NATURAL RESOURCES WD Till ENVIRONMENT 



NUCLEAR AND NONNUCLEAR R. & D. 



959 



Until the abolition of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy at 

 the beginning of 1977, and the transfer of its nonmilitary functions to 

 the Science Committee, Brown continued to be disturbed by the rela- 

 tion between nuclear and nonnuclear energy research, and what he 

 regarded as the overemphasis on the nuclear side. He told the House 

 on June 19, 1975: 



rhese views are personal, and arc nor meant to reflect adversely on any of the 

 individuals involved. Basically, I believe that to achieve a satist.utoiv answer to 

 the energy research and development problems of the Nation requires that a careful 

 balance be achieved in the efforts and resources devoted to the various options avail- 

 able in the nuclear and nonnuclear energy helds. Neither of the two committees 

 having jurisdiction arc in a position to consider this balance adequately and reach 

 reasoned decisions. 



Early in March 1975, Brown led his subcommittee into uncharted 

 helds by establishing the right to hold annual authorizations for the 

 R. & D. operations of EPA, which had before that time gone directly 

 to the House Appropriations Committee. This was a natural, though 

 daring venture on Brown's part. In the first place, EPA was not the 

 most popular agency on Capitol Hill, since to many Members and 

 energy interests the EPA represented those forces which curbed energy 

 production, was arrayed against the automobile industry, and was 

 always citing producers for polluting the air and water. Second, EPA 

 activities overlapped into the areas of interest of a large number of 

 House and Senate committees, so that an attempt to assert authoriza- 

 tion responsibility looked as though it might encounter some juris- 

 dictional booby traps. 



EPA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 



Brown did not hesitate. For eight days, hearings and markup 

 sessions dealt with a wide variety of areas, including air pollution, 

 water quality, water supply, solid wastes, pesticides, radiation, noise, 

 toxic substances and energy. Brown had a way of pressing forward in 

 a patiently determined fashion, yet convincing his more conservative 

 colleagues that he was a responsible legislator rather than a rabble- 

 rouser. His words always sounded like they weren't going to upset 

 any applecarts, yet when read in cold print they were downright 

 revolutionary in spirit. For example, in opening the EPA hearings, 

 Brown had a few choice remarks to shake the status quo, which were 

 delivered in a quiet manner, but which expressed advanced views: 



American business and industry understandably resists changes in established 

 methods of production and distribution proposed by environmentalists. 



Changes have frequently been expensive and inconvenient. With powerful eco- 

 nomic interests arrayed against change, environmentalists have found they cannot 

 rely upon presumptions or inferences of risk to the public health or welfare. They 

 must have facts. 



