Molecular modelling is another new tool that NIEHS is beginning to exploit in environmental health research. We are excited about the possibility that theoretical chemistry can provide techniques that are useful in studying how biologic molecules such as DNA and proteins change their shape. This optimism is fueled by the development of basic theories and experimental data in chemistry and physics and by the development of high speed computers that have vast information storage capability. A major effort by NIEHS at present is to understand how the ras protein mentioned earlier is involved in causing cancer. The normal cellular ras can be converted to the cancer-linked form by a single amino acid change. derived comparisons between the normal and cancer-causing proteins reveal differences that are probably related to the drastic differences in biochemical functions of the proteins and which, additionally, may help in the design of drugs which target the cancer-causing protein. From our experience with the studies of the ras proteins, we plan also to study proteins implicated in AIDS. Computer Over the past 20 years, NIEHS research has provided a major source of data used in State and federal programs to set targets for improved air quality and NIEHS-supported studies proved that reducing levels of criteria pollutants and air toxics does have a beneficial effect on public health. In the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1990, Congress emphasized the importance of NIEHS's research and authorized a specific role for the Institute in basic health-related air research. In addition, the authorization addresses the Institute's involvement in education and training of physicians in environmental health and mandates a study to determine the levels of exposure to mercury which may cause human toxicity. We have reviewed these specific research and training responsibilities to determine what additional efforts we can make within our current resources. In summary, I wish to emphasize that the NIEHS continues to serve as the Nation's principal focus for research in the environmental health sciences. Funds appropriated for the NIEHS support state-of-the-art epidemiologic and toxicologic studies that identify potential environmental hazards; the development and application of powerful new scientific methods for use in environmental epidemiology and toxicology; and a program of basic biomedical research without which it is impossible to determine the actual contribution of environmental agents to the burden of human illness. Mr. Chairman, the budget request for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is $254,484,000. I am pleased to answer your questions. HOEL, DR. DAVID G. Acting Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and November, 18, 1939. Los Angeles, California Education: A.B. (Mathematics and Statistics), University of California at Berkeley, 1961; Ph.D. (Statistics), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1966. Professional History: 1966-67, Postdoctoral Traineeship in Biostatistics, USPHS. 1967-68, Senior Mathematician, Westinghouse Research Laboratories. 1968-70, Statistician, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1970-present, Adjunct Professor, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina. 197073, Mathematical Statistician, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1973-81, Chief, Biometry Branch, NIEHS. 1977-79, Acting Scientific Director, NIEHS. 1979-80, Visiting Scientist, Epidemiology Department, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan. 1984-86, Director, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan. 1981present, Director, Division of Biometry and Risk Assessment, NIEHS. present, Acting Director, NIEHS and National Toxicology Program. 1990 NIH Professional Organizations: American Statistical Association; Royal CLEAN AIR ACT Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Dr. Hoel. Now, Doctor, if you will briefly describe for us the new mandates and authorizations for your Institute which were included in the 1990 Clean Air bill. Dr. HOEL. I believe that in that bill, we were given the authorization to provide the basic health research studies in support of the Clean Air Act. There were some specifics with regard to mercury where we were asked to state risks of low doses of mercury, and also interest in having us support physician awards in medical schools for better understanding and training in environmental health effects for medical school education. Mr. NATCHER. Dr. Hoel, how much of your 1992 funding request is related to new Clean Air mandates? Dr. HOEL. We have existing levels in air pollution research, but we do not have any increases in this area. Mr. NATCHER. Would these mandates have been part of your research agenda, regardless of the new law, or are they displacing other Institute activities? Dr. HOEL. We have no new funding for these new activities. We have continuing programs in air pollution research. I think it is about $40,000,000 a year we now spend on selected projects. This includes support for the 24-city studies on acid precipitation, an expansion of the original 6-city study. We have not received any new appropriations for this work. Mr. NATCHER. How high a priority, Doctor, would you give to funding the study of mercury authorized in the new law, compared to its other provisions? Dr. HOEL. I would give that a high priority. We are continuing to have an interest in mercury, particularly low-dose effects, because this is an issue, as I mentioned, with dental amalgams. It is even conceivably an issue with exposures from the oil fires in Kuwait. We do not know whether or not mercury is present there, but there are a number of concerns, and we do hope to increase our efforts in mercury toxicity studies. