emerging ones to the end that a national will is developed to support a comprehensive program of environmental management. (The glamour of newly discovered purposes must not be allowed to blind us to the age-old concerns

of man.)

Please be assured of the full cooperation of the Department of Agriculture. We want to, and will, do our part in a total national system of environmental management.

Cochairman JACKSON. Our next participant in the colloquium is Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD F. HORNIG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Dr. HORNIG. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to join with you in discussing this subject which is of enormous consequence to us all and which I think will become more important as the years go on. The papers which the Senate and House committees prepared as a background are thought-provoking documents which call for a national policy on environmental management. I highly subscribe to the desirability of attempting to articulate a policy which will make explicit the beliefs, needs, and desires that underlie our many existing programs touching on the environment. We have always lived off our environment. We have been drawing on our capital and depleting our bank account. The problem now is whether we are willing not only to write policies, but to take the actions and to spend the money to keep our environment solvent and to understand and do the things it takes to understand what is meant by keeping our environment solvent.

There have been a number of proposals for what amounts to a national policy for the environment. For example, President Johnson enunciated a "creed to preserve our national heritage" in his message to Congress of February 23, 1966. The legislative branch, too, has been active in policy formulation, but its pronouncements are scattered throughout many separate congressional enactments. Agencies in the executive branch are guided by these enactments and the missions of the agencies are defined by them. These mission definitions both specify mandates for action and prescribe limitations or authority to the agents, and they are often, as has been testified before, fragmentary and even contradictory.

This body of policy, like the organization of Government, is the cumulative result of nearly two centuries of ad hoc decisions, each of which dealt with a pressing problem such as disposal of public land, or immigration, or irrigation, or agricultural practices. It is not surprising that we now find them to be fragmented and even contradictory when viewed in terms of environmental quality. We notice more and more that the factors affecting the environment and their effects are complex and intertwined with other serious problems. The difficulty is that we will never be able to simply deal with problems of environment as problems of environment alone. They are necessarily entwined with other problems.

It would certainly be helpful if this body of differing, widely scattered, fragmented authorities could be reviewed and reduced to a more coherent series of statements which, together with any necessary additions for completeness, would set out a national policy for the environment. Of course, a national policy will only be useful if its

philosophy and its provisions can be inculcated into the myriad laws the Congress enacts and the executive carries out, particularly those which concern matters that are not thought of primarily as influencing the environment. We must get the philosophy of environmental improvement, of environmental management, into all of our activities. I have not thought through the means of accomplishing this nor have I considered in detail the conflicts that might arise in other fields from declaration of such a policy, but this meeting, which includes so many of the relevant committees of the Congress, is an important beginning. If these two points-a suitable means of insuring effectiveness and carrying it out, and an evaluation and rationalization of effects on other national goals can be accommodated, I can see real benefit from a statement of national policy for the environment.

I visualize the policy as a formulation of goals that would serve as a frame against which proposed and existing programs would be considered and judged in terms of priority and content, and which would provide guidance in making the hard decisions involving competing goals. I see a need for a series of principles that would constitute the ground rules for action.

In my view, national policy must recognize the very wide array of appropriate and necessary uses of air and water and land. It would recognize, too, the existence of a number of beneficial but noncompatible uses, and make provision for resolving these conflicts. It should result in an environment that is safe, healthful, and attractive, and that is economically and biologically productive, yet that provides for sufficient variety to meet the differing requirements and tastes of man. Principles to be included might give guidance for the consideration of competing desires in decisions affecting environmental use. For example, it seems to me that the costs to the environment ought to be entered into any cost-benefit calculations. We might recognize more explicitly the liability of people for damages done to the environment, the need for particular care in decisions that affect the environment irreversibly. Some things we do can be repaired. We can replete the soil and add fertilizer up to a point, but other things we do and we are becoming increasingly aware of that may lead to changes which can never be recovered. Any policy should recognize the critical Federal role in environmental management. The problem is now that we must not only recognize the urgencies and the principles, but we must be prepared to pay a price in many ways. We want to improve the environment, but at the same time we need to maintain our wealth and our productivity if we are going to have the wherewithal to do it. It is frequently said that technology is the source of many of our problems. Now, technology in itself is only a collection of skills. It is what we do with technology that may produce problems.

