Muskie Congressional Record: CWA NEPA

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

October 8, 1969

Page 29050

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment in the nature of a substitute to title II of S. 7.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 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 in the nature of a substitute for title II is as follows:

On page 74, beginning with line 1, strike out all through line 21 on page 80, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"TITLE II -- ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

"SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the 'Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1969'.

"FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND PURPOSES

"SEC. 202. (a) The Congress finds

"(1) that in the pursuit of social and economic advancement man has caused changes in the environment;

"(2) that the degree of such changes endangers a harmonious relationship between man and his environment;

"(3) that population increases and urban concentration contribute directly to pollution and the degradation of our environment, increasing the severity of the physical, social, psychological, and economic problems of our society; and

"(4) that changes in the environment should be restricted, insofar as possible, to avoid adverse effects on man, other species and the environment itself.

"(b) The Congress declares that there is a national policy for the environment enunciated in laws relating to air, water and land pollution which

"(1) provides for the enhancement of the quality of our air, water, and land environment;

"(2) recognizes the primary responsibility for implementation of this policy rests with State and local governments; and

"(3) encourages and supports implementation of this policy through appropriate regional organizations.

"(c) The purposes of this title are

"(1) to assure that each Federal department or agency conducting or supporting public works activities which affect the environment shall implement the policies established under existing law and by the President pursuant to this title; and

"(2) to authorize and to provide staff for an Office of Environmental Quality.

"OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

"SEC. 203. (a) There is established in the Executive Office of the President an office to be known as the Office of Environmental Quality (herein referred to as the "Office"). There shall be in the Office a Director and a Deputy Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

"(b) The compensation of the Director and the Deputy Director shall be fixed by the President at a rate not in excess of the annual rate of compensation payable to the Director and the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

"(c) The Director is authorized to employ such officers and employees as may be necessary to enable the Office to carry out its functions under this title.

"(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Director shall

"(1) provide assistance to the President on policies and programs of the Federal Government. including review of existing and proposed projects, facilities and activities, which affect environmental quality, and recommended priorities thereon;

"(2) provide staff and support for any board, council or committee established by the President or authorized by the Congress to coordinate Federal activities which affect policies and programs established to protect and enhance environmental quality;

"(3) review the adequacy of existing systems for monitoring and predicting environmental changes in order to achieve effective coverage and efficient use of research facilities and other resources;

"(4) promote advancement of scientific knowledge of the effects of actions and technology on the environment and encourage the development of the means to prevent or reduce adverse effects that endanger the health and well-being of man;

"(5) assure evaluation of new and changing technologies for their potential effects on the environment prior to their implementation;

"(6) review and comment on the coordination of the programs and activities of Federal departments and agencies which affect, protect, and improve environmental quality;

"(7) review and comment on the development and interrelationship of environmental quality criteria and standards established through the Federal Government; and

"(8) collect, collate, analyze, and interpret data and information on environmental quality and issue reports thereon, as he deems appropriate;

"(9) develop and maintain an inventory of existing and future natural resource development projects, engineering works, and other major projects and programs contemplated or planned by public or private agencies or organizations which make significant modifications in the natural environment;

"(10) establish a system of collecting and receiving information and data on ecological research and evaluations which are in progress or are planned by other public or private agencies or organizations, or individuals; and

"(11) perform such other duties and functions as directed by the President.

"(e) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Director is authorized to contract with public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and with individuals, without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5) for research and surveys regarding any potential or existing problem of environmental quality.

"EFFECT ON EXISTING AUTHORIZATIONS

"SEC. 204. The policies and goals set forth in this title are supplementary to existing authorizations of Federal agencies.

"AUTHORIZATION

"SEC. 205. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1969, and for each of five succeeding fiscal years, such amounts as may be necessary for the purposes of this title."

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute both as an indicator of the Senate's interest in this proposal and as instructions to the Senate conferees to support the agreed-upon compromise language for S. 1075.

The statement I am about to make on title II involves title II of S. 7 and S. 1075, sponsored by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Mr. JACKSON). The Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) will make a statement to the same effect, which is the essence of our agreement on these two bills.

The substitute amendment for title II of S. 7 is largely similar to the title as reported by the committee. The justifications as discussed in my remarks and the committee report still exist without modification. The language has been modified to assure minimum of overlap or conflict with the proposed version of S. 1075.

The substance of title II remains the same: all Federal and federally assisted public works projects would be directed to implement environmental policies established by the President and existing air, water, and land pollution laws; and there would be established in the Executive Office of the President, an Office of Environmental Quality to assist the President in review and development of environmental programs and policies.

As revised, title II of S. 7 no longer provides for establishment of advisory committees by the Director of the Office of Environmental Quality, nor is the Director authorized to conduct a biennial forum on environmental problems. Both of these functions would be transferred to S. 1075 as activities more properly conducted by the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers.

As revised, the Office of Environmental Quality would be available to provide staff support to the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers, the President's Council on Environmental Quality and to the President directly.

Also, the Office would carry on certain data collection and analysis functions previously included in S. 1075. This ongoing monitoring function would provide a means of developing needed information to determine potential environmental changes which are caused or could be caused by any activity in which the Federal Government is involved.

The report required under title III of S. 1075 would be transmitted in whole or in part to the committees which traditionally have exercised jurisdiction over the environmental subject matter contained therein. For example, if such a report discusses the problems of air quality, either that section of the report or the report in its entirety would be referred to the Committee on Public Works as well as other committees which might have interest in other portions of the report. This type of distribution to the appropriate congressional committees will provide maximum participation in the development of a meaningful legislative response to the problems posed by this report from the President.

The revisions included in this substitute essentially would clarify the staff role of the Office of Environmental Quality while leaving to Senator JACKSON's proposed Board of Environmental Quality Advisers the function of independent oversight of Federal policies and programs which affect the environment. Because Senator JACKSON will discuss the board's function in some detail. I will confine my remarks to the compromise version of S. 1075 as it relates to title I, the so-called national policy statement.

Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the revised version of S. 1075 be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S. 1075

A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, and research relating to the Nation's ecological systems, natural resources, and environmental quality, and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. That this Act may be cited as the "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969".

PURPOSE

SEC. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Board of Environmental Quality Advisers.

TITLE I

DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing that man depends on his biological and physical surroundings for food, shelter, and other needs, and for cultural enrichment as well; and recognizing further the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances on our physical and biological surroundings and on the quality of life available to the American people; hereby declares that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may

(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and

(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

(b) The Congress recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.

SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States, to the fullest extent possible, be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and that all agencies of the Federal Government

(a) utilize to the fullest extent possible a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man's environment;

(b) identify and develop methods and procedures, subject to review and approval of the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers established by Title III of this Act, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations;

(c) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action;

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;

(iv) the relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity; and

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any established agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Board of Environmental Advisers and to the public as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552 and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes.

(d) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;

(e) recognize the worldwide and longrange character of environmental problems and lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind's world environment; and

(1) review present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for conformity to the purposes and provisions of this Act and propose to the President such measures as may be necessary to make their authority consistent with this Act.

SEC. 103. Nothing in section 102 shall in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (a) to comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (b) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State agency, or (c) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other Federal or State agency.

SEC. 104. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are supplementary to existing authorizations of Federal agencies.

TITLE II

SEC. 201. To carry out the purposes of this Act, the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers is hereby authorized

(a) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research, and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental quality to the extent that such activities do not overlap or conflict with similar activities authorized by law and performed by established agencies;

(b) to document and define changes in the natural environment, including the plant and animal systems, and to accumulate necessary data and other information for a continuing analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of their underlying causes; and

(c) to evaluate and disseminate information of an ecological nature to public and private agencies or organizations, or individuals in the form of reports, publications, atlases, and maps.

SEC. 202. To carry out the purposes of this Act, all agencies of the Federal Government in conjunction with their existing programs and authorities, are hereby authorized

(a) to make available to States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment;

(b) to initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource- oriented projects;

(c) to conduct research and studies within natural areas under Federal ownership which are under the jurisdiction of the Federal agencies; and

(d) to assist the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers established under title III of this Act and any council or committee established by the President to deal with environmental problems.

SEC. 203. There is hereby established in the Office of Science and Technology an additional office with the title "Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology." The Deputy Director shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall perform such duties as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology shall from time to time direct, and shall be compensated at the rate provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).

TITLE III

SEC. 301. (a) There is created in the Executive Office of the President a Board of Environmental Quality Advisers (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). The Board shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by the President to serve at his pleasure, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Each member shall, as a result of training, experience, or attainments, be professionally qualified to analyze and interpret environmental trends of all kinds and descriptions and shall be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interest of this Nation. The President shall designate the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board from such members.

