CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

October 7, 1969

Page 28954

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 7. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of a major water pollution control measure which provides for specific approaches to deal with particular kinds of water pollution problems.

S. 7, if enacted, will authorize the Federal Government to clean up disastrous oil spills which seriously jeopardize the Nation's waters and beaches.

This legislation requires Federal licensees and permittees to comply with water quality standards as a precondition of the license or permit.

Vessel sewage which fouls many of the Nation's marinas, harbors, and ports will be subject to new methods of control.

The bill authorizes the designation and cleanup of hazardous substances which present a substantial endangerment to health and welfare when discharged into the Nation's waters.

Authorizations for continued research and new authority to deal with eutrophication -- the natural process of aging of lakes -- and acid mine drainage are also important provisions of the bill.

Title II of S. 7 provides for meaningful consideration of the environmental policies set by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act in all federally supported public works activities. Other provisions of title II are intended to bring those environmental policies into all other programs of the Federal Government.

Title III provides for the acquisition of land for use of the U.S. Senate. This title will be discussed by the junior Senator from North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN), chairman of the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds.

TITLE I

For the past 6 years, Congress has recognized that the success of our effort to clean up the Nation's waters depends on an urgent commitment of organization, planning, engineering skill, and funds. We have acknowledged the need for clean water in the broadest sense. But the demand for clean water is so great and is growing so rapidly that we cannot afford to overlook any opportunity to increase the available supply of water, or to prevent and control sources of pollution which threaten the existing supply. This legislation will provide new tools to accomplish these tasks.

The provisions of S. 7 are not entirely new. While the committee has refined the language, the basic provisions of this bill are similar to those to which the Senate gave unanimous agreement in S. 3206 last year and in S. 2760 in 1967.

Several of the features of the bill either will be discussed by other members of the committee, or are analyzed in detail in the report. I would like to concentrate my remarks on three principal provisions of title I and on title II in its entirety.

The part of title I which establishes oil pollution liability for vessels and on and off-shore facilities has received a great deal of attention and consideration from the subcommittee and the full committee.

As introduced, S. 7 provided that liability on vessels and onshore and offshore facilities would be based on a test of negligence with the burden of proof on the owner or operator of the vessel or onshore or offshore facility to show that a discharge of oil was not negligent.

Expert testimony to the committee indicated that while the cost of cleanup of a barrel of oil might average $75, the possibility of any single vessel or facility discharging its entire capacity was remote even in a catastrophic disaster. The figures recommended by the committee, $125 per gross ton for vessels and non-production facilities and $8 million for drilling or production facilities, would be adequate in the judgment of the committee, to finance the cleanup cost of the largest oil spills on record.

The type of liability to be imposed presented the committee with troublesome questions. Lengthy testimony was presented in the 13 days of hearings held by the subcommittee and extensive discussion took place in executive sessions concerning the factors which should be considered in determining the type of liability. Among those factors were: First, the effect of a rigid liability on maritime commerce; second, the availability of insurance for the owner of the vessel or the shipper of oil; and, third, the impact of different types of liability on the U.S. Government and the people of the United States.

Heretofore, maritime liability has concerned the vessel, its cargo, and its employees. Insurance covers the hull, the cargo, personal injury, and death, and has been designed to protect people who either work for, use, own, or operate a vessel. Were these risks comparable to those associated with oil pollution, the imposition of negligent liability would not be questioned.

However, the discharge of oil often affects the general public, persons, and property wholly unrelated to the vessel, who have no control over it, and who have no interest in it.

It can be argued that the public interest would be completely protected only by absolute and unlimited liability; negligence and limited liability would protect only private interests. If Congress imposed negligence liability, it followed that there should be no limits on such liability.

The representatives of the insurance industry and the oil industry testified that they could not imagine a circumstance where a discharge of oil could occur without negligence. In fact, the witness for the British Maritime Insurance Brokers stated in a letter dated August 1, 1969:

Presumable (sic) this means negligence of the shipowner’s servant as I read the words and surely it is realized that almost every marine casualty is caused by negligence.

