40 



to in any way duplicate work that is already being done by other 

 agencies, but, rather, to provide a forum where that information 

 can be brought and where it can be analyzed. 



We would also not propose — and I do not think the bill does 

 this — that the bureau take on any sort of new monitoring require- 

 ments. It would be a bureau very similar to the Bureau of Labor 

 Statistics, a place where numbers are analyzed, where numbers are 

 collected, so that any member of the public, industry. State govern- 

 ments, other agencies has that information available to them in a 

 manner in which they can use it. 



The Commission, as it now exists in the bill, is something that 

 would — and I think I mentioned this earlier — provide the new 

 agency with an opportunity to look internally in the agency, in 

 terms of where we might avoid some duplication, where there 

 might be some opportunities to streamline how we might involve 

 some of the other priorities that we now all understand to be so 

 important to environmental protection, such as pollution preven- 

 tion strategies, technology development, market incentives. It is 

 something that is timely. The agency is, I guess, 21 years old now. 

 It is probably time to look inside. 



I know that in some of the original bill versions, several years 

 ago the Commission would have looked more broadly. In this par- 

 ticular version, it does not, and as I said earlier, I think it is impor- 

 tant that we look inside our own house first. So we would find that 

 useful. 



Senator Cochran. I think one area to consider exploring, in 

 terms of revamping, upgrading, and trying to reestablish, if that is 

 a good word, public confidence in Government decisions and pro- 

 nouncements in the area of health risk assessment. I do not know 

 of any other area that is more controversial than that. 



I can recall when Meryl Streep came up and testified that Alar 

 was killing our children if the apples that were contaminated were 

 permitted to be included in the lunch program. Everybody in 

 America believed that, absolutely. Then in the same sequence, we 

 had the EPA administrator, and the highest officials we could get 

 from both the Food and Drug Administration and the Department 

 of Agriculture come before the Committee to discuss the facts and 

 what the risks were. They basically said that the facts had been 

 grossly exaggerated and that there was no basis for the fear and all 

 the reaction that occurred as a result of that statement. 



How are we going to meet the challenge in the future of dealing 

 with situations like that, to get the facts out to the public in a way 

 that is convincing enough so that they will not be stampeded by an 

 alarmist or somebody who may not have all the facts? I am not 

 sajdng that Meryl Streep did not have all the facts, but in a situa- 

 tion similar to that — ^because there are a lot of other areas, too — 

 what is your view about that? Are you going to continue to con- 

 tract out most of these health risk assessments to people who may 

 be driven by political considerations, rather than a sound scientific 

 basis? 



Ms. Browner. Well, several comments. In terms of our contract- 

 ing, I would certainly not seek to contract with people who are 

 driven by political rather than scientific analysis. I think it is ex- 

 tremely important that the integrity of this country's environmen- 



