole package that the state is presenting and not at simply one component.
If we thought a test that a state recommended or sought to have approval on was ineffective, we would not approve that portion. In this case, we believe that test is effective. That test, when taken with their plan as a whole, gives them the level of reductions they need.
Mr. HOBSON. All I will ask you to do is look at the wording used with Ohio and see if it is in their overall plan or the wording was used that it was an ineffective test and maybe somebody needs to change the language.
I think their impression is that it was not told to them as a part of the overall plan, but that the test per se was ineffective. Now, maybe it was ineffective in achieving the results that you wanted to achieve overall.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am not sure about that. But I think the test, what they are concerned about is that the test was declared to be ineffective.
Ms. BROWNER. The Ohio test.
Mr. HOBSON. Well, the Ohio Visual Anti-Tampering type of, it is the same type of test that they are using in New Hampshire. So, I would like for you to look at that.
Ms. BROWNER. Okay, certainly.
Mr. HOBSON. They are saying, hey, you know, we would like to do this too. I still get a lot of complaints about going in and having your car plugged in and standing. Even though it is not always as bad as everybody says, still the perception is out there. When your wife has a problem and your staff has a problem, it is like, you know, it is a problem.
Ms. BROWNER. If we could provide, Congressman Hobson, an explantion for the record on what the differences are between the Ohio and New Hampshire test, and why one might have been determined to be effective and the other ineffective.
[The explanation on emissions testing follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOBSON. I think they feel slighted.
Ms. BROWNER. In Ohio?
Mr. HOBSON. In Ohio.
Ms. BROWNER. Something tells me this is not the only reason.
NOX Emission Reduction: Alternative Proposal
Mr. HOBSON. Yes, I know. I know.
On another area, has the EPA reviewed the alternative NOX emissions reduction proposal developed by the Alliance for Constructive Air Policy?
Is not this proposal more in line with the recommendations of the OTAG because it creates a mechanism for further sub-regional modeling, while initial reductions are being implemented and targets additional reductions to demonstrated air quality needs?
Ms. BROWNER. I believe we have received that as a part of the comment. We have just completed a public comment period on the proposed or what is commonly referred to as the proposed OTAG SIP call.
That is actually not its official name, but that will suffice for right now. I believe those analyses are a part of some of the comments that we received.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will be fully reviewing all of the comments we receive before making the decision. The final SIP call would not be until this fall. So, in finalizing the SIP call, we have to review the comments.
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS: REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
Mr. HOBSON. I have a somewhat rural/urban district. A flag just went up in the rural area, as you might imagine. I understand that the EPA plans to increase regulatory oversight of animal feeding operations.
The National Association of State Department of Agriculture on March 3rd gave their support for state programs that include flexibility, sound science, and economic feasibility.
However, according to the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, a consortium of seven land grant institutions, the proposed regulations, are not based on sound science or on economic feasibility.
What is the scientific and economic evidence used to support the proposed strategic plan? Secondly, I have got farmers coming up to me now saying, you know, am I going to have to have a permit for the manure on my property.
Is that the next step? Is that where we are going? These are not big feeding operations. I think the alarm bell has gone off. Do you want to respond to that a little bit?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. This perhaps is an issue concerning other Members also. The question I think you pose is to the draft strategy which EPA released ten days ago on animal feeding operations.
In that strategy, we lay out the concerns in terms of the large number of these facilities and the volume of waste that can be generated at these facilities. Less than 25-percent of the largest CAFOs, or combined animal feeding operations, actually have some kind of environmental permit at this time.
In this strategy, we laid out a plan to work with all affected parties. For example, I met via satellite last week with the Council of Pork Producers, and with any number of producers, to look at how best to structure a program.
One of the issues that we need to discuss with all of the affected parties is the issue you raise of permits. This is actually turning out to be a very complex issue because while the animals may be owned by company-x, who sells them in the grocery store to you and me, the operation is owned by the farmer.
So, who would actually carry a permit, if a permit became a part of the solution? This is probably going to be the case in a number of instances. It is something that we are talking to all of the stakeholders about.
We have not made any final decisions in terms of how the program would actually be managed on a day-to-day basis. We are working very closely with the farming community, with the states, and with other interested parties.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The initial focus would be on the large operations: 1,000 head of cows or more; 2,500 head of hogs or more; and 30,000 chickens or more. They generate a lot of waste.
