CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
July 10, 1968
Page 20463
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 3206) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, relating to the construction of waste treatment works, and to the conduct of water pollution control research, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, S. 3206 is intended to stimulate construction of water pollution treatment facilities and, more importantly, to honor the commitment made by the Congress in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966.
That legislation amended section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for a vastly increased program of Federal assistance for municipal waste treatment plant construction from a $150 million authorization for fiscal year 1967 to $450 million for 1968, $700 million for 1969, $1 billion for 1970, and $1.25 billion for 1971. The 1966 law eliminated the dollar ceilings on single and multi-municipal projects, permitting a full 30-percent Federal contribution to eligible projects, regardless of size and increased the maximum grant to as high as 55 percent under certain circumstances.
The expected level of Federal assistance is critical to the attainment of the water quality standards being established under the Water Quality Act of 1965. But, a serious loss of momentum in the clean water drive is in prospect.
The administration sought and Congress appropriated only $203 million of the $450 million authorized for fiscal year 1968. Only $225 million of the $700 million authorized for fiscal year 1969 was requested, and House action on the public works appropriation bill reduced this to $203 million. If conditions do not change to permit full implementation of the program in the years immediately ahead, it is doubtful that we can overcome the backlog of needed waste treatment facilities and finance the construction required to keep up with population growth, plant obsolescence, and higher water quality requirements.
The total amount of Federal grant funds required to meet the applications presently in process is about $1.4 billion, for projects having a total cost of about $3.1 billion. As of April 30, 1968, 2,171 projects had been approved but not completed. These projects have a total cost of about $1.92 billion, with grant assistance totaling $452 million. In addition, the amount of Federal grant funds necessary to fully fund pending projects eligible for reimbursement would be approximately $342 million.
As of July 1, 1968, 40 States and other jurisdictions had received approval of water quality standards. To meet these standards will require an increasing investment in sewage treatment works. They also require the meeting of schedules of compliance. Failure to comply could result in future enforcement actions. The committee does not want the States and localities to use the failure of the Federal Government to meet its commitment as a reason for not moving forward to construct waste treatment works in compliance with these schedules. S. 3206 will enable us to meet this commitment and avoid this possibility.
The intent of the proposed legislation is to permit communities to finance the Federal share of the cost of waste treatment with repayment assured from the Federal Government.
The present provisions of the act include a reimbursement provision added in 1966. That feature, unlike this bill, does not provide any assurance to a State or local community of a reimbursement of the Federal share of costs it incurs in constructing treatment works. As a matter of fact, the reimbursement provision is only available from funds appropriated and allotted through June 30, 1971, and specifically provides that the approval of a project does not commit or obligate the United States to make a reimbursement from these funds.
Accordingly, with the addition of the new contract provision, as amended by an amendment I propose to offer at the initiative of the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], the bill suspends the reimbursement provision whenever Congress approves contract authority equal to the difference between funds appropriated for grants and the authorized level of appropriations. Projects otherwise eligible for reimbursement under section a (c) of the act would not be affected by this suspension -- that is, projects which the Secretary finds, prior to suspension of this provision, meet the requirements of section 8 will continue to be eligible for reimbursement from funds appropriated to make grants under subsection 8(b) through fiscal year 1971.
The committee believes that, despite the acceptance of the existing reimbursement provision, greater progress can be achieved in the construction of waste treatment works by giving to the States and localities a guarantee that the Federal share of the cost will be paid and by making funds available at the authorized level.
The Secretary, after the enactment of appropriation acts for each fiscal year1969, 1970, and 1971 -- which will establish the total sums available for contract grants, will allot the total contract amount by population among the several States. The total contract amount cannot exceed the difference between the sum authorized for grants in a fiscal year and the sum actually appropriated therefor.
S. 3206 would limit the total amount of contract and grant authority to $700 million in fiscal year 1969, $1 billion in fiscal year 1970, and $1.25 billion in fiscal year 1971. That is, the Secretary could enter into contracts for an amount, in any of these 3 fiscal years, that represented the authorized amount minus the actual amount appropriated. It must be emphasized that this is the authorization authority; the actual limits on contract authority will be established in appropriation acts.
For example, the available contract amount in fiscal year 1969 would be the difference between $700 million, the sum authorized, and $225 million, the sum recommended by the President, should the latter sum be appropriated. Once allotted, the Secretary may then enter into contracts with the States or local communities aggregating in that amount.
The contract would obligate the United States to pay, over a maximum period of 30 years, the grant covering the Federal share of the project cost. The contract would be subject to the same percentage limits as are now applicable to direct grants and would be available to pay the Federal share of the construction of the treatment works as defined in section 8(e) of the act. It does not include the interest on any obligations issued by the State or local community to finance the construction of the works.
Before entering into the contract, the Secretary must be satisfied that the works meet the requirements of section 8(c), relating to State approval, priorities, and comprehensive plans.
Mr. President, I have summarized the substantive provisions of S. 3206. Two provisions which I have not discussed require amplification.
As previously indicated, the Secretary is authorized to pay a grant for a period of not more than 30 years. The committee intends that these payments be on an annual basis. The Secretary is given flexibility on the length of a contract primarily to accommodate the contracting party which, because of the method of financing used, may not wish to utilize the full period allowed for repayment.
The second provision which requires discussion is subsection (f) (4) which states: Each contract shall include such reasonable terms and conditions as the Secretary deems appropriate.
This language is included to provide the Secretary with necessary authority to enter into a legally enforceable contract. It is not and cannot be interpreted as providing the Secretary with authority to require user charges, taxable bonds and other matters which were included in the administration proposal.
"Reasonable terms and conditions" may include such provisions as first, assurance of proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the project; second, assurance that the project is in conformity with the State water pollution control plan; third, assurance that the remaining cost of the project will be paid; and, fourth, assurance that the project is in conformity with subsection 8(c) of the act.
For the Secretary to go beyond these limits would not be consistent with congressional intent.
Mr. President, in order to fully explain the measure presently pending before the Senate I would like to discuss the original administration bill, its provisions and why some of those provisions are not a part of the committee bill.
As proposed by the administration, S. 3206 required communities entering into contracts with the Secretary to sell taxable securities to finance a project's cost. The committee does not believe that the water pollution control effort will be assisted by involving it in the continuing controversy between the Treasury Department and State and local governments regarding taxation on municipal securities.
The committee is primarily interested in moving ahead with effective pollution control programs and, while interested in evaluating alternative financing methods, believes that further consideration by this committee of the taxable bond question this year will not be productive. However, the committee recommends a review of this area in consultation with State and local government, concerned Federal agencies and the banking community to determine if a unified policy can be developed.
S. 3206 as proposed by the administration contained a number of changes in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. While the committee realizes that many of these recommendations merit consideration, it felt that they would not be appropriate within the context of a financing bill. Most of these changes are aimed at the entire water pollution control program, and should be considered within an overall review of that program which the committee will undertake next year. The critical problem at present is to stimulate an increase in construction of treatment plants so that the momentum created by water quality standards is not lost.
