October 10, 1967
Page 28349
THE NEED FOR MORE ADEQUATE FUNDING OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, last year the Senate passed a far reaching and critically important measure authorizing major Federal support for the construction of sewage treatment facilities. The Senate voted, on July 13, 1966, a pledge of $6 billion to assist the States and local government in the battle against water pollution.
Later, after a conference with the House, the Senate unanimously agreed to the Clean Water Restoration Act with an authorization of $3.4 billion for construction grants. Of those funds $450 million were authorized for fiscal year 1968, a reduction from our original $600 million authorization for fiscal year 1968. At the time of adoption of the conference report I apologized to my colleagues for not obtaining the full Senate authorization. But the conferees on the part of the Senate and of the House of Representatives agreed that the $450 million figure was an absolute minimum if the water quality program was to proceed with minimum delay.
It is evident that last year's authorization was in large part dictated by budgetary expediency, as it appeared at that time. Since then our international commitments have required a great deal of belt tightening and will require more. Many vital public programs are going to suffer and, candidly, our water pollution fight must share the burden of what the other body now refers to as "recission."
Mr. President, I seriously considered offering an amendment today to increase the water pollution construction grant appropriation to $450 million. But, after thorough review of the present economic and fiscal situation, I cannot in good conscience offer that amendment.
I have carefully surveyed this question among a majority of the members of this body as to their views on this same problem. Although there are several Senators who think we can justify the full $450 million appropriation, by and large, the consensus seems to be that the course of action I am about to spell out is the sensible one to follow. There are some Senators, including the junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], who had planned to offer amendments to appropriate the full $450 million. Upon reflection, they, and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], have agreed to join me in this course.
Fortunately, Mr. President, this year's appropriation need not be considered as a halt to the program. In last year's act, the Congress enacted a prefinancing provision which allows States which proceed to be reimbursed for the Federal share at such time as Congress appropriates essential funds for the program.
Though many States are not in a position to take advantage of this feature at the present time, several have indicated that they will move ahead on their own. I sincerely hope that the Congress does not default on this commitment.
In order that the record may be complete and so that my colleagues may fully comprehend the magnitude of our commitment, I would like to read from the statement of Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Commissioner James Quigley before the Senate Appropriations Committee do April 19 of this year. Mr. Quigley said:
At the present time there are 1,884 applications (for construction grants) being processed or being prepared with total eligible cost amounting to $13 billion . . .
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has since obtained a breakdown of grant applications being processed or prepared which should be transmitted to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration before the end of fiscal year 1968. The attached table fully indicates the magnitude of activity and the backlog with which the Federal Government will be confronted due to inadequate funding.
I ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. In order that my colleagues will be able to compare prospective demands with the allocation for their States, I would like to insert a table which indicates the State-by-State breakdown of: First, the budget request which was approved by the House; second, the amount approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee; and, third, the amount authorized last year by the Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that that table be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the States are moving ahead. Local communities are planning new waste treatment facilities. Federal water quality standards, now in effect, require secondary treatment as a minimum. All of this will increase costs.
Last year's legislation increased the Federal share of a waste treatment plant to a maximum 55 percent, under certain specified conditions. Several States now appear eligible for that maximum and more are moving, legislatively, to become eligible. In any event, the administration now assumes that the average Federal grant will approximate 40 percent. There no longer are dollar limitations on grants as there were prior to last year's bill. Therefore, if Mr. Quigley's statement is correct, the Federal share of $13 billion will approximate $5.2 billion now in the pipeline.
Mr. President, I summarize this information so that the Senate may be fully aware of the magnitude of the problem which confronts this Nation. I do not, however, intend to be critical of the job done by Senator ELLENDER and the Appropriations Committee. Under the most adverse conditions the able Senator from Louisiana has managed to obtain an increase over the budget request which the House has already accepted.
In a period of intensive pressure to cut the budget, water pollution control has received essential recognition by the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. President, I think it is important that I do not conclude on a distressing note. We all know the need for funds. We are all aware of the fact that the full authorization could be effectively used and, if some were to be left over, the slack would be quickly taken up as the program gains momentum.
I would, however, call attention to the fact that this legislation is not the final word on any public works matter just as other appropriation legislation pending and passed is not the final word. We do have, at the end of every session of Congress and soon after the beginning of every new session, supplemental appropriations requests. The concept behind supplemental requests is that demands, both peaceful and military, are not wholly predictable and that new needs develop or greater demands are made.
Early next year there will be such a supplemental appropriation. I sincerely hope that, at that time, the Public Works Appropriations Subcommittee will call officials from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration for the purpose of reviewing grant applications and available funds. It may be that it will be essential to appropriate additional funds to keep this vital program alive, and I would hope that the Congress would be more responsive at that time.
