Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Will EPA Attain Cabinet Status?

Will EPA Attain Cabinet Status? Washington Watch ADRIENNE FROELICH ince 1987, no fewer than 18 inde- the issue of cabinet status. “That 15 Congress because it called for the cre- Spendent expert panels and 13 years have passed and an elevation bill ation of a science deputy. NRDC Senior pieces of legislation have called for has not been signed into law should Fellow for Environmental Economics the elevation of the Environmental make us mindful of the challenges be- Wesley P. Warren says NRDC believes Protection Agency (EPA) to cabinet fore us,” he says. “it is unlikely that the new position will status. Dozens of experts, including In September 2003, the Subcommit- substantially advance the cause of sci- four former EPA administrators, have tee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources ence” and instead thinks “it is possible testified in favor of the move at and Regulatory Affairs of the Commit- that this person will act as another po- congressional hearings on the issue. tee on Government Reform heard testi- litical player in a potentially overpoliti- Every president since George H. Bush, mony from expert witnesses on H.R. cized process.” Proponents of the the first to back the idea, has sup- 37, Boehlert’s bill, and H.R. 2138, intro- provision argue that one way to help in- ported the move. Yet the United States duced by Representative Doug Ose sulate the position from political pres- remains one of only 10 countries, (R–CA). While both bills call for and the only major industrial power, cabinet status for EPA, Ose’s bill goes sures and ensure continuity between without a cabinet-level environmental one step further: It “reorganizes EPA administrations is through six-year agency. into three Under Secretaries: (1) Policy, staggered terms, as the National Acad- Proponents of cabinet status for EPA Planning, and Innovation; (2) Science emy of Science recommended in its argue that the move is long overdue. In and Information; and, (3) Compliance, 2000 review of science at EPA. March 2002, John B. Stephenson of the Implementation, and Enforcement.” But the best way to improve science General Accounting Office told mem- According to Ose, this and other at EPA, some argue, is to make sure it bers of the House Committee on Gov- reforms in his bill will improve science gets more attention from the appropri- ernment Reform that cabinet status for at EPA. Many of the provisions of Ose’s ations committees. Funding for science EPA “would send a strong signal to bill are identical to those in H.R. 64, the at EPA has languished over the past other federal departments and foreign Strengthening Science at the EPA Act, decade: Sums allotted in 2002 for the nations that the United States is fully which passed the House in 2002. Office of Research and Development, committed to solving the most serious At the September hearing, George M. and complex domestic and global Gray from the Harvard Center for Risk the research arm of EPA, were nearly environmental problems.” Stephenson Analysis told the committee that such a identical (in constant 1987 dollars) to also pointed out that it would put the reorganization would “go a long way to the 1988 appropriation when the first head of EPA on “equal footing” with improving both the perception and the bill to elevate EPA to cabinet status was other federal agencies—the Depart- reality of the credibility of EPA science introduced. As Warren pointed out, ments of Defense, Energy, and the Inte- and decisions. When the science is done “[EPA] currently has enough authority rior, for example—that are often on one side of the house, and then in- to produce sufficient, high-quality in- affected by EPA regulations. jected into the policy process to be con- formation for its needs, if the agency is Despite the amount of enthusiasm sidered along with other important adequately funded for this purpose.” A for the move, Congress has failed to factors, it will help remove some of the committee report from EPA’s Science enact legislation authorizing it. Past leg- pressures on scientists to ‘get the right Advisory Board concurs: “The only way islative efforts have been stalled by dis- answer’ and will put the decision mak- in which it will be possible to meet the agreements over the extent and nature ing responsibility not in the hands of expanded responsibilities, while im- of other reforms to include in authoriz- scientists but with policy makers where ing legislation. Representative Sher- it belongs.” proving the quality of the science used, wood Boehlert (R–NY), who first However, others see the proposed is for the [science and technology] bud- sponsored EPA elevation legislation in reorganization as an opportunity for get to be maintained and increased over 1988, believes the only way to achieve political appointees to have even more time.” the immediate goal of cabinet status is influence on the scientific process. The through consideration of a “clean Natural Resources Defense Council Adrienne Froelich (e-mail: afroelich@aibs.org) bill”—that is, one that deals only with (NRDC) opposed H.R. 64 in the last is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office. 1040 BioScience • November 2003 / Vol. 53 No. 11 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png BioScience Oxford University Press

Will EPA Attain Cabinet Status?