Mr. HOBSON. I know they do.
Ms. BROWNER. A lot. Someone once told me, and I think this is accurate, that a dairy cow produces 80 pounds of manure a day.
Mr. HOBSON. No, I do not think so.
Ms. BROWNER. Something on the order of that.
Mr. HOBSON. I think four chickens equal a human being.
Ms. BROWNER. If you think about the efforts that we have engaged in to deal with human waste, and waste water treatment facilities, some of these facilities generate the amount of waste that is equivalent to a small city.
Mr. HOBSON. I do not object to looking at this because we have had some problems with some large poultry operations within my state. I am not objecting.
I think the manner in which some of this is done, we need to recognize that we are after these. My District happens to be becoming an area where there are some large hog operations coming in.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have already had some and there are more. At one time, we had a large feeder operation for cattle. I think the thing is that we need to make sure that the Agency indicates where it is going and it is not all of a sudden you have got every little farmer, family farm operation, saying, do I have to get another permit? You guys are already messing me up enough on a lot of other stuff.
They feel they already have enough regulations on them. So, I think you need to explain dramatically the level of the operation that you are after.
I do not necessarily disagree with some of these large operations because they do dramatically change the environment in the area in which they are operating; not that they are not good business people, but they need to figure out how to operate within the rules.
So, I am not objecting. We need to be sensitive to this other side. I just wanted to mention that to you.
Ms. BROWNER. As the first step, we have put out a draft strategy. It is not even a proposed rule or regulation. We are taking public comment on that strategy.
Mr. HOBSON. I have already gotten some.
Ms. BROWNER. Good. That is what we need
Mr. HOBSON. You are going to get a lot because there is a lot of fear out there of where this is going. I think if you address it in the right direction, then you will eliminate a lot of it. So, that is why I am raising the question to you today.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS: SECURITY
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Hobson.
Ms. Administrator, one of the ten areas I mentioned earlier which EPA has itself identified as a management control weakness is information systems security. The whole area of information and management generally, and information security specifically is one that I believe needs deliberate and immediate attention by Congress and many federal agencies, particularly EPA.
As we all know, EPA and other government agencies are more and more using information-age technologies to instantaneously collect, organize, and globally disseminate massive amounts of U.S. product and production facility information.
Previously, this information was paper filed in different jurisdictional offices and made accessible primarily for the benefit of government regulatory personnel.
While there are, of course, considerable benefits in providing a means for the general public to access certain information relative to our environmental laws, there are also considerable risk, including increased loss of competitiveness, increased risk of economic espionage, and increased risk of terrorism.
Over the past two years, the President's Commission on Critical Information Protection highlighted cyber and fiscal threats in the so-called Information Age. Congress recognized the threats posed by a startling rise in economic espionage and the inadequacy of federal law.
Thus passed, in the 104th Congress, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the Executive Branch have grappled with what I believe is the seed bed that nurtures various threats; open source information.
All foreign government and industry competitive intelligence techniques begin with open source information. Likewise, does the majority of international terrorism.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even as economic espionage and cyber terrorism have moved to the public forefront, the U.S. Government has not brought the explosion of electronic open source information initiatives from regulatory agencies to public dialogue.
Product and production facilities regulatory agencies were not part of the PCCIP work. Government information initiatives are, for now, exempt from security under the Economic Espionage Act.
Meanwhile, EPA is proposing to instantaneously collect and globally publish, through the Internet, new data points, including a variety of materials accounting information.
Such information, along with product and facility permitting data, will reveal material balances, heat rates, catalysts, economic break points, inventories, and process efficiencies for 66,000 U.S. production facilities.
Moreover, and perhaps more to the point, EPA is now close to making a final decision on its information system for disseminating its Risk Management Program Rule for such facilities pursuant to section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
It is my understanding that your current proposal will, among other things, essentially place on the Internet, for all the world to see and have access to, worst case scenarios for all of these facilities, even though the Clean Air Act did not in any way require that the Internet be used for this purpose.
According to AEGIS Research, a contractor hired by EPA to analyze the terrorism risk of RMP information, the potential terrorism may be increased or decreased by influencing the following four factors.
