The bottom line is this: Real change cannot be accomplished through pilot programs and forever incremental changes in EPA policies and procedures.

There is too much out there. Environmental policy reform needs the participation of Congress, and it needs it in some kind of generic fashion.

The laws which EPA administers are the product of Congress and only Congress has the power to change them and the way they are administered by the EPA.

I think Congress should lead the charge for real long-term change to produce a higher level of environmental benefits to the American people.

We have a splendid opportunity now to achieve a truly bipartisan approach here toward the Nation's environmental policy. The first step is to divide the elements of this reinvention.

And it is certainly reflected to a large measure in the NAPA report. It is reflected in a large measure in our white paper, which is due out at the end of this month.

We need to analyze various legislative approaches to accomplish these goals and objectives. Think of it, distinguished members of this important subcommittee, only through the appropriations process-and I think Senator Mikulski said it earlier. Only through the appropriations process can this kind of stuff come together.

The country needs a holistic view of environmental policy, and you have a chance to help make that happen.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify.

Senator BOND. Chairman Ritter, thank you very much for the very thoughtful work and testimony, for your passion, also for your reference to the emissions trading scheme achieved under the Byrd/Bond amendments, or as we know in this area the Bond/Byrd amendments-[laughter]-and the clean air bill.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON RITTER

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Don Ritter, Chairman of the National Environmental Policy Institute, a bipartisan organization dedicated to improving our nation's environmental policy and the environment.

I served for 14 years in the U.S. Congress, serving on key committees, Commerce and Science, attaining lead roles on environment-related subcommittees. I want to thank the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for sponsoring the National Academy of Public Administration's (NAPA) report and thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee for holding these hearings. The Subcommittee has a crucial role to play.

Before I address the NAPA report and the issue of systemic change via a unified statute, I would like to talk about the National Environmental Policy Institute in general and its Reinventing EPA and How Clean is Clean (and for What Purpose?) initiatives in particular.

The National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) is a non-profit, bipartisan organization of environmental leaders who seek to advance new consensus ideas for developing big-picture environmental policies-policies based on sound science, risk assessment, economic analysis, and the involvement of new constituencies with the capacity to influence the environmental debate.

NEPI is dedicated to establishing positive environmental priorities and re-focusing the environmental debate to ensure that the highest priorities receive appropriate attention. In the process, NEPI reaches out to help raise the awareness of

important constituencies, including members of Congress, senior officials in the Executive Branch, the media and the public.

NEPI is independent of government and industry, but works closely with both to promote effective environmental policies. It draws upon the collective skill, experience and knowledge of elected officials, industry representatives, government policy makers, academics and members of the environmental advocacy community.

I have been asked to testify on the recent NAPA report, Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA and its impact on both EPA and the Nation's approach to environmental issues. I've been asked to broach the issue of systemic reform which goes beyond incremental reform and is embodied in the ideas and the vehicle of a unified statute.

First and foremost, I want to commend DeWitt John, the Project Director, the NAPA Staff, and the Panel members who devoted much time and effort to preparing an excellent assessment of the current problems facing EPA and for suggesting meaningful recommendations to address them. I won't spend my time reviewing the report, but would like to discuss ways in which our work and White Paper (which is due at the end of the month) builds upon the NAPA recommendations.

These are truly historic times for environmental policy; not since the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, caught fire in the early 1970s has environmental policy been in greater flux. Not only has the mood of the American people changed, which is reflected in a new Congress willing to take a new look at the way we address environmental issues, but the Administration and the EPA are suggesting significant initiatives designed to rationalize environmental policy.

There are many reasons why I believe it is likely that we will see changes in environmental policy in the near future. The time is ripe for enhancing the integrity of science and risk in environmental policy this session of Congress. We almost had a risk bill in 1993; the bipartisan vote for H.R. 1022 was strong, and the only question now is what type of legislation there should be. Beyond risk, the current House leadership is not entrenched and is actively looking for new ways to deal with a wide variety of environmental regulatory issues. Jurisdictional issues should be less of a problem in achieving legislative changes. Finally, there is a widespread belief that there is a need to restore public confidence in EPA, between Congress and EPA, and to restore confidence within EPA itself.

