I remember fondly the many significant accomplishments that we have made together on this Committee. In 1980, 1982 and 1990 we wrote significant legislation to curb acid rain and other air pollution that has choked our skies, fowled our waters, and endangered our health. We have come a long way to fix these problems, but we still have more to do and I hope the Committee will continue to focus on air pollution and pass legislation next year to address these ongoing threats. In 1986, we passed the landmark Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) which broke a deadlock that had stalled millions of dollars of civil works projects critical to state and local communities. One of my proudest achievements is our work on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 which has changed the way we view transportation policy.
I have greatly enjoyed my time serving on this Committee since I was first appointed on February 11, 1977. I began my service on the Committee under the leadership of Senator Jennings Randolf of West Virginia and served as Chairman myself in 1992. More recently the Committee has had a wonderful period of productivity under the sage guidance of my beloved friend, the late John H. Chafee. Today, Senator Smith serves as a facilitator who conducts the Committee's work in a fair and open process. I will surely miss this Committee, its work, and the friends with whom I have had the privilege to serve.
The matter before us today is one that we cannot take lightly. The calculation of risks posed by environmental contaminants and the subsequent determination of appropriate regulatory controls is a complex exercise that involves not only the lives of our citizens and the health of our environment, but the state of our welfare and economy. It is quite clear that environmental regulations have prevented millions of deaths EPA has estimated that the Clean Air Act alone prevents 205,000 cases of premature mortality annually. At the same time, Resources for the Future estimates that $160 billion is spent annually in the U.S. for environmental compliance. This may not be too much to spend on environmental protection, but it is too much to spend unwisely.
Comparative risk assessment is an example where science must take the leading role. Only science can give us the parameters to estimate the relative risks posed by varying concentrations of toxic substances. However, good science can only be accomplished with adequate resources and data. The Science Advisory Board has reported to us that EPA lacks the resources and data to adequately address some aspects of risk assessment. We must support EPA's request for more research dollars if we are to expect EPA to adequately address this issue.
In conclusion, I have always believed that good science makes good policy, and good policy makes good politics. While factors such as cost, welfare, and even politics indeed play a role, we must ensure that environmental decisions can always be justified by scientific research. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss this issue and, again, I am grateful to my colleagues for their kind words today and for their valued friendships throughout the years.