NAT1 KA! Risen R( ES AND Illl 1 W1ROXMENT 



967 



uninterrupted, long-term research characterized by continuity and 

 stable funding." 



In 19~6, the subcommittee decided not to become as actively 

 involved in the ERDA environment and safety authorization as in 

 1975- One brief hearing was held, alter which the subcommittee 

 endorsed the recommendations of the Hechler and McCormack sub- 

 committees in the areas of environment and safety. However, the 

 subcommittee did call attention to the need for better coordination 

 between ERDA and EPA on environmental issues. 



EPA SUDDENLY BECOMES UNPOPULAR 



The EPA authorization in 1976 proved to be far more controversial. 

 OMB slashed EPA's budget by $42 million, down to a level of $240.4 

 million. The Brow-n subcommittee voted modest increases of $16.6 

 million in several research areas, including airborne carcinogens, acid 

 rain, oxidant and sulfate transport, and water quality research. Brown 

 and Winn successfully cosponsored an amendment in subcommittee 

 which improved the coordination of environmental research in various 

 Federal agencies. But a buzz saw awaited the EPA authorization bill 

 when it reached the House floor on May 4, 1976. This was just about 

 the time the subcommittee was engaged in an investigation of charges 

 that EPA had falsified or misused data on the adverse effects of air 

 pollution (see chapter XV). Goldwater used the EPA authorization 

 debate as a sounding board to air these charges. Ketchum stirred a 

 lot of support for his amendment to require the EPA Administrator 

 to furnish Congress with every proposed rule and regulation, giving 

 Congress the chance to disapprove such regulations within 60 days. 

 In opposing the Ketchum amendment, Brown told the House: 



I rise with some reluctance because I recognize the popular sentiment which 

 exists today with regard to the need to control the excesses of the bureaucratic 

 machine which is identified with Washington. * * * The proper course to follow, 

 it seems to me, if we are dissatisfied by the procedures followed by the executive 

 branch is to revise the Administrative Procedures Act to make sure that there is 

 adequate input from all members of the public, and of the special interest groups that 

 are concerned and even from Members of Congress who may have a concern. But 

 to take it upon ourselves to assume the responsibility of reviewing the tremendous 

 mass of data put out in the rules and regulations of the executive branch in advance 

 of their promulgation is not the way to legislate. 



But the tide of opposition to bureaucratic rules and regulations 

 was running too strong, and Ketchum's amendment was adopted by 

 a rollcall vote of 228 to 167. The amendment was so popular that it 

 attracted the support of a large number of committee members, 

 including Blouin, Fuqua, Symington, Roe, Milford, Harkin, Lloyd 

 of California, Lloyd of Tennessee, Blanchard, Wirth, Jarman, Wydler, 

 Winn, Frey, Goldwater, Conlan, Esch, Emery, and Pressler. 



