Viewed in its entirety, EPA's FY '02 request is simply inadequate to address the environmental needs of a growing nation. And the request for next year is not an exception. The President's budget makes real dollar reductions to EPA every year for the next five years.
We tried to fix this problem during the budget debate. And every Democrat on this committee voted for an amendment that I offered to increase environmental funding, including EPA's budget, by $50 billion over the next 10 years.
So I object to the size of the EPA request. It's just not enough to keep pace with our needs.
I also disagree with the policy choices that the budget makes. It cuts clean air, reduces the number of Superfund cleanups, cuts funding for global warming, and plays accounting games with funding for pesticide assessments.
I find the enforcement cuts especially disturbing.
One of EPA's 10 major goals is called "Credible Deterrence." It's hard to believe that this budget-which cuts 269 enforcement positions-will make the prospect of enforcement more credible to polluters.
I understand that most of the resources freed by these cuts are going to states. I want to help states, Mr. Chairman, but not at the expense of federal enforcement. It's too important, and the people of New Jersey depend on it.
They depend on federal enforcement of the Clean Air Act to address the pollution coming from other states that contributes to New Jersey's severe ozone problems.
They depend on federal enforcement to clean up New Jersey's 114 Superfund sites.
And they depend on a strong federal enforcement backstop to strengthen compliance with the rest of our environmental laws.
These changes in enforcement policy and cuts to other areas will hurt New Jersey and send the wrong message to polluters across the nation. I'll be getting into some more detail in my questions, Mr. Chairman, but that concludes my remarks.