The administration bill proposed that the treatment works must serve an area of more than 125,000 persons, or a standard metropolitan statistical area. The Department of the Interior pointed out that 96 percent of construction grants and 87 percent of funds, since the inception of the program went to cities of under 125,000. Ninety-two percent of construction grants and 76 percent of grant funds went to communities under 50,000.
It is clear that cities have not participated in this program to the same extent as smaller communities, in part because of project dollar ceilings of $1.2 million for individual projects and $4.8 million for multi-community projects which prevailed prior to the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. The committee believes that more emphasis should be given to meeting the needs of our larger communities. It believes, however, that this can be done within the context of improving the methods for establishing priorities which should result from the water quality standards program. Moreover, the committee believes that elimination of the project dollar ceilings coupled with the history of construction in smaller communities will inevitably cause a shift of funds toward the larger communities.
The administration bill contained a mandatory requirement for the establishment of sewer service charges justified on the basis that: First, sewer charges equitably place the cost of this utility service on the user; second, pressures on statutory debt limits are eased, freeing up those sources of funds for schools, roads, and other public purposes; third, sewage treatment service is placed on a businesslike basis, allowing for improvements and proper maintenance of the system; and fourth, industrial and commercial enterprises are encouraged to manage their wastes more effectively, thus potentially reducing the size of the treatment facility required.
The committee was sympathetic to the need to establish a rational method of financing treatment facilities, but the committee does not believe this should be limited to a new method of financing, since it is related to the entire water pollution control program. Because of the importance of the subject, however, the committee requests that the Department of the Interior, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, submit a report by January 1, 1969, on the current practices of communities employing user charges, the advantages and disadvantages of this method of financing, the possibilities of regional treatment facilities for both municipal and industrial wastes on a charge basis, and other relevant factors.
The administration proposed that the allotment provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act not apply to this program. They proposed, instead, that the Secretary of the Interior allocate priorities according to criteria developed by him.
The committee realizes that there may be a need to look more closely at the current allotment formula. For example, the "Cost of Clean Water" report indicated that two-thirds of the need for new facilities to eliminate the current backlog is concentrated in 10 States which account for one-half the total urban population. The allotment for those States is only about 35 percent of the total available. Nevertheless, the committee is hesitant to shift to a new allotment and priority system at this time considering the urgent need to stimulate construction now. Hearings next year will provide an opportunity to review this area and determine whether changes in the allotment or re-allotment formula are necessary.
The committee wishes to make it clear that it expects the Department of the Interior to work closely with the States in the development of project priorities. Section 8(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires that no grant shall be made by the Secretary "unless such project is included in a comprehensive program developed pursuant to this act." These comprehensive plans should serve as a basis for thoughtful plans to implement water quality standards. This effort must be intensified this year and in the years ahead.
Finally, the administration bill provided that, in making approvals for both grant and contract assistance, the Secretary would require that the design and operation be adequate to assure maximum efficiency, and that States develop statewide plans to improve the efficiency of existing treatment works and initiate operator certification programs. The committee is concerned about the problem that many treatment facilities are not being operated efficiently. Training, proper civil service status, job systems that allow for increasing responsibility,
and other factors must be considered. The committee supports actions to overcome deficiencies in the operation of plants and will continue to give this area its close scrutiny.
May I at this point express my appreciation to all members of the committee, including the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], the chairman of the Committee on Public Works; the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], the ranking minority member of the subcommittee; as well as the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the ranking minority member on the full committee. All have given their close attention to this problem and the problem of working out a bill.
The bill which the committee has brought before the Senate differs markedly from the administration bill as introduced. The latter bill generated considerable controversy which might well have led to an inability on our part to produce any proposed legislation.
The bill now pending before the Senate, I believe, is a reasonable compromise. It is a minimal effort on the part of the Senate and, hopefully, Congress to measure up to the Federal commitment which we undertook in the act of 1966.
I should like to express my particular appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] for the part he has played in helping us to achieve the compromise. In addition, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank the members of the committee staff, including the chief clerk, Richard Royce, the counsel, Barry Meyer, and the professional staff members, Leon Billings and Richard Grundy, William Hildenbrand, legislative assistant to Senator BOGGS, and my administrative assistant, Donald Nicoll, for their contributions to the development of the legislation.
Mr. DOMINICK., Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. I wish to congratulate the Senator from Maine for the work he has done in water pollution control, and also to congratulate the Senator from Delaware, who I know has worked hard on this matter.
But I did wish to explore one issue: The Secretary has indicated that he is not going to permit the downgrading of water, regardless of whether or not it is above all other quality standards.
This creates many problems, as the Senator can appreciate, when a State wishes to develop areas where there are inherently good water conditions which are well above the other quality standards. Even though an industry might utilize the best treatment available, and the water might remain above other quality standards, some lessening of purity might understandably occur. Yet a strict non-degradation policy would seem to negate the opportunity of developing any of these areas.
Did the committee go into that problem at all during consideration of this bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. This bill does not deal with that authority, which was established under the Water Quality Act of 1965. This bill deals simply with the financing of waste treatment works constructed under the water quality standards established under that act and also under the Financing Act of 1966.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. This has become a matter of great concern, for example, on the western slope of Colorado. I think it could become a problem in the State of Maine.
There seems to have been an interpretation by the Secretary contrary to that which was intended by Congress.
I wonder if the Senator has any thoughts as to whether the problem deserves to have some Senate hearings.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the question has been raised and was discussed during hearings on the present bill. Whenever we have hearings in this field, we try to cover any pending matters. The policy question was the subject of very careful consideration. Members of the committee, and especially the subcommittee, were exposed to the development of the policy. I want to be very careful in the use of words to describe the policy. As we understand it, the policy is not intended to prohibit industrial development of otherwise undeveloped streams.
First, it is intended to establish safeguards to insure that whenever an industrial development project is proposed which would result in lower water quality, a rational decision is made by the community, by the parties involved, and by the State, balancing the priorities in connection with the use for the stream.
Second, the purpose is to insure that whenever the decision is affirmative with respect to such project, the available technology is used to minimize the impact on the stream. The real test of the policy will come as it will apply.
I can understand the concern that has been expressed by the people from whom the Senator has heard. I have received similar expressions of concern that the policy, as worded, will be an absolute block to economic growth and development in presently undeveloped areas. That is not the intent of the policy, as we understand it.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I am happy to have the Senator's thinking on this matter. I recall a stream in our State, one which I should add was crystal clear, which the Department judged to be the most beautiful trout stream they had ever seen. The difficulty was that they did not thoroughly analyze it. No trout live in that stream. The stream comes from a point in a much higher area which has certain toxic qualities, which do not permit fish, lichen, or other things of that kind to grow. The Department threatened to prohibit the use of that water because it would spoil fishing possibilities in the stream. This just illustrates one of the difficulties my State has encountered with the administration in the field of water pollution control.
