12 



In addition, I believe the title of the position should be changed 

 to include Native American governments. Some positions, such as 

 Congressional Affairs, may not need to be confirmed at all. In my 

 opinion, we do not need to confirm that individual. If we don't like 

 this person, the Secretary will soon know it. Requiring confirma- 

 tion could delay appointment of another individual. The Interna- 

 tional Affairs position, since the Department of State has the lead 

 in international affairs, may not require confirmation. Perhaps the 

 bill could be modified to not require that these functions require 

 confirmation. 



For each position not requiring confirmation we could potentially 

 save tens of thousands of dollars in administrative salaries. 



The legislative language for selecting the Director of the Bureau 

 of Environmental Statistics may be a bit restrictive. Since we are 

 to confirm this individual, it seems unnecessary to place require- 

 ments in the statute that the individual be familiar with statistics. 

 Our rule in confirmation is to insure that that person is qualified. 

 Furthermore, we have placed no similar legislative language in the 

 statute for higher level assistant secretaries. 



Last, I am concerned about the need for an annual report for the 

 Bureau of Environmental Statistics. Trends take years to become 

 apparent and requiring an annual report may give incentives to 

 over-analyze the data, as well as waste money. 



Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your efforts and your staffs effort 

 in this legislation. I commend you for your work. I hope that this 

 Congress, the House, will act on this legislation and bring years of 

 very hard work to fruition. 



Prepared Statement of Senator Jeffords 



Mr. Chairman: 



Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of the Environment 

 Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of your legislation. It is time that an agency 

 whose mission it is to protect the environment be given the same status as an 

 agency whose mission it is to make war. 



That being said, Mr. Chairman, rather than take time repeating my support for 

 the bill. I would like to make a few suggestions with respect to this bill. I under- 

 stand that getting the bill to this point has required many delicate compromises and 

 that making further changes may endanger swift passage of this legislation. Thus, 

 many of my suggestions are directed as much to EPA as to the Committee. The 

 flexibility included in this bill will permit the new Secretary to consider many of 

 these suggestions. 



First, Mr. Chairman, in these da.vs of budget cuts and staff reductions, I am con- 

 cerned about the number of assistant secretary slots. The legislation proposes ten 

 assistant secretary's for an agency of roughly 18,400 employees. All told. I believe 

 there would be twelve level IV presidential appointees, or approximately one level 

 IV appointee per 1,500 employees. For comparison purpose. I estimate that the 

 number of Presidential level IV appointees for other agencies to range from 27.300 

 to lis, with EPA being in the lower end of the range. 



For example, the Defense Department has about 27.000 employees per level FV 

 appointee. The Defense Department is often cited for waste, but at least in this 

 regard, they seem to be quite efficient. Interior has about 20,000, Treasury about 

 12,300. Agriculture about 12,000. By contrast, the Department of Education has less 

 than 600 employees per level IV appointee. Energy and HUD about 1,100. Perhaps. 

 Mr. Chairman, we could streamline the Agency a bit and reduce the number of 

 level IV appointees? 



I am aware that many interest groups each want their own Assistant Administra- 

 tor. Thus. I understand why ten positions have been authorized. It is my hope that 

 the Commission authorized by this bill will help identify ways to streamline EPA 

 and reduce the number of top level management. 



