THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _____________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release April 21, 1994 PRESS BRIEFING BY HAZEL O'LEARY, SECRETARY OF ENERGY, BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, CAROL BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR OF EPA AND KATIE MCGINTY, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY The Briefing Room 2:27 P.M. EDT MS. TERZANO: Katie McGinty, the Director of the Office of Environmental Policy, will open this briefing with a brief statement. And then EPA Administrator Carol Browner will speak; then Interior Secretary Babbitt, and then Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary. And a reminder, in the bins we have an Earth Day package back there for you all. MS. MCGINTY: Thank you very much. In the last 16 months this administration has brought about a sea change in environmental policy. First the President has established clearly that environmental policy is a top priority for us. We've set tough goals for ourselves, and we're moving aggressively to achieve them. We've taken on a broad spectrum of initiatives -- from recycling and things like energy efficiency and pollution prevention -- things that are about getting our own health in order, to the broader end of the spectrum where we're helping to define a new role for the United States in the post-Cold War world. But second, and equally importantly, as we move forward, we are charting a new course for environmental protection. It's a course built on partnership, new approaches, new ways of achieving our environmental objectives. As we move forward, what are some our guiding principles? First, it's jobs and the environment. This President not only understands that the jobs or the environment mystique is a false choice, but in fact he understands that the exact opposite is true. Well-designed environmental policy is a stimulus to economic growth. That's what the clean car initiative is all about. When we have cities in the United States, and indeed around the world, that are just saying no to automobile traffic in their streets, then we know that the future of the auto industry is in designing an environmentally-sound car. That's what NAFTA is all about, strong economic growth, with strong environmental protections -- the two go hand in hand. And, of course, that's also what the President's forest plan is all about. We're working hard to restore the vibrancy, the fabric of the ancient forest system. But at the same time, we're offering sustainable economic development and sound, secure jobs for the people in the communities of the Pacific Northwest. So jobs and the environment. Second, we're breaking the gridlock. It's time to have our agencies all work together as one team. And, in fact, through this 16-month period, that's just what they've been doing. We're moving away from the time when one agency would be warring against another, or indeed, bureaus within a single agency not working together. That's what our ecosystems initiatives are all about. We're pulling our resources, sharing our insights and our strengths and our talents. We're serving each other rather than suing each other for once. And, as we break down the barriers that separate us as agencies, we're also breaking down the barriers of the beltway. We're reaching out to communities around the country. We're working in partnership with the states, with communities, with industry, with the environmental community. We're trying to develop better, more common-sense approaches to achieving the environmental goals we all share. That's what our Climate Challenge is all about. That's what Secretary O'Leary's efforts are all about today, here in Washington, together with Carol Browner, bringing together thousands of businesses from around this country to sign up to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve their bottom lines. That's what this effort's all about. That's what Secretary Babbitt's efforts are all about when he says we're going to avoid the train wrecks with preserving species. We can bring industry, the development community together with the environmental community and find ways to allow development to proceed while protecting critical habitats. And that's also what Carol Browner's initiatives on looking at whole industry sectors in her common-sense approach. That's what it's about -- bringing people together and finding a better way of moving forward. Our third principle: this President recognizes that the peace, the prosperity, the security of the United States depends on a healthy resource base here and throughout the world. So as we're building partnership here at home, we're also building partnerships around the world with developed countries and developing countries. We're reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we're stopping the depletion of the ozone layer, and we're halting the destruction of our forests and the hemorrhaging loss that we're experiencing of biodiversity. We've done much during these 16 months, but we have, of course, much, much more to do. We're proud of what we've accomplished, and we have a handy dandy little book for you all to look through that outlines some of the things that we really have tried to put forward today that, I think, demonstrate this new comprehensive and coherent approach to environmental protection, and also the new way of achieving our environmental goals. Not bad for one year. But there is much more to do, and I'll turn it over to my other colleagues, who I know have much more to share with you. Thank you very much for joining us. ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Good afternoon. I'm Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am also the woman in the newspaper today with her mouth wide open. What you don't see in that picture is the 12 kids who I thought were about to push me over the edge of the boat, as we were looking at the fish in the Anacostia. And, unfortunately, not only did we bring up about 25 fish, we also brought up an awful lot of garbage, a few beer cans, a paper chip bag, and one fish at least that had quite a large tumor on its mouth. So the Anacostia River, I think as we all know, is not a healthy river. If you look at the state of the environment across this country, there is good news, but there is also bad news. It is really just in the last 25 years that we have sought to put in place a whole body of laws, a whole system for protecting our environment; for regulating things that come out of industrial facilities that go into our air, that flow into our rivers, lakes and streams. Yet, 25 years after all of these efforts, we still have 70 million Americans who live in cities where air quality does not meet federal air quality standards; one in four Americans live within four miles of a toxic dump site. Yesterday, EPA released a report about the health of our rivers, lakes and streams. Forty percent of them are polluted. So there is much that remains to be done. And in many ways, what has been done is the easy part, and the difficult part is still ahead. Now, I will admit, this administration is leading a new generation of environmental protection, one that is based on establishing and setting strict standards, standards that will clearly protect the public, protect our natural resources, protect those most at risk, but allow for flexibility on how those standards are achieved. We have tended in the past, in our regulatory programs not only to say, here's the standard, but to say here's the narrow path you must follow to meet that standard. The result: one solution where 10 may be available. Higher cost for compliance, where competition and innovation would have driven down the cost of compliance. So we need to evaluate our laws, we need to change our laws to allow for these sorts of flexibilities. We need to change how we do business at EPA which we are already doing to take advantage of the information that we have today to solve the problems of tomorrow. One of the great things about an agency like EPA are the number of tools that are available to doing this job. We have the tool of rule-making, regulatory policy. Last year, EPA put forward more air rules than at any other time in the history of the agency, including on-board canisters. We've changed the way cars will be made in the future. You know when you go to buy your gas and there's that thing on the nozzle? It won't be on the nozzle, it'll be in your car now, getting far greater reductions for a lower cost. This was a 15-year fight; we've solved it. They're going to put it on the cars. We've changed the way gasoline is going to be made. Beginning in January, at least 40 cities with the worst air quality problems in this country will use different gasoline, cleaner gasoline. And after 5 years of trying to deal with toxic air pollutants from chemical facilities across this country, we've set new standards that will result in a 90-percent reduction in toxic air pollutants. And that's just a few examples of how we're using our regulatory power. We're also using the powers we have, the tools we have, to educate the public. EPA a year ago put out a report demonstrating that exposure to second-hand smoke kills people -- that people who choose not to smoke are affected when they are around people who do smoke. That was a turning point. It allowed communities, businesses across this country to finally ban smoking to protect those people who don't smoke. That's an educational opportunity that we had. We don't have any regulatory authority there. But we did it because we had information that we thought the public deserved to become aware of. We've also used our enforcement tool. The agency last year had it's highest number of enforcement cases in the history of the agency. And at the same time, we reorganized our Office of Enforcement. People might remember that when Ann Gorsuch was at EPA. She dismantled the Office of Enforcement. We've brought back the Office of Enforcement, and we've strengthened it so that we can do the job of enforcing environmental laws. We have a number of initiatives underway that we believe will result in a new way of doing the job of protecting the public's health -- that we will now be able to move beyond mere regulation, end of the pipe, to looking more broadly, to looking at the systems we seek to protect and to using the innovative technologies that are available. And as part of that, we will seek to include the public in our decision-making. We've recently announced that we are going to double the number of chemicals on the toxic release inventory, so that the companies who report toxic emissions will not just report on the 300 chemicals that they've been required to do essentially since the law was passed, but will have to report on more than 600 toxic chemicals annually. And once we've completed that at the end of this year, we will be increasing the number of facilities. Giving the public access to information, making them a part of protecting their environment is essential, because, in the end, a decision made with local participation, when the public is informed, when they're involved, will be far better than any decision that can be made here in Washington. And now I get the honor of introducing my colleague, Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior. SECRETARY BABBITT: Thank you, Carol. Just a word about some of the legislative and other matters that are on the agenda at the Interior Department. We've been emphasizing in recent months the issues relating to National Park system. There are two bills on our agenda in the Congress right now: One is the California Desert Protection Act; this will add some three million acres to National Park system. It's the largest landfill since the Alaska legislation of the 1970s -- obviously, of great