I have discussed this point with the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana, and it is on the basis of that discussion that I recommend this course of action to the Senate.
May I at this time, if the distinguished Senator from Louisiana will indulge me, put this question to him?
In the Senator's report accompanying the public works appropriation bill the following statement appears:
In view of the budgetary situation and the uncertainty of the actual need at this time, the committee recommended a token increase of $22 million to indicate its support for the program.
Prior to that statement, the report quotes Assistant Secretary Di Luzio as saying
We expect, therefore, that after a moderate start during the first and second quarters of fiscal year 1988, the equivalent rate of grant awards in the third and fourth quarters will be far greater, perhaps equivalent to an annual rate of $300 to $350 million.
On this basis does the Senator anticipate the subcommittee will give careful and sympathetic attention to a request for a supplemental appropriation for the sewage treatment construction grant program?
May I say that I have been joined in this request by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS], the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], and the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART].
Mr. ELLENDER. The response to the Senator's question is in the affirmative. In the meantime, I would suggest that the distinguished Senator from Maine try to get a budget estimate for whatever amount is required for construction grants in excess of the appropriation up to the full authorization of $450 million.
Mr. President, while I am on my feet, I wish to state that the distinguished Senator from Maine appeared and made a very valid argument for the full amount authorized, and presented splendid testimony, which would have justified the committee recommending the full amount. But it was argued that if the committee acceded to the request of the Senator from Maine, we would be bringing to the Senate a bill over the amount of the budget requests by more than $125 million, and an increase of $247,000,000 in the item for construction grants.
So, as the Senator stated, in order to show our interest in this program, the committee agreed to an increase of $22 million or about a 10 percent increase, making a total, included in the appropriation bill, of $225 million. I was glad that the committee agreed to that amount, and I believe the Senate as a whole will also agree to it. I hope that the Senator from Maine will be successful in getting a budget estimate; and if, as, and when the supplemental bill does come before the Senate, I shall do all I can to provide whatever is required up to the full amount of the authorization.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am grateful for that response from the Senator from Louisiana, which is typical of his generosity. All he is asking us to do is to make the case again after the first of the year, which is a reasonable request. We will make that case, as the facts dictate.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the statements I made on the two occasions I appeared before the Public Works Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, to be sure that our position will be clear in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, OF MAINE, BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, MAY 10, 1967
Earlier this year, when the Congress received the administration's proposed budget for 1968, I took the Senate floor to note that that document grossly underestimated the cost associated with the water pollution control needs of this country. At that time I committed myself to request an opportunity to appear before your committee to request that the full $450 million authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 for fiscal year 1968 be made available for waste treatment grants in 1968.
As you will recall, last year the Senate unanimously agreed to legislation which would have authorized $6 billion over a five year period for grants to construct waste treatment facilities. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the other body authorized considerably less money in their bill, the figure finally agreed to was $3.4 billion for a period of four years. This was below what our information indicated to be the national need. It was, in fact, a minimum figure.
The final figure of $450 million for 1968 represented a $150 million cut below the initial Senate recommendation. The Senate conferees knew, in accepting the lower figure, that it would be imperative that no less than $450 million be appropriated for fiscal 1968 to demonstrate to the States and their local units of Government that the Federal Government was fully prepared to keep the commitments set forth in the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Last year's action provided an incentive program designed to encourage the States to step up their own water improvement programs, by providing a portion of the cost of municipal waste treatment facilities and by establishing enforceable statewide water quality standards. The Federal share of any approved project's cost was set at a flat 30 percent without dollar limitations. This amount increases to 40 percent if the State provides 30 percent of the project's cost and to 50 percent if the State sets the aforementioned water quality standards and provides 25 percent of the project's cost. There was no change in the existing provision of the water pollution control act which provides for a 10 percent increase in the Federal grant if the project is consistent with a metropolitan area plan.
In essence, Mr. Chairman, this means that if a State takes maximum advantage of Federal incentives a waste treatment project could receive a Federal grant of 55 percent.
In order to accomplish the purpose for which the incentives are designed many States must enact water quality standards and matching grant legislation; some State legislatures are now in session. If we are to achieve the goal of encouraging maximum State activity, those State legislatures must be assured that the Federal Government intends to honor its commitments.
There is no doubt in my mind that their response will be somewhat less than wholehearted if the Congress leaves the budget request as it stands and inadequate funds are made available.
But there is more than just a psychological factor involved in justification for increasing the appropriation over the administration's request.
The allocation formula in existing raw is such that many states will not receive their full share under the Federal grant formula even if the full $450 million were to be appropriated.
Information supplied the committee indicates that $179,585,532 will be spent in 1968 in New York City alone. Therefore, even if all of New York's money were allocated to the city of New York, that city would receive only a little over 20 percent of its total cost. And in New York because the state provides a 30 percent matching grant the Federal share would be at least 40 percent. New York is also moving to establish enforceable state-wide water quality standards which would mean that New York City is potentially eligible for 50 percent of its costs.
