Senator Joe Lieberman
Opening Statement: Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing
2002 EPA Budget Proposal
February 13, 2002
Welcome,
Administrator Whitman, and thank you for being here today. From what I have
heard, you have worked hard within the Administration to advance many of the
right priorities against what I believe have been daunting odds.
We’re here
today to discuss the administration’s 2003 EPA budget proposal—a proposal about
which I must admit I am troubled. I
understand that as our nation faces war abroad and increased security demands
here at home, we have no shortage of budget requirements. As a result, some
government agencies have to learn to accomplish more with less. But I regret that in this budget proposal,
the Bush Administration is asking EPA to do less with less. And ultimately, the
lack of budgetary resources to accomplish EPA’s critical goals threatens the
natural resources all of us care about: our air, our water, and our land.
The Bush
Administration proposes providing the EPA with about $300 million less than the
enacted level for the present fiscal year.
The number, itself, says a lot — but the decisions behind the dollars
are also important still. I would like to talk about a few decisions this
morning.
Specifically,
I share with many of my colleagues a deep concern about the significant
reduction in clean water funds of about $525 million, which may seriously
impact our state and local authorities’ efforts to improve water quality that
people depend on for their health, as well as the health of our waters for
fish, other aquatic organisms, and recreation.
In my own
state of Connecticut, we are faced with enormous infrastructure improvement
needs, including a necessary upgrade of our wastewater treatment plants in the
Long Island Sound—a goal we share with our neighbors from New York. This budget will make that important task
much more difficult to accomplish.
In the area
of clean air, the budget appears to dedicate about the same resources as last
year. But the focus of the funding is
suspect. I am troubled by the mere
passing mention of multi-pollutant legislation in your budget justification
document. That’s consistent with the Administration’s
ongoing backslide on this issue. A year
ago, President Bush was talking about putting forward his own proposal to
reduce emissions of the four primary pollutants—sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide—emitted by the electric power
industry. Then, in March of last year,
the President abandoned his pledge to seek carbon dioxide reductions from power
plants. In May, the President’s
National Energy Plan called on the EPA to develop a proposal to reduce the
other three pollutants. We are still
waiting for that proposal to arrive here on Capitol Hill.
The EPA
budget justification also gives glancing treatment to New Source Review. As you
know, there is a great deal of concern about the potential weakening of this
important program under the guise of so‑called “reform,” and I regret
that the budget has done nothing to clarify the administration’s true
intentions. I am troubled by the fact
that although funding for enforcement is projected to go up in Fiscal Year ‘03,
the number of inspections planned next year is 30 percent lower than the number
of inspections completed in FY 99—a decrease of over 7,000 inspections. Criminal and civil investigations are also
declining to a significant degree. Now,
I am a big supporter of faith-based initiatives, but sometimes it takes not
just faith but enforcement to bring about compliance with our environmental
protection laws.
I am also
disgruntled by the continuing absence of a credible Administration plan on
climate change. In this budget
justification, the very first pages speak about EPA’s mission and goals. One of these goals deals with the reduction
of global and cross‑border environmental risks. It reads, and I quote in its entirety:
“The United
States will lead other nations in successful, multilateral efforts to reduce
significant risks to human health and ecosystems from climate change,
stratospheric ozone depletion, and other hazards of international concern.”
But with all
respect, the actions of the Bush Administration since it took office have not
demonstrated leadership on global warming, have been unilateral, and are
increasing rather than reducing risks to human health and ecosystems from
climate change. After rejecting the
Kyoto Protocol last March, the Administration showed up empty‑handed at
the climate negotiations in Bonn last summer and Marrakech last fall, and has
appeared to be cooling to any real action on global warming ever since.
I don’t mean
this personally, Administrator Whitman, because you personally displayed real
leadership on climate change when you were Governor of New Jersey. Unfortunately, your strong record has yet to
translate into any real commitment to deal with this mega-problem by the Bush
Administration.
I understand
that we may hear from the Administration soon, very soon, on climate change,
multi-pollutant legislation, and New Source Review. I hope that the climate change program is a credible one that
moves us toward real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with targets and
timetables for those reductions. I am working with Senator McCain on such a
proposal. I hope that the
multi-pollutant proposal calls for significant cuts in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and mercury reductions, and forms the foundation for meaningful
discussions on reconciling the Administration’s proposal with the Clean Power
Act of 2001, introduced by Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins and me. I hope that the NSR proposal retains the
critical health and environmental protections this program has afforded us over
time. Hope springs eternal, but, for
now, I view this as an Administration that has not adequately fulfilled its
responsibility to protect our environment.
Thank you again, Administrator Whitman.