WHAT IS EPA?

Before I address the NAPA study and our own work, I think it is essential that we review what exactly is EPA and how we got to the situation we are in today. As you know, EPA was not invented by some deliberative action of Congress; thus, it may prove very difficult to reinvent. It was formed in the early 1970's by a reorganization prepared by President Nixon and pursuant to the recommendations of the Ash Commission on governmental reorganization as an amalgamation of regulatory and support functions of the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and the then Health Education and Welfare Department.

At that time it was strictly a regulatory agency that addressed many of the tough issues concerning the Nation's surface and drinking water, air, pesticides and radiation. As new environmental problems were identified-often in reaction to highly publicized media scares-new responsibilities were added. These included concerns such as asbestos, chemicals which became toxic substances, and hazardous waste sites. Other support functions such as research and development, education, and the release of information on chemical emissions were incrementally added to the agency.

This bewildering list of functions were embodied in 17 different statutes overseen by a staggering number of Congressional authorization, oversight, and appropriations sub-committees. These were entrusted to one Administrator to execute, yet Congress never provided that person with the statutory tools to integrate the many disparate responsibilities or manage them in an integrated and holistic context.

In spite of this statutory confusion, we, as a nation, have achieved considerable success in correcting most of the blatant environmental problems. This has been primarily achieved through a system of command/control regulatory approaches, albeit at considerable cost-cost measured both in monetary terms and, lately, in some loss of trust between citizens and their government and between various levels of government.

We are now at a point where incrementally smaller improvements in the nation's environmental health are going to be much more difficult and costly to achieve. Problems such as non-point source pollution and indoor air are essentially problems which must be addressed by individual action. Protection of delicate ecosystems are localized and solutions must be tailored with site specificity. None of these problems

are amenable to the centralist solutions that were used in the past to address major point dischargers and the manufacturers of pollution generators.

OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE

As the Administration has correctly recognized, there is a need to systematically "reinvent" government with an eye to making it more responsive to current public needs and increasing its efficiency. This collective effort, unprecedented in scope since the Hoover Commission reports of the 1940's, creates a rare and historical opportunity to change the way government operates. The Congress needs to be an essential part of this process. Indeed, Congress is undergoing a significant reinvention itself.

I can think of no greater challenge to undertake than to address the functions and responsibilities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and national environmental policy in general.

NEPI has begun this process by taking a big picture view of environmental policy; examining its goals and priorities, the appropriate roles for the federal government versus state and local governments, and the proper role for science. In addition, the responsibilities of businesses and individuals are addressed. We have analyzed the policy tools that are necessary to help effectuate change, not only necessary to ensure protection of the nation's and the world's environment, but to create a whole new realm of environmental benefits.

Generally, this is not a brand new effort. Over the years many distinguished bodies and groups have considered these same questions. Most of the past EPA Administrators, knowing first hand how difficult it was to effectively and efficiently administer the agency, have provided sage but all too often unheeded advice. In 1993, three former EPA Administrators (Russell Train, William Ruckelshaus and Lee Thomas), together with distinguished environmental and business leaders, made thoughtful recommendations regarding how to transform national environmental policy. This group, the National Commission on the Environment, issued their report Choosing a Sustainable Future. Much of their work is being continued by the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Their report, soon to be completed, will also have bearing on the future of national environmental policy.

A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PARADIGM FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS

I would like to put both the NAPA and NEPI efforts in context. There is little doubt that significant environmental progress has been made since the enactment of our basic environmental protection laws. And it is safe to note that, as the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approaches, the air is purer, the water is cleaner, contaminated land is being remediated and toxic substances are being controlled. Despite protestations, Gregg Easterbrook, in his new book "A Moment on Earth," is essentially correct in saying we've done fairly well by the environment over the last 25 years.

