282 



EPA will begin pilot scale implementation of the new system in early fiscal year 

 1994. EPA would therefore be well positioned to pilot a new government-wide 

 system of strategic planning, performance measurement and budgeting on the 

 schedule in the proposed "Government Performance and Results Act" (S.20). 



Q. 23: A proposal has been made to establish a National Institute for the Envi- 

 ronment to support interdisciplinary research, assess current environmental 

 knowledge on policy, and improve access to environmental information through 

 education and training. How well do you do these things now and what is your 

 opinion of this proposal? 



A. 23: Many of the activities mentioned in the proposal are currently part of the 

 Agency's programs. The extent to which these activities are carried out is related to 

 the level of resources directed at these activities. It is felt that within the existing 

 resource constraints, these activities are currently being carried out well. 



The National Research Council recently issued a report, Research to Protect. Re- 

 store, and Manage the Environment, which raises several options for improving our 

 national environmental research efforts. The National Institute for the Environ- 

 ment is among the options raised. We are currently reviewing the report. 



Q. 24: Would you consider the creation of such an entity (the NIE) more useful 

 if it were somehow affiliated with the new department? 



A. 24: The Administration supports elevation of the Agency to departmental 

 status. However, affiliation with new entities, such as a National Institute for the 

 Environment, should only be considered after this elevation and after a thorough 

 study of all of the pros and cons of any such option. 



Q. 25: A) Traditionally, when it comes to receiving attention and resources at 

 EPA, do you think that science and technology has been treated as a stepchild? 



A. 25: A) EPA has recognized that science and technology are critically important 

 for decision makers to have objective scientific information as a basis for their ac- 

 tivities. In support of that concern, the level of resources for research and develop- 

 ment has grown steadily from $347 million in fiscal year 1988 to $508 million in 

 fiscal year 1993. 



Q. 25: B) The Carnegie Commission advocates the establishment of a Federal 

 Interagency Environmental Technologies Program to support the development of 

 environmental technologies by other agencies, the labs, and the private sector. Is 

 this approach preferable to creating a new agency? Why? 



A. 25: B) The approach is preferable to creating a new agency, because it would 

 be more cost effective to build on EPA's and other Federal agencies' current infra- 

 structure, scientific and technical capabilities, and expertise to undertake such a 

 program, under the auspices of the recently-created FCCSET subcommittee on envi- 

 ronmental technology. 



Q. 25: C) In your opinion, is the new Department the best place to locate the 

 Interagency Program? Why? 



A. 25: C) The development of environmental technologies requires the joint efforts 

 of several agencies, such as EPA, the Department of Commerce, and the Depart- 

 ment of Energy. All have expertise and facilities that can make a significant contri- 

 bution to an environmental technologies program. However, EPA is uniquely quali- 

 fied to identify and prioritize environmental problems which new technologies may 

 help us address. 



Q. 25: D) What things can we do to ensure that the program receives coopera- 

 tion from other Federal agencies that conduct R&D? 



A. 25: D) The Carnegie Commission Report entitled "Enabling the Future" recom- 

 mends that Federal departments and agencies should integrate considerations of 

 long-term science and technology goals into annual budgeting and planning efforts. 

 The report encourages open communication and cooperation among senior R&D ad- 

 ministrators within the Federal Government. Further, the report charges the Office 

 of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget 

 (OMB) to actively contribute to the establishment of Federal science and technology 

 goals and to monitor progress of the Federal agencies in attaining these goals. The 

 report urges OSTP to extend its efforts to use the Federal Coordinating Council on 

 Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) to shape multi-agency, long-term 

 science and technology goals. In fact, an Environmental Technology FCCSET sub- 

 committee has been founded — it met for the first time in July 1993. 



EPA has been an active participant in the several FCCSET subcommittees and 

 would welcome an expansion of FCCSET's scope to generate specific longer-term 

 Federal science and technology goals and performance measures. In addition, EPA 

 has demonstrated a strong interest in harmonizing environmental research and de- 

 velopment efforts among those agencies and departments that have extensive envi- 

 ronmental interests and programs. 



