43 



given me a further opportunity to reflect on what we have done, 

 what our Nation's record is, and what we face moving ahead. 



As a result, I feel even more strongly than I did two years ago 

 that it is time to elevate EPA to Cabinet status, and I am pleased 

 to see that President Clinton and Vice President Gore have moved 

 so quickly to endorse this idea. 



I believe Federal organizational changes are needed now. Some 

 may often question the usefulness of expending time, resources, 

 and political capital on organizational and procedural reforms, but 

 there are also instances in which inattention to organization and 

 decision-making processes can impede and has impeded and under- 

 mined the decision-making capacity of the Government and its 

 ability to respond to societal needs. 



Failure to align Government programs to address these problems 

 effectively will restrict our capacity to respond. Public health, envi- 

 ronmental quality, and economic performance are increasingly all 

 at risk, unless we take decisive steps now to develop a national 

 strategy that improves our decision-making on environmental 

 issues. 



As Carol Browner said a few moments ago, we are moving from 

 a command and control regulatory regime to a more economic in- 

 centive-based approach, from end-of-the-pipe treatment to pollution 

 prevention, from concern primarily about cancer-causing risks 

 caused by toxic substances to noncancer and ecological threats, and 

 very importantly, from directing our efforts mostly to problems 

 within our national borders to international and global challenges. 



I think your colleagues who appeared initially this morning, 

 yourself, sir, in your opening statement, have more than adequate- 

 ly laid out the rationale for at this time elevating EPA to Cabinet 

 status. I would also support what seems to be emerging as a 2-step 

 process. That is, to move with a relatively clean bill at this point to 

 accomplish the upgrading, but recognizing at the same time that 

 there is a lot more that needs to be done if we are to get our orga- 

 nizational house in order. 



You obviously are the best judge of what a clean bill means, in 

 the context of this session of the Congress, but I would certainly 

 give my support to your judgment on that matter. 



The President has already expressed his intention to replace the 

 Council on Environmental Quality with an Office of Environmental 

 Policy, and I am not sure of all the details, frankly, of the Presi- 

 dent's proposal. I would defer, therefore, a judgment on precisely 

 what it is he is recommending. But clearly he recognizes that there 

 is a compelling need to integrate our new awareness of global envi- 

 ronmental imperatives into a range of other important national 

 priorities, including those dealing with energy, transportation, agri- 

 culture, industrial renewal, and national security. Indeed, it is time 

 to begin over a period of time a sustained examination of the prem- 

 ises underlying national policies in these other areas of Govern- 

 ment activity and begin to bring them more in line with our grow- 

 ing understanding of what the requirements will be for sustainable 

 development going into the future. 



The reality is, when EPA was created, it was an agency to clean 

 up pollution. Let us face it, much of the thrust of the early envi- 

 ronmental legislation has been driven by the need to play catch-up 