I think it important that the RECORD reflect our concern with the so-called non-degradation issue, as well as set out the intent of the Senate Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee on this subject.
Mr. MUSKIE. I hasten to add a further point. There conceivably could be streams which should be maintained in their pristine, pure, and natural state, but that is a decision to be made at the time by the parties and by the public and private interests involved after evaluating the potential of the stream and the potential future uses, and so forth, which would lead to a rational decision rather than a blind decision. The Senator might wish to examine the colloquy between the Secretary of the Interior and the Senator from Maine on pages 3 to 18, and the departmental response to the subcommittee's questions on pages A91 to A97, of "Water Pollution, 1968, Part I," hearings before the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, March 27, 1968.
Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk technical amendments and ask that they be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be stated.
The acting legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendments.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the amendments will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendments, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, are as follows:
On page 18. line 3, strike out all through line 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(e) By inserting after subsection (b) of this section in the first sentence of redesignated subsection (g) a comma and the following: 'or the amount contracted for under subsection (f) of this section.', and by striking out in such sentence 'the amount of such grant' and inserting in lieu thereof 'such amount'; and"
On page 18, line 25, strike out "(h)" and insert in lieu thereof "(g) ".
On page 19, line 8, strike out "principal sum available for contracts" and insert in lieu thereof "total amount of contract authority".
On page 19, line 14, strike out "The total of such principal sum" and insert in lieu thereof "Such total".
On page 19, line 21, after "grants and" strike out "entering into" and insert "payments on contracts".
On page 20, line 5, strike out "is" and insert in lieu thereof "are".
On page 20, line 7, strike out "payments under" and insert in lieu thereof "payments, after June 30. 1971, on".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, these are technical amendments and they have no substantive impact. I ask that the amendments be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the technical amendments en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, is as follows:
On page 17. line 24, strike out all through line 2 on page 18 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(d) By adding a new sentence after the seventh sentence of subsection (c) to read as follows:
'The Secretary shall not approve any project for reimbursement under the preceding two sentences from such allotments during fiscal year 1969 beginning thirty days after enactment of this sentence and during fiscal years 1970 and 1971, if Congress provides, in Appropriation Acts for those fiscal years, the full sum authorized in subsection (d) of this section for grants under subsection (b) and for contracts under subsection (f) of this section: Provided, That, in the event the Congress does not provide such authorized sum in such fiscal year, the Secretary shall not approve any project for such reimbursement in any State that elects to utilize the provisions of subsection (f) of this section'.";
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this amendment would accomplish what I have discussed in my prepared remarks with respect to substitution of contract authority for reimbursement of States as provided under the 1966 act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, another pollution bill which is pending on the calendar is S. 2525, dealing with pollution from vessels.
In order to avoid a parliamentary problem which might result during the latter days of this session and because I believe the provisions of S. 2525 require congressional action this year, I have prepared an amendment which will include the provisions of S. 2525 as a part of S. 3206.
This amendment is identical to the language of the bill reported by the committee with one minor technical change required to clarify the intent of the committee amendment to section 11 of the Water Pollution Control Act. I will discuss this change in a moment.
S. 2525 would authorize a program for control of pollution from vessels, an amendment to section 11 of the Water Pollution Control Act which relates to control of pollution by Federal agencies, and a simple 1-year extension of the research authorizations in the basic act.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution indicates that sewage discharged from boats, while not comparable to large municipal or industrial sources, is a serious and significant problem in many marinas, ports, harbors, and other confined waterways. Vessel pollution, as a contributor to the Nation's pollution problem, requires action.
The committee does not believe that this problem can be uniformly handled at the State and local level. Boats and boat owners move between States. Many of the Nation's major recreational waterways are interstate, while most commercially used waters are interstate or coastal in nature.
Conflicting State and local laws confuse vessel operators, and strict enforcement can cause undue burdens on the ability of vessels to move freely in interstate commerce.
This same problem is faced by the manufacturers of vessels and the manufacturers of marine sanitation devices. Conflicting State and local laws may require a variety of levels of control and types of devices. The committee believes that this confusion can be eliminated by Federal preemption of the authority to certify marine sanitation devices.
Federal standards of performance for devices are intended to define adequate levels of treatment within the limits of economic and technical feasibility. The Secretary is expected to set performance standards at the highest levels necessary, within the limits set by subsection (a), to assure effective results from this legislation and to lessen the need for other State and local regulations.
The committee is concerned that many State and local laws, passed and under consideration, require sewage holding tanks as a means of pollution control. Holding tanks are, and must continue to be, an alternative control method. However, to require this type of device without providing pump-out and disposal facilities in ports, harbors and marinas would be futile.
This legislation does not abridge the right of a State or political subdivision to prohibit discharges. Local problems may require this type of action if local water quality standards are to be achieved. The committee recommends, however, that prohibition of sewage discharge be an alternative applied only in restricted areas and further, that the Secretary of the Interior review the Federal sewage-treatment construction grant program to ascertain the extent to which Federal funds can be made available to assist States and local government in constructing alternative waste disposal facilities for those restricted areas.
S. 2525 provides a means to achieve a uniform and effective vessel pollution control program.
S. 2525 would authorize a program for control of pollution from vessels, an amendment to section 11 of the Water Pollution Control Act which relates to control of pollution by Federal agencies, and a simple 1-year extension of the research authorizations in the basic act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, following my remarks, a discussion of the key provisions of S. 2525 as contained in the committee report, section 18.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, earlier, I indicated that this amendment is identical to S. 2525 as reported, except for minor change in the Federal agencies cooperation language.
Questions have been raised regarding the purpose and intent of the committee amendment to section 11 of the act which requires Federal agencies to insure compliance with water quality standards in their contracts, permits, licenses, and leases.
I do not know how the committee's directive can be more clearly stated. The committee is not satisfied with the role of Federal agencies in preventing pollution from both direct and related activities. Some agencies have been reluctant to accept the directive of the President to move effectively to improve water quality.
The amendment to section 11 is intended to clarify the position of the Congress in this regard by imposing a requirement that Federal agencies cooperate with pollution control efforts of the Secretary of the Interior.
By including specific reference to contracts, licenses, leases and permits, the committee intends to require full recognition of water quality in carrying out these related activities. As indicated in the report, the committee looks to the agencies of the executive branch to take the initiative in insuring compliance with water quality standards.
In order to make the intent of the committee clear, I have prepared an amendment to clarify any confusion regarding the extent to which Federal agencies should cooperate with the Secretary to assure water quality compliance.
On page 21, line 10, of S. 2525 -- which is pending -- after "(a) It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress that" has been deleted. By eliminating the declaration of intent, this amendment clearly states the pollution responsibility of Federal agencies in both direct and related activities.
