![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
EPA and science
Q: How did you deal with Congress about the debate over science between EPA and industry?
MR. COSTLE: After the 1977 battle over the Clean Air Act, it was clear that, if you couldn't get a friendly set of facts in front of the Congress, you couldn't ever get a healthy resolution of the debate. The '77 Amendments called for the auto industry to perform a ton of research, and the industry geared up to do defensive research. At the same time, funds for public-health-oriented research were diminishing. I worried about that trend and said, "What if we created a non-profit, independent institute to do emissions research? Then the next time we come around to reauthorizing the Act, there will be an independent, third-party source of facts."
Senator Muskie was not happy with that idea; he believed in his gut that the research ought to be government-funded. I was more worried that government was losing credibility in people's minds, so that its research wouldn't have the same clout as in the past. In the end, Muskie agreed, and we created the Health Effects Institute, with Archibald Cox as its first director. As the victim of the Watergate Saturday Night Massacre, Cox was probably the one name in the country that everybody knew who was considered to have integrity.
The Institute was created as a non-profit corporation, with the auto industry putting up half the money and us the other half. This approach has provided an effective arbiter of facts, and today you don't hear as much debate about that area. Everybody can argue about the policy options, and this is where the debate really ought to take place.
Q: Is this the same idea as the Environmental Institute that the came from the Ash Council?
MR. COSTLE: No, that was less science- and more policy-oriented, asking: "Are there other ways to skin this cat? Is command-and-control the right way to go?"
It's clear to me that command-and-control was the right way to go initially. I don't think there is any doubt. Otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are today in terms of clean-up progress.
You need only look at Eastern Europe to see where we might have been without environmental controls.