DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1995 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., in room SDG-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Bond and Mikulski. PANEL I NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES STATEMENTS OF: DR. JONATHAN HOWES, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINIS- DR. ALVIN ALM, DIRECTOR AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF ACCOMPANIED BY DeWITT JOHN, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC AD- STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOND Senator BOND. Good morning. The Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent Agencies hearing will come to order. This morning the subcommittee will hear from three panels of witnesses about the need to reform the Environmental Protection Agency. This hearing, as you know, will focus in large part on a recent report issued by the National Academy of Public Administration called "Setting Priorities, Getting Results, A New Direction for the EPA." This report was commissioned by the Appropriations Committee 2 years ago, and it contains many important findings and recommendations. The driving force behind this study, of course, is my ranking member, Senator Mikulski. She has asked that we go ahead. Apparently, as usual, the weather has caused a major snafu on the road between Baltimore and Washington. And many of the subcommittee members have other commitments today. But I can tell you, having read the testimony of the witnesses already, that all members of the subcommittee and I have also talked with members of the authorizing committee-are going to be most interested in the results of this report. Unfortunately, I have a commitment later on in the morning, so I am not going to be able to be here for the entire hearing. But I want to express my appreciation to all of the witnesses who prepared testimony, and having read it last night, it appears that this report indeed was a timely measure. And we appreciate very much the thoughts and comments given by all of the witnesses who have submitted their testimony and who are going to testify today. I extend a very special thanks and congratulations to NAPA for its fine work in producing the report. And, of course, we will begin with the NAPA witnesses today. NAPA has raised serious questions about how EPA is operating. NAPA found that EPA's organizational structure is fragmented. The Agency has not focused its attention or resources on the most pressing environmental problems. It lacks strategic direction, goals and focus. Too many staff voted to duplicate the State's efforts, and industry and municipal governments have very little flexibility to design creative solutions for meeting environmental standards. In terms of the budget, which obviously is of greatest concern to this committee, NAPA found that EPA's recent budgets had been driven more by history, inertia, and the crises of the moment than by strategic thinking about how the Agency could be most effective. As the EPA Appropriations subcommittee chairman, I am particularly concerned about this issue. I want to be sure that EPA's budget is going to the most important high-risk environmental is sues. We can no longer afford to throw money at cleaning up the last part per trillion at every compound in the environment. I must say that while EPA claims to be moving in the direction NAPA has laid out, I am afraid they are falling short. I was troubled to learn of a project currently underway called Goals 2000, in which EPA is developing goals on which to set priorities and budgets. Now that sounds good, and it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, EPA has not provided the basis or the goals that are selected. They have not provided as yet a cost-benefit analysis on comparative risk information. This illustrates that we still have a ways to go in developing a well-focused and well-prioritized approach to solve the problems of the environment. Furthermore, NAPA found that instead of setting priorities, the Goals 2000 plan appears to include almost everything of interest in the Agency. It looks almost as though every part of the Agency was given a task based on the existence of that portion of the Agency rather than on a well-documented assessment of the environmental risks needed to be addressed. In response to NAPA's findings and recommendations, today calling upon EPA-and I will be transmitting the request to the administrative round, we are going to take a two-pronged approach to address the myriad of problems. First, EPA must recommend legislative proposals to address several of the problems NAPA has identified. As NAPA points out, some problems have arisen as a result of the very prescriptive statutes that govern EPA. And that is Congress' fault. Therefore, EPA should propose a comprehensive legislative agenda to allow flexibility and an integrative approach to environmental problems and to give States, local governments, and industry the flexibility to adopt alternative environmental strategies that address the highest environmental problems. The witnesses today, in their written testimony, have suggested an 18-month period for preparation of these recommendations. Those, of course, will go to the authorizing committee. And as a member of that committee, I will urge that they be carefully considered. I would hope that some of the initial proposals could be ready in less than 18 months so that we can begin a consideration of the measures that need to be addressed legislatively. The legislation must recognize, as the witnesses will be pointing out later today, that the strict command and control approach of the past is no longer appropriate. Second, EPA must develop a