STATEMENT OF DWIGHT INK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY DOUGLAS COSTLE, HOWARD SCHNOOR, AND CLIFFORD BERG

Mr. INK. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

I have a prepared statement. If you prefer, I will be happy to have that introduced in the record.

Senator RIBICOFF. The entire statement will go in the record as if read; and why don't you just make whatever remarks you would like, and we will have a few questions.

(See exhibit 11, p. 136.)

Mr. INK. Mr. Chairman, we were not able to be here yesterday, because I was appearing before the House. I would like to make one comment on each of the plans.

MANY PROGRAMS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENT

First, with respect to the Environmental Protection Agency, there have been some comments as to why more functions were not included. I would like to build on the comments which I understand Senator Muskie made yesterday, that there are many different programs related to the environment.

If you look at the various departments of the Federal Government— in Agriculture, for example, programs dealing with soil conservation, forestry, the farming practices; these all affect the environment.

Interior has conservation work, and wildlife work, and the fossil fuels, which also concern the environment.

HEW, the Department of Transportation, the Corps of Engineers, and the AEC all have a tremendous number of programs and activities related to the environment. To go far along this road and deal with pollution control by trying to draw all of these together in one spot, would result in another large department which, for the first few years, would be, probably, preoccupied with getting itself organized and functioning. We think this is inconsistent with the critical need for an attack on the problems of pollution in this country.

And, secondly, it seems to us that we do have to exercise care that we not strip these departments of the kinds of resources needed, and the feeling of a sense of responsibility for enhancing the environment. The resources that are in the Federal Government to deal with environmental problems are manifold, and we think it is important that we not go to the point of leaving the impression that these departments are no longer concerned with the environment. They do have very important continuing roles, as we see it, for enhancing the environ

ment.

DEALING WITH POLLUTION

So, instead of pulling everything related to the environment together, the President, on the advice of the Ash Council, decided to meet a very high, urgent priority problem, that of dealing with pollution, and he has proposed the drawing together of the standard-setting activities which are of critical importance. Standard setting is the point of leverage for dealing with pollution control, and we believe these functions relate in a manageable package of functions and activities which, if provided the proper leadership and supported by the

funding and other resources, can move forward with a coordinated effort to control pollution. This is a problem that the people of this country are rightly very much concerned about. It is a problem which we have waited too long in many respects to deal with effectively. We are also looking to the Council on Environmental Quality, which is established by statute, to provide the staff resources to the President, to see that these varied departmental activities are coordinated, and to flag the gaps which undoubtedly do exist among our present programs, dealing not only with pollution control but other environmental related areas.

OCEANOGRAPHY AND ATMOSPHERIC PROBLEMS

With respect to NOAA, I would like to underscore the comment that was made earlier this morning, that there has been extensive study of the desirability of drawing together functions dealing with oceanic and atmospheric problems.

The Stratton Commission did, I think, a most exhaustive study. It extended over several years. It got the views of over a thousand people. There were two Members of the Senate and two Members of the House who sat in with this group, and we believe they did a first-rate job. We have looked at it-it has been looked at extensively by othersand now is the time for action. Therefore, we propose to move forward in both of these areas, recognizing that there will undoubtedly be other steps which are going to prove to be desirable and necessary and that probably both the President and the Congress will determine additional actions needed in these important areas.

Senator RIBICOFF. I am pleased that your statement focuses on the pesticides and the radiation aspects of plan No. 3. There has been very little said about it so far.

In your statement, you say:

The EPA will look to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior and the Department of HEW for research and advice on the efficacy of these pesticides, and for basic research on the effects of these pesticides on health and on the general environment.

The research is basic to standard setting on improved pest control. Would not EPA lack essentially the scientfic capability on pesticide changes in environmental aspects?

SCIENTIFIC AND RESEARCH ABILITY

Are you going to have any scientific and research ability?
Mr. INK. Yes; and it is vital. Let me illustrate.

Agriculture is one of the areas that is mentioned. The kind of research we are talking about for Agriculture is the work they are now doing with respect to the effectiveness of pesticides to accomplish a departmental objective. EPA needs access to the scientific underpinning necessary to develop general environmental standards, but we do not think it wise to draw out of the Department of Agriculture the capability and the sense of responsibility for trying to develop better pesticides and see whether there are substitutes. They will be looking at various alternatives for meeting the pest problem that they are confronted with, and we feel that they should have an

incentive for undertaking the research to determine which pesticides will do the most effective job from the standpoint of Agriculture but which also meet the standards that are set by EPA.

The scientific capabilities in EPA relate, of course, to the standardsetting function.

Senator RIBICOFF. What bothers me: Suppose you are unhappy with the work being done in either Agriculture or in Interior, or in HEW. What do you do about it?

We had hearings, extensive hearings in 1963, on pesticides, and I believe we were one of the first committees to delve into it, and it was testimony that pointed out some of the damages that were being done throughout the country because of various pesticides, and it was very, very slow going.

We did not find much cooperation from Agriculture.

What do you do, because it will depend so much on these other agencies.

Where are you going to have the authority over a Secretary?

EPA WILL HAVE STANDARD-SETTING AUTHORITY

Mr. INK. Let me answer that in two pieces. First of all, with respect to the technical capability, the EPA will have the authority to do whatever research it needs to do with respect to the standard setting.

