|
Statement of Dr. Janet
L. Norwood
before the
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory
Affairs
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
September 21, 2001
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here
this morning to discuss with you the work of the National
Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) on improving
the management and performance of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). I have been a Fellow of the Academy for almost
20 years and was a member of all three Academy panels on EPA.
Suellen Keiner, Director of the Academy's Center for the Economy
and Environment, is here with me today.
My own career has involved many years in
federal executive branch management. I am an economist, and
I served three 4-year terms from 1979 to 1991 as Commissioner
of Labor Statistics in the U.S. Department of Labor. In 1992,
I left government to work on data policy and organization
issues as a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute. Currently,
in addition to serving on the Boards of several companies
and non-profit organizations and other activities, I spend
part of my time as Counselor and Senior Fellow at the New
York Conference Board.
NAPA Studies on EPA
Today, I would like to discuss with this
Subcommittee the Academy's recommendations for addressing
issues at EPA. This discussion is based on three Academy reports
that were requested by Congress and published in 1995, 1997,
and 2000.
In 1995, the Academy published Setting Priorities,
Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA, which focused on
EPA's organization and management and its relations with states
and local governments. That report analyzed the problems caused
by EPA's statutes that limit agency authority to specific
environmental media (for example, air and water), as well
as the related "stove-pipes" in its management structure.
The panel suggested that EPA take steps to integrate planning
and budgeting so the agency could be more effective in setting
and managing priorities. We also recommended that Congress
and EPA work toward adoption of an "integrating statute"
to encourage cross-media planning and program implementation.
Two years later, the Academy published its
review of EPA's progress in addressing these problems in Resolving
the Paradox of Environmental Protection: An Agenda for Congress,
EPA and the States. Our second report concluded that EPA's
progress in merging planning and budgeting had been slow and
that the agency lacked the institutional arrangements needed
to collect reliable and objective data that are consistent
across all of its programs. The Academy urged EPA to adopt
performance-based approaches to its own work and its oversight
of delegated state programs. In addition, the report pointed
out the need for EPA to develop a strong evaluation and accountability
system, to determine the effectiveness of innovations for
addressing environmental issues, and to encourage cost-effective
methods for environmental improvements by firms, states, and
local governments.
The Academy's most recent report Environment.gov:
Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century
was published late last year. This report responded to Congress'
request that we evaluate EPA's recent programs for encouraging
innovation. This Academy panel recommended that EPA focus
its attention especially on three important problems: reducing
nutrients in watersheds, controlling the many sources of ground-level
ozone and smog, and clarifying the choices the nation must
make to bring about a reduction in carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. For this report, the Academy commissioned
studies by 16 research teams to evaluate a number of program
innovations undertaken by EPA.
Based on these studies and research by the
Academy's staff, the Panel concluded that EPA has a critical
need for organizational and scientific resources to accomplish
several key tasks:
- Develop a national information system
to collect high quality data for evaluating its programs,
- Develop better methods for holding states,
localities, and businesses accountable for results, and
- Adopt more effective management tools
to achieve environmental goals.
The Academy also recommended that Congress
take steps to increase EPA's flexibility for experimenting
with new techniques for preventing or controlling pollution
and suggested ways in which business, foundations, industry
and citizen groups could embrace more efficient policies for
environmental protection.
The above discussion is, of course, only
a very brief overview of the Academy studies, but the Academy's
staff -- as well as those of us who served on the panels for
the Academy studies -- would be happy to provide further briefings
on our research to the Committee or its staff at your convenience.
Answers to the Subcommittee's Questions
Because the time of the Subcommittee is
limited, let me now turn to the specific questions that I
understand the Subcommittee is especially interested in having
answered. I shall take each of these in turn.
1. Can EPA improve its effectiveness
in addressing environmental problems?
First, the Academy recommends that, to improve
its effectiveness, EPA should focus its attention on three
of the most significant -- and difficult -- problems that
create a high risk to our environment. We urge EPA to make
a national commitment of its energy, resources, and innovations
to address the problems of smog, non-point water pollution,
and greenhouse gases. We also urge EPA to work with Congress
to secure the authority and the funding that will be required
to identify the options for solving these problems, to develop
innovative approaches, and to make them work.
