56 



soil. More importantly, we are lust now learning about the mechanisms of processes 

 that operate in natural ecosystems, that account for transport and transformation 

 of natural and anthropogenic substances on the planet, and that are responsible for 

 the effects of these substances on living species. And, the more we delve into these 

 processes, the more we appreciate their complexity. 



Our present environmental management structure, based on command and con- 

 trol strategy, quite naturally places a high degree of emphasis on action even in the 

 absence of complete understanding about the system to be managed. Indeed, there 

 are many who feel that complete knowledge of the system is not possible and not 

 needed; that environmental action can be effective even in ignorance. 



While true at a superficial level, this position cannot be continued indefinitely. It 

 is simply not possible to manage this complex civilization and protect nature with- 

 out further information on how the system works. To use an analogy from the medi- 

 cal field: the history of environmental protection is replete with examples of how we 

 tried to fix the patient without having a good understanding of its anatomy, pre- 

 scribed drugs that were in fact toxins, and in the process ran up an exorbitant bill 

 that the public ended up paying. 



So, my principal message to the Committee is that environmental research is 

 needed, that the Federal apparatus for support of environmental research should be 

 improved, and that basic research is particularly needed. 



In the following comments, I would like to elaborate on these and some other is- 

 sues more specifically related to S. 1545. 



EPA's role in the nation's environmental research system is critical and should 

 be enhanced. 



Much is being said today about the rapid growth in expenditures for environ- 

 mental protection, including Federal environmental R&D, and the need to coordi- 

 nate this "piecemeal" enterprise. 2 I and many of my colleagues agree with the call 

 for coordination, but with one caveat: we are concerned that fixes that are not insti- 

 tutionalized will mean that environmental research continues to play the role of 

 stepchild in the Federal R&D establishment. We understand that this coordination, 

 and by inference the role of EPA and other specific agencies, will be carried out pri- 

 marily through committees operating out of the White House. While we applaud 

 this effort, and we recognize that many Federal agencies must continue to play an 

 active role in environmental R&D, we are concerned that temporary arrangements 

 may be modified in the next Administration (and beyond), with the net result that 

 environmental science will still not receive the degree of permanent support that it 

 deserves. I and many others feel that we must have a flagship agency to lead envi- 

 ronmental R&D and that agency must be the best in the world. 



I am aware that many do not wish for EPA to be the flagship because they feel 

 that the Agency has neither the expertise nor the will to do the job well. I agree 

 that this may be the case today, but in the long term, I believe that our country 

 must have an enlightened, research oriented agency responsible for the protection 

 of environmental quality. Therefore, I am hopeful that the Congress will approve 

 full cabinet status for EPA, and with the assistance of the Administrative Branch, 

 reinvent EPA. Environmental protection (and research) deserves a institutionalized 

 place in the Federal research establishment and as long as it is split between twen- 

 ty agencies, believe it will not have that place. 



2 May 4, 1994 hearing of House Committee on Science, Space and Technology as reported in 

 ACS Washington Alert, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. The specific dollar figures 

 quoted for environmental R&D are: for 1975 $1.4 billion; for 1995, $6 billion (est.). This rep- 

 resents an average annual increase of 7.5 percent compounded. Given the fact that in 1975 there 

 was little knowledge or appreciation about the depletion of the ozone layer, the degree of con- 

 tamination of our groundwater, the number of abandoned hazardous waste sites, the hazards 

 of chlorinated byproducts in drinking water, the potential effects of increasing carbon dioxide 

 in the atmosphere, the worldwide loss of biological diversity, and countless other environmental 

 hazards, this increase in R&D spending seems minuscule. The increase in the cost of compliance 

 with environmental regulations (from $30 billion in 1986 to $160 billion (est) in the year 2000 

 is more serious, an increase of 13 percent per year, but one could argue that if effective environ- 

 mental R&D had been initiated in 1975, this cost would be substantially lower. 