(b) Members of the Board shall serve full time and the Chairman of the Board shall be compensated at the rate provided for Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313). The other members of the Board shall be compensated at the rate provided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).

SEC. 302. (a) The primary function of the Board shall be to study and analyze environmental trends and the factors that affect these trends, relating each area of study and analysis to the conservation, social, economic, and health goals of this Nation. In carrying out this function, the Board shall

(1) report at least once each year to the President on the state and condition of the environment;

(2) provide advice, assistance. and support to the President on the formulation of national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality; and

(3) obtain information using existing sources, to the greatest extent practicable, concerning the quality of the environment and make such information available to the public.

(b) The Board shall periodically review and appraise Federal programs, projects, activities, and policies which affect the quality of the environment and make recommendations thereon to the President.

(c) It shall be the duty and function of the Board to assist and advise the President in the preparation of the annual environmental quality report required under section 303.

(d) The Board shall carry out its duties under the provisions of this Act at the direction of the President and shall perform whatever additional duties he may from time to time direct.

SEC. 303. (a) The President shall transmit to the Congress, beginning June 30, 1970, an annual environmental quality report which shall set forth: (a) the status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered environmental classes of the Nation; and (b) current and foreseeable trends in quality, management, and utilization of such environments and the effects of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Nation.

(b) Such report shall be referred in whole or in part to the committees of each house of the Congress which have exercised jurisdiction over the subject matter contained therein.

SEC. 304. (a) In order to obtain assistance and independent advice in the development and implementation of the purposes of this title, the Board may from time to time establish advisory committees. Committee members shall be selected from among representatives of various State, interstate, and local government agencies, of public or private interests concerned with population growth, environmental quality, and planning for the future, and of the other public and private agencies demonstrating an active interest, as well as other individuals in the fields of population, biology, medical sciences, psychology, social sciences, ecology, agriculture, economics, law, engineering, and political science, who have demonstrated competence with regard to problems of the environment.

(b) The members of the advisory committees appointed pursuant to this title shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the Board, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5 of the United States Code for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.

(c) The Board shall organize and convene a biennial forum on current problems and issues concerning environmental quality, population, and the future, and publish the proceedings thereof, and participants in such forums shall be selected from among representatives of various State, interstate, and local government agencies, of public or private interests concerned with population growth, environmental quality, and planning for the future, and of other public and private agencies demonstrating an active interest, as well as other individuals in the fields

of population, biology. psychology, medical sciences, social sciences, ecology, agriculture, economics, law, engineering, and political science who have demonstrated competence with regard to problems of the environment.

SEC. 304. The Board may employ such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. In addition, the Board may employ and fix the compensation of such experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under this Act, in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code (but without regard to the last sentence thereof).

SEC. 305. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 annually to carry out the purposes of this title.

Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to establish a national policy for the environment; to authorize studies, surveys, and research relating to ecological systems, natural resources, and the quality of the human environment; and to establish a Board of Environmental Quality Advisers"

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as Senators are aware, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has been examining specific air, water, and solid waste pollution problems since its creation in 1963. It is worthy of note that the subcommittee has heard over 1,100 witnesses and accumulated 15,877 pages of testimony in the past 6 years on environmental matters. Prior to that time, and as far back as 1899, the Committee on Public Works and its predecessors have initiated or handled pollution control legislation.

The fact that the Nation has a capacity to deal with air pollution, water pollution, and to a lesser extent, solid wastes, is due in a large part to the activities of this subcommittee and the continued, unanimous support of the Committee on Public Works.

The legislation which has been enacted on these subjects is indicative of two important trends in the Nation's concern for the quality of its environment; first, that we are willing to make a commitment of our financial resources to finding and applying solutions to difficult pollution problems; and second, that there is a need for orderly pollution control procedures, both in identifying the extent of control required and in establishing implementation programs.

The philosophy of air and water quality legislation has been first to develop the criteria which indicate the effects of pollutants on the various aspects of the public health and welfare and then to apply available, feasible control technology. This philosophy has been based on two elemental concepts -- that only those measures which were designed to enhance air and water quality would be acceptable and that local and State government have the prime responsibility to implement those measures.

It was against this background of study, hearings, discussion and legislation that members of the subcommittee became concerned with the potential interpretation of title I of S. 1075, as passed by the Senate. Section 102(c) of the bill would require every Federal agency to include as a part of any legislative proposal, report on legislation or any major action, which has a significant effect on the quality of the environment, a finding of environmental impact, adverse

environmental effects, commitments of resources, and other potential justifications for the legislation or activity.

The concept of self-policing by Federal agencies which pollute or license pollution is contrary to the philosophy and intent of existing environmental quality legislation. In hearing after hearing agencies of the Federal Government have argued that their primary authorization, whether it be maintenance of the navigable waters by the Corps of Engineers or licensing of nuclear powerplants by the Atomic Energy Commission, takes precedence over water quality requirements.

I repeat, these agencies have always emphasized their primary responsibility making environmental considerations secondary in their view.

It is for this reason that the legislation pending before the Senate includes a provision which would require water quality compliance by Federal agencies in both their own activities and the activities in which they are involved. Section 16 of S. 7 would require water quality compliance as a precondition of Federal activities; it would not leave the determination of water quality effects to the polluter. By requiring compliance certification from the water pollution control agency, section 16 would assign policing responsibility to those agencies most qualified to make an environmental decision and not to those committed to carrying out some other function at minimum cost.

The proposed compromise language developed for section 102(c) clearly indicates the extent to which the polluter is involved in determining environmental effects. This language eliminated the requirement that a "finding" be made but provides that environmental impact be discussed as a part of any report on legislation, or any decision to commence a major activity. The requirement that established environmental agencies be consulted and that their comments accompany any such report would place the environmental control responsibility where it should be.

Other provisions of the compromise on S. 1075 include elimination of the requirement that the President designate a lead agency to conduct data collection and make grants to carry out the purposes of the act. To a large extent these functions are either presently delegated to existing agencies or would be carried on by the office of environmental quality.

Mr. President, S. 1075 brings into focus the Senate's continuing concern for the quality of the Nation's environment. S. 1075 focuses attention on an environmental need which is not included in either bill pending before the Senate today and is only covered in part by existing legislation.

The Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provided for specific development of criteria which define the impact of water and air pollutants on health and welfare. Pending solid waste legislation would require the same type of systematic analysis of the relationship of pollutants to the land environment.

On the basis of these criteria, standards of environmental quality have been and are being developed. But obviously criteria and standards designed to protect and enhance the quality of our air and water and enhance our ability to deal with our solid wastes in an orderly, efficient, and healthful manner do not provide an effective or orderly manner to consider all forms of environmental degradation. For example, there are no criteria which indicate the various levels of noise which affect the health and welfare of people nor are there criteria on which local or even national esthetic judgments can be based.

We need to begin to focus our attention on developing legislation which will provide for the development of criteria which would indicate the effects of a nuclear test on a wildlife refuge or the effects of development of a permafrost region on the ecology of the area.

We cannot afford to fight our environmental battles on a crisis-by-crisis basis nor can we afford to shut down tomorrow on the basis of today's fears. By development of meaningful methods of measurement of environmental impact, through development of standards-setting procedures at the local level, through careful analysis of existing and future land uses, we can begin to order our progress without environmental chaos.

Mr. President, it is in the spirit and with this approach in mind that the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), the ranking Republican, the distinguished Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT), the distinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) and myself from the Public Works Committee, as well as the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), the chairman of the full committee, have undertaken to resolve our differences with respect to the relationship of S. 7 and S. 1075.

I think that we have succeeded in doing so in a way which does violence to neither and which advances the broad objectives which we both seek to serve.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I fully agree with the purposes of section 16(c) of S. 7. It is my understanding that there was never any conflict between this section and the provisions of S. 1075. If both bills were enacted in their present form, there would be a requirement for State certification, as well as a requirement that the licensing agency make environmental findings.

The compromise worked out between the bills provides that the licensing agency will not have to make a detailed statement on water quality if the State or other appropriate agency has made a certification pursuant to section 16(c).

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maine for bringing out this bill; it goes a long way toward cleaning up some forms of stream pollution with which we are afflicted. What I particularly wish to ask him is, am I correct in assuming that under the new section 16, all nuclear powerplants are covered, but only some of the conventional fuel powerplants are covered?

Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. As conventionally fueled powerplants increase in size, they will be increasingly subject to certificate by reason of the need to obtain a permit from the Corps of Engineers for one reason or another.