importance. The next park one is the Concessions Finance bill, which is now out of the Senate. It will enable us to get at proper support for the National Park system through restructuring the way concessions are contracted and the share that will go to the National Park Service for reinvestment in parks. The mining reform legislation is obviously way up on the legislation agenda. There are bills out of both Houses now. The conference committee is about to begin. That legislation has had no substantial modification for 123 years, and we believe that the year of reform is at hand. Just a word about our biodiversity efforts on the international scene of increasing, and I think, really urgent emphasis. As many of you know, last week the President signed a document which, for the first time, imposes trade sanctions under the Pelly Amendment, in this case to begin to show that we're serious about conserving the tiger, which is under imminent threat of extinction. Because in a lot of parts of the world, tiger bones are being ground up and put in packages, like this, which are, in turn sold in apothecary shops all over Asia and even in Washington, D.C., where I obtained this package. Tiger bone routinely sells in some parts of Asia for as much as $10,000 to $20,000 a kilo. And that's a statement of the urgency and of the importance of the President's use for the first time of sanctions under American law to shut down the international wildlife trade. I think in some ways the most important things that are going on at the Interior Department are entirely outside the legislative arena. I think that's true in many areas of this administration. And the reason for that is, during the 1980s, we had in place an administration which was not interested in using environmental laws. And in an odd juxtaposition, the Congress responded by passing more and more laws, as if somehow the grant of more and more authority might wake up the Executive Branch. Well, when we came in last year we discovered an extraordinary backlog of very important possibilities. It's been my experience in most areas that less important than new laws is setting about using the laws we have. Now, the most obvious and, I think, historically important example of that is the forest plan in the Pacific Northwest. I'm confident that this plan will go down in history as the beginning of one of the really important new chapters in environmental history because here, for the first time in American history, federal agencies working together have broken the gridlock not to protect one species, the Spotted Owl, but to protect hundreds of species, not just in one place, but in three states -- an entire ecosystem running from Puget Sound down into Northern California in an unprecedented effort in which my agency, the Bureau of Land Management, working hand in hand with Secretary Espy and the United States Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, scores of other agencies, has produced an ecosystem management plan of great complexity, demonstrating the concepts that Katie was talking about. It is possible for federal agencies not to create gridlock but to break it. And increasingly to understand it, we can't treat environmental problems out on the back 40 in isolation. Everything relates. Someone once said when a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon, it may create a snowstorm in Chicago. That's the concept that underlies this increasing understand that there aren't any empty spaces anymore. And we go at it one crisis at a time, we must move this across the entire landscape . Just a couple of more brief examples. The Florida Legislature, in Tallahassee last week, passed an extraordinary piece of legislation which, in turn, derives directly from the litigation that, together with EPA and other agencies, we settled last summer. It's a recognition that the Everglades National Park is dying. It's not dying because of the park rangers or any lack of effort on their part, it's because of what's happening beyond the park boundary. Clear up north, across the Everglades Agricultural Area, in Lake Okechobee, in the Kissimmee River Basin, extending clear up to Orlando. And it reflects again a concept which this administration brings to landscape management and environmental laws for the first time in history. It says you can't save the Everglades inside the park, you can save it only by dealing with the entire ecosystem. Scores of federal agencies, the government of Florida, the South Florida water management district -- if you want to save the Everglades, you've got to deal with the issues of urban expansion on the outskirts of Miami, with agriculture, with fishing in the Florida Bay. And, in a sense, you have to scale up, bring people together, cast away those old jurisdictional rivalries in saying we are operating in unison across an entire landscape. For those of you who are interested in California, there's another wonderful example going on in the bay delta of California. That's an issue which has been gridlocked since the days of Governor Jerry Brown clear back in the 1970s. It is now moving, under the leadership of EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation toward, I think, the possibilities of a productive result, extending all the way from San Francisco Bay up the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. Grazing is another contentious issue that I think illustrates much of the same. We've gone back, together with the Forest Service, across the entire western landscape and said we're going to have to break this whole paradigm of command and control adversarial regulation, because if we're ever going to have a meaningful say in how 600-700 million acres of land are administered, we're going to have to get back into those communities, invite everybody to the table, and see if we can find a new paradigm in which all the stakeholders in public lands out there