Senator Roth? 



OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROTH 



Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you have 

 scheduled hearings today on legislation to elevate EPA to Cabinet- 

 level status. As you know, I have long supported this Committee's 

 efforts under your leadership to elevate the EPA. 



I am also very pleased to see that Ms. Carol Browner, the new 

 EPA Administrator, is here today. I have had an opportunity to 

 meet and discuss her plans for managing that agency and I am 

 particularly impressed by her insistence on applying performance 

 standards on upgrading the objectivity of the agency's scientific 

 evaluations and on improving the integrity of EPA's work product. 

 I would hope that as this legislation takes shape no provisions are 

 included which would hamper such efforts. 



Mr. Chairman, the issue before us to decide is not whether to ele- 

 vate the EPA but how to elevate the EPA. I do not believe there is 

 any opposition in this Committee to the goal. However, you and I 

 have marched down the road several times before in our joint ef- 

 forts to elevate the EPA. This morning we try one more time. And 

 let me suggest that this time we travel a little lighter so that we 

 can travel somewhat further. 



S. 171 contains several provisions that are extraneous to the goal 

 of elevating EPA. It is true that I have not opposed these extrane- 

 ous bureaus, commission studies, and conferences before, although 

 these were of some concern to me. But on reflection I have come to 

 the conclusion that any extraneous amendments, even harmless 

 ones, lead to other extraneous amendments and so on. Then, 

 weighted down, the bill does not achieve enactment. This happened 

 in our last Congress. I fear it will happen again. There are all sorts 

 of amendments in waiting. It does not take a lot of controversy to 

 sink our efforts, as we have seen before. 



Therefore, I respectfully suggest that we initiate a clean bill 

 strategy, a strategy limited only to elevating the EPA, and that we 

 all band together to resist any amendments. For example, the 

 President has asked Congress to repeal the Council of Environmen- 

 tal Quality. I concur. But I would urge that we not load up the 

 EPA elevation bill, even with a good amendment such as that. I am 

 apprehensive that unless the Senate sends a clean bill to the 

 House, the House will respond with controversial amendments 

 which will bog us down. 



The strategy I offer is friendly advice. If it is the will of the 

 Senate that we make this into a free-for-all, I will not block S. 171, 

 but rather reserve my rights to join in and offer my own amend- 

 ments. I think I have some good ideas, too. 



But, in closing, let me point out that EPA along with every Exec- 

 utive Branch agency is under a Presidential order to pare down its 

 staff and its budget. Extraneous provisions of S. 171 do cost money. 

 A proposed international conference on energy and environment 

 costs $5 million. The proposed Bureau of Environmental Statistics 

 costs $5.4 million after the second year. The proposed study of data 

 collection practices and grants to the States costs $250,000. The 

 proposed commission to study our environmental laws costs $8 mil- 