In order to carry out the purpose of this revised section, Federal agencies will necessarily have to add such conditions to contracts, licenses, leases, and permits as may be necessary to insure compliance with water quality standards.
The committee intends to continue its current investigation of Federal agencies' compliance with this act and the President's Executive order on water pollution.
Should future hearings indicate a lack of initiative and a failure to meet water quality needs in these areas, additional legislation may be considered to give the Secretary of the Interior prior review and approval authority in connection with any Federal activity which may affect water quality.
This amendment also extends, for 1 year, the research authorizations for water pollution. The committee considered several changes in the existing research section of the act and decided that these proposals should await program review scheduled for early in the next Congress.
At the same time, the committee recognized the need to extend these important authorizations through fiscal year 1970 so that the program could receive appropriations in regular order next year.
Cognizant of the concern for economy, the committee did not increase the level of authorization for any of the five research programs. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a breakdown of these programs and the appropriations made and requested for fiscal year 1968 and fiscal year 1969, respectively.
There being no objection, the breakdown was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.
[Table omitted]
EXHIBIT 1 SECTION 18
(a) The committee intends that this new section preclude, at the earliest possible time permitted by existing and advancing technology, economics, and other practical considerations, the discharge into the navigable waters of the United States of raw or inadequately treated sewage from vessels. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act charges the Secretary with the responsibility for approving water quality standards to maintain and enhance the quality and value of our water resources. Consonant with this responsibility, subsection 18(a) requires that the Secretary must promulgate performance standards indicating what a sewage treatment or holding device must do to be acceptable for marine use. This performance standard is intended to define adequate treatment, holding, or other end results.
Consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard is required because of the practical necessity of considering marine design and other marine environmental factors in the development of feasible performance standards. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall promulgate the regulations which pertain to marine design requirements both as to the device itself and the manner of installation and operation, in order to insure adequate recognition of marine safety and other aspects.
Additionally, the Commandant's regulations must assure compliance with the water quality end result which the Secretary has defined. It is apparent and specifically intended that there must be close coordination and cooperation between the Secretary and the Commandant in development of the overall regulatory program.
The distinction between new and existing vessels is intended to recognize the need, particularly at the outset, for a different approach both in defining a realistic equipment performance standard and in devising the manner of achieving the most satisfactory solution possible.
The committee recognizes that many vessel owners have installed marine sanitation devices pursuant to State laws, regulations, and Public Health Service recommendations. The committee lauds these efforts and does not intend to penalize the vessel owners so long as the installed sanitation devices continue to conform to such laws, regulation, and recommended levels.
However the committee does not believe that the fact that devices were installed prior to the effective date of Federal standards and regulations should be prima facie evidence of compliance. Both Coast Guard and appropriate State agencies should make every effort to assure that these devices continue to comply with the regulations which required their installation.
(b) The provisions of subsection (b) are directed at implementation of promulgated performance standards and other equipment requirements. Because conformance with promulgated requirements can be more practically achieved in the design and construction of new vessels, whatever the size a shorter period of time for compliance is provided.
Implementation for existing vessels is more complex. It will be difficult to define the full scope of the problem until device performance standards and regulations directed at attaining the desired objectives are developed. Implementation of standards and device installations which are as stringent as those provided for new vessels may not be generally achieved for some time. Time necessary for design and manufacture of devices as well as limited physical capability of existing shipyards and ship repair facilities work against rapid solution of the existing ship sewage discharge problem.
These considerations as well as other diverse factors such as vessel size, type, mode, and locale of operation require ultimate flexibility in application of standards and regulations. Accordingly, subsection (b) (2) is intended to permit application of standards and regulations by category as appropriate.
There is also created a waiver authority which either the Secretary or the Commandant of the Coast Guard, with regard to their respective regulatory authority under this section, can exercise as necessary. It is declared to be the intent of this committee that this subsection not suggest dilatory implementation, but rather a practical, flexible, and workable program from which maximum benefits can be realized in the shortest possible time.
(c) The committee intends that the Department of Defense take all necessary steps to comply with the standards promulgated pursuant to subsection (a). The Defense Department has a special responsibility. National attention is constantly focused on naval vessels, requiring pollution control to be as much a matter of public relations as public responsibility. Therefore the committee believes the Department of Defense should take a strong leadership role in both development and application of vessel pollution control technology.
At the same time the committee does not believe it is necessary for the Coast Guard to supervise the Defense Department program. It is the intent of the committee that these two Federal agencies and the Department of the Interior develop a coordinated plan to achieve the pollution abatement objectives of the legislation. Further, the committee intends that the Department of Defense should report periodically, within the limits of national security, to the Congress regarding progress in meeting and exceeding standards of performance.
The committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to request such funds as may be necessary to implement vessel pollution control, and to assist the Secretary and the Commandant by providing information on technology developed to implement the purposes of this act.
(e) The committee intends that Federal standards and regulations should. to the fullest extent practicable, preempt new or conflicting State laws and regulations related to vessel pollution. Preemption is necessary to insure protection of the boat owner who moves in interstate commerce and the manufacturer who delivers marine sanitation devices in interstate commerce.
While the committee has provided for preemption, it is recognized that a number of States and political subdivisions will have adopted vessel pollution control programs prior to enactment of the act. To the extent that those programs are not inconsistent or in conflict with the Federal regulations and standards, the committee intends that they should continue in effect.
The question of consistency between Federal and State or local law is not a final judgment which rests with administrative officials. To expedite a decision, the committee has authorized the Secretary and the Commandant to review existing State law. The Administrative Procedure Act will apply in making this review. If the Secretary or Commandant determines that a State or local law is inconsistent or in conflict with Federal standards and regulations, the State may seek judicial review.
(f) Uniform and effective control of vessel sewage discharge or effluent can only be achieved practically by control of the shipboard device which will contain and treat raw sewage.
Subsection (f) is intended to furnish the necessary Federal control through a system of Coast Guard certification of acceptable devices. Though a manufacturer's application will be submitted to the Coast Guard for action, the Secretary of the Interior's primary interest and responsibility for performance standards requires that this aspect of Coast Guard testing be in accordance with the former's direction, and that the Secretary make the ultimate determination of acceptability of performance. If the Commandant determines that the device is satisfactory for marine use in the application of which intended, he will issue certification.
(n) The committee intends that the State and local responsibility for control of vessel pollution should be emphasized. This provision is designed to assist in development of State enforcement programs which will lessen the need for direct Federal involvement in the control and administration of pollution from recreational vessels and encourage broader State participation in these activities.
Most States presently have programs which require numbering of recreational water-craft, and every State has a water pollution control program. It is therefore logical that the enforcement of the pollution from recreational vessels be delegated to the extent feasible, to the appropriate State agencies.
At the same time, the committee does not believe that the best interest of the Nation will be served by delegating the responsibility for control of pollution from commercial vessels which generally move in interstate or international commerce.
