|
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
|
|
Letter to Appropriations Committee Conferees on FY 2002 VAHUD Appropriations
Bill Concerning: Opposition to House cuts in EPA enforcement and support for Senate defense of EPA enforcement. Dear Conferee: I am writing, as union President, on behalf of the professional employees whom we represent at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.. As a member of the upcoming conference committee on the Fiscal Year 2002 VA-HUD Appropriations bill, you are in a key position to protect the health and safety of the American people. As environmental professionals who work at the EPA and confront real issues of environmental protection every day we see grave dangers in the House version of this bill that reduces EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) by the equivalent of 270 full-time positions. The Senate bill, however, maintains OECA at current staffing (FY 2001) levels. We urge you to support the Senate bill's funding level for EPA enforcement. The total EPA budget is already down over 50% since 1980 as a share of the total federal budget. The recently released GAO report on EPA management specifically states the House enforcement cuts should not be passed at this time, stating that "we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, before reducing the enforcement staff by 270 positions, collect and review more complete and reliable workforce planning information information than is currently available on the enforcement workload of EPA's 10 regional offices." (GAO Report 01-812) As the enclosed Washington Post article (7/22/2001) shows, there are severe problems with the notion that America can benefit from the Balkanization of American environmental policy. Environmental problems are not state but global problems, requiring consistent national and international standards. Serious problems with state environmental enforcements have also been documented by the Environmental Working Group in its report Prime Suspects. EPA needs a strong enforcement program because many states are unwilling or unable to take enforcement actions against polluters. Gutting EPA's enforcement budget would only send the wrong message to polluters and result in even wider variation in state enforcement programs. Providing states with additional resources to improve their enforcement programs should not come at the expense of EPA's successful enforcement program. A fully-funded EPA enforcement program is essential to addressing pollution problems that don't recognize state boundaries. Unlike individual states, EPA has the unique ability to bring enforcement actions against polluters that operate in multiple states. EPA's large, multi-state, industry-specific enforcement cases have deterred pollution and driven investment in clean technologies while preserving a level playing field for those competing in a nationally competitive marketplace. EPA has negotiated 15 such consent decrees so far this year. Once again, we urge you to oppose the House Appropriations bill cuts in EPA's
enforcement programs. We urge you to support the Senate bill's provisions on
this matter. Subcommittee Members/Senate: Republicans Subcommittee Members/House: Democrats Independent
|