ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1993 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m. in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Valentine (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. VALENTINE. Ladies and gentlemen, we will get started. Without objection, permission is granted for coverage of this meeting by television, radio, and still photography. Good morning and welcome to this hearing of the Technology, Environment, and Aviation Subcommittee. This morning we will examine perceived problems with Federal environmental research and development. This hearing will further the Committee's exploration of how Federal environmental research and development activities may be made more effective in addressing today's environmental problems. In the past, four independent groups: The National Research Council, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, the National Commission on the Environment, and the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, have released reports which are critical of the Federal Government's environmental R&D enterprise and its impact on environmental decision making. They have found that the Federal Environmental Research and Development Enterprise has developed piecemeal over the last 25 years into a collection of diffuse, substantially uncoordinated programs. The reports have also indicated that the Nation's environmental science efforts have no clear leadership or goals. They state that many Federal environmental research efforts are narrowly targeted to meet the regulatory needs of a specific department or agency, that long-term monitoring and assessment of environmental trends and of the consequences of environmental rules and regulations are seriously inadequate, and that the quality and credibility of environmental R&D conducted or supported by Federal departments and agencies is often in question. We hope that our witnesses will take some time here today proving the case that they have made in their reports. It is not obvious to me that a majority of the policy makers are agreed as to whether there is a Federal environmental R&D problem, not to mention agree on how the problem should be defined. If these results are to be believed, the conclusion would be that the Federal environmental R&D program does a poor job understanding the interaction between the environment and human activities. It would also mean that policy makers would find themselves with an inadequate scientific basis for the sound decision making needed to solve the critical environmental challenges confronting the Nation. It seems that many of our environmental problems of the 1970's have been successfully addressed, but these reports indicate that in removing these relatively easy problems, however, we now confront more subtle, more difficult, and more intractable environmental challenges. Prudent public policy dictates that policy makers understand environmental systems well enough to evaluate how the environment provides "goods and services" upon which society depends as well as to assess the impacts of human activity on these resources. I do not believe that anyone could argue that the best chance to achieve cost-effective solutions to environmental problems is through anticipation and not reaction. This necessitates an incorporation of new scientific information into environmental policies that will help reduce the enormous costs of environmental laws, regulations, and remediation by reducing uncertainties. I would like to extend a welcome on behalf of the subcommittee to all of our witnesses and thank them for their appearance here today and will recognize the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lewis, when he arrives. In his place, I will recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett if you have an opening statement. Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. There is almost nothing that we can do in our daily activities that does not in some way impact, for good or for bad, on the environment, and there is almost no department of our Government whose activities are not in some way related to the environment. We now have a national dialogue occurring as to what should be the proper role of the Government and where in Government should that responsibility be. As we grow in numbers and as we do more things, obviously, the interface, the impact, on the environment becomes an increasing concern, and I look forward to these hearings today which are a part of this national dialogue as to what is the proper role of Government, and, having defined that role, where should it be in Government. Thank you for being here today. Mr. VALENTINE. I am happy to recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, if you have an opening statement. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend you for having this hearing, and I think this hearing is about three things. I think it is about, first of all, proactive leadership. Instead of merely reacting to environmental problems as we did in the 1960's and ended up solving some of them, and the tough difficult ones remain, we are now trying to be proactive in the 1990's to anticipate the kinds of problems that will take place in the 1990's and in the next century and develop a policy, a comprehensive policy, Secondly, I think this hearing is about reform of government. It is about coordinating and making more efficient the way we organize our environmental research and development efforts. And thirdly, it is about the environment itself. Interestingly enough, as we have this hearing, yesterday Members on both sides of the aisle, the Democrats and the Republicans, introduced legislation to elevate the EPA to Cabinet-level status. We are having a great deal of discussion about how to reorganize the Superfund sites and reorganize the money to make it targeted more efficiently to address the problems we face, and this hearing, I think, will hopefully address some very, very pertinent questions about ways by which we better organize the Federal environmental R&D efforts. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I have another meeting to go to, as so often is the case around this place, and I would like to submit a number of questions for our witnesses to answer. Some of those will include: How should we reorganize to enhance effectiveness for R&D efforts; whether the current system is producing data with sufficient quality and credibility; if effective how and where we can be effective in anticipating environmental problems; if we are producing the needed scientists and engineers; and if we are properly educating the citizenry in these efforts as well, too. I have three or four other questions that I would like to submit and receive answers to. But, again, I think this hearing is about those three issues, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you for your proactive leadership in having this hearing. Mr. VALENTINE. Without objection, of course, we will keep the record open for 10 days following this hearing to give Members an opportunity to submit questions to the witnesses. Let me say before recognizing the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Klein, that a very attentive and diligent member of our subcommittee, the distinguished lady, Mrs. Morella, will have questions. She is not here today because of a tragic death in her family. I believe she lost a grandchild less than a year old, and of course our hearts go out to her. Mr. Klein. Mr. KLEIN. Yes. My sincere condolences to Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. To me, this is one of the most important issues not only that faces our Committee but indeed the entire Congress. The question of risk assessment is so vital and really contributes in three ways, as I see it. First of all, it helps us to identify real problems, real environmental and health problems, that we might not otherwise be able to identify and, to that extent, contributes immeasurably to environmental protection and good health. Secondly, it enables us through research to avoid wasting resources on perceived risks that do not really exist, and we have had a number of those historically where, out of panic or out of fear, we have perceived a risk to exist and real research has shown it not to exist, and what that does, of course, is to contribute to an enormous wasting of our resources. And the third thing that research and risk assessment does is to enable us to marshal our resources. We all know that what we are spending on environmental protection so often is not adequate. But the important thing is that we spend the resources that we are able to spend on those risks that are the highest priority risks, and in order to do that and in order to properly assess and prioritize our risks, environmental research is absolutely essential. So I look forward to this hearing as an opportunity to give us insight into how we may better improve our research to accomplish these three major goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VALENTINE. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Let me introduce the panel. The first panel consists of Dr. Mark Schaefer who is seated at the table. He is assistant director, environment, OSTP. The next panel will consist of Dr. Dale Corson. Dr. Corson is president emeritus of Cornell University and chairman of the National Research Council Committee on Environmental Research. Dr. Stephen J. Gage, president, Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program, and member of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. Dr. Henry F. Howe, professor and ecology coordinator, University of Illinois, Chicago, and vice chairman of the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment. And Dr. J. Clarence Davies, III, who is director, Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future, and executive director of the National Commission on the Environment. Dr. Schaefer. STATEMENT OF DR. MARK SCHAEFER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, WASHINGTON, DC Dr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to extend our condolences to Mrs. Morella as well. I would like to summarize my testimony and submit the complete text for the record. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal environmental R&D system and to discuss the initial steps taken by the Administration to improve it. As you said, a number of major reports have been submitted within the last two years that address aspects of the structure and function of Federal environmental research and development programs. Each of those reports recognizes the complexity and scope of environmental issues facing our Nation and the world as a whole, and each concludes that if we are to tackle these issues in a comprehensive manner, significant improvements are needed in the Federal environmental R&D system. The complexity and scope of local, regional, and global environmental issues mean that the classical single scientific discipline approach to problem solving needs to be transcended by a multi- and interdisciplinary approach that brings together natural and social scientists, economists, engineers, and policy makers. In addition, the reports recognize that these issues also transcend the purview of any single Federal agency. While most of these reports identify many of the same limitations of our present R&D system, each focuses on a different set |