The Secretary should rapidly move to establish guidelines to direct the States in development of approved programs whereby the provisions of subsection (n) can become fully effective. Distribution of these guidelines should, if possible, precede promulgation of standards or regulations so that State programs can be adopted prior to the effective date of any standards or regulations.
The committee does not feel that it is necessary, at this time, for the secretary of Interior and the Commandant of the Coast Guard to expand their respective personnel to enforce recreational vessel compliance with this act. Should a State fail to adopt an approved program Federal personnel will have to be added. However, this subsection should have the effect of transferring this enforcement responsibility to the States.
The grant program authorized under this subsection is intended to facilitate State action and enable States to expand existing vessel and water pollution related activities. No additional funds are authorized due to lack of information on the cost of this program. The Secretary is expected to request necessary funds pursuant to the general authorization contained in sec. 12(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I recommend adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment offered by Mr. MUSKIE is as follows:
At the end of the bill insert the following: "SEC. 4. Section 18 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 466n) is amended to read as follows:
"'CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS "
'SEC. 18 (a) (1) As soon as possible after the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and after giving appropriate consideration to available technology and economic costs, shall promulgate Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation devices (hereinafter referred to as "standards") which shall be designed to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the United States from new vessels and existing vessels, except (A) existing commercial fishing vessels forty-five feet or under in length, and (B) new or existing vessels not equipped with installed toilet facilities. Such standards shall be consistent with maritime safety and the marine and navigation laws and regulations and shall be coordinated with the regulations issued by the Commandant of the Coast Guard under this subsection. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall promulgate regulations, which are consistent with the standards under this section and with maritime safety and the marine and navigation laws and regulations, governing the design, construction, installation, and operation of any marine sanitation device on board such vessels.
"'(2) Any existing vessel equipped with a device or devices installed pursuant to the requirements of State law, regulation, or recommended levels of control set forth in the Handbook on Sanitation and Vessel Construction (Public Health Service, 1965) prior to the effective date of initial standards and regulations required by this section shall be deemed in compliance with this section until such time as the device or devices are replaced or are found not to be in compliance with such State law, regulation, or recommended level.
"'(b) (1) Initial standards and regulations under this section shall become effective for new vessels two years after promulgation, but not earlier than September 1, 1970, and for existing vessels five years after promulgation.
"’2) The Secretary and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, with regard to their respective regulatory authority established by this section, may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels as well as between new and existing vessels, and may waive applicability of standards and regulations for such periods of time as necessary or appropriate for classes, types, and sizes of vessels and, upon application, for individual vessels
"'(c) The provisions of this section and the standards and regulations promulgated thereunder apply to vessels owned and operated by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that compliance would not be in the interest of national security
"'(d) Before the standards and regulations under this section are promulgated the Secretary and the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall consult with the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Commerce; other interested Federal agencies; and the States and industries interested; and otherwise comply with the requirements of section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code.
"'(e) (1) After the effective date of this subsection, no State or political subdivision thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation with respect to the use of any marine sanitation device with any vessel subject to the provisions of this section, except as provided in this subsection and subsection (n) of this section.
"'(2) Any State or political subdivision thereof having, on the effective date of this section, any statute or regulation with respect to such device may continue to enforce such statute or regulation unless the Secretary or the Commandant of the Coast Guard determines, in accordance with section 553, title 5 of the United States Code, that said statute or regulation is inconsistent or in conflict with any standard or regulation promulgated under this section. Any such determination shall be subject to judicial review.
"'(f) (1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States for sale or resale any marine sanitation device manufactured after the effective date of the standards and regulations under this section unless such device is in all material respects substantially the same as a test device certified under this subsection.
"'(2) Upon application of the manufacturer, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall certify a marine sanitation device if he determines, in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, that it meets the appropriate standards and regulations promulgated under this section in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The Commandant shall test or require such testing of the device in accordance with procedures set forth by the Secretary as to standards of performance and for such other purposes as may be appropriate. The Secretary, upon notification of the results of such tests, shall determine if such results are in accordance with the appropriate performance standards promulgated under this section and shall notify the Commandant of his determination. Upon such notification the Commandant, if he determines that the device is satisfactory from the standpoint of safety and any other requirements of maritime law or regulation, and after consideration of the design, installation, operation, material, or other appropriate factors, shall certify it. Any device which is in all material respects substantially the same as the certified test device shall be deemed to be in conformity with the standards and regulations established under this section.
"'(3) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, and provide such information as the Secretary or the Commandant may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this section and regulations thereunder and shall, upon request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary or the Commandant permit such officer or employee at reasonable times to have access to and copy such records. All information reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the Secretary or the Commandant or their representatives pursuant to this subsection which contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code shall be considered confidential for the purpose of that section, except that such information may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned with carrying out this section.
"'(g) After the effective date of standards and regulations promulgated under this section it shall be unlawful
"'(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such standards and regulations to manufacture for sale, to sell or offer for sale, or to distribute for sale or resale any such vessel unless it is equipped with a marine sanitation device certified pursuant to this section;
"' (2) for a vessel subject to such standards and regulations to discharge sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the United States in violation of such standards and regulations or to be operated on such waters without an installed marine sanitation device certified pursuant to this section or otherwise in compliance with regulations;
"'(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or copying of records or to fail to make reports or provide information required under this section; and
"'(4) for any person wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any certified marine sanitation device or element of design of such device installed in a vessel prior to its sale or delivery to the ultimate purchaser.
"'(h) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to restrain violators of subsection (g) of this section. Actions to restrain such violators shall be brought by, and in, the name of the United States. In any such action, subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a district court in any district may run into any other district.
"' (i) Any person who knowingly violates clauses (1) or (4) of subsection (g) of this section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $2,500 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense.
“‘(j) Any person who violates a provision of this section or any regulation issued thereunder shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation. The Commandant of the Coast Guard may assess and collect any such penalty and may remit or mitigate any penalty imposed under circumstances he considers appropriate.
"'(k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and he may utilize by agreement with or without reimbursement law enforcement officers or other personnel and facilities of the Secretary or other Federal agencies to carry out the provisions of this section.
"'(l) Anyone authorized by the Commandant of the Coast Guard to enforce the provisions of this section may, except as to public vessels, (1) board and inspect any vessel upon the navigable waters of the United States, (2) with or without a warrant arrest any person who violates the provisions of this section or any regulation issued thereunder in his presence or view, and (3) execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction.
"'(m) In the case of Guam actions arising under this section may be brought the district court of Guam, and in the case of the Virgin Islands such actions may be brought in the district court of the Virgin Islands. In the case of American Samoa such actions may be brought in the district court of the United States for the district of Hawaii, and such court shall have jurisdiction of such actions.