Mayor Ralph Locher testified before the committee last year that it would cost the city of Cleveland $900 million to eliminate water pollution. Mayor Locher noted that this sum is the equivalent of 15 years of the city's general fund budget of $62 million. It is worth noting that the public health service reports that Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, is so polluted that it has become a fire hazard. The city has found it necessary to construct firebreaks out into the river to facilitate sectioning off the fires when they occur. There was a fire on the Maumee River, which flows through the neighboring city of Toledo, in March of 1962.
There are many other examples which are illustrative of the problem which the attached chart demonstrates. I would like to have the chart included in the record at this point. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have inserted in the record several letters which I have received from communities alarmed because of financial problems which will be caused by congressional concurrence in the administration's budget request.
A week ago this past, Sunday, the President announced the decision to go ahead with the supersonic transport, the SST, and recommended that $198 million be made available in fiscal year 1968 for this project. In the week prior to this announcement, in hearings before the House Committee on Public Works, the Secretary of the Interior and representatives of the Federal water pollution control administration justified the water pollution budget request on the basis of our international commitments.
Mr. Chairman, I have no philosophical objections to construction of a supersonic plane, but I cannot in good conscience accept a decision which suggests that we spend nearly $200 million next year to increase the rapidity by which one can go from Washington, D.C., on the polluted Potomac, to smog-ridden Los Angeles when at the same time a decision has been made that we cannot afford to take essential steps for the protection and enhancement of the quality of our environment.
I make this point, Mr. Chairman, to indicate my concern over what appears to be a case of putting short-term budgetary expediency ahead of public responsibility in the area of environmental quality, while at the same time making that budget flexible for a single-purpose transportation vehicle. If we can do one, we can do the other.
I do not believe that there is any question in the minds of the members of this body, those of us who voted 90-0 last year for a $6 billion water pollution program, that we must move rapidly to preserve, and in many instances to reclaim, the quality of the nation's rivers, lakes and streams.
But if there is any question I would like to quote from the statement of Mr. James M. Quigley, Commissioner, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, which was delivered to this committee on April 19.
On page 16 of Mr. Quigley's prepared text appears the following statement: "At the present time there are 1884 applications being processed or being prepared with total eligible cost amounting to $13 billion and requiring over $255 million in Federal grants, based on existing provisions. In contrast we have available $76 million for this purpose." That statement contains two important items. First, it tends to verify the information received by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution that there is a huge backlog of needed waste treatment facilities -- our estimate is somewhat in excess of $20 billion.
The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that that statement contains a little double talk. The $255 million figure stated as the federal share of that amount is not valid. As of July 1, 1967, there will be no dollar limitations on waste treatment projects. Those projects, if only eligible for the minimum 30 percent, would require $3.9 billion worth of Federal funds, and if eligible for the full 55 percent would require $7.1 billion.
According to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration the average grant will be approximately 40 percent. Therefore, I think we can assume that $13 billion worth of projects will cost the Federal Government no less than $5.2 billion. We are asking less than 10 percent of that amount this year.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Public Works, the Senate, and the House are unanimous in the belief that the Federal Government has an obligation to improve the water quality of this nation. I urge the Committee on Appropriations to take the next major step in seeing that we move as rapidly as possible down the road, toward achieving that goal.
TESTIMONY BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, OF MAINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION, BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, JULY 31, 1967, S. 126, U.S. CAPITOL
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear for the second time this year before your committee to discuss construction grant appropriations for the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
On the 18th day of July, the other body passed the bill now pending before this committee without improving on the request of the President for water pollution construction funds. There was an effort on the floor to reinstate the full $450 million authorized last year but that effort was to no avail. However, Mr. Chairman, a solid record of need was developed and many members of the other body gave evidence of their concern.
The inadequate request by the administration and the action by the House once again places a severe burden on the Senate to take the necessary steps to secure needed funds to carry forward this vital social program. Once again we are called upon to back up our actions with dollars.
Mr. Chairman, last year the Senate voted a $6 billion authorization for five years for water pollution control. That amount was pared by conference to an absolute minimum of $3.4 billion for four years. The conference action was accepted unanimously by both sides. Many words were spoken about the need and the obligation of the Congress to respond to that need. At that time I pledged that I would make every effort to see that that need did not go unmet.
Because of my pledge, I have been bombarded, during the past six months, with letters from cities, from counties and from States, appealing to me to work for improvement on the President's budget request. l want to assure this committee that I intend to honor that commitment. That is why I am here today and that is why I will continue to fight for appropriation of the full $450 million authorized for fiscal year 1968.
