60 



My expertise is in matters of the budget and government, rather than in science 

 or technology. My testimony today focuses on S. 1545, and presents some general 

 observations to put this bill in context 



Swiftly Enact S. 1545 with Minor Changes 



Friends of the Earth supports the thrust and most provisions of S. 1545 as intro- 

 duced. We urge swift enactment of legislation authorizing the basic and fundamen- 

 tal R&D programs under the jurisdiction of EPA's Office of Research and Develop- 

 ment (ORD). It is worth noting that no new authorization has been enacted for 

 these programs since the 3-year authorization enacted in 1978. Given the press of 

 business in Congress, it is unlikely that this Committee will have time in the future 

 to reauthorize these programs every year. Indeed, it would seem unrealistic and un- 

 necessary to attempt annual authorizations. For this reason, Friends of the Earth 

 strongly urges that Congress provide for a multi-year authorization of 3 to 5 years. 

 For a similar reason, we urge the Committee to set an overall funding level that 

 is high enough to allow flexibility over the years should the President wish to re- 

 quest more funding. Again, for a similar reason, we recommend that the Committee 

 eliminate the subcategories in the funding authorization section. Because many 

 funding decisions will ultimately be made in the appropriations bills, we urge that 

 the Committee keep the funding authorization sections simple and durable. 



EPA R&D Should Not Be Controversial 



There is no disagreement over the importance of R&D at EPA. There is and has 

 been a very broad consensus that EPA's R&D efforts are important and under- 

 funded. The best evidence of this consensus is a letter written in 1984 to Congress- 

 man Edward Boland, then Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee 

 with jurisdiction over EPA, which is now chaired by Congressman Louis Stokes. The 

 letter to then Chairman Boland "strongly urged" him to provide a "substantial in- 

 crease" for EPA R&D in Fiscal Year 1985. The letter said, "The reason for present- 

 ing this recommendation to you is our deep concern that the scientific base on which 

 the Agency's regulatory decisions are founded has been seriously eroded in recent 

 years by severe cuts in the research and development budget of the EPA." 



The letter observed that EPA needed additional resources to both meet existing 

 statutory duties and "address long-neglected problems" such as indoor air pollution, 

 risk assessment methodology, health and environmental effects assessment, and 

 "support of scientific work in external research and academic centers." These are the 

 same needs that exist today. The letter said that the added dollars would buy bene- 

 fits such as "improved health and environmental quality, better based regulations 

 for industry, and increased development of scientific expertise in technical and aca- 

 demic center in the private sector." 



The most impressive aspect of this letter was who signed it — the leaders of ten 

 major environmental groups and the CEO's of five major chemical companies, in- 

 cluding Exxon Chemical Corporation, Dow, American Cyanamid, Monsanto and 

 Union Carbide. 



So there has been broad agreement on the importance of supporting EPA R&D. 



More Funding Is Vital 



Whatever form the final authorization takes, more funding is absolutely needed 

 if EPA R&D is to succeed. Funding for conduct of R&D at EPA was cut by 50 per- 

 cent between Fiscal Year 1978 and Fiscal Year 1983, and it has never fully recov- 

 ered. Presidents Bush and Clinton have proposed modest increases for EPA R&D 

 in recent years. But these incremental increases are inadequate to make up for pre- 

 vious cuts or fix material weaknesses identified by EPA. EPA lacks sufficient money 

 to carry out existing laws and mandates, much less address neglected or emerging 

 requirements. This funding shortfall is old news. I personally have testified about 

 it in 1992 and 1993 to the House Science Committee. Parades of experts raise the 

 issue in hearings every year, and recommend solutions which include greater fund- 

 ing. Yet, the situation does not seem to have improved significantly. 



The Carnegie Commission report of December 1992 said "it is clear that organiza- 

 tional changes alone will not lead to improvements in the scientific capacity of EPA. 

 Substantial funding increases will be required as well." Another prestigious report 