"'(n) (1) The Secretary is authorized make grants to any State, which adopts and enforces an adequate program approved by the Secretary after consultation with the Commandant, to control the discharges into the navigable waters of the United States of untreated or inadequately treated sewage and other wastes from recreational vessels The Secretary shall approve any State program which –
"'(A) is not inconsistent with Federal standards and regulations except to an extent as otherwise provided in subsection (e) (2) of this section;
"'(B) designates the State authority or agency which will administer the program; and
"'(C) otherwise complies with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary for the establishment of State programs.
" ' (2) Such annual grants to any State with an approved program shall not exceed 50 per centum of the annual cost of such program. Such moneys shall be available solely for administration of the approved program.
"'(0) For the purpose of this section, the term
"'(1) "new vessel" includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or to be used, as a means of transportation on the navigable waters of the United States, the construction of which is completed after promulgation of standards and regulations under this section;
"'(2) "existing vessel" includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or to be used, as a means of transportation on the navigable waters of the United States, the construction of which is completed before promulgation of standards and regulations under this section;
"'(3) "recreational vessel" means any vessel operated primarily for noncommercial use and not required to have a valid Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection;
"'(4) "commercial fishing vessel" means a vessel engaged in the business of taking of fish. mollusks, or crustaceans for subsequent sale;
"'(5) "public vessel" means a vessel owned and operated by the United States, or by a State, or, except where such vessel is engaged in commercial activities by a foreign nation;
"'(6) "person" means an individual, partnership, firm, corporation, or association, but does not include an individual on board a public vessel;
"'(7) "United States" includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa;
"'(8) "sewage" means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes;
"'(9) "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the manufacturing, assembling, or importation of vessels capable of having on board marine sanitation devices or of such devices; and
"'(10) "marine sanitation device" means any equipment on board a vessel designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge sewage.'
"SEC. 5. Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended to read as follows:
"'COOPERATION BY OTHER FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES TO CONTROL POLLUTION
"'SEC. 1I. (a) Any Federal department or agency –
"' (1) having jurisdiction over any building, installation, or other property, or
"'(2) which carries out, or issues any lease, license, or permit or enters into any contract for, any activity, shall, insofar as practicable and consistent with the interests of the United States and, where applicable, within any available appropriations, cooperate with the Secretary, and with any State or Interstate agency or municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter is discharged from such property, or which is affected by such activity, to insure compliance with applicable water quality standards and the purposes of this act'
"SEC. 6. (a) Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended
" (1) in subsection (g)(4), by striking out 'and June 30, 1969' and inserting in lieu thereof 'June 30, 1969, and June 30, I970'; and
"(2) in subsection (h), by inserting a comma, and 'and for the succeeding fiscal year' after '1969'.
"(b) Section 6 of such Act is amended"(1) in clause (1) of subsection (e) by striking out 'three succeeding' and inserting in lieu thereof 'four succeeding'; and
"(2) in clauses (2) and (3) of such subsection by striking out 'two succeeding' and inserting in lieu thereof 'three succeeding'."
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am very happy to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I hesitate, and, believe me, I do hesitate before I would question the distinguished Senator from Maine in an area in which he is the outstanding authority in the Senate, and because he has done a magnificent job for my State in this area as well as for all other States of the Union, but what concerns me is the financing method proposed to be used here. It has been brought to my attention that the financing features of the bill represent a sharp departure from that contained in the original administration request.
The problem is this: By providing for contracts regarding future payments of grants to localities which would be used as backing for tax-exempt securities issued by the localities, the bill in its present form would, in effect, seem to lead to Federal guarantees of tax-exempt securities.
The Treasury has always maintained that to do this is regarded as highly unsound, uneconomical, and contrary to the basic administration position as expressed in the report of the President's Committee on Federal Credit programs.
This morning, the Joint Economic Committee held hearings at which it heard the banking regulatory administrators testify that emphatically they thought any kind of Federal guarantee of tax-exempt securities was very bad. It seems to me what it does lead to is a further broadening of the loophole which all of us recognize as unfortunate; namely, the fact that people can invest enormous sums in municipal obligations and pay no taxes whatsoever. We recognize that we have to pay a price for helping the municipalities, but I am wondering, under these circumstances, why we could not have followed the administration which would have provided for taxable securities, as contained in the committee report which says by the administration route that communities enter into contracts with the Secretary to issue taxable securities. Why can we not follow that procedure instead of the procedure which the Treasury -- and it seems to me with good reason -- has opposed?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say that the bill does not provide for any Federal guarantees whatsoever for either taxable or tax-exempt municipal bonds. All this does is to provide a backing for a commitment the Federal Government has already made to States and municipalities in the 1966 act. In that act, it provided that if the States or municipalities wanted to move ahead with construction of approved waste treatment plants at a faster pace than that authorized by the 1966 act, they could do so and the Federal Government would reimburse them for the Federal share of the cost of such projects.
That commitment is already in the law. Now, whether Congress and the appropriations committees would meet that commitment is something the States and municipalities will have to gamble on. But some 20 States have decided to take that gamble, including my State, New York State, and others.
What we propose to do here is to substitute, within certain limitations which I described earlier, for that open-ended reimbursement commitment, a contract authority, a backing, limited to the difference between the amount actually appropriated for grants and the total authorization set in the 1966 act.
Now, how the States and municipalities provide or finance the Federal share of the cost of such projects is for them to decide. The pending bill has nothing to say on that subject. We do not say they must issue bonds, taxable or tax-exempt.
So far as we are concerned, they can finance the Federal share of the cost out of current revenues.
That is their decision to make. Thus, we do not undertake in this bill in any way to guarantee the issuance of any kind of Federal, State, or local bonds.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is absolutely correct when he says he does not undertake to guarantee. But there is, apparently, a strong feeling that by providing for contracts regarding future payment of Federal grants to localities the contracts would be used as indirect Federal backing for tax-exempt securities issued by the localities. Of course, they do not issue taxable securities. If they issue them tax exempt, the bill in its present form would lead to partial Federal guarantees, at least, on tax-exempt securities.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Senator from Wisconsin on that point that it is my understanding the reimbursement feature of the 1966 act is now being relied upon as backing for municipal and State bonds issued, to take advantage of it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am not saying that the principle which the Treasury espouses has not been violated. I want to establish whether we are not widening it here. If we are, then whether we have a record on it. Has your committee discovered a record on this matter?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say on that point that, if anything, S. 3206 narrows the obligation we assumed in the 1966 act, in at least these respects: One, there is a dollar limit on the total. The reimbursement feature of the 1966 act had no such limit.
The limitation here is the difference between the amounts actually appropriated for grants and the total authorization figures in the 1966 act. The reimbursement feature of the 1966 act had no such limitation.
Mr. PROXMIRE. What about the dollar limit?
Mr. MUSKIE. The dollar limit for 1969 is $700 million.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Through 1971 it goes up to more than $2 billion altogether in the aggregate; is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. Fiscal 1970 is $1 billion. Fiscal 1971 is $1,250 million. So that is a total of $2,750 million for the 3 fiscal years. It was $400 million for the last fiscal year.