Therefore, it appeared to the committee that negligence liability with a reverse burden of proof and absolute liability are similar in practical application. One practical advantage to absolute liability is the avoidance of litigation on the question of responsibility.

Parenthetically, it is important to note that this section deals only with the costs of the cleanup of discharges. The bill in no way affects the rights of third parties against the party alleged responsible for the discharge.

After deciding to recommend unlimited negligence liability and limited absolute liability, the committee then determined that some exceptions to absolute liability were justified. The committee decided that an owner or operator of a vessel or facility should not be held liable if he could prove that a discharge was caused solely by an act of war.

The committee also decided that an owner or operator should be exempt from liability if he could prove that the discharge was caused solely by an act of God about which he could have no foreknowledge, could make no plans to avoid, or could not predict. Under this exception, only discharges resulting from grave natural disasters, which could not be anticipated in the design, location or operation of the facility or vessel in light of historic, geologic, or climatic circumstances or phenomena, would be outside the scope of the owner's or operator's responsibility.

It was brought to the attention of the committee that there have been circumstances in which a negligent act of Government was the cause of a discharge of oil. The committee decided that an owner or operator should not be held liable if he could prove that such act of U.S. Government negligence was the sole cause of discharge.

Finally, the committee included a discharge which occurs solely due to an act of a third party.

The committee decided that while the owner or operator should not be liable if he could prove that a discharge was caused by one of these acts, it was also necessary that such exceptions be allowed only when the owner or operator proved the discharge to be solely the result of one of the exceptions. Any culpability on the part of the owner or operator would vitiate the exception.

The committee recognized that no discharge of oil from a vessel, affecting the coastal waters of the United States, has approached the liabilities imposed by this bill. However, the risk of such spills and the possibility of major catastrophic discharges from onshore or offshore facilities or from oil-drilling operations must be considered.

During hearings in Washington and throughout the country, representatives of local governments, industrial concerns, community and conservation groups, and the public have questioned repeatedly the justification for requiring compliance with water quality standards in their activities when Federal agencies are not subject to a similar requirement.

If the Nation is to have an effective water pollution control program or any effective environmental control program whatever, Federal agencies must consider the environmental aspects of their programs as a matter of first priority.

Recognizing that point, Mr. President, this committee, under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) has pressed for years for an upgrading of the performance of the Federal Government in the field of pollution control and environmental improvement.

S. 7, as reported, provides an orderly mechanism for insuring that all Federal activities will comply with the philosophy and intent of the Nation's water quality program. This section calls for Federal agencies to control their own wastes and to require control by Federal licensees and permittees. This task will be neither easy nor inexpensive. Nevertheless, the committee expects that it will be accomplished.

The existing water quality standards program envisions preventive policies rather than abatement procedures as the best method of pollution control. This provision of S. 7 applies that policy. It does not impose an unjust burden on any applicant for a Federal license or permit, since the committee assumes that Federal licensees and permittees, like any other organization or individual that intends to use the waters of the United States, will anticipate pollution control in the construction or the modification of any facility.

The committee expects that communication between the applicant and the appropriate pollution control agency relative to the planning of any facility which will affect water quality will take place at the earliest possible time. Site location is an essential aspect of the effective implementation of the Nation's water quality program. There are some sites where no such facility should be constructed because pollution control technology is not adequate to assure the maintenance and the enhancement of water quality. Those who make decisions concerning site locations should be aware of this fact and deal with it before making any investment in new facilities.

Waste from watercraft is one of the many sources of pollution that has an impact on the water quality of our Nation. This pollution is most severe in bays, lakes, harbors, and marinas where the concentration of vessels is heaviest and where there is minimum natural dilution of contaminants. The increasing use of our waterways will further compound these problems. This new section provides for the economic and practical control of discharges of raw or inadequately treated sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States at the earliest possible date.