But this level of protection has not come without a cost. It has been noted that annual expenditures for environmental protection will approach nearly three percent of the Gross Domestic Product by the end of this century. While this is no small portion of the nation's resources, the amount itself may not necessarily represent an excessive investment for the protection of our environment. It does, however, give rise to a sentiment so aptly captured by Senator Moynihan when he said "While this may not be too much money to spend on environmental protection, it is too much to spend unwisely." We agree with the Senator, and we sense that for this investment to continue, it will be critical that the public agrees that the maximum benefit of our investment is realized.

Accordingly, we are heartened by the interest in renewing our commitment to the environment through these hearings. As Congress begins to re-examine environmental policy, two watch words should be kept in the forefront: science and simplification.

We believe there is a need to re-evaluate the priority setting process (or the lack of it) that is used to establish environmental policy and create a better process which identifies more science- and risk-balanced priorities and which also includes a broader public participation in priority setting. Past U.S. EPA studies such as Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems and Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection called for a greater role of science in priority setting because science has not played a consistent role in the establishment and implementation of environmental policy. If further significant environmental improvements are to be made, science must be prominent in the development and implementation of environmental policy.

In the book, Death of Common Sense, Philip Howard has captured some of the bizarre consequences of setting policy in the absence of sound science. This absence has also given rise to a common theme of those who desire change in government today: simplification. Environmental policy is no exception; we have the most complex array of environmental laws and rules on earth and we are well on our way to surpassing this dubious distinction. Oddly, by pure evolutionary association, complexity has become linked with protectiveness, to the point that its removal is viewed by many as tantamount to the loss of progress or a retreat from environmental laws. In many cases, protectiveness has been achieved despite complexity, and complexity has actually hindered the pace of what was achieved. Intuitively, we know complexity is a barrier to innovation and the antithesis to the simple, flexible, comprehensive system we desire.

The often painful, but profitable, process of re-engineering, has shown industry that there are better, simpler ways to produce and deliver a product or service. Many have found the benefits of decentralization or devolution and have learned that these arcane terms are nothing more than moving away from command and control and turning toward more performance-based management approaches, where performance is measured by the customer. Those who have called for devolution and decentralization within the halls of government desire those benefits as well. In practical terms, what does that mean?

It means a system which creates a partnership between local, state and federal levels of government where policy is administered at the level which is closest to the customer. In cases where a large city is capable and competent to act as administrator, the state and third parties would serve as an independent verifier. In other cases, the state may serve an administrator and the federal government would serve as an independent verifier. In rarer cases, where no local or state authority is recognized, the federal government would serve in the administrative role.

The system we envision would recognize the clear tie between the people and environmental policy by placing greater policy development and implementation at the level which is closest to the people.

There are, of course, important policy and structural changes which must be addressed, and the work of NAPA, NEPI and others have begun to identify them. This is no small task when one considers that, in one way or another, nearly 80 congressional committees have attempted to exercise oversight on the environment in the past. While the committees with major jurisdiction are much fewer according to NAPA's report, the mountain of rules and prescriptive laws are all the physical evidence needed to know that we cannot continue the status quo.

AFTER NAPA, WHAT NEXT?

Both the NAPA study and our own Reinventing EPA and Environmental Policy effort deal with issues that cry out for "big picture" policy and statutory responses. Our effort differs in that initially we have taken a decentralized approach in addressing the various issues. The focus of our efforts is not limited to EPA, as we will be looking at other areas of environmental policy. We have a Reinventing EPA Working Group that is currently broken down into seven Individual Sectors of Reinvention. We have over 150 individuals involved in the project, reflecting the diverse and bipartisan nature of the Institute. We formed this Working Group to develop more effective policy options for an EPA of the 1990's and beyond and to provide the intellectual and substantive base for more effective environmental management and reform. We seek change through administrative, regulatory, statutory, and/or other policy changes-whatever does the job.

