Interview by Microwave News with Congressman George Brown

As chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, Rep. George Brown (D-CA) has played a leading role in setting federal electromagnetic (EMF) research funding. IN 1990, at his initiative, Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) $750,000; in 1991 his legislation led to a $1.94 million EPA EMF research budget. Late in 1991, Brown and Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY) introduced H.R.3953, the National Electromagnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination Act. The bill would provide $70 million over ten years—$60 million for research and $10 million for public information—to be paid for jointly with federal and private funds (see MWN, N/D91). Microwave News spoke with Brown by telephone in mid-January.

Microwave News: Some people were surprised that in your legislation you named the Department of Energy (DOE) rather than the EPA as the lead agency.

Brown: We made that decision in an effort to cooperate with the [Bush] administration.

MWN: Did you have a specific request from the administration?`

Brown: The DOE had met with us and we were presented with a fait accompli.

MWN: Do you still foresee a large role for EPA in this?

Brown: Yes, we feel that EPA will have a role. There are going to be many agencies that will all be part of this and they will be equals with the DOE in providing coordination.

MWN: In the statement of introduction for your legislation, you expressed dismay with the way the DOE was designated the lead agency.

Brown: Right. I would have preferred EPA myself. We’re not sure that it will be carried out properly [by the DOE] at this point.

MWN: Can you explain that a little more?

Brown: Well, we’re going to try to keep it within the purview of the people most concerned with health and the environment.

MWN: Your legislation puts the lead authority in DOE’s Office of Health and Environment rather than the Office of Conservation and Renewable Resources (OCRR). Is that out of concern—as some DOE officials have expressed—that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest in OCRR because it is charged with promoting the electric power industry?

Brown: That’s one of the concerns. Frankly, our main concern is with having an effective operation over at [DOE]. We have struggled with bureaucratic controversies for many, many years, and there isn’t any good way to resolve them. What we hope to do is to establish some system and to provide considerable oversight.

MWN: You also expressed concern that the DOE was designated lead agency in appropriations report language.

Brown: We feel very strongly about that.

MWN: Do you intend to try to pursue how that happened in this particular case? I know you have a broader concern with that as chairman of an authorization committee.

Brown: We are actively pursuing ways to get the Appropriations Committee to stop making policy. We will seek to eliminate [the appropriations language] and replace it with authorization language. [W]e haven’t passed an energy authorizations bill in God knows how long.

MWN: You had talked about he need for more Congressional oversight. Do you see Congress becoming more involved in federal EMF research?

Brown: Yes, I think so. Obviously, I have difficulty speaking for other committees. In our case, we have engaged in the most vigorous oversight program this committee has ever had. We intend to continue that, and we intend to reassert our authorizing legislation as promptly as possible. But we intend to do that by working with the other committees which have some claim to overlapping jurisdiction. We’re not trying to carve out the issue to ourselves or to fight with the other committees.

MWN: Your bill calls for $60 million over ten years for research, or about $6 million a year. What would you like to see accomplished?

Brown: Well, within ten years we ought to be able to get a fairly definitive understanding of whether there are adverse biological effects at any particular level of EMF. I suspect that as with most situations, conditions hold in which there could be adverse health effects and we need to find that out in various circumstances. I see no reason why we can’t achieve that kind of information within ten years.

MWN: Your bill uses a public-private funding mechanism.

Brown: Various industry groups have suggested that they feel that this is what we need to get a vigorous program that would still have the confidence of the public.

MWN: Do you feel that’s a reasonable way to go?

Brown: Absolutely. The way the legislation sets the program up, the public agencies are in control but there are strong advisory committee and private industry connections in the process.

MWN: Do you see a role, as others do, for groups such as the National EMF Research Program (NERP) or the Health Effects Institute (HEI)?

Brown: It could easily be, because there is ample room for any other nonpublic organization to be involved here in one way or another.

MWN: Would you be comfortable with some of the $60 million being given to the NERP or HEI?

