The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun a review of its laboratory network that may result in significant closures, according to some early agency plans. In response to budget cuts, EPA intends to reduce costs at least 20 percent by 2011. According to EPA officials in a phone briefing on March 15, the review is to assess the efficacy of the lab network, eliminate duplicative programs or efforts, and increase overall efficiency. Given the FY 2007 and 2008 budget cuts to research and development, there is concern that the review and potential closures of labs are budget driven rather than reflecting a substantive management plan to create a more effective EPA. One review plan, introduced to the House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee of Energy and Environment during a hearing on March 15, proposes consolidating 39 agency laboratories. According to the Bureau of National Affairs, Dr. George Gray, the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, pledged that no laboratories would be closed "during the tenure" of EPA administrator Stephen Johnson. However, how long Johnson, appointed by President Bush, will remain in his position remains to be seen. The review is expected to take up to three years to complete, although details are unclear, as no official plan has been finalized. A June 8, 2006, EPA memo indicated that an early plan unquestionably included significant closings. In the memo, released in September 2006 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Chief Financial Officer Lyons Gray directed agency officials to cut laboratory infrastructure costs by at least 10 percent by 2009 and another 10 percent by 2011. Closing, relocating and consolidating labs were highlighted as core components of the plan. The more than 2,000 scientists employed at EPA labs would also be subject to staff buy-outs and targeted attrition. According to EPA's Gray's March 15 remarks to both the House subcommittee and to interested stakeholders in a phone briefing, laboratory consolidation does remain part of the plan. The budget cuts and potential consolidation of labs strikes chords very similar to the EPA's recent scandal of closing regional libraries. In response to severe FY 2007 budget cuts, five (out of 27) EPA libraries were closed, documents with no other copies were destroyed, and access to EPA materials has been limited. Though Congress intervened and halted any subsequent closings pending their review of EPA's plans, the president's FY 2008 budget calls for even larger cuts at EPA, making reductions to research and information facilities increasingly likely. Using budget purse strings to discreetly implement a political agenda may be part of the strategy at work in the EPA labs review. For instance, even though climate change is currently the most prominent environmental issue, the current administration's budget cuts appear to be undermining efforts to address this emerging threat. EPA's own Science Advisory Board observed that the proposed FY 2008 budget will focus research programs "more on yesterday's issues and less on new and emerging environmental problems." Given the increasing scrutiny that EPA and other agencies are under for politically motivated manipulation of science, such a result from budget changes must be questioned. At a hearing on March 19, the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform continued its investigation into whether the current administration pressured scientists to minimize the importance of climate change. EPA's libraries and laboratories are crucial to understanding and addressing a myriad of health and environmental issues currently facing our country, including climate change. Strong science requires an arena free from political pressures, and with sufficient funding for strategic, not just reactive, research. OMB Watch will be closely following EPA actions on its management of agency libraries and laboratories to ensure that their "efficiency improvements" do not impede important scientific progress.