One, exposure of the source; do the terrorists know that the information exists and where? Two, ease of access; how easily can a terrorist get the information? Three utility; what is the value of the information to the terrorist? Four, degree of anonymity; does the method of gathering the information allow the terrorist to remain anonymous?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Internet access places information greatly at the extreme positive end for three of these four factors: exposure to the source, ease of access, and degree of anonymity.
The fourth factor, utility of data base, relies on two further factors: the content of the data base and the ease of searching and sorting the data to uncover the specific pieces of information.
The RMP information in fact contains considerable data that would be valuable to a terrorist, including the chemicals used and quantities distance to end points, the residential population, and the public receptors, such as nearby schools and hospitals.
Once a site is identified, a potential terrorist may then access facility layout from aerial photos available at a local county office or, in some cases, the Internet itself, and thereby determine the ingress and egress routes, chemical locations, and physical security arrangements.
Based on all of these factors, EPA's contractor determined that uncontrolled access to RMP via the Internet would increase the risk of terrorism seven-fold from amateur, non-local terrorists.
Further, the contractor prepared a few limited recommendations that showed how EPA might reduce the risk, suggesting that a thorough study of data management alternatives, including controlled search on the Internet, could result in a solution that would both minimize risk to acceptable levels, and meet the public information objectives.
It is my understanding that EPA has not yet undertaken such a project. I really do not want to dwell that extensively, but it is a very important to say and, at least, a potentially critical subject.
Madam Administrator, I have a number of specific questions regarding these issues of economic espionage, and terrorism, many of which I will submit to you for answer later. At this time, however, I think it is important to first address the most fundamental of questions in this regard. Why in the world would EPA propose any such information access via the Internet if there is even a hint of economic espionage or terrorist problem?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
INFORMATION SYSTEMS: SECURITY
Ms. BROWNER. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we have not made a final decision. We have been engaged in a very extensive process about how to make information available, what is appropriate, and what would not be appropriate.
We have looked to an outside advisory committee, a FACA, Federal Advisory Committee, organized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. They have had several meetings now.
Nine out of ten of those committee members have recommended that we post some of this information on the Internet with restrictions or speed bumps.
We are analyzing those speed bumps. We have also worked very closely with the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. We have met with the FBI. We have met with DOD.
We understand and take very seriously the concerns you 0raise. In trying to strike the balance between public access and security, we will look towards how to structure it so that highly sensitive information would not be available through the query.
One proposal, for example, is that the query, and Internet query would be limited to only 15 pre-selected data elements, not including a set of sensitive data elements. We would exclude those from the Internet.
We would restrict the query to a sub-set of approximately 1,000 of these plans, not all of the plans. We would welcome any input from this committee as to other speed bumps that we should consider in making such a program available.
The flip side of this is that much of this information, while not on the Internet, is publicly available. You can go to a variety of locations in your local community and collect the information.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Much of it is available through a FOIA, a Freedom of Information Act Request. So, we are trying to strike the appropriate balance between public access and security. We would welcome any input on this matter.
Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Browner, I gather from your response that you see that there is a potential threat or danger or difficult circumstance here. I am frankly not red hot for speed bumps. In fact, I would take them out of the Capitol garages because it really is nuts.
There are other ways of controlling things. One of the things I had mentioned here is that while there is nothing in the law at all that suggest that you ought to put this stuff on the Internet, the problem with your just initial kind of question response is that this information is publicly available, yes. You can go to the Library of Congress and get lots of information. The Internet is available readily in Baghdad.
Ms. BROWNER. We do not disagree that there a difference between the Internet and the Library of Congress.
Mr. LEWIS. The point, again, is there are people sitting and looking at this kind of information. Imagine flows. I personally think that the terrorism threat, which is probably one of our greatest challenges for the next 25 years or so, is as much domestic as otherwise. It does concern me that Baghdad and otherwise are sitting there and scratching, I suppose, their heads.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We have had conversations about this with the FBI and the Department of Defense. Again, if there are any recommendations, we would really welcome them.
Mr. LEWIS. I am really, really interested in steps that EPA is taking to ensure that increased public access will not increase the risk of terrorism. This is a discussion that we all need to have in open forum and otherwise. Mr. Stokes.