on the landscape are actually involved. Well, there are many other examples, but I would, with that, yield and introduce my friend, whom you've see a great deal of this week in terms of the energy and climate issues, Secretary Hazel O'Leary. SECRETARY O'LEARY: Thank you. I think I'll just pick up from Bruce's themes, but start to focus first on the Department of Energy and then I'll take the outward look. Four times this year I've been accused of being an environmentalist. I'm guilty. And I think it makes good sense for the person who has responsibility for leading the Department of Energy to be an environmentalist. If you look at our mandates and very carefully understand the work that's done at the Department of Energy, we have the largest environmental cleanup program in the world. And the reason we have that program is that at the time when we were doing the necessary and worthwhile work to produce material for atomic warheads and nuclear weapons, there was no concentration on the need to see that we did that without degradating the environment, nor assaulting the health and the safety of the people working in our facilities. Now, some 600,000 people who have moved through them -- nor the members in the community who live nearby. So when we came into the Department of Energy, we set first of all a value that said we respected the environment. And then, when we sought to identify the cohesive missions of the Department of Energy, it was clear that one of them was environmental protection cleanup and pollution prevention. And so, in that way, we've sought to refocus the work we do and, perhaps more importantly, ask people and the public, generally, to measure how well we're doing -- not merely from our environmental management or cleanup programs, where we have made significant progress this year -- principally, I'd point out at Hanford, Washington -- when I arrived, we were being sued, and almost the first week in office I had to fly off to meet with the governor of the state and, really, resolve issues about our failure to comply with agreements that we were entered into with the EPA in the State of Washington. We've worked that peace substantially within the Department of Energy, and I don't fool you to say that we're finished. We have much work to be done. But we're clear about milestones to be achieved, and we're desiring to be measured on the achievement of our milestones. We're also clear that that work needs doing and it needs to be done in a way that focuses on the risks that are the greatest and also demands that we do it in a responsible way economically. So one of the things we've done this year was take a hard look at how much we spend in the Department of Energy to do a job to clean up. And what we found out is we were spending 30 percent more than other organizations doing that work. So we set ourselves a goal for the next three years to reduce that cost by 10 percent each year. That will move just a bit to the outside, because the work of environmental cleanup of our own sites leads to the necessity to design technology and manufacture instruments to do that work. We're clear that a vigorous marketplace exists for the implements and tools we use to clean up, and that 's another way we're measuring our results. And in the coming year, Tom Grumbly has indicated that he can deliver to marketplace 25 new technologies for cleanup that have been used on our sites, that will be tested on our sites, but can be deployed in manufacturing and technology in the United States -- not simply in the cleanup of nuclear hazards, but cleanup generally. There's a marketplace in the United States and abroad for that work. I want to talk a bit about where we've come with our global climate initiative. Remind you that last year, a year ago exactly, this same team of people was talking to the same team out there, and I thought to say -- utter a word that was picked up a lot. And it was that voluntary is not a dirty word. And some of you may remember that. We in the Department of Energy and in our administration then set about exactly a year ago to craft a kind of plan to focus on the issues that both Carol and Bruce have mentioned. And it is the kind of plan to reduce our greenhouse emission to 1990 levels within six years, and do that in a flexible way that was both cost- effective, created jobs, and met our targets. Within the Department of Energy, we have responsibility for 25 of those programs. This week I've been busy, and my colleagues have been busy, signing up companies to participate in this voluntary program. Some 766 were signed on last night in the utility industry alone. Why is that? They've gotten a clue. We realize it's much better for the economy and for us if they have the flexibility to simply meet the targets that we have articulated and were provided the opportunity to measure their progress. We have some 70-odd companies signed up in the industrial sector to do the same thing. People have challenged this new concept -- how could this work? When we were accustomed to punishing people who do the wrong thing, we generally punished them through inept regulation. I know a lot about that. I've been doing it off and on for a little bit. Two things that occurred to me: One, if we were going to do that, it would take me about two years, with all of this help around me, to get a bill passed, and another -- listen to this -- three years to get a reg on the street. Meanwhile, no substantial progress toward cleanup. That's why I think this way makes sense. We have people signed up. My colleague there is standing with plans already in hand, budgets in hand. Last year I talked about the fact that voluntary is not a dirty word. This year I deigned to suggest that in two or three years -- maybe you'll agree with me -- that voluntary is a clean word. What we've done here is simply very late last night some of my colleagues began to scribe in the names of