Second, we recommend that EPA develop better
methods for measuring environmental conditions so it can monitor
progress and evaluate the success or failure of its program
innovations. It is important for EPA to maintain a strong
enforcement program, both as a back-up and a supplement to
the states' programs. At the same time, EPA should reduce
its command-and-control regulatory system by working cooperatively
with all of the players in the system. We must recognize,
however, that involving them all more fully requires that
EPA - and the country - have an effective system to collect
objective, scientific data of high quality, to hold all of
these players accountable, to evaluate the effectiveness of
EPA and state programs, and to ensure that the environment
is protected and improved.
Third, we recommend that EPA increase its
use of local collaborative processes, disclosure of information,
and market tools such as emissions trading. These and other
more flexible approaches can create incentives for states
and companies to find cost-effective ways for reducing environmental
hazards and for solving problems in a multi-media fashion.
2. Does EPA need structural changes
to produce such improvements?
The Academy recommends that Congress create
an independent, well-funded Bureau of Environmental Information
at a high level within EPA. EPA must have objective and accurate
data of high quality that are consistent across geographical
units and across its environmental media offices. This information
is essential for EPA to evaluate the progress of its programs,
determine whether experimental programs have been successful,
and hold private companies and individual state agencies accountable.
In addition, all three studies found that
a lack of coherent, multi-media authority has seriously hampered
EPA's effectiveness. The Academy recommends that Congress
should authorize -- and EPA should implement -- a reorganization
of its internal structure to end the current fragmentation
among separate media offices. By adopting an integrated, multi-media
pollution-control statute that can serve as EPA's organic
act, Congress can create a statutory mission for the agency
so it can work more efficiently than the single-medium laws
now allow. This statute should then serve as the framework
for organizing and harmonizing the agency's work
In addition, the Academy's reports found
that the organizational structure of EPA needs some revamping.
This is particularly true for the role of EPA's regional offices,
where the cross-media work and evaluation of the delegated
state programs is especially important. As a result, we further
recommend that EPA clarify its decision-making authority for
resolving disagreements among its program or regional offices.
3. Should EPA be elevated to the status
of a Cabinet agency in order to accomplish its goals in a
more effective manner?
The Academy panels did not consider this
issue, and I, therefore, cannot attribute any view on this
issue to them. Nevertheless, I think it is important to point
out that the Academy's studies recommend a number of changes
that could enhance EPA's ability to operate more effectively,
whether or not it achieves Cabinet status. Without implementation
of the most important of these changes, it is hard to imagine
that elevation to Cabinet level would make EPA more successful
than it now is.
My personal view is that elevation to Cabinet
status could increase EPA's importance and provide its Administrator
with a better chance of getting Presidential attention. Both
are useful to an agency. But Cabinet status will not solve
all of EPA's problems. We must remember, when considering
the pros and cons of Cabinet status for EPA, that a significant
group of Cabinet agencies - for example, State, Transportation,
Energy, Agriculture, and Labor - also are involved in environmental
issues. The lines of jurisdiction among these agencies and
between them and the EPA need clarification when Congress
considers legislation on the status of EPA within our government.
As the Academy's recommendations demonstrate,
EPA needs the support of the Congress to make many of the
changes we have recommended. Whether or not Congress decides
to elevate EPA to cabinet status, EPA needs your help in several
ways. By promoting innovation, improving the ability to monitor
the impacts of new regulatory tools, and harnessing the power
of scientific data and research, Congress can strengthen EPA's
accountability to the public and increase the capacity of
regulated facilities and environmental agencies at all levels
for protecting the public health and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.
I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
List of References
National Academy of Public Administration, Setting Priorities,
Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA (1995).
____________________________________, Resolving
the Paradox of Environmental Protection: An Agenda for Congress,
EPA and the States (1997).
_____________________________________, Environment.gov:
Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century
(2000).
______________________________________,
Environment.gov: Research Papers, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 (2000).
|