The committee recognized that many States have moved to control inadequately treated or untreated discharges of waste from vessels and praises the efforts of those States. However, conflicting regulations and standards for marine sanitation devices present a hardship to recreational boaters who move between States and present potentially serious restrictions on the interstate movement of commercial vessels.

In order to avoid these difficulties, the committee has provided for Federal preemption of the authority to regulate the design, use, manufacture, and installation of marine sanitation devices.

No State shall have authority to require any device of any kind on any vessel subject to the provisions of this section after the effective date of the standards and regulations.

The committee is nonetheless aware of the necessity to relate any sewage treatment control measure to existing water quality programs. Consistent with this philosophy, the committee has provided authority for the States to prohibit entirely the discharge of any sewage from vessels without regard to the regulations set by this act if an approved plan for the implementation of water quality standards requires such restrictive measures.

This exception is not intended to be broadly construed. A State cannot prohibit vessel waste discharges for all of its rivers, lakes, and coastal waters unless the State has adopted standards which establish uses for all of those waters consistent with an absolute prohibition. The committee intends that any State prohibition apply only to areas designated for the protection of public drinkingwater supplies, shellfish beds, and areas designated for body-contact recreation.

The committee expects that the States will provide alternative facilities for disposal of sewage from vessels wherever necessary.

This provision is substantially the same as that passed by the Senate and the House in 1968 and evaluated in the report language found in Senate Report No. 1371 of the 90th Congress which accompanied S. 2525.

The provision for acid mine drainage which was included in S. 2760 in 1967 as two sections has been combined into one section authorizing $15 million for both research and demonstration programs and is substantially the same as provisions passed in 1967.

The clean lakes provision, originally sponsored by Senators WALTER MONDALE and QUENTIN BURDICK, has been expanded to authorize the development of necessary research facilities but is otherwise identical to the legislation which passed the Senate unanimously in 1967.

The committee was also confronted with the dilemma of how to deal with the problem of the discharge of hazardous substances -- other than oil -- which present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and welfare, but for which there is no clear Federal cleanup authority. The record on this subject was inadequate. Information indicated only that such discharges do occur and that the damage caused by such discharges of oil and other materials is often extensive. The list of discharges of oil and other materials since January of this year, on page 59 of the report, records several discharges of hazardous substances.

S. 7, as reported, authorizes the President to designate as hazardous any substance, the discharge of which in any quantity presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, and to require notice of the discharge of any such substance after such designation. The Federal Government is authorized to clean up those discharges where practical. The committee recognized that many of the substances which will be designated are water-soluble or for other reasons cannot be cleaned up effectively. This section will primarily serve to notify downstream water users of a dangerous discharge.

The committee expects a report from the President by November of 1970 which will discuss the types and amounts of liability which should be imposed to recover the cost of cleaning up hazardous substances. The findings of that will be the subject of future legislation.

The committee has included in this legislation a provision offered by Senator STEPHEN M. YOUNG and identical to one passed by the House of Representatives. It provides relief for the citizens of the Great Lakes area who are confronted with a rapid deterioration of their vital water resources.

This section authorizes the Secretary to grant up to 75 percent of the cost of projects demonstrating new methods to control and eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes drainage basin.

There is no question that this legislation is essential. The Great Lakes are perhaps the Nation's most vital inland water resource, yet Lake Erie is dying and Lake Michigan is the subject of serious concern. No Federal dollars will be better spent than those which produce effective methods to deal with the critical problems of the Great Lakes, for not only will those dollars help remedy an already critical situation but they will undoubtedly demonstrate methods which can be used to prevent the accelerated eutrophication of other lakes and reservoirs which are equally important to other regions of the country.

The committee has been increasingly concerned about the availability of trained technical personnel to operate sewage treatment plants. As a result of that concern the committee authorized a study of manpower and training needs in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966.

