January 28, 1965
1540
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if Senators will give me their attention for a moment, I shall explain the amendment.
Mr. President, my amendment would:
First. Eliminate the existing limitation of $600,000 for a single project or $2.4 million for a joint project involving several communities on grants for construction of waste treatment facilities. It would also authorize an across-the-board Federal contribution of 30 percent of the cost of constructing these facilities.
Second. Eliminate the existing requirement that half of all construction grant funds be used for municipalities of 125,000 people or less.
Third. Establish a more meaningful standard for the allocation of funds for construction of sewage treatment facilities in urban areas of need. The amendment would set up a standard based on the ratio of the urban population in one State to the urban population in all States, replacing the existing criterion based on per capita income. Such a standard would bring about a more equitable distribution of funds to highly populated areas where major water pollution problems exist.
Fourth. Authorize the Federal Government to subsequently reimburse States and municipalities that have spent their own funds for treatment facilities when a Federal construction grant, which has been approved, cannot be immediately allocated because of inadequate Federal funds.
I point out that this proposed new allocation standard is different from the present law, which makes 50 percent available on the basis of population ratio and 50 percent available on the per capita income ratio.
Mr. President, the reason for making these proposals is as follows:
The primary problems in water pollution in the United States are in areas of large concentrations of people. I understand the normal feeling of the Congress with respect to favoring the small places and the places of sparser population. But unfortunately that it not where the major problems reside. As the dangers of pollution exist far more pressingly in centers of population than they do in the less populated areas, it seems most ill advised -- and experience has demonstrated it -- to require mandatorily in the law, first, a distribution of the funds which does not bear a relation to the concentration of the problem and the need for Federal assistance, and secondly, dollar limitations on individual projects which limitations inhibit some of the largest and most meaningful projects that could be undertaken in the United States.
For example, my State of New York is prepared to undertake a $1 billion program, provided that certain limitations are removed, so that the Federal Government may contribute a straight 30 percent share, which in round figures would be approximately $513 million.
Therefore the amendment would be a meaningful contribution to the overall results which this bill, if enacted, could bring about. Yet efforts like New York's and those of many other States are inhibited by the restrictions which are imposed by the dollar limitations incorporated in the existing Federal law, and which prevent these States from shooting at the target, which is where the water is polluted; namely, in heavily populated areas.
A single pollution control project in the city of New York has cost $87.6 million. So we cannot even begin to think about meaningful attacks on the problem within the limitations of the present law.
However we may feel -- and, as I have said, I know the normal feeling which generally obtains; some Senators wish to be sure that the smaller communities get their share -- the fact is that on this question we would not be hitting at the complete problem.
I support the increase of the dollar limitations in this bill. But more can be done. Governor Rockefeller has pointed out the enormous scale of works which can be undertaken in our State if we are enabled to do it by a law which really directs itself at the fundamental target which is involved.
I realize that the proposal represents a very major and a very important orientation of the impact of the bill. So I have discussed the subject with the distinguished Senator in charge of the bill, and I hope very much that he will give us assurances that the subject will have the kind of detailed and earnest consideration and hearings by his subcommittee, within a very short time, which this matter deserves, now that we have brought the matter so sharply to the attention of the Senate and the country,
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, speaking for myself, and I believe for the other members of the subcommittee on both sides, we have assigned to the problem which the Senator has raised the highest possible priority. We intend to hold hearings during this session, and early enough so that we can get into thorough hearings on the question of the adequacy of the limitation on individual projects, on the allocations to the States, and on the overall authorization. What we are talking about, as I understand the Senator, is not only the question of how the present pie shall be divided, but how can we get a bigger pie to assure that we deal with the whole problem adequately.
The problems include not only those stated by the Senator, toward which I have the utmost sympathy, but also the problems related to the smaller communities in the cost of the projects.
For example, sewers are not eligible at all. Many times the cost of sewers is greater than the cost of the sewage treatment plant itself. The whole question of Federal aid in dealing with this problem financially is pertinent, I assure the Senator that I share with him the propriety and urgency that he has, and will press for early meetings. And I believe I am in a position to assure him that we will have such prompt hearings.
Mr. JAVITS. Is there any inhibition -- sometimes it is a kind of unwritten rule which is understood -- that the pending legislation (S. 4) is the only legislation that there will be in the anti-water-pollution field at the present session? Do we face any such inhibition, or is the committee virtually free to do whatever it, in its best judgment, deems desirable to be done with respect to this important program, notwithstanding the fact that we are now about to enact a set of amendments to the existing water pollution control law?
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot, of course, speak for the attitude of the other body or even the administration. The Senator understands that. But so far as the committee is concerned, the question is one of the highest priority. When we began hearings on S. 649, the present fiscal authorization was only 2 years old. So we had not had the experience to justify attempting that problem when we began.
The bill (S. 4) is merely a reintroduction of S. 649 in the form that it took.
We are now in the 4th year of that program. I think it is time that we should get into the questions which the Senator has raised. As the Senator knows, we have progressively increased the ceilings from $50,000 in the original bill to $600,000 in the 1961 amendments, and to $1 million in S. 4. Ten percent incentive for metropolitan areas would give an effective ceiling of $1.1 million, and on combined projects, $1.4 million. So I believe we have made a gesture in S. 4 that should give relief.
For example, in New York, the increase of $600,000 to the $1 million limit would have brought 17 of New York's projects up to the 30 percent ceiling if those ceilings had been in effect when application was made for assistance for those projects. So this has a meaningful relationship; but I believe we must open up the whole question and come forth with a meaningful answer. I assure the Senator from New York of my cooperation.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator from Maine. As it is very clear to me that this is an effective way to resolve the question in terms of getting the most mileage for the problems which our State has, on the basis of these assurances which the Senator from Maine has so graciously given us, I withdraw the amendment.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York withdraw his amendment?
Mr. JAVITS. I do.