966 



HISTORY 01 THI ( OMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



He stated on the opening day of the hearings: 



For example, .it one time traces of arsenic were administered as a medication. 

 [i is a well-known fact, however, that prolonged use does not have the benefit sought 

 and, in fact, its cumulative effects were sometimes exploited by those desiring to 

 get rid of cumbersome relatives. 



The Congressional Research Service prepared an analysis of 

 "Effects of Chronic Exposure to Low-Level Pollutants in the Environ- 

 ment", at the request of the subcommittee. The study outlined the 

 magnitude and extent of the environmental threat of these pollutants. 

 The report also noted the inconsistencies in both legislation and 

 administrative action in this area. For example, most Federal pollution 

 control, and public health statutes do not differentiate between chronic, 

 low-level effects on man and the environment and more acute, im- 

 mediate effects. The study observed: 



That fact that there is no uniform approach in these statutes to such matters as 

 identifying pollutants, evaluating scientific data, and setting tolerance levels for 

 protection from pollutants, should not be surprising. These statutes were formulated 

 at different times by different Congresses and by different committees in Congress in 

 response to different perceptions ot different problems and in response to different 

 pressures from public opinion and from regulated industry. 



With the assistance of CRS, a final report was prepared by the 

 subcommittee and released in 1976. The report discussed the rising 

 cancer death rates, which correlated strongly with where a person lives 

 and works. Also noted were the trace elements and chemicals in air 

 and drinking water, and the need for more scientific data to tackle 

 some of these emerging problems. 



EPA'S RESEARCH PRIORITIES 



At the end of 1975, the subcommittee tackled the problem of the 

 organization and management of EPA's Office of Research and Develop- 

 ment. During the five days of oversight hearings, the subcommittee 

 probed EPA's research priorities, including the justifications for 

 long-term versus short-term research. The hearings started on the 

 fifth anniversary of the establishment of EPA, which had pulled 

 together 42 geographically dispersed research institutions of widely 

 differing character. The subcommittee was reinforced in its conclusion 

 that sound scientific analysis and reliable evidence were absolutely 

 essential to measure threats to public health or welfare, and to support 

 defensible standards. The economic costs of change in order to meet 

 environmental risks were indicated to be so great that only through 

 adequate R. & D. could an organization like EPA credibly carry out 

 its mission. The subcommittee recommended additional attention to 

 more fundamental research on environmental matters— "patient, 