Senator RIBICOFF. Well, will you farm this out or do it yourself? Will you have consultants, or have different universities doing your research?

Certainly, you cannot build up a research capability all of your

own?

Mr. INK. We would expect EPA to use both. In the radiation area, for example, they will be drawing upon, among other things, the National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, which reaches out to a large number of different sources, and, certainly, they will be looking to universities. But we would expect them to also have some in-house research capability.

Secondly, of course, the standards will be set or approved by EPA, not by the other agencies.

Thirdly, we have the Council on Environmental Quality, which is the staff arm to advise the President with respect to how these things are working and to help EPA with respect to drawing the other agencies together.

And, finally, of course, the Office of Management and Budget, has a role contemplated under the reorganization that is very much concerned with the effective operation of governmental machinery. Senator STEVENS. May I ask a question right there?

Senator RIBICOFF. Yes.

Senator STEVENS. You say "standards." Taking into account the role of Agriculture, you mean standards for pesticides in the sense of their tolerable effect on the environment, or standards in terms of their effectiveness as an agricultural pest control?

Which standards are you talking about and which are they going to be speaking of?

Mr. INK. There is only one set of standard setting, and that is in EPA. In setting the standards, they are to draw upon the recommen

dations of Agriculture with respect to the efficacy of the pesticides. They are to consider the views of Agriculture with respect to efficacy in their determination.

Senator STEVENS. Is this going to have the same impact on the Forestry Service also?

Are they going to take over the pesticide function of the Forestry Service and the research as to the effects of the various insects and movements and whatnot, as to what they do in the national forests? Mr. INK. No, they will not be taking over that research. Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

A POSSIBLE CONFLICT

Senator RIBICOFF. One of the guiding principles in the establishment of EPA was to define standard setting and enforcement in one agency and yet in the radiation field you are going to set the standards and AEC will enforce them. Now, is that not going to produce a conflict?

If it does, how are you going to settle the differences between EPA and AEC?

Mr. INK. First, functions respecting the guidelines set by the Federal Radiation Control and the general environmental standards are being shifted to the new agency. It will be the job of the Atomic Energy Commission to implement those standards through its licensing activity. We would expect the EPA to look to them for advice and their thinking, but the general environmental standardsetting function will be shifted to the new agency, not split between AEC and the new agency.

Senator RIBICOFF. Four years ago, the Bureau of Budget recommended to this subcommittee the transfer of the water pollution control program from HEW to Interior.

Was this reorganization successful?

What do you think they accomplished and what is their capability?

WATER POLLUTION EFFORT HAS INCREASED

Mr. INK. I believe that during this period of time the water pollution control effort has increased. I think the program has accomplished some important things, but we believe now that it is not desirable to consider the water area in isolation from air, solid waste and the rest of the environment which is affected by pollution. Therefore, we believe that it ought to be drawn together as part of a new agency where the pollution problems can be looked at in their entirety.

One of the problems which concerns us with our present fragmentation is that if a program is successful in one area and I think we have begun to achieve some successes in the water area-we, in some instances, may be achieving more of an illusion of success if it results in shifting the problem to another part of the environment. By having these programs drawn together in one spot we can attack a source of pollution regardless of whether it affects the air, the water, or land. Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Stevens?

Senator STEVENS. I have been more involved in the natural resources area, but I can remember every Secretary of the Interior that I have

ever known, Chapman, McKay, and Seaton, and now Secretary Hickel, all have dreamed of a Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Now, do you foresee, if we are successful in forming such a large collection in a superdepartment such as the Department of Defense, that NOAA and EPA could fit into that department, or are we setting a course now that would forever prevent us from achieving that goal of one department, of natural resources and environment?

Mr. INK. No, I do not think this precludes that possibility. However, I would like to add to that comment a note of caution with respect to the placing of pollution control and standard setting within any such framework, because I think it is important that pollution control activities be independent of departments and agencies that are concerned with particular mission-oriented programs and activities.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I think that the function has been misinterpreted. As far as I can see, everyone that foresaw such an organization wanted to get the developmental and promotional aspects out of that department and have that department be the superprotection agency for resources and the environment, and it seems that we are going the other way.

It seems that we are leaving in Interior the promotional aspects. For instance leaving aspects for tourist promotion in the Department, such as the national forest and park areas which involves both tourism and protection. I just do not see that this will be susceptible of being reversed too easily if we want to get the protection aspect back into one superdepartment.

THE BULK OF ACTIVITIES ARE LEFT IN INTERIOR

Mr. INK. Well, out of over 60,000 people in the Department of the Interior, I believe that these two plans will move out about 4,500 employees; so, the bulk of the activities, of course, are left in Interior.

Senator STEVENS. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 we established procedures whereby the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation could not proceed with any construction of any dams until they had a report on the effects of the dam, or any structure utilizing water from our rivers, on the fish and wildlife, both sports and commercial. Now, we are taking, under this one reorganization, the commercial aspects out of Interior. Have you examined what is going to happen where we no longer have coordination between sports fishing and commercial fishing so far as these reports are concerned under the Coordination Act of 1958?

Mr. INK. I believe the responsibility for looking at the impact of these projects from the standpoint of fish and wildlife all remains in the Interior.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We may have some other questions for you, and we would appreciate your response as rapidly as you can get it to the committee. The committee will stand adjourned until further call.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)