That study was transmitted to the Congress in mid-1967 and was printed as Senate Document No. 49 on August 31, 1967. On the basis of that report, which indicated a demand for 18,500 new plant operators and the need to upgrade the skills of many existing plant operators, and on the basis of another report prepared for the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution by the General Accounting Office on the effects of inadequately trained personnel on the operation of federally assisted sewage treatment plants, the committee was pleased to receive and include in the bill a proposal by Senator HUGH SCOTT to authorize pilot programs for training plant operators and technicians.

The committee recognizes that a great deal more than a pilot program will be required if Federal funds for sewage treatment plant construction are invested wisely, but it believes that experience with a pilot program would provide a sound base for expanded legislation in the near future.

Title I of S. 7 is as significant as any water pollution legislation ever reported by the Committee on Public Works. It provides authority to deal with a variety of critical yet definable water pollution problems. Unlike prior measures which have been reported by this committee, title I does not develop a new policy for water pollution control but rather provides additional tools to implement the national policy of water quality enhancement established by the Water Quality Act of 1965. Effective control of water pollution cannot be obtained without these additional preventive and enhancement measures. The sources covered by this title require specific attention.

TITLE II

In recent years, and especially since 1963, Congress has developed a strong policy for the enhancement of environmental quality. This policy is based on the knowledge that man and his environment are closely interrelated and that environmental quality is necessary to the improvement of living standards for all men -- and, indeed, possibly for the survival of the human race.

The legislation which has formed this broad policy has been developed through the efforts of many congressional committees, including the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Banking and Currency, Commerce, Finance, Government Operations, Interior, Labor and Public Welfare, and Public Works. Participation in this development has been broad-based because the problems of environmental quality transcend artificial divisions of committee jurisdiction.

Much of the substantive legislation in this area has come from the Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. The committee's work has resulted in the Clean Air Act of 1963, and the 1965 and 1966 amendments; the Air Quality Act of 1967; the Water Quality Act of 1965; the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966; and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965.

Originally drafted to meet specific pollution problems which demanded immediate abatement actions, legislation from the Public Works Committee evolved to the point where it is based on the concept of the prevention of pollution and the enhancement of the quality of the air, water, and land environment.

A strong partnership among governmental agencies at the Federal, regional, and State levels is the basis for this broad strategy. The States have been delegated the primary responsibility to protect and enhance the quality of the environment within their jurisdictions and -- in cooperation with neighboring States -- within river basins and air sheds common to those States. Water and air quality standards are to be adopted, implemented, and enforced at the State and regional levels on the basis of criteria promulgated by the Departments of the Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare. The Federal Government has the responsibility to develop these criteria; to act to set or enforce standards where States do not fulfill their obligations; to conduct research to improve our understanding of environmental threats and develop new means of protection; and to protect the environment in the conduct of its own activities.

The opportunity to act first has been given to the States because the national policy of environmental enhancement recognizes the need to involve individual citizens and communities in any decisions concerning the environment in which they live. The best way to put this policy into practice is to make participation in the decisionmaking process as close to individual citizens as possible, within the guidelines of the criteria.

The committee has emphasized, however, that the opportunities for local control are not open-ended. If the States and regions fail adequately to carry out their responsibilities under these acts or are unable to do so, the Congress has expressly authorized the Federal agencies administering these programs to assume the responsibilities.

The States cannot succeed in meeting their obligations without the complete cooperation of all Federal departments and agencies. The Federal responsibility to protect the environment in the conduct of its programs which are not subject to State regulation has often gone unmet. This shortcoming is present in every Federal department and agency and is in direct conflict with the Nation's environmental policy and the purposes and provisions of the legislation which has developed that policy.

It is clear that there is no one answer to the problem of environmental regulation of the Federal Government's own activities. The committee believes that it is the responsibility of each standing committee in Congress to examine carefully the activities of those departments and agencies within its jurisdiction and to insist that the policy of the enhancement of environmental quality is strictly followed.

