~-
-
GUEST EDITORIAL Interference at EPA The laws we in Congress intend are not a1waj.s thc 1au.s we get. In 1970 the Senate Committee on Government Opcrations held a hearing on President Kixon's reorganization plan to create ;I separate environmental agency. I testified in defense of the plan. which closely resembled legislation I introduced that same year. '' R e m ov i n g e nv i r o n m c n t a 1 reg u I a t or y authority from promotional agencies . . . is the primary importance of the President's reorganization plan," I testified. "At the same time, concentrating environmental protection programs in one independent agency should give our environmental qualitj, efforts a measure of 5 t ;Ibi 1 i t y a nd coord i n a t ion they have never k now n . '' Now. the uell-meaning but misguided assault o n the Environnient;il Protection Agency b j the President's inflation fighters has called into question both the independence of the agency and the regulatory stabilitj, it has offered. The White House has promoted its war on inflation bq, direct contact, memoranda. phone calls, letters, and onc-man economic reviews. There have been conflicting stories as to their success. But there can be little doubt that when high-level White House advisers appear at a meeting where regulations arc being drafted--and they have appea red a t such nicetin gs- bu rea ucr a t s \v i I I no t 111 istake their intent. The recent change in the EPA standard for ozone brings into question just how independent the process renllq, is. The Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to set anibicnt air quality standards to protect "public health and ne1f;ire." Nowhere does the law say that economic factors should be considered. In fact, economic factors were consciously c.\-cIirdrd by the Congress after long and a go n i z i n g co ri s id e ra t i on. Twelve separate times after the close of the public comment period 011 the proposed revision to the ozone s t ;I nda rd, however, Whit e House economists con-
tacted EPA staff responsible for developing the regu I a t ion s. EPA Administrator Douglas Costle did raise the wont standard. I t is not as high as White House econ om i s t s wanted , but it is d i f fi cu 1 t to i ni ag i ne t hat their views were not felt. I ani not naive enough to believe that any regulation can be developed in a vacuuni, without political pressure. Indeed, the President should have influence over his agencies and what they produce. On the other hand, there are ample avenues for a President to put his mark on the output of a regulatory agency without his executive staff flirting with possibly illegal pressure t ;i c t i cs. There ought to be more respect for proce entia1 White House economists have been given access to regulatory decisionmakers at critical times in the process. N o notes or minutes are available. Divergent viehs ;ire excluded. The public is not allowed to know \v h ;I t t r;i ns pi red. I f voluntary restraints or guidelines for administrative intervention are not included in the Adniinistration's regulatory reform proposals. a n alternative might be to make EPA a t r u l y independent to the Federal Trade Conimission. ~igericj-~--sitiiilar Maybe then, ten years after we first discussed the creation of a n Environmental Protection Agency, we might get what we had asked for.
Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D, M P . )is C'hciirmun qf the Subcornniitree on Enrironnirnrcil Pollurion. He M u y instrirt?imfcil in setting tdp the E P A , nr7d i n rhr d r f i i n g t r t d possagt. uf thr C(eati Air and C'[eari Water Acts.
Volume 13, Number 5, May 1979
501