ENTERPRISE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Administrator, this January a major report entitled The Environment Protection System In Transition was published by the Enterprise for the Environment Project of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in cooperation with the National Academy of Public Administration and the Keystone Center.
In fact, Mr. Hansen was on the Steering Committee and was also a participant. I have looked at the report and seen the list of participants. You have a very distinguished group of participants here.
I would like to ask Mr. Hansen his impressions of the E4E Enterprise for the Environment Effort and what new information or prospectus he thinks this report brings to the environmental debate?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stokes.
The principal issues that I think are brought forward by the Enterprise for the Environment Effort has been first and foremost a fundamental recognition of how much progress has been made under the current system and that we should not retreat from that progress in any regard.
Number two, the steps required to move forward and continue to make the improvements that are necessary for the environmental systems are ones that should be taken incrementally. They should be taken on a step-by-step basis.
The report—I had little to do with this, although I am very proud of it—complemented the EPA's different steps to reinvent itself, to find new ways, as the Administrator has set out in the Common Sense Initiative, Project XL, and others, to solve our environmental problems in a more cost-effective, common sense way.
I would be happy to answer any additional questions, but those are the general impressions of the E4E recommendation, essentially saying that we need to do more of what we have already charted the course to do.
Mr. STOKES. I notice that one of the report findings says fragmented Congressional oversight of EPA and the complex relationship between EPA and other levels of government have hindered the coordination, integration, and rational application of environmental laws.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, do you agree with that observation?
Ms. BROWNER. He can answer that.
Mr. STOKES. Go for it. Do you agree with that observation? Does the Administration have any proposal to address it?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stokes, those are issues in terms of Congressional organization; an issue that you and this body are in the sole position to address.
Clearly, from the standpoint of the additional comment about the broader coordination among Federal Executive Branch Agencies, we agree. As the Administrator testified just a few moments ago in relation to the work on the Clean Water Initiative, the coordination is existing between us and the Department of Agriculture, along with the Department of Transportation, are indications that this Administration's commitment to build those connections among all of the Federal agencies addressing common problems.
GOAL-BASED BUDGETING
Mr. STOKES. The report also recommends, Mr. Hansen, that the Federal government undertake a well-funded, multi-agency, multi-year initiative to improve the quality, collection, management, and accessibility of environmental information.
Can you indicate to us to what extent EPA agrees with this recommendation? What is included in the 1999 budget request towards this objective?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We do agree, particularly in light of the GPRA, Government Performance and Results Act, where each of the departments and agencies is directed to present their budget based on goals.
If you articulate a set of environmental and public health goals for the country as we have sought to do, then information collection will be particularly important for measuring progress towards achieving those goals.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND COMMUNITY TRACKING (EMPACT)
If you say you are going to have so many watershed plans, you have to go out and collect the information to know that you have so many watershed plans. We have included in our budget throughout the agency a total of $35 million for information collection efforts, broadly speaking.
It would probably be best captured under our EMPACT Program, Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking. That looks broadly at air and waterways.
Certainly information is extremely important to this goal-based budgeting effort and toward monitoring progress of the states, the agencies, communities, and industry. We are very committed to it.
FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT (FQPA)
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Madam Administrator, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, modernizing pesticide regulations by mandating that all pesticides meet a tough new safety standard that not only protects adults, but also infants and children who may be more vulnerable to the toxic affects of these chemicals.
It is my understanding that EPA is currently implementing those new health provisions. Tell us what pesticides EPA selected to reassess under the act.
Ms. BROWNER. We are required under the new Food Safety Act to complete a review of existing chemical intolerances. The final year I is 2006. We do it in thirds essentially. We are working through the reassessment of 9,700 tolerances within ten years.
The law also directs us to do reviews based on what are referred to as common mechanisms, to look at categories of products that use a common mechanism to be effective. We are currently looking at how best to do that; to focus on that common mechanism as required under the statute.
This is a large undertaking and we are the first to admit it. We are on track as of this time to honor the requirements of the statute. It will require, and I should be very clear about this, a tremendous amount of stakeholder involvement.
We need the participation of the Department of Agriculture, which is working closely with us. We will need the participation of State Agriculture Commissions. We will need the participation of farmers. We will need the participation of manufacturers.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is going to take everybody coming together. One place we have already made some important progress is just understanding what the exposures are in terms of the diet of our children today, as compared to 10, 15, 20 years ago?