This bill would limit contract authority to the difference between the amount appropriated for grants and this authorization figure. In this year, it would be, if the budget request for grants were approved by Congress, $475 million. There is no such limitation upon the 1966 reimbursement feature.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Nevertheless, if the administration, in its proposal for financing its taxable securities, were followed, there would be $475 million in the coming fiscal year from taxable securities. Instead of that, we have $475 million of nontaxable securities, with what some people interpret as partial Federal guarantee. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. If the administration bill were adopted, there would be full Federal guarantee plus a subsidization of interest cost. The communities and States would be relieved of any interest charges on bond issues to finance the Federal share of the project cost.
Mr. PROXMIRE. So it would be less expensive for the localities if the administration proposal had been followed, rather than the committee's proposal?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
The Senator asked me what there is in the record with respect to the administration's position. I questioned Mr. Phillip S. Hughes, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget, who was testifying for the Budget Bureau and for the administration on this point, carefully on whether or not the administration's proposal was intended as a first step toward the elimination of tax-exempt municipal and State and general revenue bonds. He said it was not; that the administration had no such designs for the future and that this proposal was offered simply as a means of financing the Federal share of the project costs. On that point, it was offered by the administration as a means of relieving communities of the burden of financing the Federal share of project costs under the reimbursement provision of the 1966 act.
What we have done here is to offer municipalities and States a trade -- a more limited Federal reimbursement proposition, but a more binding commitment for the future. That is what the trade is. The whole question of tax-exempt municipal and State bonds is no different than it was with respect to the reimbursement feature of the 1966 act.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator may be correct. I am not familiar with the reimbursement feature of the 1966 act. I would certainly agree with the observation of the budget representative that this is not the first step toward elimination of tax-exempt securities; but Treasury has taken the position that they do not want to have tax exempts of any kind with even partial Federal guarantees, and there seems to be a definite Federal guarantee here. Even though there has been a precedent in the past, isn't this perhaps another precedent for the future.
Mr. MUSKIE. While we are on the administration's position, let me say the administration bill was in pretty good shape on the basis of the record, and especially on the basis of the testimony by Mr. Hughes, to which I have just referred; but, unfortunately, Treasury representatives off the record created the very definite impression that they hoped eventually to eliminate all tax-exempt municipal bonds. The moment that specter was raised, the prospect of passing the original administration bill evaporated. That is why we were forced to this expedient, which is very sound, very limited, very moderate. The Treasury position off the record on the question of tax exempt municipal bonds was different from the administration position on the record.
Mr. PROXMIRE. So the opposition in the financial community was–
Mr. MUSKIE. No, among the municipalities and States.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Among the municipalities and States, was the specter that this might lead to the first step toward the elimination of tax exempts, and they just flatly opposed the administration proposal and favored an alternative.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. They did not propose this alternative. We felt as a committee that the Congress had made a commitment to the States and municipalities and that we had to try to find a way to meet it. This was the only proposal that we could develop which seemed to meet the objections which had been raised and which were an insuperable block to the administration bill.
Mr. PROXMIRE. May I say to the Senator that I had not intended to offer an amendment or ask for a roll call, or anything of that kind, but I would like to ask his comment on one further observation. That is that this proposed financing procedure adopted by the committee would be far more costly to local communities than the procedure contained in the original administration proposal, since it would call for full payment of interest by such communities. Indeed, it would seem to me that it represents a more costly procedure than virtually any of the alternatives which have been proposed in the past. In view of the heavy financial demands being made on all governments to meet pressing social problems, it is certainly desirable to seek fiscally efficient methods of financing so that our resources are adequately husbanded.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is more costly than the administration proposal, I think it is fair to say, although it is not that black and white; but it is no more costly than the reimbursement feature of the 1966 act, which has been taken advantage of by 20 States at the present time. This alternative is not all they might have, but it is something that the States and municipalities find more acceptable than the original administration proposal.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Did or did not the Treasury Department testify on this measure, in view of the strong feeling in this area? And if not, should not they have been called to testify?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Treasury did not testify. Let me say that before the administration proposal was sent up to the Hill I discussed this with them and with the Budget Bureau, and I thought I had a clear understanding as to what the proposal was -- that it was not a precedent, that it was not a foot in the door approach. It was on that basis that I offered to go along with it. Then when
it became something different, off the record and in private conversations, we were in a new ball game.
I am delighted that the Senator has raised these questions this afternoon. I think this colloquy is an important part of the record. I think at some point this Congress is going to have to come to grips with what some of us feel is a very real intention by many in the Treasury to eliminate tax-exempt municipal bonds. By raising that specter, the original administration bill S. 3206 was set aside. Whether that represents the official position of the Treasury, the official position of the administration, with respect to the ultimate attack upon tax-exempt bonds, I have no way of knowing; but somebody, whether authoritatively or not, whether wisely or not, has created for the municipalities and the States the specter that what was involved in S. 3206 was a first step toward eliminating tax-exempt bonds. It created terrible problems for us in our committee, and it was only with the cooperation of the distinguished Senator from Delaware and other minority Senators that we were able to work out what I think is a sound, minimal substitute.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am sure the Senator would not oppose either this Senator or any other Senator or the Federal Treasury or any President who urged an optional approach which could be made voluntarily available to municipalities to follow a taxable route which could result, perhaps through interest subsidization payments in a lower cost to them.
Mr. MUSKIE. I tried that one, may I say to the Senator.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And through other means to recover for the Treasury some of the enormous amounts of funds the Treasury is losing now through tax exempts, while at the same time giving the municipalities the option to follow the taxable route if they wish. It seems to me it can be worked out. We have had many hearings on it. Thereby the Treasury would gain and the municipalities would be better off when we consider there are some who pay and some who escape their taxes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I tried to write an option on the State and municipal share of project costs. I was not able to arrive at one in view of what Treasury officials said off the record. We did not object to testimony by the Treasury Department. We assumed the Bureau of the Budget would testify to the administration's position on all issues involved. Otherwise we would have called Treasury witnesses before us to testify. If they had come before us and given us their full position, we might have had something we could have worked with.
But it was difficult enough, without that off-the-record specter, to sell the original administration bill in the light of the fears of municipalities relative to tax-exempt bonds.
Incidentally, there is a considerable record in the hearings on the debate as to whether or not the administration proposal would or would not be the cheaper route for the Treasury to follow.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Once again, I congratulate the Senator from Maine on his usual very competent handling of the bill.
I take it from his remarks that he does see substantial merit in following a taxable approach, and he feels there is merit for that reason, perhaps, to that aspect of the administration proposal, but that there is such opposition on the part of municipalities and localities to something they feel might possibly deprive them of their tax-exempt status that it would not be practicable to follow what might be a better policy in financing this bill; is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. I was sympathetic to the idea of taxable municipal bonds to finance the Federal share of the cost. I was never sympathetic to the idea of requiring the issuance of taxable bonds to cover the municipal or State share.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I quite agree with that.
