state that the entire rule-making process is subject to judicial review. Also, CMA would like to add a provision that requires agencies to look at the comparative risk of their programs. "If you don't do such a comparison, it's sometimes pretty hard to tell if you are spending your money wisely," Mayhew says. In addition, CMA would like stronger requirements for review of existing rules added to the House bill. In contrast, there is very little in either the House or Senate risk assessment bills that environmental groups support. As passed by the House, "the Risk Assessment & Cost-Benefit Act is an irresponsible piece of legislation that will gut existing programs that protect health, safety, and the environment," charges Karen L. Horini, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Furthermore, it will "hamper efforts to streamline current regulations, entangle judges in a host of highly technical scientific issues, and waste taxpayer resources as agencies attempt to meet the bill's unworkable analytic requirements," she adds. The bill will create full employment for lawyers and massively expand litigation, and it will understate risk to children and other vulnerable groups, Florini says. EDF is a strong proponent of the appropriate use of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis if there is a clear understanding of the limitations of those analytic methods, she says. But the House bill fails to acknowledge those limitations. She finds S. 343 even more objectionable, primarily because of its requirements for review of existing rules every five or seven years. Environmental organizations also strongly opposed another provision of the contract that the chemical industry wasn't too concerned about. However, they didn't win that round either. President Clinton signed legislation on March 22 prohibiting Congress from imposing federal mandates costing more than $50 million on state, local, and tribal governments without providing accompanying federal funds. However, one provision of the contract—that dealing with congressional accountability—met with universal approval. Legislation, H.R. 1, requiring Congress to adhere to 11 civil rights and labor laws, won swift approval in both the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton on Jan. 23. []
Science educators urged to be politically active "The demand for change that brought in the freshmen of the 104th Congress was the same message that swept President Clinton into office in 1992. ... The import of this message to the nation's research and education establishment is very clear: They, too, shall change." Thus, veteran astronaut and geologist Kathryn D. Sullivan, who is chief scientist at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, began her address to members of the Council for Undergraduate Research at its second annual "April Dialogue," held early this month in Washington, D.C. Change will be unavoidable, concurred Rep. Vern J. Ehlers (R-Mich.), a former professor of physics, given the mood of the country as reflected in the elections last fall. "How that will affect [undergraduate education] has not yet played out." Congress is positive toward undergraduate science education and research, said Ehlers, who is a member of the House Committee on Science. But there will be some cuts next year: "I believe you are going to see a lot less money going to the states for projects that the states should do themselves, particularly, [maintaining] the infrastructure for state universities." He cautioned science educators not to get too scared about all they hear—such as the possible elimination of the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Education, and Housing & Urban Development.
Sullivan: profound political transition
These proposals are being talked about, Ehlers admitted, but he pointed out Congress has not endorsed them. He did say that he and Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Science Committee, agree that what is really needed is a Department of Science that would include the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy. Walker also believes, Ehlers says, there may be good reason to get rid of the Department of Education, pointing out the student loan program functioned very well before the department existed. The Administration is cautious about a Science Department, said Sullivan, but she acknowledged that pluralism has been an asset in the past. "There's no such thing as a perfect bureaucratic approach to anything," she allowed. Both Walker and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich are clear in their support of basic research, she said; however, the key is what basic research means. Sullivan urged educators to become more active politically—to keep the key issues on the front burner to make sure they get looked at correctly. Understand your audience, she advised. Understand what they are seeing, feeling, and thinking. Ehlers said he has always sold basic science by pointing out that the economic foundation the U.S. has today owes a large debt to basic research done 30 to 50 years ago, so the responsibility to maintain basic science should be as great as the responsibility to cut the deficit. "If we don't do basic research today, we're depriving our children and grandchildren of what they need to maintain their standard of living. It's simply not fair to them to be selfish today and say we're not going to spend that money." "We are going through a profound political transition," Sullivan asserted. "We have to remember that governing is not a popularity contest but a deliberate and inclusive process where different points of view are considered and action is based on consensus. Science, technology, and education are a complex, interconnected system. So is government. The views that were ascendant in the last election will become part of that system and we will assimilate them even while we are searching for the new consensus that will lead us forward." Mairin Brennan APRIL 24, 1995 C&EN
31