I think the Senator from Vermont might like me to read into the RECORD at this point testimony by Mr. Ramey, Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission, on this point.

Mr. AIKEN. Yes.

Mr. MUSKIE. This testimony reads as follows:

We have been informed that a substantial percentage of conventionally fueled plants of the larger sizes -- sizes comparable to the currently populace sizes of nuclear plants -- need some sort of Federal permission.

For example, we understand from an examination of data developed by the Corps of Engineers that during 1967, 12 conventionally fueled plants over 400 megawatts -- electrical -- in size went on the line.

Of these 12 relatively large sized plants, eight or 66% percent, required and had secured a Federal permit.

Seven of the plants required a permit from the Corps of Engineers because their construction plans included structures on navigable waters; one plant had intake and outfall structures located on U.S.-owned land and required a permit.

One additional plant was built by the Tennessee Valley Authority and did not require a permit.

This suggests, I think, some of the reasons why the proposed legislation might apply to some of the larger fossil fuel plants but might not apply to all of them.

Mr. AIKEN. I think that is a sound explanation. It is well to go as far as the bill goes in that direction. I am sorry it cannot cover all of the smaller fossil fuel plants.

The real reason I asked the question is that we hear various kinds of propaganda which is designed to alarm the people and cause them to believe that only atomic powerplants create thermal pollution. That, of course, is not true. According to information furnished by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration there were 10 cases of fish kill caused by discharge from power generating plants during the years 1962 to 1968. Every one of them was from a conventional power plant. To date, to my knowledge, there has been no case whatever of fish kill being caused by thermal discharges from a nuclear power plant. I wanted to make that clear.

Yesterday I submitted two amendments in somewhat of a hurry, and they were printed. Upon further study of the situation, I realized that probably the bill which the Senator from Maine is now sponsoring would go as far as it is possible to go legislatively at this time and therefore I will not call up these amendments.

I have one other question. It is about a matter which disturbs me considerably, in that apparently the certification procedure in the bill does not cover all industrial plants. We have had experiences in my State with paper mills, tanneries, and other types of industrial plants which contribute heavily to the pollution of our lakes and rivers. To what extent, if any, will the bill cover that type of pollution?

Mr. MUSKIE. It will cover it in one possible respect and in another clear respect. To the extent that any large industrial plant might require a permit from the Corps of Engineers because of intrusion upon navigation, that permit will make the industry subject to section 16.

But beyond that, the procedures established by the Water Quality Act of 1965, the Secretary of the Interior is in a position to assume leadership by requiring the setting of standards by the States to deal with thermal pollution from all sources. That authority is on the books. The States are required, under that legislation, to set standards.

I think this RECORD might be a good place in which to urge the Secretary to use his mandate and begin tightening these standards.

As the Senator from Vermont probably knows, water quality standards have been set pursuant to the Water Quality Act of 1965. We have used the section is approach in order to put the Federal Government's house in order. This, we hope, will be followed by the States, in order to enforce their own water quality standards.

Mr. AIKEN. I think some of the Federal agencies can stand some improvement in this respect. The reason why I have raised the question at this time is that there are so many different types of industrial plants which I do not believe are covered.

For a long time there has been a paper mill on the New York side of Lake Champlain. Vermont has, I think, pretty good water quality standard laws. New York has only recently tightened its standards. But before anything was done, probably the lower quarter of Lake Champlain had become so contaminated that the people who live on the Vermont side could not use the water for domestic purposes. Of course, for a long time the Vermont standards were much higher than they were across the lake, in New York.

Now the paper company on the New York side of Lake Champlain is building a very large mill, just up the lake from the old mill. Their representatives have told me that they will use about a thousand cords of hardwood a day. That is a very sizable mill. When the paper company representatives came to see me they told me that they can control, and plan to control the waste and contamination from the mill which would otherwise, as it did from the old mill, have emptied practically untreated into the lake. They now plan to recover the fiber, and possibly the chemicals, and other matter which contribute to pollution. I do not know how far they will go, and I hope they are right. I am watching the situation closely.

The new mill has been granted a license by the Corps of Engineers to construct an intake and outfall pipe into Lake Champlain.

One thing which caused me to be a little apprehensive was that in looking at the plans, I found that the discharge pipe from the paper mill empties on the Vermont side of the lake. I wanted to be sure that this bill could correct a situation like that, in the event that the mill does not control all the population which it will create.

Mr. MUSKIE. These discharges would be controlled by the Water Quality Act and the standards that have been set under that act by both States. If those standards are not adequate, I should think that the appropriate State agencies ought to review and revise them.

Mr. AIKEN. Assuming that the pollution is not controlled and that it is emptied on the Vermont side of the lake or the New York side for that matter, what recourse would Vermont have then?

Of course, it is Federal water anyway, but how could the State control any possible pollution?

Under the Senator's bill, would the Federal Government enter the picture and require the enforcement of the law?

Mr. MUSKIE. The enforcement provisions of the 1965 act would be applicable.

Mr. AIKEN. I hope the Senator is correct.

Mr. MUSKIE. The bill now before us would not be needed to deal with that situation.

Mr. AIKEN. The paper company officials insists that they will have the situation under control so that the amount of pollution will be almost zero. It will be a great step forward if that is done.

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Vermont and I have had considerable experience with this kind of situation in the past. I think the best point in time at which to make sure is before the plant is built.

Mr. AIKEN. Many of the people of Vermont depend on the water of Lake Champlain for domestic purposes. We have large water systems which draw water from the lake for distribution to many farms and homes.

I shall not insist on offering my amendments because, frankly, I do not know how far the Senator's bill will go. But I hope it will go a long way toward correcting situations which never should be permitted to exist.

Mr. MUSKIE. The bill represents what we believe is a meaningful first step in dealing with thermal as well as other pollution, and we intend to consider future amendments to cover situations included in the Senator's amendments, to the extent they may not now be covered.

Mr. AIKEN. Let me assure the Senator from Maine that I will be delighted to cooperate with him in securing effective legislation.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment the able and distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) for his very fine statement. He has indicated that we have been able to work out the differences -- in which I concur -- in a way which is satisfactory to both committees.

More important, of course, is the fact that this agreement will be extremely helpful in seeing to it that appropriate legislation is enacted in this all-important area of environment administration.

I express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Maine, the chairman of the subcommittee, who has been handling these matters. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), who has taken a keen interest in this matter.

We have had a number of discussions on the minority side with the able and distinguished Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT), the ranking minority member, who has followed all this closely and has been extremely helpful, especially to the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in trying to work out an appropriate solution to this problem. I express to him my deep appreciation for his support.

Mr. President, a number of questions have been raised in recent days regarding the relationship between S. 1075, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which was passed by the Senate on July 10 and by the House on September 23, and title II of S. 7, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969 now before the Senate.

All of these questions have been carefully considered by the respective chairmen and by other concerned members of the Public Works Committee and the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.

As a result of a review and a comparison of the two measures it has been agreed that an effort will be made to modify the provisions of title II of S. 7 by offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. In addition, it has been agreed that the Senate conferees of S. 1075 will seek to have certain changes incorporated into the provisions of S. 1075 when that measure is considered by the conference committee.

The agreement on this matter was made after it was discovered that the Interior Committee and the Senate had acted and that the Senate was about to act upon different, but, in some respects, parallel legislative proposals which involve the creation of new governmental institutions for the overview and administration of Federal programs related to the management of the Nation's environment. This duality of effort by the two committees does not, as I understand it, involve any direct conflict in purpose or intent. Both measures can, however, be improved in some respects by adoption of the agreed-upon changes. For the most part, these changes are designed to insure that duplication of effort does not occur and that congressional directives to the executive branch in the two proposals are consistent.

The proposed changes are reflected in the amendment in the nature of a substitute to title II of S. 7 which has been introduced, and in a copy of S. 1075 which will be printed in the RECORD when the motion is made later today to disagree to the amendments of the House to S. 1075 and to agree to the conference requested by the House.

Mr. President, this rather unusual procedure is, in part, the outgrowth of some basic and still unresolved questions relating to the jurisdiction of the standing committees of both Houses of the Congress on legislative matters relating to Federal policies on preserving and maintaining the quality of man's environment. The historic committee jurisdiction on routine legislation – air and water pollution legislation, outdoor recreation proposals, minerals policy, rivers and harbors projects, and so forth – has been long established and, insofar as I am aware, is not challenged.

In new and emerging areas of legislative concern, however, the die has not been cast, and many different committees of the Congress have quite properly expressed interest. Examples here include weather modification, national land-use planning, the establishment of policies for the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, some areas of water resource policy, and policies related to the management of man's environment.