Children's diets are an extremely important piece of information to undertaking this effort.
FQPA AND SDWA AMENDMENTS: BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
Mr. STOKES. In the last days of the 104th Congress in 1996, two substantial environmental laws were enacted: The Food Quality Protection Act and The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
Both of these measures had strong bipartisan support. I am sure it is no coincidence that both measures also have integral public health aspects. At the risk of over- simplification, it sometimes seems the most successful environmental bills are those that transcend politics and achieve broad support based on generally recognized threats to public health.
Why do you think these measures were successful? Conversely, why do you think others, such as Superfund reauthorization did not seem to be able to get out of the partisan category?
Ms. BROWNER. I would say that in the case of both, drinking water and food safety, there was bipartisan recognition. There was broad stakeholder recognition that they were outdated laws which needed to be modernized.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Food safety, in some instances, parts of it had not been changed in over 25 years. It reflected a knowledge of science that had been surpassed. We know a lot more today.
In the case of drinking water, there was a recognition that the rewrite in 1986 responding to the concerns at the time was no longer adequate to the concerns of today. So, first was the bipartisan recognition.
I would also say that we were extremely fortunate to have a number of governors, mayors, environmental organizations, and Members of Congress. It was a bipartisan effort to craft responsible pieces of legislation.
That is the way to do this. It is not an either or. It is not an us versus them. It is everyone sitting at the table to do just that. As I said with respect to Superfund, we were, I feel, making progress in the bipartisan conversations of last week.
Unfortunately, a mark-up was scheduled for today. It was Mr. Boehlert's view that he could not move that mark-up. So, those conversations have ceased. But if we are going to get there on Superfund, it is going to be in the exact same way we got there on drinking water and food safety.
It is going to be a group of people at the table working through individual issues and then stepping back and looking at the program and the legislation in its entirety to determine whether it provides the level of protection that we all think are important.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is not an easy thing to do, but it can be done, as you have said.
LEAD-BASED PAINT
Mr. STOKES. Sure. One other question and then I will yield back to the Chair. Ms. Browner, your statement indicates that protecting children's health is a top Administration priority.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes.
Mr. STOKES. That the 1999 budget includes an $8 million or 33-percent increase.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes.
Mr. STOKES. I understand one facet of the increased effort is to target and prevent childhood lead exposure using funds in both the Environmental Programs and Management, and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account.
As you probably know, reducing lead levels in children has long been one of my priorities and concerns. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on this aspect of the initiative indicating the levels of funding and how they will be used?
Ms. BROWNER. Yes, Mr. Stokes. As you are well-aware, we still have a million children in this country with elevated lead levels in their blood. There is absolutely no reason why any child today should experience an elevated lead level.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have a number of programs designed to address this problem. We are working very closely, for example, with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, looking at their housing stock.
We have some areas in the country where 80-percent of the low income housing stock has elevated levels of lead, contamination, or lead dust in them. We are continuing to work with parents so they understand the steps that they can take to prevent their children from being exposed to lead.
Most recently, our effort has focused on a cooperative agreement that we achieved with the realtors to notify purchasers where information is available with respect to lead hazards in a home or an apartment being sold or rented.
These efforts ensure that the parent can be an active participant in addressing those problems. It will require an important public education effort, because many times, unfortunately, we have seen the problem made worse because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the parent or the care provider.
We have all heard the stories of the parents who bought a house and then proceeded to sand the lead paint and essentially poison their children over the course of the next several years while they thought they were upgrading their house.
Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. Mr. DeLay.
GLOBAL WARMING
Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize to the Committee for coming and going, particularly today of all days. I like being present for Ms. Browner's testimony.
Tuesdays are leadership days. We are in all kinds of leadership meetings all day long. So, I will be coming and going, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you again, Ms. Browner.
I want to direct my questioning, again, as is always my concern, to common sense regulations and good science, particularly good science. I have always had great concern that policies are being made on political reasons rather than good science.
Global warming is one of those things that bothers me greatly. I understand that the EPA is moving more and more towards priority setting in its activities. Just what importance would you place on global warming as compared to, say, toxic waste, or children's issues, or pesticides?