comprehensive plan to address the many management problems identified by NAPA and provide such a plan to this committee within 6 months. EPA should propose an organizational restructuring, which will eliminate the fragmentation and do away with the functions which duplicate staff and State efforts. As part of that effort, EPA should seriously consider the roles and functions of the regional office. In addition, EPA should propose a budget process which will ensure that resources are devoted to the most critical, high risk environmental problems. EPA should ensure that the goals it is developing are based on sound science, real risks, benefits and costs and are supported by the public. We will, in this committee, be monitoring EPA's progress in developing the budget and management proposals, and we will also be watching the legislative proposals to address the problems NAPA has described. This morning we will hear from a number of witnesses who know and understand these issues first-hand. We will hear from the Illinois Environmental Commissioner, Mary Gade, and Columbus, OH, Mayor Gregory Lashutka about the need for EPA to hand over more decisionmaking to State and local governments. We will hear from 3M's environmental vice president, David Sonstegard, on the importance of getting the private sector flexibility and accountability in exchange for better-than-required performance. We will hear from former Congressman and chair of the National Environmental Institute, Don Ritter, on his belief that a new organic act for EPA is needed. We also look forward to hearing from Bill Roberts of the Environmental Defense Fund and Peter Guerrero of the GAO. [The statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOND BOND WEIGHS OVERHAUL OF EPA; CALLS ON AGENCY TO PROPOSE REFORM PLAN U.S. Senator Christopher S. “Kit” Bond, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD) and Independent Agencies, today directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop legislation and management proposals to address the problems identified in a National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report. Bond issued this directive in opening his Subcommittee hearing this morning on the need to reform the EPA. The centerpiece of the hearing was a recent report issued by NAPA entitled "Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA." In its report, commissioned by the Appropriations Committee two years ago, NAPA raised serious questions about how EPA is operating. The following is Bond's opening statement: "NAPA found that EPA's organizational structure is fragmented; the agency has not focused its attention or resources on the most pressing environmental problems; it lacks strategic direction, goals and focus; too many staff are devoted to duplicating states' efforts; and industry and municipal governments have very little flexibility to design creative solutions to meeting environmental standards. "In terms of the budget, NAPA found that 'EPA's recent budgets have been driven more by history, inertia, and the crises of the moment than by strategic thinking about how the agency could be most effective.' As the EPA Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, I am particularly concerned about this issue. I want to be sure EPA's budget is going to the most important, high risk environmental issues. We can no longer afford to throw money at cleaning up the last part per trillion of every compound in the environment. "I must say, while EPA claims to be moving in the direction NAPA has laid out, I'm afraid they're falling short. I was troubled to learn of a project currently underway called 'Goals 2000' in which EPA is developing goals upon which to set priorities and budgets. While this sounds great, unfortunately EPA has not provided any basis for the goals they are selecting-they have not provided any cost-benefit analysis or comparative risk information. "This demonstrates that the agency still hasn't gotten the message. Furthermore, NAPA found instead of setting priorities, the Goals 2000 plan appears to include almost everything of interest in the agency.' In response to NAPA's findings and recommendations, I am calling upon EPA to take a two-pronged approach to addressing the myriad of problems. "First, EPA must recommend legislative proposals to address several of the problems NAPA has identified. As NAPA points out, some problems have arisen as a result of the very prescriptive statutes that govern EPA. Therefore, EPA should propose a comprehensive legislative agenda to allow for flexibility and an integrated approach to environmental problems, and to give states, local governments, and industry the flexibility to adopt alternative environmental strategies that address the highest risk environmental problems. The legislation must recognize that the strict command-and-control approach of the past is no longer appropriate. "Second, EPA must develop a comprehensive plan to address the many management problems identified by NAPA, and provide such a plan to this Committee within 6 months. EPA should propose an organizational restructuring which would eliminate fragmentation and do away with functions which duplicate state efforts. As part of that effort, EPA should seriously consider the roles and functions of the regional offices. "In addition, EPA should propose a budget process which will ensure that resources are devoted to the most critical, high risk environmental problems. EPA should ensure that the goals it is developing are based on sound science, real risks, benefits and costs, and are supported by the public. I will be monitoring EPA's progress in developing the legislation and management proposals to address the problems NAPA has described." |