In these areas, jurisdiction is either shared by committees or it has gravitated by the force of precedent to the committee or committees which have actively participated in hearings on the particular subject matter involved.

With respect to legislation related to "pollution control" it is clear that the Public Works Committee has exercised jurisdiction and will continue to have jurisdiction over future proposals related to air, water, and solid waste pollution. Legislative jurisdiction over "pollution control" does not, however, mean that the Public Works Committee – or any other committee – has jurisdiction over all matters which relate to maintaining and improving the quality of the human environment. Maintaining and improving the quality of the surroundings and the quality of life enjoyed by the American people is a basic and fundamental task of all the committees of Congress and of all of the agencies of the executive branch.

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has historically played a very large and a very important role in this area. The legislation handled by the committee and enacted by the Congress over the past 10 years shows the scope of the Interior Committee's role and the diligence with which it has been pursued.

The committee has approved the following general legislation in recent years: the National Water Commission Act, the Water Resources Planning Act, the Water Resources Research Act, the Federal desalting program, the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act, the land and water conservation fund, the Public Land Law Review Commission Act, the reclamation program, the Wilderness Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and many other general measures related to resource, environmental, and land use policies.

In addition, over the past few years, the committee has approved measures to set aside for future generations four new national parks, eight new national recreation areas, nine new national seashores and lake shores, almost 100 new wilderness areas, national monuments and historic sites. All of these measures relate to the quality of the human environment.

The committee's legislative activities over the past 10 years in the area of new governmental institutions and policies for resource and environmental management are set out in the legislative history section of the committee's report on S. 1075.

The important role played by the Interior Committee in preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment does not, however, give the Interior Committee predominant jurisdiction in this area.

The concept of "environment," like that of "economics" cuts across the jurisdiction of all congressional committees. Actions taken by the Finance Committee, for example, on depreciation, charitable contributions, foundations, and the taxation of trusts will have a major impact on the future role private enterprise and individual action will play in preserving our environment for future generations. The same may be said with respect to other committees: the Commerce Committee's action on the development of an estuarine program, a transportation policy, and an alternative to the internal combustion engine; the Agriculture Committee's actions on pesticide control, soil erosion, and the development of new opportunity in rural America; the Banking and Currency Committee's activities in the development of urban programs; and the activities of many other committees of the Congress.

It is clear that all committees have an important role to play in this area. The Legislative Reference Service tabulated over 100 bills in the 90th Congress which were directly concerned with environmental issues. In the present Congress there are even more. Recent reports indicate that of the 16 standing committees of the Senate, eight have broad jurisdiction in this area. Of the 21 House standing committees, 11 are similarly involved.

On a subject so pervasive, broad, and important as "environment" and the "quality of life," no committee may exercise exclusive jurisdiction. It is also clear that there is a need to give specialized and regularized consideration to these subjects. Because of this need, I have proposed, and I plan to join with other Members of the Senate and, I hope, Members of the House of Representatives, to sponsor and to advance legislation to establish a non-legislative joint committee on the environment.

The enactment of S. 1075 and S. 7 will give the Nation an environmental policy as well as appropriate governmental structures in the executive branch to implement the policy. The next logical step, in my view, is to insure that the legislative branch has an institution equally well adapted to provide continued oversight on environmental matters. A joint committee would provide such an institution.

During my service on the Interior Committee, I have found that the lack of an overall national policy on the environment often frustrates efforts to preserve, protect and to improve man's surroundings. A recent example may be seen in connection with the water supply and jet airport controversy which currently threatens the existence of the Everglades National Park. Under present law, the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Transportation apparently do not have a clear statutory mandate to see that the environmental and natural values found in the park are not damaged or endangered by their flood control and transportation activities.

It is my belief, based on extensive committee hearings, that the problems associated with the Everglades could have been avoided if there had existed a clear statement of goals and procedures designed to make clear that all Federal agencies have a responsibility for the preservation and protection of environmental values. S. 1075, as passed by the Senate, clearly states the Nation's goals and the responsibilities of all Federal agencies with respect to the maintenance of a safe, healthy, productive and esthetically pleasing environment. Enactment of S. 1075 will prevent many of the environmental problems caused by Federal agencies and their activities.

The Interior Committee has experienced similar problems in other contexts. The controversy over the construction of dams in the Grand Canyon, for example, could have been resolved at a much earlier date if the Department of the Interior had been required to present Congress with alternative proposals where, as in that case, there were unresolved major environmental conflicts.

Section 102(d) of S. 1075 would go far toward resolving such problems by requiring the development and presentation of alternatives in all future legislative reports on measures involving major unresolved environmental conflicts.

Other basic provisions of S. 1075 are also designed to minimize the conflict between resource development and the maximization of environmental values. Subsection 102(a) requires all agencies to utilize the expertise and learning of all relevant disciplines in planning and decision making on actions which may have an adverse impact on man's environment. Subsection 102(b) requires the development of procedures designed to insure that all relevant environmental values and amenities are considered in the calculus of project development and decision making.

Subsection 102(c) establishes a procedure designed to insure that in instances where a proposed major Federal action would have a significant impact on the environment that the impact has in fact been considered, that any adverse effects which cannot be avoided are justified by some other stated consideration of national policy, that short-term uses are consistent with long-term productivity, and that any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are warranted.

The agreed-upon changes mentioned previously would change the language of some of these requirements, but their substance would remain relatively unchanged.

The provisions of S. 1075 are designed to establish a policy and a set of planning procedures which will prevent instances of environmental abuse and degradation caused by Federal actions before they get off the planning board. It is my hope that the House will accept these provisions in conference committee on S. 1075.

If enacted, titles I and II of S. 1075 will give all agencies a mandate, a responsibility, and a meaningful tool to insure that the quality of America's future environment is as good or better than today's. Departments such as the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development will then no longer have an excuse for ignoring environmental values in the pursuit of narrower, more immediate, mission-oriented goals. Agencies such as the Atomic Energy Commission which now contend they have no legislative authority to consider environmental values will be given the authority, the responsibility, and a directive to do so. In view of the recent public concern over AEC activities in connection with Project Bronco and the Amchitka test, it is time that AEC be given a larger mandate against which to weigh the environmental impact of its planned and proposed activities. The same is true of many other agencies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a comparison of the present provisions of S. 1075 as passed by the Senate, S. 7 as reported by the Public Works Committee, and S. 1075 as amended by the House be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a memorandum discussing the agreed-upon changes in S. 1075 and title II be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibits 1 and 2.)

[Exhibit 1 omitted]

EXHIBIT 2

AGREED-UPON CHANGES IN S. 7 AND S. 1075 TITLE II OF S. 7 AND THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

The amendment in the nature of a substitute would make the following changes in Title II of S. 7 as reported by the Public Works Committee.

1. Section 202 (b) would be stricken and new language inserted. This section had declared that is a national policy for the environment found in certain Acts previously considered by the Public Works Committee. The amendment in the nature of a substitute states that there is a policy and states this policy in general terms as being "the enhancement of the quality of our air, water and land environment."

2. Section 202 (c) is rewritten to state that the purposes of this title are to assure that each Federal agency supporting public works activities which affect the environment implement existing policies and policies established by the President pursuant to this title.

3. Section 203 is stricken and its substance is incorporated into section 202(c).

4. Section 204 is changed to Section 203. This section establishes an Office of Environmental Quality.

Subsection (d) of section 203 which sets forth the duties of the Director of the Office has been substantially revised. The purpose of these revisions is to insure that the duties and functions performed by the Office and the Board of Advisers established by title III of S. 1075 are consistent and do not result in duplication, over-lap or conflict.

Subsections 203 (d) (3), (6), (7), and (11) have been deleted because these duties are more appropriately functions to be performed by the Board of Environmental Advisers established by S. 1075. Subsections 203(d) (1) and (2) have been rewritten to clarify the type of assistance, staff and support the Office would give the President and other councils or committees charged with environmental responsibilities. Subsections 203(d) (2) recognizes that Congress may soon establish a Board of Environmental Advisors as proposed in title III of S. 1075.

The new Subsection 203(d) (8) was drawn from subsection 203 (f) which would be stricken.

Subsections 203(d) (9) and (10) were taken from subsections 202(a) (2) and (3) of S. 1075. These functions of data collection and inventory systems are more appropriately duties of an Office than of a semi-independent Board of Environmental Advisers.

5. Subsection 204(f) and Section 205 of Title II of S. 7 are deleted and the authority to convene a biennial forum on environmental problems and to establish advisory committees is vested with the Board of Advisers established by Title III of S. 1075.

6. A new section 204 making the provisions of this Act supplementary to existing authorizations of Federal agencies is inserted. This language parallels language found in title I of S. 1075.