Ms. BROWNER. I would say, and as I said in my opening statement, global warming or climate change is one of the greatest environmental and public health challenges we face as a nation.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAY. More important than challenges we face with toxic waste or pesticides?
Ms. BROWNER. I think that it is important to understand that in some communities the immediate issue of a toxic waste site may be the most pressing problem.
For a family with a child who has experienced lead poisoning, that may be the most pressing problem. We have to maintain our efforts across an array of problems. When we step back and look at it from a national perspective, one of the greatest challenges is climate change.
Mr. DELAY. So, I guess what you are saying is climate change is more important.
Ms. BROWNER. I did not say that.
Mr. DELAY. Well, you said what people in local communities think, but what does EPA think? What does the Administrator at EPA think?
Ms. BROWNER. Part of our responsibility is to people in local communities. It is also to look broadly at the challenges and to disperse the resources that Congress makes available to us to honor the laws that Congress passes; to be responsive to a set of issues.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress, in authorizing the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Superfund, the Food Quality Protection Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, has given us a list of authorities to address a list of problems.
We make use of all of those. Climate change, we believe, is an area where we must increase our activities, given the magnitude of the problem. We do not suggest, nor does our budget suggest, that it comes at the expense of safe food, of toxic waste clean-up, of safe drinking water, of clean air.
Now, there are some opportunities to work with the climate change issues to receive not just long-term benefits to prevent problems, but also to receive immediate benefits. For example, more energy efficiency not only helps us address the climate change problem, it gives you air quality benefits today that are important to people in communities across the country.
PRIORITY-SETTING
Mr. DELAY. I do not know what all that means, but I come back to the point that I understood that the EPA is setting priorities.
Ms. BROWNER. Yes.
Mr. DELAY. If you are setting priorities, in your priorities, which is the highest priority? Is it climate change or pesticides or toxic waste?
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We have 13 major laws that Congress has directed us to implement.
Mr. DELAY. I am aware of those laws, but which is the most important?
Ms. BROWNER. We would not pick one over the other.
Mr. DELAY. So, you are not setting priorities.
Ms. BROWNER. We are setting priorities within what Congress has told us to do. You have given us 13 laws to implement. You have told us to act responsibly within each of those statutes and we are doing that.
Mr. DELAY. Well then, what does it mean, setting priorities?
Ms. BROWNER. It means, for example, in the Clean Water Act, looking at ways to establish goals and measure progress. One example would be to look at the number of combined sewer overflows; to evaluate how many of those could be corrected within a certain time; what resources would be required.
Another example would be to look at the issue of lead levels in children. To set a goal of reducing the number of children who experience elevated lead levels over a period of x-number of years; to design a program to do that. That is what goals and prioritizing means to us.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAY. With each of the 13 authorities given to you by Congress, you are setting priorities within each of those. Of the 13, which is more hazardous to the United States or to the globe? You are setting priorities within the 13 statutes.
Ms. BROWNER. It is a combination. It is working within the individual statutes and what Congress has told us to do. Many of those statutes include time frames within which we are to act; whether it be to set regulations, to implement programs, to achieve production reductions.
Similarly, we look across the broad lay of the land, if you will, and through the budget, for example, by requesting resources as we do for climate change to address problems that may fall across an array of statutes.
KYOTO TREATY
Mr. DELAY. Well, let me switch to something else. Maybe I can just get you to answer yes or no. Under Secretary of State, Stuart Eizenstat, recently testified before the Senate that no new authority is needed to implement the Administration's plan to address global warming, except for the Emissions Trading Program.
He then stated that there is no Administration intention to implement without ratification, either back door or anything else. Do you agree with both of these statements?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. I am not familiar with the statements in their entirety. If I understand the thrust of them, yes, I agree. I am more than happy to look at the statements in their entirety.
Mr. DELAY. Well then, is EPA doing anything to implement through regulatory programs or whatever?
Ms. BROWNER. We are doing exactly what we have been doing for the last several years which is working with the business community and partnership to find the cost effective reductions, the energy efficiencies.
For example, the Green Lights Program, Energy Star Programs. This budget request does in fact include an increase for those programs. Those programs are designed both to have immediate benefit.
They do result in reductions of greenhouse gasses and frequently in cost savings to the businesses that participate in the partnership with us.