I recognize that the House committee based its recommendation on the 1967 rate of expenditures. That argument does not take into account the backlog of projects and proposals which were waiting for the new formulae which took effect July 1, 1967. I have previously detailed to this committee the reasons for appropriating the full authorization. The record of your hearing of May 10 adequately indicates the needs of the major cities of this country and how those needs relate to the inadequate recommendation of the administration.
I think it may be helpful to the committee if I recall part of my testimony from the May 10 hearing. At that time I said:
"I do not believe that there is any question in the minds of the Members of this body, those of us who voted 90-0 last year for a $6 billion water pollution program, that we must move rapidly to preserve, and in many instances to reclaim, the quality of the Nation's rivers, lakes and streams. But if there is any question I would like to quote from the statement of Mr. James M. Quigley, commissioner, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, which was delivered to this committee on April 19."
"On page 16 of Mr. Quigley's prepared text appears the following statement: At the present time there are 1884 applications being processed or being prepared with total eligible cost amounting to $13 billion and requiring over $255 million in Federal grants, based on existing provisions. In contrast we have available $76 million for this purpose.
"That statement contains two important items. First, it tends to verify the information received by the subcommittee on air and water pollution that there is a huge backlog of needed waste treatment facilities-our estimate is somewhat in excess o1 $20 billion.
"The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that that statement contains a little double talk. The $255 million figure stated as the Federal share of that amount is not valid. As of July 1, 1967, there will be no dollar limitations on waste treatment projects. Those projects, if only eligible for the minimum 30 percent, would require $3.9 billion worth of Federal funds, and if eligible for the full 55 percent would require $7.1 billion."
"According to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration the average grant will be approximately 40 percent. Therefore, I think we can assume that $13 billion worth of projects will cost the Federal Government no less than $5.2 billion. We are asking less than 10 percent of that amount this year."
I would like to cite three new and striking examples.
The first example involves the State of Louisiana. There are, at the present time, 43 sewage treatment construction grant requests for Louisiana communities for fiscal year 1968 in the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency Regional Office, in the State agency or in preparation at the local level. The 43 project requests would require Federal grants totaling $8,887,595. If the House passed appropriation stands, Louisiana would have available from FY 1968 allocations and the balance from its FY 1967 allocation $4,181,600, or less than 50 percent of its needs. A full appropriation of $450,000,000 for this program would allow a FY 1968 allocation of $8,289,300 for Louisiana which, when added to the FY 1967 balance, would make available $8,661,100 for the Louisiana projects.
The second example relates to the State of Oregon.
Earlier this month I received a copy of a letter written to Representative Al Ullman from the Oregon State Sanitary Authority. I would like to insert that letter in the record at this point and highlight the important points:
1. Oregon has enacted legislation enabling that State to receive incentive grants for projects constructed within that State, in some instances such grants to be as high as 55 percent.
2. Oregon is eligible in 1968, under the administration request, for $2,262,550 and, under the authorized amount, $4,695,000. The State Pollution Control Authority has processed grants for FY 1968 which will require $14,324,788 of Federal funds. And the State of Oregon is prepared to put up $7,461,738.
3. The very best Oregon can hope to do, even if the full amount authorized is appropriated, would be nearly $10 million short of their authorized share under the new grant formulae.
My third example, Mr. Chairman, is that of my own state of Maine. Just this past week I was informed that Maine's request for grants for FY 1968 would require $4.5 million in Federal funds if the Federal commitment were implemented in accordance with the matching grant formulae. Under the President's request Maine would be eligible for only $1,785,950 and, under the authorized amount, only $3,118,950. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Maine will be prepared in fiscal year 1968 to spend at a level for which Federal grant funds will not be available until 1969.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart containing additional examples be inserted in the RECORD at this point.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 16 states (including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) have authorized programs which will make them eligible for the incentive assistance provided in the Clean Water Restoration Act, and 13 other states have legislation pending which would make them eligible also.
I doubt that any of these States will have grant requests less than their allocation. All of the States are now required to meet water quality standards which were filed on July 1 of this year. Also I am reliably informed that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is receiving grant applications at a phenomenal rate due to the elimination of the dollar ceilings as of July 1, 1967.
More is involved than the relationship between the grant requests and available funds, Mr. Chairman. In 1965 and 1966 the Congress, and particularly the Senate, served notice on States, local governments and private businesses to accelerate the rate of pollution control and abatement. Time after time we were challenged by witnesses on the question: Will funds be available from the Federal Government if we do our share? The States and localities are gearing up to do their share, Mr. Chairman. If we do not make available the funds authorized in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, serious doubts will be raised as to our intentions in making good our pledge to the country. A serious blow will be delivered to this program, which is vital to the health and welfare of our country.
In light of all of these factors, I strongly urge you to include, in this appropriation bill, the full $450 million authorized for 1968.