PROVISIONS SENATE CONFEREES WILL SUPPORT IN CONFERENCE ON S. 1075

The Senate conferees will support in Conference Committee certain agreed-upon changes in S. 1075 which are designed to avoid any inconsistency or duplication with provisions of Title I and with Title II of S. 7. The major agreed-upon changes are briefly described below.

1. The directive to the agencies set out in Section 102(b) is made subject to the review and approval of the Board of Environmental Advisers.

2. The requirement for a "finding" by the responsible official in Section 102(c) is changed to a requirement for a "detailed statement."

The directives to the responsible official which are set out as subsection 102(c) (f) through (iv) of S. 1075 are revised.

New language is added to Section 102(c) which will require the responsible official to consult with and obtain the views of other agencies having jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to the particular environmental impact involved in the proposed action. Language is also added requiring that copies of the responsible official's statement and the comments of other agencies be made available to the President, the Board and the public.

3. A new Section 103 is added to make explicitly clear that section 102 does not in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of Federal agencies to comply with environmental standards, to coordinate their activities, or to condition their actions upon any State or Federal certifications now required by law or which may be required by law. The language of this section is designed to insure that the provisions of law such as Section 16 (c) of S. 7 not affected by the requirements of Section 102 of S. 1075. Section 16 (c) of S. 7 would have the effect of exempting the Corps of Engineers and the Atomic Energy Commission and some other agencies from the requirement for a detailed statement on the environmental impact of proposed actions involving any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States. Under the terms of Section 16(c) of S. 7 as now drafted, the State or other appropriate organization would be charged with certifying that any discharge is in compliance with water quality standards. This certification would be a condition precedent to obtaining any Federal license or permit required by law before any discharges into the navigable waters of the United States.

4. Title II of S. 1075 would be revised to make clear that the functions set out in subsections 201 (a), (b), and (c) are functions to be performed by the Board of Environmental Advisers.

5. The remaining functions set out in Section 201 would continue to be functions all Federal agencies are authorized to undertake under a new section 202.

6. Section 202 would be deleted and part of the authority would be transferred to the Office of Environmental Quality established by Title II of S. 7.

7. Portions of Section 203 would be deleted in recognition that under title II of S. 7 the Office of Environmental Quality would provide staff and support for the President's interdepartmental Council on the Environment.

8. Section 303 would be revised to explicitly provide that the annual environmental quality report would be referred in whole or part to any or all of the Committees of each House of the Congress having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the report.

9. New language would be added to Title III authorizing the Board of Environmental Advisers to establish advisory committees and to organize and convene a biennial forum on environmental problems. This language was taken from Title II of S. 7.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the purpose of the agreed-upon changes is to avoid duplication and to avoid any inconsistent directives to agencies in the executive branch. Some of the changes insure that there will be coordination between agencies and that appropriate agencies will be given an opportunity to comment upon activities of other agencies which may have adverse environmental consequences. A new proposed section 103 in S. 1075 would be added to make explicitly clear that section 102 does not in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of Federal agencies to comply with environmental standards, to coordinate their activities, or to condition their actions upon and State or Federal certifications now required by law or which may be required by law. The language of this section is designed to insure that the provisions of section 16, and particularly section 16(c) of S. 7 are consistent with the requirements of section 102 of S. 1075. Section 16 (c) of S. 7 would have the effect of exempting the Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, and some other agencies from the requirement in S. 1075 for a detailed statement on the environmental impact of proposed actions involving any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States. Under the terms of section 16(c) of S. 7 as now drafted, the State or other appropriate organization would be charged with certifying that any discharge in substantial compliance with appropriate water quality standards. This certification would be a condition precedent to obtaining any Federal license or permit required by law before making any discharges into the navigable waters of the United States.

Mr. President, the major precepts of an environmental policy are not controversial though, as we have found over the past few weeks, the specific language may be difficult to draft. What is involved is a declaration that we do not intend, as a government or as a people, to initiate actions which endanger the continued existence or the health of mankind. That we will not intentionally initiate actions which will do irreparable damage to the resources which support life on earth.

An environmental policy is a policy for people. Its primary concern is with man and his future.

The basic principle of the policy is that we must strive, in all that we do, to achieve a standard of excellence in man's relationships to his physical surroundings. If there are to be departures from this standard they will be exceptions to the rule and the policy. And as exceptions they will have to be justified in the light of public scrutiny.

S. 1075 as passed by the Senate, and with the changes which have been agreed upon, will provide the American people with a policy that is in the best interests of present and future generations. I am hopeful that the major provisions of this policy will emerge from the conference committee.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, today the decisions reached by the Senate on legislation pertaining to the quality of our environment, in my judgment, marks an important milestone in the life of every American. I want to especially commend the junior Senators from Washington and Maine, Mr. JACKSON and Mr. MUSKIE, for their leadership and great personal contribution in the efforts of Congress toward improving the quality of the life of all of our citizens. I believe that the amendments to title II of S. 7 and the proposed revision of S. 1075, now ready for conference, display the skill and creative leadership of these two Senators in resolving what is admittedly a very special problem of overlapping committee jurisdiction. But rather than seeking to delay and argue over jurisdiction, both Senators have commendably, and I might add, characteristically, reasoned and resolved any differences by the time-honored method of legislative compromise.

It is especially crucial that all levels of government move as quickly as possible toward wiser management of our environment. The public interest demands that we act wisely and with all deliberate speed. Time is growing short. It is no longer safe to substitute words in lieu of action to implement the needed remedies to this growing national problem. I think that the efforts today on the pending bill and the forthcoming consideration of S. 1075, will have the overwhelming support of the American people. I believe our citizens are more aware than ever before that we of this generation are trustees of our Nation's resources and of our total environment. We must assume our duty to preserve and enhance our habitat as we prepare to pass it along to future generations. As a member of the Senate Interior Committee, I will be honored to serve as a conferee on S. 1075. In my judgment this far-reaching legislation is one of the most important conservation-environmental measures that has been considered by the Congress of the United States in many years. It marks an effort for the first time to impress and implant on the Federal agencies an awareness and concern for the total environmental impact of their actions and proposed programs. This awareness will be built into the agencies' planning processes at the lowest levels, where, as we all know, most decisions are formulated and even finalized. In the future it may be possible to avoid conflicts of one program objective with others through the mechanisms provided in this bill.

It is good and necessary legislation which should be written into law as quickly as possible.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) in his discussion on the amended language of title II, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1969. These changes, together with the changes to S. 1075, create a necessary resolution of a very real controversy. This is a controversy that goes beyond the jurisdictional interests of various committees in this vital field of environmental enhancement and extends to the very definition of the words "environment" and "pollution."

A policy of environmental quality cannot be segregated from a policy for pollution control, for they are inevitably linked. We would not today consider important issues of pollution if pollution did not damage our environment. We would not be considering environmental quality policy today if our environment were not endangered by pollution.

It is my position, and I believe the position of the membership of the Public Works Committee, that a national policy for the environment has been laid down in legislation already in existence.

This policy dates to nearly the creation of the Public Works Committee in 1946.

A number of water pollution control bills have been reported by the Public Works Committee, and enacted into law. In 1948, the Congress passed the Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 80-845. Four years later it adopted an extension of the Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 82-579. In 1956, the Congress adopted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 84-660. Congress amended the Water Pollution Control Act in 1961 with Public Law 87-88.

Each of these bills, as well as the water pollution legislation passed in 1965 and 1966, was reported to the Senate floor by the Public Works Committee.

The Public Works Committee's concern for the field of air pollution, and its impact on the environment, has been as strong. In 1955, the Congress passed a bill to provide research and technical assistance relating to air pollution control, Public Law 84-159. This legislation was reported to the Senate floor by the Public Works Committee. In 1959, with the signing of Public Law 86-365, Congress extended the life of the air pollution legislation, and 2 years later adopted legislation that was to become Public Law 87-761. In 1963, at the urging of the Public Works Committee, the Congress adopted the Clean Air Act, Public Law 88-206, and since then has amended that law twice and in 1967 passed the Air Quality Act.

Another pervasive form of pollution is the solid wastes that clutter our cities and landscapes. The Public Works Committee pioneered in this field with the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. The committee as recently as last week held 4 days of hearings in the consideration of a bill, S. 2005, to extend and augment the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Clearly, a national policy already exists to create a quality environment in America. The new language of title II reiterates and reinforces this policy, and augments its implementation through the creation of an Office of Environmental Quality. This office will serve as an important adjunct to the President's Environmental Quality Council.