Mr. DELAY. Do you feel that they implement the Kyoto Treaty?
Ms. BROWNER. They will achieve greenhouse gas reductions. There is no secret about that. That has been our effort for the last five years to work on voluntary partnerships with industry. That is what is maintained in this budget. I do not see that as a back door to Kyoto, no.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAY. Okay. So, what you are saying is you are not doing anything to implement Kyoto.
Ms. BROWNER. Kyoto sets out very specific requirements, as you are well-aware. This budget request would allow us to expand our partnerships with the private sector to reduce greenhouse gasses. It is not a back door to Kyoto, no.
Mr. DELAY. So, you are saying, no, you are not implementing Kyoto.
Ms. BROWNER. The treaty, no. We are reducing greenhouse gasses. A 48 million ton reduction would be achieved with funding of this budget request.
Mr. DELAY. I understand that. I want to be very specific about implementing a treaty without a ratification.
Ms. BROWNER. Senate ratification.
Mr. DELAY. So, would you unequivocally pledge to this committee that for as long as you are Administrator the EPA will not directly or indirectly propose or seek Administration authority to propose any legislation, rules, or regulations that place limits on any domestic carbon dioxide emissions before the Senate ratified the Kyoto Protocol?
Again, I would just like a simple, direct yes or no to answer this question.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We have requirements under the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress.
We are committed to continuing those efforts. None of them specifically speak to carbon dioxide. In terms of whether or not I would, as Administrator, propose legislation to the Congress, I am part of an Administration.
I will work under the President's direction as a part of that Administration. It is up to the President to determine what he may or may not recommend to Congress, not me. I do not make legislative proposals to this body.
Mr. DELAY. Well, I understand that. A legislative proposal is one thing. What I am talking about is making proposals, rules, regulations, promulgating rules and regulations, actually that would implement the Kyoto Protocol before the Senate ratified the protocol.
Ms. BROWNER. Congressman DeLay, the President as well as Mr. Talbot and Mr. Eizenstat have laid out what they will do vis-a-vis the treaty. Obviously, we honor that.
I just do not want anyone to think we have misled anybody here. You do have a budget request that is also in keeping with what the President has said. We will continue to form voluntary partnerships with the business community, with those leaders in the business community who are interested in doing what they can in a cost-effective, common sense way to reduce greenhouse gasses.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will continue that. That has been ongoing. It, in some ways, pre-dates this Administration. Mr. Reilley was engaged in this. We have sought to expand those very successful business partnerships. We will continue to do that. We ask this committee for money to do that.
Mr. DELAY. I guess what I am hearing is that the President might at some point in time, with or without your approval, try to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
Ms. BROWNER. The President has been very——
Mr. DELAY. Why would you pledge not to implement the protocol until the Senate ratified it?
Ms. BROWNER. The President has been very clear and has his representatives on that issue. So, nothing in that has changed.
I just do not want you to say that you were not aware that included in EPA and other agencies and departments' budget request was money for the voluntary business partnerships that do result in greenhouse gas reductions. That is all I am saying. It is just that simple.
Nothing in our commitment, vis-a-vis the Senate and ratification, has changed, nor has anything changed in our commitment made many years ago that continued from prior administrations to work in partnership with the business community. You can do both. They are not mutually exclusive.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAY. Well, Ms. Browner, the Vice President in his book, Earth in the Balance, particularly on page 325, refers to the fact that automobiles emit greenhouse gasses. It calls the internal combustion engine a ''moral threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.''
President Clinton said, ''many previous threats pose clear and present danger. Global warming is far more subtle, warning us not with roaring tanks or burning rivers, but with invisible gasses, slow changes in our surroundings, increasingly severe climatic disruptions that thank God have not yet hit home for most Americans. But make no mistake, the problem is real and if we do not change our course now, the consequences sooner or later will be destructive for America and for the world.''
Well, if America's present course really is so ''destructive,'' if global warming really is a mortal threat deadlier than any likely future military adversary, then why would you not be willing to bend the rules a bit and let the political chips fall where they may and implement the Kyoto Protocol, in advance of ratification of the Senate?
Ms. BROWNER. The President has given his word and we will honor that word. It is just that simple.