It is the pressure of increasing population and our desire for an increasing amount of goods that leads us to use technology in ways that causes us problems. But, if we are to deal with these problems, we need to know the facts. We need to know relationships. We are going to have to develop the science which will uncover those more subtle relationships which lead to a long-term degradation of the environment; and we are going to have to develop new technology to help us meet the environment problems.

We are going to have to develop technologies which will allow us to remain productive and still not damage the environment in ways we don't want. In short, technology not only provides us the skills which enable us to increase the scale of our industrialization and creates some of our problems, but we are going to need technology, new processes, new skills as an essential part of solving those problems. Much recent discussion of environmental quality problems has centered on the organization of the Federal Government. Most suggestions have focused upon: shifting functions among agencies, assigning primary responsibility for resolving environmental quality problems to one agency, or establishing some permanent central body to review, coordinate, and perhaps even maintain control over Federal efforts in this area.

I was pleased in the discussion so far that this particular aspect has been somewhat deemphasized.

Petronius Arbiter, a Roman official in the time of Emperor Nero, about 1,700 years ago, was recently quoted by Dr. Handler with regard to these policies, and Petronius Arbiter said: "We tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. And, a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

This wisdom seems to me to be applicable to the problem before us today, which obviously needs to be improved wherever it can, but organization alone is not the answer.

In principle, the authority for oversight and coordination—and, in fact, executive responsibility for management-is vested in the President; it is exercised through the Executive Office of the President, particularly by the Office of Science and Technology and the Bureau of the Budget, in this respect. We have been working very hard on this problem of coordination, and we have made much progress. But, if our efforts turn out to be insufficient, further steps will surely be necessary and new organizational forms may be needed in the Execu

tive Office.

The creation of special councils to meet special problems-and the environment is only one of this class of problems which cuts squarely across many of the agencies and structures of the Government-does not seem the right direction to go. A proliferation of councils and we already have a number-would simply move agency interactions to a new echelon, and then who would coordinate the councils? Certainly a general strengthening of staff capability at the Executive Office level to deal with the whole array of national goals is at least as attractive a possibility as a new organizational entity.

Furthermore, I do not think that this is the time to reassign functions among agencies. Logic might dictate the concentration of all environmental programs in a single agency, but we all know that this would fractionate the other important functions of the agencies. I think the whole matter needs more study at this point.

In summary, I believe that an explicit National Policy for the Environment would provide a valuable guide for the congressional actions and a frame in which existing executive agencies could conduct their programs. Such a policy, properly conceived, would permit us to get on with the task by dividing up the problems rather than cutting up the agencies.

I think the problem now is to get to work on the substance rather than the generalities.

Thank you.

Cochairman JACKSON. Thank you, Dr. Hornig, for another fine and excellent statement.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Hornig follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD F. HORNIG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BEFORE THE JOINT HOUSE-SENATE COLLOQUIUM ON A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Senator Jackson, Congressman Miller, members of the Senate and House of Representatives, Secretaries, distinguished guests, it is indeed a pleasure to join with you in discussing this subject which is of such enormous consequence to us all.

The Senate and House Committee background papers both are thought-provoking documents which call for a national policy on environmental management. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the desirability of articulating a policy to make explicit the beliefs, needs, and desires that underlie our many existing programs touching on the environment.

POLICY

There have been a number of proposals for what amounts to a national policy for the environment. For example, President Johnson enunciated a "Creed to Preserve Our National Heritage" in his message to Congress of February 23, 1966. The Legislative Branch, too, has been active in policy formulation, but its pronouncements are scattered throughout many separate Congressional enactments. Agencies in the Executive Branch are guided by these enactments and the missions of the agencies are defined by them. These mission definitions both specify mandates for action and prescribe limitations of authority.

This body of policy, like the organization of Government, is the cumulative result of nearly two centuries of ad hoc decisions, each of which dealt with a pressing problem such as a disposal of public land, or immigration, or irrigation, or agricultural practices. It is not surprising that we now find them to be fragmented and even contradictory when viewed in terms of environmental quality. We notice more and more that the factors affecting the environment and their effects are complex and intertwined with other serious problems.

