The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. I believe that grants to local recipients can be one of the best tools to accomplish that mission. However, the EPA Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Management and Budget have consistently criticized the EPA for persistent problems in grants management. The OMB and EPA IG recommended as recently as 2002 that the agency designate grants managements as a material weakness, which is the most severe category of weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. For nearly the last 10 years, the EPA has even acknowledged that grants management has been a weakness which to me proves that his should be a non-partisan issue. These problems have persisted regardless of changes in Administration.

This Committee has an obligation to ensure that the EPA budget is consistent with its mission of protecting human health and the environment. One week from today, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt will testify before this committee concerning the fiscal year 2005 EPA budget. Most importantly, however, the EPA has an obligation to ensure taxpayers that it is accomplishing its mission with the funds it awards each year. However, for at least the last 10 years, the story of grants management is seemingly a revolving door of EPA IG audits and GAO reports, congressional hearings, and new EPA policies in response. Even with this constant cycle of criticism, hearings, and new policies; the GAO reported late last year that the EPA continues to demonstrate the same persistent problems in grants management. These problems include a general lack of oversight of grantees, a lack of oversight of agency personnel, a lack of any measurement of environmental results, and a lack of competition in awarding grants. It is imperative that agency personnel are accountable for monitoring grants and that measurable environmental results are clearly demonstrated. Interestingly, the GAO characterized changing part of the deficiencies in the last 10 years of grants management as requiring a “major cultural shift” at the EPA. I realize GAO was specifically referring to implementing a new competition policy in awarding grants. However, it appears that a major cultural shift is only the beginning of a number of reforms needed to create the culture of accountability to which you, Mr. O’Connor, refer in your testimony that is necessary within the agency for new and effective grants management.

I want to announce to all of you today that this Committee is going to take its oversight responsibilities seriously in regards to grants management. We are going to stay on top of this issue until real changes are made.