Ms. Browner, after reviewing your budget request for next year, I can not help but think that it is more of a political document than an outline for protecting the environment. You have underfunded the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Air Toxics Program, PM research and the Safe Drinking Water Research funds. Yet, you have chosen to request $200 million dollars for a Clean Air Partnership Fund which appears to be more of a Gore Campaign plank than a well thought out environmental program.
In reviewing the President's environmental goals I noticed that Goal 1, Clean Air, received a funding increase of 35% (from $536 million to $722 million) and Goal 6, Global and Cross Border Risks or Global Climate Change, increased by 78% (from $229 million to $407.5 million). At the same time, Goal 2, Clean and Safe Water, decreased by 25% (from $3.4 billion to $2.5 billion) and Goal 8, Sound Science, decreased by 7% (from $347 million to $321.7 million).
It seems to me that you are sacrificing sound science and clean water for a new, unauthorized, ill conceived and largely undefined clean air initiative and implementation of an unratified global climate treaty. As the chairman of the authorizing Clean Air Subcommittee, I hope the Appropriations Committee transfers the entire $200 million from the Clean Air Partnership Fund to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the money would be better spent by the States than by the EPA on so-called demonstration projects.
Your agency has also decided that Superfund does not need the additional appropriation of $650 million that you have requested in the past. While I am pleased to see that you are not requesting the additional money, this can only lead me to believe that you were being disingenuous in past years. What has changed in the program that now makes it more solid? I am curious how your new financial views will affect the re authorization efforts of this committee.
I believe the current Superfund program does not work and substantial effort will be required to fix it. With over 90% of the NPL sites either cleaned up or in some stage of clean up, reforms could make the system more cost beneficial and the clean-ups more scientifically sound, in fact, we need to phase out the program. Last congress, we made significant progress on reforming the program and, while you may not have been happy with the product, I hope you will continue to work with us to make the necessary changes. It is my sincere hope that you are not using Superfund as a political wedge in the upcoming presidential elections.
As I'm sure you're aware, the oil patch is experiencing a crisis. The price of a barrel of oil has fallen to record lows and many small companies are closing their doors. The added burden the EPA has placed on these companies over the last six years is simply accelerating the closings. In essence, we are witnessing the death of our domestic petroleum industry.
In December, I sent you a letter regarding this crisis and the impact your Agency has on it. I requested that you carefully consider the effect on our oil supply before you issue any new regulations. I received a response from Bob Persciasepe, which I appreciated. However, I sent you the letter because I am concerned not just about the pending sulfur rule, but about all pending regulations across the entire Agency, including TRI and RCRA.
I'm sure that you would agree, Ms. Browner, that this is a National Security issue; we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil everyday. As a Subcommittee chair on the Armed Services and a member of the Intelligence Committee I will be monitoring the actions of your agency and the impact on our National Security. However, as a Subcommittee chair on this committee, I hope that you and I can work together and provide some regulatory relief to an ailing industry.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I must leave but I look forward to reading the answers to my submitted questions.