It would certainly be helpful if this body of differing, widely scattered fragmented authorities could be reviewed and reduced to a more coherent series of statements which, together with any necessary additions for completeness, would set out a National Policy for the Environment. Of course a National Policy will only be useful if its philosophy and provisions can be inculcated into the myriad laws the Congress enacts and the executive carries out, particularly those which concern matters that are not thought of primarily as influencing the environment. I have not thought through the means of accomplishing this nor have I considered in detail the conflicts that might arise in other fields from declaration of such a policy, but this meeting, which includes so many of the relevant committees of the Congress, is an important beginning. If these two points—a suitable means of ensuring effectiveness, and an evaluation and rationalization of effects on other national goals-can be accommodated, I can see real benefit from a statement of National Policy for the Environment.

I visualize the Policy as a formulation of goals that would serve as a frame against which proposed (and existing) programs would be considered and judged in terms of priority and content, and which would provide guidance in making the "hard" decisions involving competing goals. I see a need for a series of principles that would constitute the "ground rules" for action.

In my view national policy must recognize the wide array of appropriate and necessary uses of air and water and land. It would recognize, too, the existence of several beneficial but non-compatible uses, and make provision for resolving these conflicts. It should result in an environment that is safe, healthful, and attractive and that is economically and biologically productive, yet that provides for sufficient variety to meet the differing requirements and tastes of man.

Principles to be included might give guidance for the consideration of competing desires in decisions affecting environmental use; the need for particular care in decisions that affect the environment irreversibly; and should recognize the critical Federal role in environmental management.

ORGANIZATION

Much recent discussion of environmental quality problems has centered on the organization of the Federal Government. Most suggestions have focused upon:

(a) Shifting functions among agencies;

(b) Assigning primary responsibility for resolving environmental quality problems to one agency; or

(c) Establishing some permanent central body to review, coordinate and perhaps even maintain control over Federal efforts in this area.

Petronius Arbiter, a Roman official in the time of Emperor Nero, about 1,700 years ago, was recently quoted by Dr. Philip Handler in a speech before the American Physical Society:

We tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. And a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.

This wisdom seems to me to be applicable to the problem before us today. Organization alone is not the answer.

In principle, the authority for oversight and coordination (and in fact, executive responsibility for management) is vested in the President; it is exercised through the Executive Office of the President, particularly by OST and BOB. We have been working very hard on this problem of coordination, and we have made much progress. If our efforts turn out to be insufficient, further steps will be necessary and new organizational forms may be needed in the Executive Office. The creation of special councils to meet special problems does not seem the right direction to go. A proliferation of councils would simply move agency interactions to a new echelon, and then who would coordinate the councils? Certainly a general strengthening of staff capability at the Executive Office level to deal with the whole array of national goals is at least as attractive a possibility as a new organizational entity.

Furthermore, I do not think that this is the time to reassign functions among agencies. Logic might dictate the concentration of all environmental programs in a single agency but we all know that this would fractionate the other important functions of the agencies.

In summary, I believe that an explicit National Policy for the Environment would provide a valuable guide for the Congressional actions and a frame in which existing Executive agencies could conduct their programs. Such a Policy would permit us to get on with the task by dividing up the problems rather than cutting up the agencies.

Cochairman JACKSON. Here to represent Secretary Cohen-he had hoped to be here but he is detained at the White House-is Dr. Philip Lee, the Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, HEW. Dr. Lee, we are delighted to have you here.

(The statement of Secretary Wilbur J. Cohen, HEW, follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILBUR J. COHEN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. Chairman, Senators and Representatives, I welcome this opportunity to join with you in what I believe is a vitally important and most timely discussion of the complex issues surrounding the broad question of environmental quality.

The environment consists of air, water, land, and living organisms, and their interrelationships. The quality of living is affected by far more than our physical surroundings. It is also related to population pressure, to the order or disorder in urban growth, to the safety of the products and services which enter our lives. Environmental quality is determined by esthetic as well as physical factors, by the ability of