Mobile Menu - OpenMobile Menu - Closed

The Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2008 Research and Development Budget Proposal

Date: 
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 12:00am
Location: 
Washington, DC

Opening Statement By Chairman Nick Lampson

Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone here to today’s Subcommittee hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s FY 2008 Science and Technology (S&T) budget request.

Environmental issues present increasing challenges for our country. We all want a robust economy and access to products and services that sustain and improve our quality of life. We also want a clean, healthy environment. It is through our investments in research and development that we have been able to strike a balance between environmental protection and economic growth.

A clean, healthy environment is not a luxury. It is a necessity. For example, when water pollution problems result in beach closures or closure of fisheries, water pollution becomes a threat to public health and to the economic health of communities dependent upon recreation and fisheries. Unfortunately, the Administration has failed for the fourth consecutive year to offer a budget that will enable us to achieve further successes in environmental protection.

Four years ago, the EPA’s research budget sustained a five percent cut. In FY06, it was reduced again by two percent, and this year’s proposal further reduces the budget yet again.

Sustainability cannot be achieved by EPA in our society if the Agency cannot find a way to sustain the programs that support environmental protection in this country. EPA cannot advance environmental research with a retreating budget. Targets for cuts include programs studying our children’s health, endocrine disruptors, toxic waste cleanup, pesticides, ecosystem research, technology verification programs, and global climate change. Cuts to the STAR grant and fellowship program not only reduces funding for research, it reduces essential funds for training the environmental scientists of the future.

The bottom line is, this budget is inadequate to support the kind of research and development enterprise we need to find creative solutions to environmental problems. I believe several of our witnesses today will be in agreement with me.

I want to welcome our entire distinguished panel to this morning’s hearing. I look forward to your testimony and to your recommendations for improving EPA’s scientific enterprise.

Witnesses

Panel

1 - Dr. George Gray
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency
Download the Witness Testimony

2 - Dr. M. Granger Morgan
Chair, Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University Department of Engineering
Download the Witness Testimony

3 - Dr. Jennifer Sass
Senior Scientist Health and Environment Program Natural Resource Defense Council Health and Environment Program Natural Resource Defense Council
Download the Witness Testimony

4 - Dr. Bruce C. Coull
Carolina Distinguished Professor (Emeritus) Dean (Emeritus), School of Environment University of South Carolina Dean (Emeritus), School of Environment Universit
Download the Witness Testimony

Witness Panel
Dr. Gray testifies before Subcommittee
Dr. Gray
Dr. Morgan testifies before Subcommittee
Dr. Morgan
Dr. Sass testifies before the Subcommittee
Dr. Sass
Dr. Coull testifies before the Subcommittee
Dr. Coull
For information on the witnesses, use the links at left
110th Congress