January 28, 1965
PAGE 1518
TOWER AMENDMENT TO S.4, THE CLEAN WATER BILL
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the interesting aspect of the chore that I have had for almost 2 years in dealing with this bill and the arguments against it is that I am often in the position of trying to explain what the bill is and how irrelevant the arguments against the bill are, before I can proceed to deal with the arguments advanced against the bill.
I am interested in the argument of the Senator from Kentucky that the bill gives the Secretary vast powers that are greater than the power given to any of official of the Federal Government.
This is a form of exaggerated statement that does not stand up. I can illustrate that by referring to the Secretary's power in this very field. It is a power that was considered at the hearings.
That is the power of the Secretary to absolutely prohibit from shipment in interstate commerce shellfish which the Public Health Service finds deleterious to health. This is an absolute prohibition which can put a man out of business, as it has done in my State, in the case of the clam diggers and shellfish harvesters along the coast of Maine. There is no recourse whatsoever to the Federal Government for protection against that type of calamity.
The statement of the Senator from Kentucky that the powers asked for on behalf of the Secretary are greater than any powers now existing does not stand up. I am sure that the Senator would agree with me if he were to give the subject further thought.
The proposal presented to us by the Senator from Texas is very interesting. He is saying that the Senate, rather than accept the recommendation of its own committee -- a recommendation sponsored by all members of the subcommittee, dealing with the subject, Republicans and Democrats, and reported by the Subcommittee on Water Pollution -- should accept the recommendation of a House committee, not of this Congress, but of the previous Congress.
It is a recommendation that the House itself never acted upon.
The Senator from Texas is asking us to accept this proposal, not only against the recommendation of our own committee, but also against the action of the Senate itself in October 1963 when it passed this bill, and particularly this section, in almost exactly the same form by a vote of 69 to 11, with 15 Senators not voting, but expressing their favorable position on it.
We are asked to take the position that this vehicle of the House committee, never acted upon by the House, should be given that weight in the Senate merely because the action of the Senate as a whole was rejected.
I have never found that the Senate was willing to concede its own prerogatives in any time past, and I doubt that it will concede its own prerogatives now.
The substitute offered by the Senator from Texas differs from the Senate bill in one important respect, which I think is at the heart of his proposition. That is with respect to the water quality standard section of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such additional time as I may require.
The House bill, for all practical purposes, eliminates any power of the Secretary to establish water quality standards on interstate streams, and substitutes for it the dubious right to make recommendations for standards of water quality.
Under the House bill, the Secretary could not even make recommendations on standards under the provisions of the present law, prior to such time as an enforcement action is begun by a conference. If he should undertake to give consideration to an interstate waterway, in which case he thought a little preventive medicine might avoid a great deal of economic hardship -- which is the position now taken by industries and communities -- if he should feel that he ought to recommend certain standards of water quality which may apply to preventive measures to the interstate or State agencies involved, under the House version of the bill, he could not make recommendations to anybody. So in the House bill, he is not even given full and clear authority to recommend standards.
On page 22 of the proposed substitute, there is this interesting language:
No standard of water quality recommended by the Secretary under this subsection shall be enforced under this Act unless such standard shall have been adopted by the Governor of the State Water Pollution Control Agency of each affected State.
That language, "each affected State" means not only the State being injured, but the State doing the injury. Is it conceivable that in this type of situation, the Governor of a downstream State which has been injured by its pollution would seemingly accept such a standard if pressures were brought to bear upon him within his own State, by industrial polluters of the waterway, not to accept such standards? Is it conceivable that a Governor or a legislature which had found it impossible to generate a public policy or program within its own State to deal with that situation would willingly accept the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in such circumstances? I doubt it.
It has not happened before. It is because it has not happened before and because these problems have accelerated and accumulated, that it is before the Senate today. It is because it has not been done before that the bill passed the Senate 2 years ago. And it is because it has not happened before that the need has been so clearly recognized by so many people, many of whom I have referred to already in my remarks today.
Mr. President, I shall sum up with one or two observations about S. 4 on the question of water quality standards.
The standards would be pertinent in two different kinds of situations. One situation would be one in which already there is pollution which endangers the health or welfare of any person. I use that language because that language is found in the present law, which gives the Secretary the right to move into such situations without any standards whatsoever. The proposed standards in that kind of situation would be a warning to people, in advance of enforcement proceedings, that there was a situation requiring corrective action.