the companies who are signed in -- 776 from the utilities sector alone, representing 80 percent of that entire sector, which accounts for one-third of the pollution that we're measuring for greenhouse emissions. Now, here's the rub -- nobody's going to believe just the sign and the splashy book. What we've got to now do is baseline emissions in each of these companies -- the utilities sector, the industrial sector, transportation sector as well. The United Parcel Service signed on this morning. Their idea is, they'd like to have an opportunity to do it their way with flexibility and ingenuity, because I haven't figured out yet the cookie cutter that can cut across each diverse company in its diverse locality with its certain mix of power and fuel source. So -- measure against a baseline we're now establishing, interestingly enough out of a regulation that came from the Energy Policy Act, which was passed in the fall of 1992 -- I'm just next week getting that regulation on the streets. That's how long it takes. The good news is that we will have the baseline and the guidance to measure achievement against this goal of reducing emissions. This presents a challenge; because if we fail, people will never let us try again. Now, someone asked me: Why are all those utilities coming to the table? I think I understand why. One, they'd like to get it done this way, because it makes sense; it's liable to be much more cost-effective. The other point, however, is since we're booking it, and we're pledging to book it in a way that's so simple my grandmother can understand it, year after year you can come back and see if people are making substantial progress. Talk about just one other element. One company has got a great idea. They're calling it "an environmental backstop." New Jersey Electric and Gas has got themselves signed onto an agreement with the Environmental Defense Fund who will monitor their achievement of reducing these emissions. And that company has agreed if they don't meet their targets, they want the Environmental Defense Fund to come in and tell them how to do it better. There are creative ways to get this done. These are cost-effective ways and, most importantly -- if you were on the Mall yesterday -- the technologies already ready for deployment and deployed which, once again, can be moved out into the private sector for good, decent, high-paying jobs. And perhaps most importantly, as we look toward the economic piece and competitiveness abroad, we can deploy these technologies successfully throughout the world with low- tech and high-tech. The final piece is, it will take a little budget to do this. Not as much as if we were regulating in the good old-fashioned mandatory command and control way. We've got a budget on the Hill that proposed to spend in support of energy efficiency and renewable energy, which is pollution control, by the way, $1.3 billion. The second time in two years that we've put forward that kind of budget -- a budget over $1 billion. This will allow us to get this work done. And as you've heard, the leverage we get out of the private sector in terms of their installation of energy-efficient technology is $60 billion -- good jobs, good clean energy, and great for the environment. It's not yet a clean word, but I'm going to come back next year with this book -- a little grubby, because I'll be keeping book; I know you'll expect it -- and let's see if we can call voluntary a clean word just yet. It's my job to say we're happy to take questions. And I'm happy there's so many of us. Q Could you fill us in. We got a release today on the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Could you fill us in on what the status of that is and also the -- perhaps the scope of the damages -- what they've found so far? SECRETARY O'LEARY: Well, the committee is meeting for the first time today. And I stopped in along with my other colleagues in the Cabinet, who were part of the interagency group, to meet with the advisory committee. We now have a complement of staff to support that committee on board. They were just today receiving their charge. Documents have been pulled in through all of our agencies. And they begin today their work of directing and analyzing the information that the staff now has in hand. You will recall that the commit was within six months of the formation of the committee there would be an interim report. And so I think what you ought to be doing is measuring the six months from today -- committee in-hand, meeting fully today, and I will be with them later this afternoon and likely be in a position next week to talk to you more fully. I actually have been to two advisory committee meetings today. Q collecting information? SECRETARY O'LEARY: The information has been coming in and I want to get clear on this -- this is a very difficult piece I almost like, and I was a prosecutor years ago -- I almost liken it to having to find the data, the facts and the information, if you will, the evidence, some of which is 40 and 50 years old, whose custodian has now to be reidentified, because institutions and hospitals have been closed. That work is going on vigorously across the Cabinet, from the Defense Department to the Veterans Administration, the Department of Energy, Health and Human Services. It is a tough job, but it goes speedily. And you may have noted that in the Department of Energy, we are releasing information as soon as we have it in hand and can declassify it. So that's going a far pace. Q Senator Baucus, who has today criticized what he called the administration's decision to weaken Clean Air Act rules to appease Venezuela and calls for a reversal of that decision -- can you respond to what he said today? ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We've made absolutely no decision. The agency today announced that we would take comment on a proposal to address an issue leading to Venezuelan oil, but in no way have we made any final decision. This is the process we use to solicit public input. We've expanded the scope of the notice to ensure that we get all of the information that is important. And only after we have fully reviewed the information will we make a decision as to whether or not to proceed; and if we decide to proceed, how to proceed. Q So when he talks about a decision to weaken clean air act rules, you're answer to that is -- ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: There's no decision. Q hasn't happened. Not privately, not publicly, not -- ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Absolutely not. I have to sign any final rule issued by the agency. I have not today signed a rule. We have signed a notice to take comment on a variety of issues. It's called a Notice of Proposed Rule-making. We will not make any decision until the comment period has closed. And we have had the opportunity to fully evaluate the comments. There is no decision. Q Secretary Browner, could you tell us more about the plan to have the car companies in the Northeast take responsibility for getting the same air reductions that the California car program might -- ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the Northeast states were put into something called the Ozone Transport Commission. Pollution doesn't recognize political boundaries -- air pollution moves back and forth. And so in order for the Northeast states to work together to solve their air pollution problems, this commission was create. The commission as given the authority to file a petition with me to ask me to consider whether or not California cars would be sold -- could be sold, could be mandated for sale in the Northeast. We are in the similar situation in a public comment period. And no final decision has been made. Under the law we have X number of days and have to decide, I think, by November 10th -- it's, I think, the second week in November. The filing of the petition triggered a time frame. And so we are working. We will hold a public hearing, I think, in the next two weeks -- I think it's in Connecticut -- to hear comment. We're soliciting written comment. And once we have gotten all the comment, then we will review it and make a decision. Q I guess I mean the voluntary program to have the car companies get the same emissions reduction that the California car program -- ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: I think maybe you're confusing -- the Northeast states have the right to petition EPA to say that California cars have to be sold in the Northeast in order to meet air quality. We haven't finalized a decision yet because we're soliciting comment. Two individual states within the Northeast have been involved in litigation in an effort to sell California cars in their states as opposed to the entire Northeast. And we have been involved in that litigation in terms of the federal issues that have been raised -- interpretations of the Clean Air Act. And there has, in fact, been a ruling in the Second Circuit on a piece of that. But we've not made any decision on the OTC petition. Q On a slightly different subject, are you reconsidering anything about an appointment to the Supreme Court. SECRETARY BABBITT: No. I've made my position clear to the President -- and that is that at this particular point in time, the Interior Department has got a lot of really big issues in mid- passage, and I'm not about to leave a job half finished. And I frankly think that what I can do best for this administration and in the public interest is finish those jobs. I did say that I might be open to reconsideration at the end of the second Clinton administration in the year 2000 -- all on our way out of here. Q Secretary Babbitt, how do you rate the chances of passage this year of what I think is one of your key environmental priorities, and that's mining reform? You've been bruised by the grazing battle. Your chief of staff cast some doubt on the possibilities for passage of mining reform, and also because of the impasse on the Hill. How do you see the lay of the land -- SECRETARY BABBITT: I'm not as pessimistic as my chief of staff, and I think I have marginally better political judgment and, therefore, I don't think it's a done deal by any means. My sense is that the industry has undergone a significant change of attitude. I think the majority of the industry is now interested in some serious bargaining, and I'd say the chances are better than 50- 50. MS. TERZANO: One more question. Q Ms. Browner, in a similar plate, what about the Superfund? Do you think there's any hope? And what's the EPA -- ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Absolutely. I didn't mention the EPA legislative agenda. It is an ambitious agenda. Drinking water, which we anticipate could be on the floor in the Senate shortly, clean water act, Superfund, FIFRA, FFDCA, they're all packages which are now on the hill at various points. And in the process I didn't mention them because the President spoke to most of them earlier today. This administration has been clear from the beginning that the Superfund program is broken, that it needs to be fixed, that it needs to be a faster, fairer, more efficient program. As I said earlier, one out of four Americans live within four miles of a toxic dump site. We need to get those sites cleaned up, we need to do it in the most cost-effective manner, and we need to do it quickly. We are working with all parties involved in this Superfund debate -- the environmentalists, the communities, the corporations that ultimately pay for the cleanups, and I think we feel like there is a resolution that will allow for passage this year. I have spoken to both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill in the course of the last two weeks about Superfund, and they are very, very eager to see it done this year. THE PRESS: Thank you. END3:12 P.M. EDT