I would like to commend Administrator Whitman for the President's Budget submittal. I know you have not had a lot of time to put together this budget and I'm sure next year's budget will be a better reflection of the Administration's environmental priorities.
I know you have gotten some criticism for transferring part of the enforcement budget to the States through a $25 million dollar grant program, but this is exactly what we should be doing. As the former Governor of Ohio I realize that the States are and should be taking the lead on environmental enforcement. States already conduct 95% of all inspections and it's time for the Federal EPA Budget to acknowledge this fact. By proposing these State Enforcement grants, we as a nation will get a better environmental enforcement program.
There are a few issues I would like addressed by the Administrator today:
1) I have held two meetings in Ohio over the last several months on Ohio's wastewater infrastructure needs. Most recently, at the end of April, Senator Crapo conducted a field hearing in Columbus, Ohio on the state's wastewater needs. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a rumbling of a rebellion across the nation as communities struggle to deal with aging water infrastructure, growth, and increasing federal water quality requirements. In Ohio alone, estimated needs for safe drinking water and wastewater total $12.4 billion: that's $5 billion for drinking water and $7.4 billion for wastewater.
I know you have defended the budget request of $850 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) as an increase. It would, in fact, be a $500 million cut from the $1.35 billion Congress has appropriated in recent years. At the same time, the request ignores Congress' goal of funding the Clean Water SRF program at a level of $1.35 billion before putting any money toward the wet weather grants program, which is authorized at a level of $750 million for fiscal year 2002.
Moreover, during debate on the Budget Resolution, the Senate approved an amendment to increase the funding available for the Clean Water SRF to the $1.35 billion level and fully fund the new wet weather grants program at $750 million.
With the incredible nationwide needs for water infrastructure, I would like to know why the Administration did not request more funding in order to help address these needs and protect public health and safety?
2) The federal workforce is suffering a human capital crisis. How is the EPA on this issue? What percent of your workforce is eligible and expected to retire in the short term? More importantly, will there be shortages in any particular job category, such as scientists?
3) The EPA has been subjected to multiple lawsuits over the years, many of them friendly lawsuits in the last few years. Are you having problems prioritizing work because of the sometimes arbitrary deadlines imposed by courts?
4) I know in the past few years the research programs at the EPA have suffered and you can not make up the difference overnight. I am speaking in particular about the residual risk program in the Air Office. We held a hearing on this last year. The statute requires a number of decisions on the residual risk program beginning next year and I am concerned that the Agency will not be ready due to past priorities. For the record would you provide the committee a list of any other programs which might fall behind due to inadequate funding in the past.
5) Last year, the National Research Council prepared a study entitled Strengthening Science at the U.S. EPA. That report included several recommendations on how to improve the research management and peer review practices at the Agency. While some of these recommendations require congressional authorization, many do not. Is the Administration's budget request sufficient to accomplish the recommendations necessary to strengthen EPA's scientific practices?
I look forward to your testimony and I hope we can get the other nominees confirmed for the EPA as quickly as possible in order to get you some help on these issues.