The Public Works Committee is committed to reviewing all legislation and Federal activity under its jurisdiction with these duties in mind and expects to initiate this review during this Congress. Furthermore, title II of S. 7 explicitly requires that all federally supported public works projects and programs be planned, developed, and administered with full consideration of their impact on our air, water, and land and with strict adherence to the national policy of environmental enhancement.

More and more public officials and individual citizens share this concern of the committee and have recognized the need for the integration of environmental consideration in all programs and policies of the Federal Government. We are confronted with problems of accelerating environmental deterioration on the one hand, and the inadequacies of our public and private institutions to deal with these problems on the other.

The Public Works Committee has focussed on several measures designed to remedy these inadequacies and has concluded that the problems of management are even more urgent than the problems of organization. Therefore, the committee has proposed in title II an Office of Environmental Quality in the Office of the President. This office would have the management capability to bring coherence and consistency into the environmental activities of the Federal Government. The committee has given careful study to other proposals and has concluded that an independent environmental staff in the Executive Office of the President is crucial to the effective coordination and administration of all Federal programs in line with the Nation's policy of environmental enhancement.

The Office of Science and Technology presently supplies the staff for the President's Cabinet Council on Environmental Quality. Unfortunately, the Office of Science and Technology has widespread responsibilities, is thinly staffed, and must look to the departments and agencies of the Federal Government for staff assistance. Thus, the advice and assistance the President receives concerning the programs and policies of the Federal agencies comes from the agencies themselves. No matter how well intentioned, this arrangement will not produce a critical and independent review of Federal departments and agencies.

No Federal department or agency which is not primarily oriented to environmental matters can be expected to have either the sufficient expertise or the proper perspective to evaluate their own programs satisfactorily by themselves. This assumption is the basis for both section 16 of title I and the provision establishing the Office of Environmental Quality in title II.

The most difficult task facing the President and the Congress in the area of environmental quality is the review and analysis of the administration of the environmental programs and policies of the Federal Government, a function which should be coordinated from the office of the President.

The committee strongly feels that the President requires a competent, independent staff, not affiliated with any other Federal agency, to accomplish this purpose.

The Office of Environmental Quality would provide the independent staff required by the new Cabinet Level Council and would make available to the President the professional competence to review and analyze all programs and Policies relating to the air, water, and land environment. The office would also provide reports on environmental issues to the appropriate committees of Congress, the Council, and the public.

The bill reported by the committee does not tell the President how to organize his administration to deal with environmental problems. It provides him with staff for whatever arrangement he determines most appropriate to his approach to the administration of the executive branch.

One of the principal advantages of this legislation is the recognition that progress can be made in enhancing the quality of the environment only if the national policy has the full support of both the President and the Congress. The Office of Environmental Quality should increase the capacity of the President to support that policy.

Mr. President, I conclude what may appear to be a lengthy analysis of the bill, but which, in fact, in the light of its broad coverage, is a brief analysis of the bill.

I would like, at this time, to express my appreciation to all members of the committee, but specifically, to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), chairman of the full committee, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), the ranking Republican member of the full committee, and my good friend and longstanding right hand in this fight against pollution, the distinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), for the excellent cooperation which we have had.

I must say that our experience with this bill has been one of the most reassuring that I have had in my years in the Senate and in my years of dealing with this kind of legislation.

We had long hearings, but, more than that, we had extensive executive sessions beginning in March and continuing through June and July -- sessions which were attended most of the time by the full membership of the committee, all of whom participated in the discussion of problems which surfaced in an effort to come to grips with them and solve them soundly, from the legislative point of view, without regard to partisan considerations. I do not believe there is a partisan comma in the bill. It reflects the work of members on both sides of the aisle, and for them I would like to express my appreciation, through Senator BOGGS, to all his colleagues on the Republican side of the committee.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine, chairman of the subcommittee and manager of this bill, for his very kind and generous remarks.

I rise to support S. 7, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969, and to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.