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS Mr. NATCHER. How much are you currently spending in the area of electromagnetic fields? Dr. HOEL. I believe we will begin this year our animal studies on electromagnetic fields, and the first studies will cost about $6,000,000. We also expect to initiate at least one research grant in this area. We also will be doing a joint request for proposals through our grant program in electromagnetic fields. I expect some increases there, but we haven't seen the proposals yet. Mr. NATCHER. How much do you expect this to increase in the next several years? Dr. HOEL. I expect it to increase considerably as university researchers submit more proposals, both in studies of the basic biology and possible biological mechanisms of these effects-which we are encouraging through our request for proposals and additional toxicological studies. Mr. NATCHER. Is there a strong enough scientific base to demonstrate that electromagnetic fields are a necessary area of study? Dr. HOEL. I think the compelling or the most compelling evidence has been from epidemiological studies. We do not have adequate understanding of what possible mechanisms may be involved, so I think we are going from the epidemiological findings to studying through laboratory efforts what mechanisms may be involved, if indeed it is a true finding. Mr. NATCHER. We have heard research on electromagnetic fields is expensive because of the need for large magnets. Are you reluctant to enter this field because of its potential cost, Dr. Hoel? Dr. HOEL. No, I don't think we are reluctant to enter into it. What the problem has been, I think, is the difficulty for the investigators to develop what would be considered adequate exposure designs for their studies. But I think we are encouraging this very much, because I think it is potentially a serious health problem, and it needs to be investigated. COORDINATION Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Pursell, I yield to you. Mr. PURSELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have always been a little perplexed by the Federal Government's coordination of environmental health, various research components from EPA to our agency here, NIH, and OSHA, and all the other issues. How do we coordinate that comprehensively so we know the national priorities on health and who are making those decisions, and what impact you have on that overall-if I were to ask, "Congressman Pursell, what are the national goals in environmental research, I am not sure I can answer that today unless I had some kind of blueprint for the next five or 10 years.' Especially I think our interest here is principally long-term research, as I understand it. Dr. HOEL. I think there are considerable interactions. First, within the Public Health Service, which would include NIOSH and ATSDR, we have through the Assistant Secretary for Health the committee to coordinate environmental health research programs. This is an active group where the agency heads meet regularly. Mr. PURSELL. So, all the agencies, Doctor, that are involved in health research dealing with the environment meet on a regular basis? Dr. HOEL. Yes, within PHS, and there is also ex officio membership by the EPA. Within the National Toxicology Program, the executive committee-and this is the group that will decide which compounds, which chemicals should be studied, what priorities should be given to them, and how they should be studied-consists of EPA, NIOSH, ATSDR, and others also, including other health agencies such as FDA and CDC. CLEAN AIR ACT Mr. PURSELL. Then when the Clean Air Act comes along, they sort of spell out some research authorization language and say we shall look at air toxins; for example, how do those priorities begin to get into comprehensive-▬ Dr. HOEL. I don't know what is going to happen here, because we haven't received any funding. But if, for example, we talk about another model, the SuperFund waste sites and that health research aspect, the money is reimbursed to the NIEHS by EPA. Mr. PURSELL. Did that Clean Air Act authorize the money to do the air toxins long-range study in the EPA agency? Dr. HOEL. No, at NIEHS for the health aspects. Mr. PURSELL. It directed us to do the study, but where are the dollars coming from to fund it? Dr. HOEL. That is the problem. I think we have the authority, but not the funds for the health aspect research. Mr. PURSELL. Aren't you asking us for funds to do the air toxin CAA study as authorized by Congress? Dr. HOEL. No. First of all, the Clean Air Act was passed after the budget submission. Mr. PURSELL. Where are you going to get your personnel and the money to do the Clean Air Act language, authority to do the air toxin study? Where will the money come from? Dr. HOEL. We don't know and we are trying to figure that out. Mr. PURSELL. Who do you think should lead? I am looking for some accountability in management of an overall health environmental agenda, because you are coming to the Hill with additional legislative proposals for some long-range health and environmental research that you think are important. The EPA is sitting over here in another physical plant and some of our other components in health are spin-offs of our agency. I am asking, where are we coordinated, are we coordinated or should we be coordinated? Bill? Dr. RAUB. I can add some supplemental information, Mr. Pursell. As Dr. Hoel indicated, the Clean Air Act amendment occurred after the 1992 request was well along within the Executive Branch. Clearly, it is part of the development of the 1993 request across the Executive Branch which is beginning now. Determinations will need to be made with respect to Health and Human Services and EPA and other agencies as to what form, extent, and character the response to the Clean Air amendment should be. Mr. PURSELL. Is the HUD Independent Aid Committee, Congressman Traxler getting requests for appropriations money to do some of this work or are we going to be left with the funding of the Clean Air Act? Dr. RAUB. I am not aware of that. I would only expect as part of the development of the 1993 budget, each of us in our various levels will be expected to deal with all the pertinent authorities for each institute and there should be some attempt across the government to coordinate what level and character of request ultimately comes to you as part of 1993 appropriations. Mr. PURSELL. Who takes the lead on that? Are we going to sit back and wait until EPA moves or should we move? Dr. RAUB. This Institute never has been bashful in terms of bringing its requests before NIH. I think you have the right to expect the Department and EPA to coordinate their activities. Mr. PURSELL. Would EPA have a chance to offer come coordination, guidance and recommendations with respect to your future legislative initiatives which you indicated in the budget? You are |