BioScience , Volume 53 (11) – Nov 1, 2003

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/will-epa-attain-cabinet-status-Z0EYrqFX4I

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2003 American Institute of Biological Sciences
Subject
News & Features
ISSN
0006-3568
eISSN
1525-3244
DOI
10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[1040:WEACS]2.0.CO;2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Washington Watch ADRIENNE FROELICH ince 1987, no fewer than 18 inde- the issue of cabinet status. “That 15 Congress because it called for the cre- Spendent expert panels and 13 years have passed and an elevation bill ation of a science deputy. NRDC Senior pieces of legislation have called for has not been signed into law should Fellow for Environmental Economics the elevation of the Environmental make us mindful of the challenges be- Wesley P. Warren says NRDC believes Protection Agency (EPA) to cabinet fore us,” he says. “it is unlikely that the new position will status. Dozens of experts, including In September 2003, the Subcommit- substantially advance the cause of sci- four former EPA administrators, have tee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources ence” and instead thinks “it is possible testified in favor of the move at and Regulatory Affairs of the Commit- that this person will act as another po- congressional hearings on the issue. tee on Government Reform heard testi- litical player in a potentially overpoliti- Every president since George H. Bush, mony from expert witnesses on H.R. cized process.” Proponents of the the first to back the idea, has sup- 37, Boehlert’s bill, and H.R. 2138, intro- provision argue that one way to help in- ported the move. Yet the United States duced by Representative Doug Ose sulate the position from political pres- remains one of only 10 countries, (R–CA). While both bills call for and the only major industrial power, cabinet status for EPA, Ose’s bill goes sures and ensure continuity between without a cabinet-level environmental one step further: It “reorganizes EPA administrations is through six-year agency. into three Under Secretaries: (1) Policy, staggered terms, as the National Acad- Proponents of cabinet status for EPA Planning, and Innovation; (2) Science emy of Science recommended in its argue that the move is long overdue. In and Information; and, (3) Compliance, 2000 review of science at EPA. March 2002, John B. Stephenson of the Implementation, and Enforcement.” But the best way to improve science General Accounting Office told mem- According to Ose, this and other at EPA, some argue, is to make sure it bers of the House Committee on Gov- reforms in his bill will improve science gets more attention from the appropri- ernment Reform that cabinet status for at EPA. Many of the provisions of Ose’s ations committees. Funding for science EPA “would send a strong signal to bill are identical to those in H.R. 64, the at EPA has languished over the past other federal departments and foreign Strengthening Science at the EPA Act, decade: Sums allotted in 2002 for the nations that the United States is fully which passed the House in 2002. Office of Research and Development, committed to solving the most serious At the September hearing, George M. and complex domestic and global Gray from the Harvard Center for Risk the research arm of EPA, were nearly environmental problems.” Stephenson Analysis told the committee that such a identical (in constant 1987 dollars) to also pointed out that it would put the reorganization would “go a long way to the 1988 appropriation when the first head of EPA on “equal footing” with improving both the perception and the bill to elevate EPA to cabinet status was other federal agencies—the Depart- reality of the credibility of EPA science introduced. As Warren pointed out, ments of Defense, Energy, and the Inte- and decisions. When the science is done “[EPA] currently has enough authority rior, for example—that are often on one side of the house, and then in- to produce sufficient, high-quality in- affected by EPA regulations. jected into the policy process to be con- formation for its needs, if the agency is Despite the amount of enthusiasm sidered along with other important adequately funded for this purpose.” A for the move, Congress has failed to factors, it will help remove some of the committee report from EPA’s Science enact legislation authorizing it. Past leg- pressures on scientists to ‘get the right Advisory Board concurs: “The only way islative efforts have been stalled by dis- answer’ and will put the decision mak- in which it will be possible to meet the agreements over the extent and nature ing responsibility not in the hands of expanded responsibilities, while im- of other reforms to include in authoriz- scientists but with policy makers where ing legislation. Representative Sher- it belongs.” proving the quality of the science used, wood Boehlert (R–NY), who first However, others see the proposed is for the [science and technology] bud- sponsored EPA elevation legislation in reorganization as an opportunity for get to be maintained and increased over 1988, believes the only way to achieve political appointees to have even more time.” the immediate goal of cabinet status is influence on the scientific process. The through consideration of a “clean Natural Resources Defense Council Adrienne Froelich (e-mail: afroelich@aibs.org) bill”—that is, one that deals only with (NRDC) opposed H.R. 64 in the last is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office. 1040 BioScience • November 2003 / Vol. 53 No. 11

Journal

BioScienceOxford University Press

Published: Nov 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.