Senator Barbara Boxer
Opening Statement
Superfund, Toxics, Risk and Waste Control
Subcommittee
Hearing on Environmental Enforcement at EPA
March 12, 2002
Today the Superfund, Toxics, Risk and Waste Control Subcommittee will
hear about the state of environmental enforcement at the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and what might be in the works for environmental
enforcement in the future.
The body of scientific evidence supporting the need for quick and
effective action to reduce our communities= exposure to pollution continues to grow. Given the central role enforcement plays in public health
protection, any change in policy on environmental enforcement requires close
scrutiny.
There are a number of ways environmental protections can be rolled
back. One way is to change the
law. The process of changing the law is
a public process. Stakeholders make their case, issues go through committee,
votes are taken. When efforts are made
to change a law, the process is transparent.
However, there is a more subtle way that environmental protections can
be rolled back. Cuts in personnel and
cuts in pollution-control targets can also result in less environmental
enforcement.
The difference is that this approach is not so public. No vote is taken on the change of
plans. There is much less
transparency. And, it is harder to hold
those responsible for the roll backs accountable. Is it any wonder which course this Administration is
following? We are here today to shine a
bright light on what is happening to environmental enforcement at EPA and what
the Bush Administration plan seems to be for the future of environmental
enforcement.
EPA=s own documents paint a disturbing picture
about the Administration=s plans for environmental enforcement.
-more-
First, take a look at environmental enforcement resources. This chart comes from EPA=s own operating plan and budget request. This is from an internal document that EPA
has so far refused to share with us. We
have other sources. This document shows
that between Fiscal Year 2001 and 2003, there is an 18 percent cut in the staff
resources devoted to inspections and an 11 percent cut in civil enforcement.
Let us also take a look at EPA=s projections for accomplishments in environmental enforcement from
2001 to 2003. Again, using EPA=s own budget numbers, there are substantial
declines in enforcement. This
Administration=s plan is to significantly reduce
inspections, civil investigations, and voluntary disclosures. There is even a plan to reduce the amount of
pollution taken out of our air, water and soil.
This Administration=s approach to rolling back environmental protection B through hidden plans to undermine
enforcement B may not be as transparent as changing the
law. But it is just as dangerous for
the American people.
I would have liked to ask the Administrator of EPA to explain these
plans. She was invited to testify here today but EPA declined to send a
witness.
However, we are fortunate to have Eric Schaeffer here today to discuss
EPA enforcement with us. Until quite
recently, Mr. Schaeffer was the Director of Regulatory Enforcement at EPA. He was responsible for a wide range of
enforcement areas including air, water, pesticides, toxics, and hazardous
waste. He resigned from EPA and has
expressed great concern about the future of enforcement. I would like to submit his letter of
resignation for the record and welcome him.
We will also hear from Dr. Barry Johnson. He is an experienced
scientist and will share some of the latest research on the impacts of pollution
on the public. And, we will hear from
Mr. Scott Segal, a partner in a law firm that defends environmental enforcement
cases.
Let us continue with opening statements, then we will hear from our
witnesses.