I do not wish to detain the Senate any longer in its deliberations. However, I would like to state my personal thanks to the committee chairman (Mr. RANDOLPH), the chairman of the subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE), the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) and the other members of the Public Works and Interior Committees for their efforts toward achieving an America with a quality environment. I commend this amended language to my colleagues.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of both the distinguished junior Senator from Maine and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on this matter. I have not actually been a participant in any of the discussions that have gone on between the two Senators, but the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I believe, has kept me informed of the progress of these matters for some time.

Before commencing a short statement, I note that on page 36 of the report No. 91-351, the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works held extensive hearings on title I of S. 7. These hearings included statements from various agencies of the Federal Government. The administration testified through the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation, and the Atomic Energy Commission. However, my review of the report fails to disclose any information concerning hearings on title II. Since title II creates a new office within the Executive Office of the President, I would be most interested in learning what the administration's reactions and comments were with respect to this title.

Therefore, I would direct this question to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, if he would direct me to the appropriate reference in the report concerning the administration's views on title II of S. 7.

Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the distinguished Senator that we did not have specific hearings on title II. May I point out that the 1-day hearing on S. 1075 was on a different version of S. 1075 than was reported. I do not recall that there were hearings on title I of S. 1075. I am not sure about title II, but I have now reviewed S. 1075 with that in mind.

S. 1075 in its present form was introduced in the Senate on May 29 of this year. The 1 day of hearing on April 16 was on a bill that was introduced in February. So both the provisions of title II of S. 7 and S. 1075 might be faulted in their provisions, in their floor version in that they were not subject to hearings.

But may I say that title II of S. 7 was extracted from S. 2391, which I introduced in July of this year with 42 Senate cosponsors. Title II is taken from that bill.

That bill was the product of some 6 or 7 years of hearings we held on such environmental matters as air quality and water quality and solid waste.

Title II was developed as representing subjects, problems, points of view that had been discussed in those hearings over that period. Those hearings included some 1,100 witnesses, some 16,000 pages of testimony, much of which is relevant to title II.

The accurate answer to the Senator's question is that there is no specific testimony in the hearings this year on title II. I repeat that the same point can be made with respect to many of the provisions of S. 1075.

Mr. ALLOTT. I cannot agree with the last statement. I would like to ask the Senator

Mr. MUSKIE. May I suggest that there be included on this point the text of the bill (S. 1075), as it existed at the time of the hearing on April 16 this year?

Mr. ALLOTT. I have no objection to that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S. 1075

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the purpose of this Act to promote and foster means and measures which will prevent or effectively reduce any adverse effects on the quality of the environment in the management and development of the Nation's natural resources, to produce an understanding of the Nation's natural resources and the environmental forces affecting them and responsible for their development and future well-being, and to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans, through a comprehensive and continuing program of study, review, and research.

TITLE I

SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary"), in order to carry out the purposes of this title, is authorized

(a) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research, and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental quality;

(b) to document and define changes in the natural environment, including the plant and animal Systems, and to accumulate necessary data and other information for a continuing analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of their underlying causes

(c) to develop and maintain an inventory of existing and future natural resource development projects, engineering works, and other major projects and programs contemplated or planned by public or private agencies or organizations which make significant modifications in the natural environment;

(d) to establish a system of collecting and receiving information and data on ecological research and evaluations which are in progress or are planned by other public or private agencies or organizations, or individuals;

(e) to evaluate and disseminate information of an ecological nature to public and private agencies or organizations, or individuals in the form of reports, publications, atlases, and maps;

(f) to make available to States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment.

(g) to initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects;

(h) to encourage other public or private agencies planning development projects to consult with the Secretary on the impact of the proposed projects on the natural environment;

(i) to conduct research and studies within natural areas under Federal ownership which are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and which are under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies; and

(j) to assist the Council on Environmental Quality established under title II of this Act.

SEC. 102. In carrying out the provisions of this title, the Secretary is authorized to make grants, including training grants, and enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with public or private agencies or organizations, or individuals, and to accept and use donations of funds, property, personal services, or facilities to carry out the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 103. The Secretary shall consult with and provide technical assistance to other Federal agencies, and he is authorized to obtain from such departments and agencies such information, data, reports, advice, and assistance as he deems necessary or appropriate and which can reasonably be furnished by such departments and agencies in carrying out the purposes of this Act. Any Federal agency furnishing advice or assistance hereunder may expend its own funds for such purposes, with or without reimbursement by the Secretary.

SEC. 104. The Secretary is authorized to participate in environmental research in surrounding oceans and in other countries in cooperation with appropriate departments or agencies of such countries or with coordinating international organizations if he determines that such activities will contribute to the objectives and purposes of this Act.

SEC. 105. Nothing in this Act is intended to give, or shall be construed as giving, the Secretary any authority over any of the authorized programs of any other department or agency of the Government, or as repealing, modifying, restricting, or amending existing authorities or responsibilities that any department or agency may have with respect to the natural environment. The Secretary shall consult with the heads of such departments and agencies for the purpose of identifying and eliminating any unnecessary duplication of effort.

SEC. 106. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.

TITLE II

SEC. 201. There is created in the Executive Office of the President a Council on Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"). The Council shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by the President to serve at his pleasure, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Each member shall, as a result of training, experience, or attainments, be professionally qualified to analyze and interpret environmental trends of all kinds and descriptions and shall be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of this Nation. The President shall designate the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council from such members.

SEC. 202. (a) The primary function of the Council shall be to study and analyze environmental trends and the factors that effect these trends, relating each area of study and analysis to the conservation, social, economic, and health goals of this Nation. In carrying out this function, the Council shall

(1) report at least once each year to the President on the state and condition of the environment;

(2) provide advice and assistance to the President on the formulation of national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality;

(3) obtain information using existing sources, to the greatest extent practicable, concerning the quality of the environment and make such information available to the public.

(b) The Council shall periodically review and appraise new and existing programs and activities carried out directly by Federal agencies or through financial assistance and make recommendations thereon to the President.

(c) It shall be the duty and function of the Council and the Secretary of the Interior to assist and advise the President in the preparation of the biennial environment quality report required under section 203.

SEC. 203. The President shall transmit to the Congress annually beginning June 30, 1970, an environmental quality report which shall set forth (a) the status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered environmental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to, the air, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water, and the terrestrial environment, including, but not limited to, the forest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural environment; and (b) current and foreseeable trends in quality, management, and utilization of such environments and the effects of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Nation.

SEC. 204. The Council may employ such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. In addition, the Council may employ and fix the compensation of such experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under this Act, in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code (but without regard to the last sentence thereof).

SEC. 205. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.

Mr. ALLOTT. Of course, it was changed from the time it was introduced.

Mr. MUSKIE. And so was S. 7.

Mr. ALLOTT. But we had hearings on S.1075.

Mr. MUSKIE. I would be glad to put in the RECORD an analysis of the points in the present bill, S. 1075, that were not covered in the hearings of April 16.

Mr. ALLOTT. Then, I understand the Senator's reply to be that there is nothing in the record from the administration commenting upon title II of S.7.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thought I had already answered the Senator's question. There is no comment.

Mr. ALLOTT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, the last thing I would want to do would be to try, even if I could, to reflect on the work that any Senator has done in any given field or area; and the Senator from Maine is well known for his work in this area, particularly in the field of water and air pollution, and he has been acting in this field for many years now.

I think I should make it clear that while the distinguished Senator from Maine, chairman of the subcommittee, and the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs do have a clear understanding about how they want to handle the matter, I personally am not a party to that agreement. I think the Senator will agree with that.

Mr. MUSKIE. I was not aware of that fact, but I accept the Senator's statement. The Senator has participated in the discussions, and, I just assumed he was a party to it, but if he wishes to disassociate himself from it, I have no objection, and it will make no difference in my attitude.

Mr. ALLOTT. I shall disassociate myself from it in a moment. The only discussion I have ever participated in with the Senator from Maine was for about 10 minutes in the Democratic cloakroom yesterday afternoon. I think he will agree to that.

Mr. MUSKIE. I was present for that time. It was my impression that the Senator from Colorado was present for longer than that time. But I am interested in the fact that we have undertaken to achieve an agreement and now I understand the Senator does not support it.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I just want to make my position clear. The Senator from Washington, our chairman, has always known that I had some reservations about this particular matter.

Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. It is a very important question. It relates to what the Senator has just said. As I say, I am not trying to impose a position on the Senator. That is not my responsibility; it is his.

But an important part of this compromise was the assurance I had from the distinguished Senator from Washington, the Senate conferees on S. 1075, who will include the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Colorado, will do their best to see that the compromise provisions of S. 1075 are accepted by the conference. I take it, from what the Senator from Colorado is saying, that this may not be correct with respect to him. If it is not, then I hope he will make it clear, because that might change my view of this compromise.