Brown: I would have no problems with it. The bill provides mechanisms in which we can ascertain whether there are conflicts of interest or other things of that sort.

MWN: Could some of the federal funds go to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for, say, mitigation research?

Brown: I wouldn’t object. I would assume that that kind of research would be done. In terms of funding, EPRI and some of the other private groups are proposing to contribute to the federal effort. So I’m not sure which way the money would go.

MWN: You are chair of a committee that is going to play a major role—as you say, you are not the only committee—

Brown: No, we’re not the only committee…and we intend to cooperate with the [House Energy and] Commerce Committee.

MWN: Where do you rank this issue among other issues before your committee?

Brown: I do not rate it all that high. It certainly does not rate as high as the public interest in toxic waste or in radioactive hazards, or some things like that. I rate it down around the third or fourth tier of public concern, but one that may be rapidly increasing. And this is what we have to try to anticipate. Some of the members of Congress are under very strong pressure from constituency groups to do something about it. We don’t want this to get out of hand, and the Congress to be accused of mostly reacting.

MWN: What kind of information program do you intend to fund with your legislation?

Brown: We’re not in a PR game here. What we want to do is to set up mechanisms by which there is adequate transmission of research results and analytic findings and policy implications to key people in the public and [to] public interest groups that have a concern about this issue.

MWN: What are your bill’s prospects in this session?

Brown: Well, this type of bill is not one that should cause us too many headaches it has industry support; it has strong support among the members of Congress who are involved with this issue, which is not necessarily all that large a number. But I know of no organized opposition to it, so that means we ought to be able to move ahead. And the arguments about it will be over the sort of details that you raised: Who’s going to carry it out? Who spends the money? And so on [T]he money is already flowing under slightly different conditions my anticipation is that we’ll have this bill enacted this year.

MWN: Is it your hope that you will be able to get enough response from your hearing in March to develop some sort of consensus for your legislation?

Brown: Yes. Out of that hearing—I think not one hearing, we can always have a couple of short ones—I think we’ll be able to go ahead with the markup of the bill and get it moving.

MWN: Are you planning to seek a Senate sponsor?

Brown: We’ll get a Senate sponsor.

MWN: Let me jump to another issue, white House involvement in this issue. What’s your knowledge of, or your dealings with, the administration on this?

Brown: I’ve spoken to the White House Science Advisor, Dr. [Allan] Bromley. He is the one who took upon himself the responsibility to make sure that the EPA report was not too flamboyant or likely to excite unnecessary public reaction [see MWN, M/A90 and N/D90].

MWN: Was Bromley’s role appropriate?

Brown: Well, I was worried about it at the time, because I don’t like to have the White House interfering with the peer-review process within the agencies, and I thought that was going along all right. I talked to Bromley about it, and he assured me that it was not his intention to interfere with the legitimate review process, but that he did have a broader concern. I think he acted quite properly…

MWN: Do you hear about EMFs when you’re back in your district?

Brown: Yes. There are strong interests in southern California. There has been one program at the University of California—sort of in the nature of a public education program on the hazards of EMF—and some of the best research on EMF is being done at the Veterans Hospital [in Loma Linda] in my district.

MWN: Do you foresee a situation in which utilities are routinely going to have trouble siting power lines?

Brown: They already are, but for other reasons. There’s a host of reasons—aesthetic, environmental, what have you, that cause power lines to have trouble. And I expect that will continue… On the other hand, the utilities are being much more perceptive when it comes to siting. I think that, on balance, they’ll be able to do all right.

MWN: What’s it going to take to get the federal government moving forward on this issue?

Brown: The federal government, at a low level, through the DOE, has been working on this for years. This is just what I would describe as a reasonable next-step expansion of an ongoing program, and [there’s] nothing dramatic or startling about it in my opinion. We need to be more perceptive and anticipatory in a number of areas, and this is setting a good example for it.

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM “MICROWAVE NEWS”, NEW YORK, NY