Mr. MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, Federal bonds issued now are taxable, so that when we finance the Federal share out of general appropriations which are financed by Federal bonds, the proceeds of those bonds are taxable, as I understand.
So if municipal bonds were issued in lieu of the Federal bonds, I would see no reason to object to making them taxable.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And the Senator can see merit in that, I take it, and he would not be opposed personally to an amendment to provide accordingly; but he does feel it would be very difficult to get enacted in either the Senate or the House of Representatives?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. I would be opposed to it for that reason.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment, as amended.
The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I am in accord with the remarks just made by the distinguished chairman, of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution concerning S. 3206. the proposed Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968. It is a pleasure to recognize his leadership in the effort to control pollution. Our working and personal relationship on the subcommittee continues to be a very satisfying one.
In reference to the bill in question, it is difficult to overestimate the national urgency of taking action now to meet the demands for municipal waste treatment plant construction. This urgency has been in part fanned by the Congress with passage of the Clear Water Restoration Act of 1966. We must recognize that not only are we far behind in construction of needed water treatment facilities but we are in great danger of losing more ground because of rising population, obsolescence of existing plants, and requirements for higher water quality standards.
It is only because of this urgent situation that I support the plan contained in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968 to spur action by municipalities by having the Federal Government agree to make installment plan payments of a Federal share of waste treatment plant construction.
As my distinguished colleague from Maine has said, and I think this point deserves emphasis, these annual payments would be within the authorization limits of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Depending on Appropriation Committee decisions in fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971, these payments would make up part or all of the difference between what is authorized for sewer plant construction in those years and what is actually appropriated in grant funds during that period.
Spacing these payments over 30 years takes into consideration the fact that the Nation is now fiscally hard pressed as well as the fact that the facilities in question will be benefitting taxpayers for the 30-year period and longer. In other words, the installments would be met by the beneficiaries of the improved sewage treatment systems.
We are now at a point where municipalities have developed plans for needed sewage facilities which, as the Senator from Maine has indicated, far exceed in cost the money which will be available as a Federal grant share.
One of the prime reasons for this activity is the emphasis the Federal Government has placed on meeting the problem now. Therefore we are in the position of encouraging action and then not following through as vigorously with Federal help as the municipalities had a right to expect we would.
This bill would help bridge the gap between what we are able to do now because of fiscal limitations and what the municipalities had expected we would provide considering the authorizations Congress has approved.
I commend the Senator from Maine for his continued leadership in the field of air and water pollution.
The bill before us is designed, as the Senator has indicated, to meet a growing problem of sewage discharges from vessels. While it is true that this type of pollution is not comparable in amount to large municipal or industrial sources, it is a serious problem in some of our ports, harbors, marinas, and other confined waterways.
The Senator from Maine has explained in detail the purpose of the bill and the reasons why the subcommittee felt the necessity of reporting this bill to the Senate for action. I do not want to detain the Senate by repeating these reasons. I do, however, want to emphasize that the committee held 3 days of hearings on this legislation in which testimony was taken from 18 witnesses representing the Federal Government, State and local governments, commercial and recreational boating interests, conservation groups, and individuals from product-testing laboratories.
As a result of this testimony and other statements such as that adopted in 1964 by the American Public Health Association which said in part:
The rapid increase in the number of pleasure boats on inland bodies of water and on tidal estuaries and the increasing use of these boats and these waters for recreational purposes are contributing measurably to public health problems and water pollution in many parts of the united States and international waters because these boats do not have devices, or inadequate devices to treat waste before discharge into water.
The subcommittee felt that legislation at the Federal level should be enacted to begin to control this source of pollution.
Also, Mr. President, as of a year ago many States and communities have enacted laws and/or regulations that vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in their application, and in order to bring uniformity in the requirements to control discharges, the committee provides the authority needed to establish standards of performance for marine sanitation devices which will prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into the Nation's waterways.
The committee also, Mr. President, made some changes in the existing law as it relates to controlling pollution from Federal installations. The bill before us calls on any Federal department or agency to cooperate fully with the Secretary of the Interior to insure compliance with applicable water quality standards from not only Federal installations but also those related activities over which a Federal department or agency has jurisdiction. This means that any department or agency which leases, licenses, enters into any contract or permit for any activity shall cooperate with the Secretary in bringing about compliance with water quality standards.
This is an important provision and I believe strengthens the present law relating to controlling pollution from Federal activities and/or installations.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to again commend the Senator from Maine for his leadership in this area and I also wish to express my appreciation to the other Republican members of the subcommittee, Senator COOPER, Senator MURPHY, and Senator BAKER, for the valued assistance and contributions in developing a good bill, a needed bill and one which I hope will be approved by the Senate.
Mr. President, it is my hope that the special and urgent nature of the problem will result in early enactment of S. 3206.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, certain provisions of S. 3206 had been of deep concern to officials of the State of Michigan responsible for water pollution control. The proposed abandonment of the pre-financing amendment to Public Law 84-660 was particularly troublesome.
Therefore, I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] who has offered an amendment to soften the blow on the pre-financing arrangement. His action again demonstrates his determination to develop legislation which will be of maximum assistance in the fight against water pollution in all sections of the country and under the differing situations in the several States.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, the worsening problem of water pollution directly affects this Nation's health, welfare, and economic growth. It is essential that we take effective steps today to insure that tomorrow's needs for this precious product of nature will be met. We must realize that the supply of water is not infinite and in order to meet our continuing needs we must at least avoid polluting our existing supply.
The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968, S. 3206, certainly is a step in the right direction. This important legislation vastly increases the program of Federal assistance for municipal waste treatment plant construction. I commend the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], whose diligent fight for effective controls to prevent air and water pollution is well known, for his work on the Public Works Committee to bring this bill before us today. I am pleased to add my voice to his for the passage of this bill.
I share Senator MUSKIE's and the Public Works Committee's disappointment in the amount of money that the administration has sought and the Congress has appropriated for water pollution control in the past. Of $700 million authorized for fiscal year 1969, only $225 million was requested by the administration; and the House of Representatives has cut even that small amount to $203 million. I share the conviction of the Senate committee when they say at page 2 of the report accompanying S. 3206:
If conditions do not change to permit full implementation of the program in the years immediately ahead, it is doubtful that we can overcome the backlog of needed waste treatment facilities and finance the construction required to keep up with population growth, plant obsolescence, and higher water quality requirements.
Mr. President, water pollution is a nationwide problem. No State and no community is free from the menace of water pollution. It is expensive, not only for the individual and the businessman but also for the community and the Nation. The price of pollution is spread throughout the society by reduced availability of clean water and restricted growth of the economy.
We must take action now to provide a plentiful supply of useable water for future generations. S. 3206 will help us meet our future water needs. I hope that this valuable legislation will receive favorable action today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
The bill (S. 3206) was passed, as follows:
[Bill text omitted]