Mr. ALLOTT. If the Senator will permit me to continue, I will make my position clear.

I have stated before, and I should not have to state this again, that the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has kept me faithfully informed of all of the discussions that have gone on about this matter, so I cannot say that I am uninformed in any respect about the discussions, and I do not pretend to be, nor am I trying to insinuate in any sense that the Senator from Colorado was not made fully aware of the discussions that have led to this point.

I do not know why this should be necessary, but I will say that whatever the Senate does here today with respect to the appointment of conferees, the Senator from Colorado will fulfill his obligation to the Senate just as much as the Senator from Maine or any other Senator would. I want to make that very clear. I do not think any Senator will accuse the Senator from Colorado of ever having done less.

The thing that I wish to discuss -- and I am sorry that we got the discussion off on this basis -- is the situation in which we find ourselves here today.

Both houses of Congress have passed S. 1075, which is intended to halt the rapid degradation of our environment; and believe me, there is no one on this floor, and no one in the United States, for that matter, who has an exclusive concern with our environment. Today we are considering S. 7, a bill which, according to its title, is also intended to halt this degradation of the environment.

I should like to take just a moment to explore the consequences of the impending vote, as I see them.

The adoption of title II of S. 7, together with the enactment of S. 1075, in my opinion, will create an administrative two-headed monster. It is two-headed because of the duplication of functions of both the proposed new high level environmental organizations, and a monster because of the problems which that duplicity will create.

The President created a Council on Environmental Quality earlier this year. The Senate's version of S. 1075 adds an Environmental Quality Board of three persons, and title II of the pending bill, S. 7, creates an Office of Environmental Quality within the Executive Office of the President.

As I look at it, Mr. President -- and I have analyzed these bills very carefully, and have had my staff working on them for a long time -- these organizations are both new and separate creations within the Executive Office of the President. Both organizations are high level creations in the President's Office and let me explain what I mean when I say high level.

The three board members created by S. 1075 are all subject to Senate confirmation, and the chairman is to be remunerated at level 2 of the executive pay schedule. The Director of the Office of Environmental Quality is also subject to Senate confirmation, and his salary may be set at the same level as that of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, which means that these two officers are at a very high level of governmental employment.

Both organizations have as their main goal and purpose to advise and assist the President on problems of environment.

Both organizations are to prepare reports and make recommendations to the President on the problems of environment.

Both organizations are authorized to employ experts and consultants.

Both organizations will deal with the same subject matter, that is, the environment, and both will be reviewing Federal and other public programs which affect the environment.

Mr. President, I think there is a little too much of a tendency, probably not in the committees involved here, but on the part of the public, to regard environment as involving only air pollution and water pollution. That is probably because these two problems have become so prevalent, and therefore are on the minds of the people of this country today perhaps more than some of the other environmental problems which may come to the fore in the future.

In our studies of this matter, I believe we determined that there are some 20 or 21 agencies of the Government which are directly involved with problems which affect the environment. For example, it is impossible to think about future environments without thinking about the Department of Housing and Urban Development of our Government. It is impossible to think of them without thinking of HEW, because the environment does not involve only water and air; as suggested by the distinguished Senator from Maine, it involves noise -- and we are all becoming acutely conscious of this factor. More and more as time goes on environmental questions will also involve land distribution, land planning for the future, what kind of future cities we will plan, and what we will do about the ghettos -- for the ghettos are a part of the environmental picture, and, as a responsibility of HUD, are also a part of this question.

We could go on endlessly, bringing in the various departments and agencies of Government which, sooner or later if not now, will be actively engaged in problems and fields which do involve the environment.

To sum up, I simply wish to repeat that the environmental situation is not one which is confined merely to air, water, and noise. The degradation of our environment can occur in all these ways.

It can even occur from the improper farming methods of those who erode and waste our soil. So the Department of Agriculture could be a part of this movement. It also plays a part in preserving the environment through its supervision of our forest lands. As I have said, I could continue almost endlessly to discuss the environmental problems which the great pressure of population in this country has brought on us and will continue to bring on us. I am, therefore, no less concerned than the Senator from Maine and have given the population and food problems considerable study as they affect the future environment of our country.

Although I have never spent much time in the State of the Senator from Maine, I am aware that it is a great and beautiful State. I am certainly aware of the beauty of my own State and of the State of Washington and of other States. I think that some of us who are fortunate enough to come from such beautiful places are aware of the threats from environmental impairment -- and I use the words "environmental impairment" in the whole context of which I am speaking. I am aware of the threats that come from environmental degradation. We who are fortunate enough to live in places that are relatively free from such degradation appreciate what the dangers to our environment are probably as much as those who are now directly afflicted with, for example, acute water pollution, acute air pollution, or acute noise pollution.

So it seems to me that with respect to the matter that we are discussing today, instead of the application of Parkinson's law and the natural propensities of bureaucracy to create agencies and to advise and assist the President, when the President has not been asked to comment on the provisions of title II of S. 7 we have placed the President in the position of being an arbitrator between the two agencies. In addition, the President has already created the Environmental Quality Council, which he considers to be of such great importance that he retains the chairmanship of it himself.

I wish to say one concluding word on this subject. Since the understanding has been reached between the distinguished chairmen of the two committees, the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the chairman of the subcommittee, I have not indicated to any Senator how he should vote on this question; but I feel so strongly that our population pressures and the changes in our country in the next few years will create environmental problems, some of which we are not even aware of now, and some of which we can only surmise in our minds, that we should create a clean-cut type of organization to handle it.

The President's council now exists; and now, title II of S. 7 will authorize the Office of Environmental Quality; and S. 1075, will create the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers. I am afraid we are creating something that is administratively unsound. Therefore, I shall be compelled to vote against the motion, which I believe is the parliamentary situation, to agree to the amended version of title II. I should think, as I look at the situation, that I would be fulfilling less than my duty as a Senator, having analyzed and studied the proposal in the manner that I have, if I did not cast my vote against it.

I am sure that the motion to adopt the amendment will be agreed to overwhelmingly.

Nevertheless, I shall support the bill even if the amendment is included, because I feel that the subject of title I is of such importance to the Nation that Congress must deal with it quickly and effectively. Whatever other Senators may do is for them to decide, and I have made no effort to proselytize other Senators. But I feel strongly that we are going to have to face up to the problem and provide administrative structure that is really workable. I should much prefer, for my own part, however, to have a single office created in the executive branch -- as the focal point -- to deal with the problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a great deal of labor has gone into developing a resolution of the relationship between S. 1075 and S. 7. I have no desire to indulge in provocative or argumentative statements and upset that settlement. Nevertheless, I think, in the light of the comments made by the Senator from Colorado, that in order to assure as complete a record as I can make, I should make some points.

First, with respect to title II of S. 7, in common with all of S. 2391, of which it was part: it is the product, in a real, evolutionary sense of some 7 years of hearings held by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, involving some 16,000 pages of testimony and 1,100 witnesses.

Second, title II is extracted almost bodily, as it was reported to the Senate, from S. 2391, which was cosponsored by 42 Senators. The bill was introduced on June 12, 1969, and all the executive agencies were solicited for comments. We have received none as of this point.

The next point I should like to make is that with respect to the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers, provided by S. 1075, on which a 1-day hearing was held on April 16, Secretary of the Interior Hickel said this:

It is our belief that the proposed new Environmental Quality Council makes unnecessary the kind of council proposed in S. 1075.

The Secretary further said:

It is our recommendation that legislation such as that contained in Title I of S. 1075 not be enacted until the new council has had a full opportunity to address itself to this need.

I may say this in addition: I have been involved in environmental pollution control legislation for many years. We have always listened responsively and constructively to recommendations of the executive branch under President Kennedy, under President Johnson, and under President Nixon.

We have undertaken to support such recommendations as stood up after hearings. But we have never been reluctant, and we are not reluctant now, to initiate legislative proposals ourselves. We regard this as a part of the prerogatives of the legislative body.

Every piece of legislation in the air and water quality field that we have reported to the Senate has the unmistakable mark of the Committee on Public Works and the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, standing independently of presidential recommendations. This was true of the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966. It was true of the Air Quality Act of 1967. It was true of the automobile exhaust legislation in 1965, which the administration opposed totally when we held our hearings. But we formed our own judgment, reported it to the Senate, and the Senate approved.

I think that record of approval suggests the confidence in which the Senate came to hold our recommendations.