Mr. DELAY. Okay. Well, could not a case be made that it would be morally irresponsible to let constitutional scruples stand in the way of saving the world from a climate catastrophe?
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. We can debate the Constitution if you would like. I am sure we will find examples on all sides.
Mr. DELAY. I think you see a different Constitution than I do.
Ms. BROWNER. I do not think so. You seem not to be persuaded by that case.
Mr. DELAY. Why? Is saving the Constitution more important than saving the planet or is it because our course is not really so destructive after all?
Ms. BROWNER. If you are questioning my commitment to the Constitution——
Mr. DELAY. I did not say anything about that. I am just trying to establish a clear answer from you once and for all about where you are coming from and where you are headed.
Ms. BROWNER. I have been very clear in my response, with all due respect.
Mr. DELAY. Well, with all due respect, it is hard to understand your responses.
Ms. BROWNER. Let me try again.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One, I support the Constitution.
Two, the President has been clear in his statements to the Senate about the treaty and ratification of the treaty. The Administration continues to stand by those.
Three, the President has been equally clear that it is important to continue our partnerships with the business community to find the cost effective, common sense ways to achieve greenhouse gas reductions and we are doing that; nothing more or less.
For example, you raised the issue of cars. This Administration has had a tremendously successful relationship with the automobile industry.
Just several weeks ago, the Vice President joined me and the Big Three, as well as the foreign manufacturers in an announcement of a tailpipe emissions reduction which is 70-percent cleaner.
That is good for every single person in this country who cares about the quality of the air they breathe. Similarly, we are working through the partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, which is a partnership with industry.
Mr. DELAY. Ms. Browner, I am not talking about all of that. I am talking about the Kyoto Protocol and whether you are going to implement it.
For an agency that does not have legal authority to implement the Kyoto Protocol, whether you call it implementation or not, the following strikes me as a series of actions whose funding is in serious jeopardy.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Page 15 of the EPA's First Strategic Plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act states as EPA Goal No. 6, ''the U.S. will lead other nations in successful, multi-lateral efforts to reduce significant risks to human health and eco-systems from climate change.''
In the discussion of Goal No. 6, your plan states, ''U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to levels consistent with international commitments agreed upon under the Frame Work Convention on Climate Change, building on initial efforts under the Climate Change Action Plan.''
Now, is that not implementation?
KYOTO TREATY RATIFICATION
Ms. BROWNER. That assumes ratification of the treaty.
Mr. DELAY. Does it say anywhere in your strategic plan ''assuming ratification of the treaty?''
Ms. BROWNER. That is inherent. You cannot act or implement the treaty outside of ratification. That is what the President has said. There is nothing in this that disagrees with that; nothing.
Mr. DELAY. It is your request for money to accomplish this for next year.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BROWNER. Our request for funding is to build our partnerships in the Green Lights Program, in the Energy Star Program to work, for example, on TVs that use less energy, on VCRs that use less energy.
It is to work with the industrial sector to achieve a more efficient use of energy; to double the rate of energy efficiency improvements; to work with the transportation sector on a Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
These are activities that pre-date the Kyoto Agreement. These are activities that, in many instances, pre-date this Administration. These are activities that the business community welcomes. I would hope that we would see bipartisan support.
Mr. DELAY. Why would you need so much money for these voluntary programs, if you are not trying to implement Kyoto?
Ms. BROWNER. We work in partnership with the business community which is something you have certainly counseled us many times to do.
Mr. DELAY. But your stated goal is to implement the international agreement.
Ms. BROWNER. The question, as I understand it, is whether or not this Administration will make an effort to implement the various points of the Kyoto Treaty absent ratification? The President has been very clear on that issue and nothing in this changes that; nothing.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Committee's indulgence. The President has been very clear on a lot of things that he turns around immediately on when it suits his purpose.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you Mr. DeLay. Ms. Kaptur.
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Administrator Browner. I have to say, I have been in Congress for a little while now and deal with a lot of these agency and department heads.
I give you 100-percent for always returning your phone calls, for trying to be responsive to local communities, even when they are not the mega communities of the country. It is appreciated and it is noted. We also thank your staff.
I do not know what is going to happen to you when you complete your tenure at EPA, but you know the Regional Administrator from out there in Chicago that we had to deal with a