The other kind of situation in which water quality standards would be needed is a situation in which there is no pollution at the present time but in which a little preventive medicine is called for, not only in the interest of those who like to use water for recreation, or for drinking, or for water skiing, but in the interest of industry. There have been instances in my State in which we could not allow an industry to settle on the banks of a stream because there was no more oxygen left in the stream. So it would serve the industrial health of that community to have water quality standards established to avoid the expenditure of that oxygen so that the water will be available not only for recreation, but for industry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. For those reasons, which could be expanded ad infinitum, I urge the rejection of the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I should first like to comment on the contention of my friend, the Senator from Maine, that we should accept the work of the Senate committee and reject that of the House committee. I recall reading of an incident which occurred when Mr. Thomas Jefferson returned from France after the Constitution had been framed. He called on George Washington. They were having a cup of coffee. He said to Mr. Washington, "Tell me, Mr. Washington, why do you have a bicameral Congress?" Mr. Washington said to Mr. Jefferson, "Why are you pouring coffee from your cup into your saucer?" Mr. Jefferson said, "To cool it." Mr. Washington said, "That is why we have a bicameral Legislature. We pour legislation from one Chamber to the other to cool it."
The proposed legislation certainly needs cooling. I am not disparaging the work of my friend, the Senator from Maine, whom I hold in high esteem. It is with great trepidation that I take him on, because he is skillful, he has great knowledge, and he has worked zealously to accomplish a very desirable goal.
It appears that the States and State agencies are willing to take their chances in a mutual veto arrangement. Those agencies which opposed the measure, who either appeared or filed statements, include the Delaware Water Pollution Commission, the Texas Water Pollution Control Board, the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board, the American Association of Professors of Sanitary Engineering -- some of these are not State agencies -- the Florida State Board of Health, the Kansas Department of Health, the State of New York Water Resources Commission, the Kentucky State Water Pollution Control Commission, the Kentucky Department of Health, the North Carolina State Stream Sanitation Committee, the Pennsylvania State Health Department, the Governor of Maryland, the Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission, the California Water Pollution Control Association, the Maine Water Improvement commission -- the agency from the Senator's own State testified in opposition to the bill -- the Oklahoma State Department of Health, and the Oregon State Board of Health.
I could continue and include agencies from Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and many other States.
I should like to read into the RECORD at this time a statement made by the Governor of Texas, Hon. John Connally, at the County Judges and Commissioners Association conference held at Corpus Christi on October 5, 1964, which I think typifies the attitude of responsible and forward-looking State governments:
One point I want to make clear: Texas is going to determine its own destiny in the development of its water resources. These goals will not be realized by chance nor by blind dependence upon the wisdom of the Federal agencies. We must accept our own responsibilities.
I reject the notion that State governments and State agencies are going to be irresponsible or incompetent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. TOWER. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
I reject the notion that State governments and agencies are going to be less competent and fail to recognize that water pollution problems exist; or that they are going to be more loath and reluctant to do something about it.
It is time to stop downgrading State officials and governments. We have in America today some of the best State of officials we have ever had, even though most of the Governors are Democratic. I am willing to leave it to them to take care of this problem. This power should be left in the States, rather than in the hands of a single man or administration.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Texas referred to Maine. The Governor has his own water pollution committee. I do not yield to the Senator, despite the differences in our views, in my appreciation of the very great need of strong local and State government actions. I have served at all levels of State government. I have served in the legislative branch in two levels and the executive branch in two levels.
One of our efforts has been to create every opportunity for the exercise of initiative and for the discharge of responsibility, for the acceptance of the burden involved in the problem, by State and local governments. Over and over again, in the enforcement procedure, in the procedure for setting standards, our State and local governments and interstate agencies have been given an opportunity to come in and do the job.
Just as the Federal Government, in its vast bureaucracy, includes people who are not as wise or as responsible as they ought to be, or who do not always meet the requirements of the public interest as they should, so on the local and State levels is that true. Neither has a monopoly on virtue, ability, or regard for the public interest.
What we have tried to do in this bill and I think we have succeeded, certainly to the satisfaction of the Republican Members, as well as the Democratic Members, on the subcommittee, is to achieve a cooperative partnership among the State, local, and Federal governments in dealing with a problem that is not only a State and local problem, but a national problem.
The substitute recommended by the Senator from Texas would be a step backward from this objective in that, even with respect to making recommendations, the proposed substitute would dilute the power that the Secretary has under existing law.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
The result was announced -- yeas 15, nays 62, as follows:
[Roll Call Vote List Omitted]
So Mr. TOWER's amendment was rejected.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.