S. 7 is a similar piece of legislation. We have responded to executive testimony whenever it was available, but we did not hesitate to incorporate in legislation ideas that our judgment indicated were sound, and everything in S. 7 bears that stamp.

I am not holding against S. 1075 Secretary Hickel's adverse comment on the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers. Whatever reservation I may have had about the process under which S. 1075 was considered, I took it to be the considered judgment of Senator JACKSON and his committee that they thought this to be a sound proposal.

So when we got down to the task of meshing these two bills, I did not reprove them and have not reproved them on the Senate floor because they did not do what Secretary Hickel asked them to do, and I do not reprove them now. He opposed it. They disagreed with him and reported it to the Senate.

What I have undertaken to do, with Senator JACKSON, is to marry the two into a viable organizational structure. I think we have done that, and I have no apologies for the result.

The Senator from Colorado is privileged to vote as he pleases on this matter, and I do not consider him bound to any other vote than that dictated by his own convictions; but I thought that these additions to the record were essential if the record is to have some semblance of balance on these points.

I am ready to vote.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, this discussion permits me the privilege of indicating that I believe that the Members of the Senate -- yes, of the House of Representatives, as well -- have often failed in their responsibility to write legislation on Capitol Hill rather than just to pass measures which have been forwarded from the agencies of the executive branch of the Government.

I think we have failed ofttimes in our responsibilities to do what we should do -- that is, to write legislation as well as to pass it.

In broad concept, any administration has the responsibility to forward to Congress the outlines and the policies of the administration, and the proposed legislation is then referred to the respective committees.

I call attention to our failure to act effectively and responsibly in such situations as that referred to by Senator MUSKIE -- when we determine, on the basis of testimony and considered study and judgment, that committee action must depart from the legislative recommendations of the executive branch.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I return to my basic belief that if the Committee on Public Works, or the Committee on the Interior, or any other committee, is in disagreement with the administration, then we in good conscience have the responsibility to work our will as elected Members of Congress. There can be comity between the legislative and executive branches of our Federal Government. However, there must not be capitulation.

Mr. President, with respect to the specific matter of the agreed upon language modifying S. 1075 and title II of S. 7, I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD at this point a telegram I recently received from the major conservation organization.

There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH,

Senate Committee on Public Works,

Washington, D.C.

The undersigned commend you for your continuing leadership in the field of environmental quality that brings us close to an early major policy and legislative enactment. We trust there will be full discussion on the floor of the Senate in conjunction with S. 1075 to the end that the strongest and best measure will be agreed to and reported promptly by the Senate-House conference committee. This is a unique opportunity for the country to take a major step forward in protection of environmental values.

Joseph W. Penfold, Izaak Walton League of America; Dr. Ira Gabrielson, Wildlife Management Institute; Stewart M. Brandborg, Wilderness Society; Thomas L. Kimball, National Wildlife Federation; William E. Towell, American Forestry Association; Dr. Elvis Stahr, National Audubon Society; Dr. Spencer Smith, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources; and Lloyd Tupling, Sierra Club.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the proposed modifications of S. 1075 and the committee substitute language for title II of S. 7 are the product of many hours of conferences between the staffs as well as the members of the Committee on Public Works and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. These conferences resulted in, I believe, a strengthened version of S. 1075 and a further clarification of title II of S. 7.

Taken together these two measures represent a major step forward in coordination and strengthening of our efforts to improve the quality of the environment. Taken together these two measures represent the accord between the two principal committees in the Senate dealing with environmental problems. The conferences and the language agreed on have resolved difficult problems between the two committees stemming from differing viewpoints on the substance of this legislation and from the jurisdictional ambiguities inherent in a field as broad as the environment.

Members and the staff of the two committees are to be commended for reaching a constructive resolution of these problems. Especially to be commended are the able chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Mr. JACKSON), and the knowledgeable chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution (Mr. MUSKIE), for their reasonable and cooperative approach toward a difficult and complex situation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BYRD of Virginia in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.

On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

The result was announced -- yeas 77, nays 6, as follows:

[Listing of roll call vote omitted]

So Mr. MUSKIE's amendment to the substitute committee amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Maine for the fine work that he and his Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution have done in reporting this bill. I was in communication with him while the bill was still in committee and voiced some reservations about certain provisions that were contained in an earlier version of the bill. As revised and reported, I believe the sections of the bill of particular interest and concern to me -- dealing with water pollution control by Federal agencies -- have been substantially improved.

They are not 100 percent what I would like them to be, but they are sufficiently close to the mark to permit me to support their passage.

Among the bill's new requirements is one that any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States must provide to the Federal licensing agency involved certification from the State in which the discharge will originate that there is reasonable assurance the activity will comply with applicable water quality standards. Without the required certification such Federal agency cannot issue the license or permit.

Moreover, if the certification is obtained and the license or permit is issued, it must contain any conditions which the Secretary of the Interior finds necessary to insure compliance with the water quality standards of any downstream States which might be adversely affected by discharges from the licensed facility.

The Atomic Energy Commission and the Corps of Engineers are prime examples of the Federal agencies affected by this legislation. In the case of the AEC, while the legislation does not impinge upon or in any way interfere with the AEC's comprehensive regulatory controls over the radiological effects of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material, except as certain of these authorities may be transferred to qualified States, it does have the effect of assuring that, in addition to the AEC's exhaustive radiological health and safety review, the design of nuclear powerplants will be reviewed by appropriate State and Federal authorities from the standpoint of their thermal effects upon adjoining waters.

Nuclear plants are, of course, already subject to water quality standards adopted by the States and approved by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Water Quality Act of 1965. Now, however, we will have the added protection of a prelicensing review to assure that the plants have been designed in such a way as to assure compliance with applicable water quality standards.

At least as to those activities subject to Federal approvals, this will add an important ounce of preventive medicine to the curative measures already available. My chief regret is that not all nonnuclear powerplants will be subject to these new controls. As I understand the bill, only coal, oil, and gas-fired powerplants that occasionally require a Federal license or permit will be covered by the bill. Unfortunately, even this limited coverage was opposed by representatives of the coal industry during the subcommittee's hearings on the legislation.

Another principal regret relates to proposed new section 16(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I find this section somewhat disturbing. It would require that each Federal agency take whatever measures were needed to insure that property and activities under its jurisdiction shall comply with applicable water quality standards and the purposes of the act. The subsection would also authorize appropriations of "such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section."

I notice that S. 7, as reported by the committee, is silent with relation to an exception being made in connection with Federal agencies in the case where the interests of the United States might be involved either as to national defense or other important national activities, whereas the House passed bill, H.R. 4148, explicitly makes such an exception.

I prefer the House version for reasons that are obviously understandable in the national interest.

I do not propose an amendment at this time to insert such an exception in S. 7 but would strongly suggest and recommend to the conferees that this matter be exhaustively discussed in conference and that the House version be given all possible weight in the national interest.

On this point, I should like to ask my distinguished colleague what his off-the-cuff reaction is to the statement I have just made with regard to the national interest, in making an exception in cases of that kind.

Let us assume, for example, that we are in a state of war. I am wondering how much the Government will be obligated to comply with some of these provisions if the national interest is paramount to the prevailing subject or issue at hand. Take the Hanford production reactor, for example, which produces material for the national defense.

Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator addressing himself to the impact of section 16?

Mr. PASTORE. Yes. Section 16(a), and in large measure section 16(b) as well. I do not want to press the Senator too much, but the House committee went into this matter to quite some extent. It is going to be in conference, and I hope the Senator, as usual, will lend a very attentive ear to the arguments made in that regard.

Mr. MUSKIE. I will do so.

In other portions of the bill, dealing with other questions, we have recognized the point the Senator has raised.

For example, in the application of the vessel pollution requirements as to ships of war, we have recognized this point and have made provision for it; and I assure the Senator that we will look into this point as well.

Mr. PASTORE. Under the pending bill considerable autonomy is given to the States in regard to operation of Federal facilities. In effect activities being carried on for Federal purposes will be subject to water quality standards adopted by the States in which they are located. The grassroots public opinion, more or less, is given a say in the matter of thermal effects, and I think that is proper, because, after all, they are the people who have to bear the brunt. And, insofar as thermal effects are concerned, I believe the States are fully and well qualified to set such standards.

But sometimes a State could be obstinate in the case of an emergency, and there ought to be an overriding consideration in the case of an emergency. I am not saying a willy-nilly situation; but in one in which the national interest is involved, I think we ought to make some provision. The House has done it, and the Senator from Maine has not said one way or the other whether we should or should not, but I would hope that he would consider that very seriously in conference.

Mr. MUSKIE. I assure the Senator of my interest, and we will do that.