The Working Group is chaired by author and environmental policy innovator Bruce Piasecki, Ph. D., of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The Working Group Director is F. Scott Bush, former environmental policy analyst at EPA and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The initial seven Individual Sectors of Reinvention focus on:

National Agency Objectives and Priorities

Chair: Charlie Grizzle, President, The Grizzle Company; and former Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management, EPA.

Rethinking the Role of Science and Risk Evaluation

Co-Chair: Don Elliott, Partner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson; Professor of Environmental Law at Yale; and former General Counsel, EPA.

Co-Chair: Dr. John Moore, President, The Institute for Evaluating Health Risks; and former Assistant Administrator of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA.

Non-Mandatory Pollution Reduction: Moving Beyond Command and Control

Chair: Darryl Banks, Director, Technology & Environment, World Resources Institute.

Intergovernmental Change-Federal, State and Local

Chair: Ned Sullivan, Commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

Unified/Organic Environmental Statute

Co-Chair: Tom Zosel, Manager of Pollution Prevention, 3M Company.

Co-Chair: Fred Ellerbusch, Director of Corporate Environmental Affairs, RhonePoulenc.

Compliance and Enforcement in an Era of Reinvention

Co-Chair: Roger Marzulla, Partner, Aiken Gump and former Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice Land and National Resources Division.

Co-Chair: Ted Garrett, Partner and Head of the Environmental Section, Covington & Burling.

We are in the process of launching a new sector which will be meeting next month.

New Environmental Goals: Alternative Environmental Benefits

Co-Chair: Joyce Kelly, President of the Wildlife Habitat Council.

Co-Chair: Bill Chandler, Director of Conservation Policy at the National Parks and Conservation Association.

What might be termed a Super Sector of Reinvention, but which constitutes a Working Group of its own, is the "How Clean is Clean ('And For What Purpose?")" project that engages more than 100 persons.

Both we and NAPA agree that the current system is broken and cries out for change. Both of our studies address what is wrong with the current system and what is needed to set it right. We completely support NAPA's assessments and recommendations and would humbly advise the Subcommittee and other members of Congress that this document is too important to be left on the shelf as yet again another congressionally mandated study. We should all focus on how we can implement these recommendations, both through policy and regulatory changes, as well as through legislation.

THE NEED FOR A UNIFIED STATUTE

The myriad of corrections which are espoused by the NAPA report indicate that incremental changes could take a very long time, span multiple political lifetimes and wrestle with a multitude of statutes and regulations, each of which have their own constituencies. Perhaps, in light of the NAPA report, it is time to take a different tack, revisit an idea which is both old and new and, in the spirit of government reform, reinvention and innovation, consider the idea of a unified statute. Such a statute would address all media, establish a set of goals, establish a common metric for risk, embrace a powerful set of environmental management tools, and institute a sensible system of decision making at appropriate local, state and national levels.

In short, it would seek to remove the inconsistencies contained in the plethora of statutes that currently fall under the EPA's purview and provide the Administrator with the clear direction and tools to properly manage the agency. Perhaps the most appealing aspect of a unified statute is that it would create oversight discipline for Congress. With seventeen separate statutes there is too much opportunity for Congress to pursue unfocused and often conflicting objectives.

The NAPA report recommends that EPA define its mission now. Congress would then direct EPA to draft an integrated statute over the next 18 months and submit it to Congress. NEPI believes that this task is so important that it should not be left solely to the EPA. Rather, this is an effort all stakeholders should be involved in. Congress also bears responsibility for the situation EPA finds itself in today. NAPA, and NEPI and through our various Sector of Reinvention, provide readymade vehicles to assist you.

EPA needs Congress and Congress needs EPA.

But before we consider an integrated unified or organic statute, we think it is first necessary to more fully engage both Congress and the American people in defining the overall principles that such a statute should encompass. We need to give broader exposure to the ideas and concepts contained in the NAPA Report and those contained in our own work. We have begun this process in our Unified/Organic Statute Sector of Reinvention. This sector draws upon the concepts and recommendations