Under his able and thoughtful leadership, we have conducted an exhaustive investigation into the various aspects of the water pollution problem and we have written a bill that I consider as important as any seeking to enhance environmental quality that will come before the Senate for many years.

Before I discuss the merits of this legislation and try to further clarify some points that may be of interest, I wish to thank the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the other members of the subcommittee for their efforts on behalf of the bill. I also wish to thank especially the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator RANDOLPH of West Virginia, and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator COOPER of Kentucky. They both have been great to work with, and they each have contributed so much in the consideration and writing of this proposed legislation.

It has been a great privilege to work on this committee and serve with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, who is recognized as an able leader in this field. As he has stated so eloquently, there has been completely bipartisan approach in the consideration of the provisions of this bill. This bipartisan cooperation began with the introduction of the bill, and went through the hearings, the markup, to the bringing of this bill from the committee to the floor.

We have sought legislation that will meet a need -- a pressing need. And in this effort, we have received great work and cooperation from the committee staff.

The chairman of the subcommittee has already discussed the need for legislation that will obligate the owner of a vessel or a drilling facility to clean up an oil spill. I shall not detain the Senate by restating his persuasive arguments. However, I should like to point out that such legislation is not new to the Senate. These provisions are an outgrowth of S. 2760, which passed the Senate in December 1967. This earlier legislation imposed unlimited dollar liability for oil cleanup costs, with an exception for acts of God. S. 7 places a dollar limit on liability, except when negligence is proven, and exempts acts of God, acts of war, acts of Government, and acts of a third party. These were limitations that were discussed at great length in committee, and raised repeatedly in hearings with representatives of the oil and shipping industries. It was the committee's belief that such exemptions have the effect of protecting the public in nearly every case, while safeguarding private interests at rare times of great disaster.

There is one important point I should like to add in relation to the oil cleanup liability section of the bill. The emphasis in this section is on the word "cleanup," not "liability." It is the intent of this legislation, and I cannot stress this point too strongly, that the polluter should clean up any oil spill on his own, and that the Government should not need to act. The Government should take action only when the polluter fails, himself, to take prompt and effective action. This is a responsible approach, fitting the sense of public responsibility held by the vast majority of American businesses.

In Delaware, my home State, I recall an incident when an oil barge of the Hess Oil Co. ran aground off Rehoboth, spilling oil. Hess Oil went in at once and cleaned up that spill, spending its time and effort and not throwing the burden on the Government. That is what this bill seeks to encourage. The liability standard only will take effect, I feel certain, in the rare cases of businesses that lack this public spirit.

That 1967 legislation and a bill that the Senate passed in July 1968, S. 3206, dealt with many other aspects of water pollution also handled in the current bill. This bill, S. 7, and the previous legislation, authorizes research and development on problems of lake pollution, demonstration projects for controlling acid mine drainage, and provisions insuring cooperation among all Federal agencies in maintaining water quality standards.

Last year's legislation contained a provision authorizing a national standard for devices to treat sewage from vessels. A similar provision appears in S. 7. I should point out that the new legislation adds wording that gives to each State the right to bar vessel discharge where necessary to protect that State's waters for such purposes as drinking, recreation, shellfish production. This is a right the States should have. This means that if water quality at a specific location would be degraded below applicable water quality standards by a discharge, treated or otherwise, the State may prohibit the discharge in that area to protect the lake, marina, oyster bed, or municipal water intake location.

Some boatowners have argued that States would act capriciously, and establish a variety of restrictive standards in their waters. This cannot happen. There would be only two standards: A discharge standard and a no-discharge standard. When an automobile driver crosses State lines on a trip, he is required to know a new set of laws. Why is it any more of a burden for a boatowner to know where there is a discharge and where there is a no-discharge policy in another State he intends to visit?

It should be emphasized further that the language permits a discharge prohibition only when "applicable water quality standards require such prohibition." Thus, if a State acts capriciously, the boatowners may go to court to halt such unreasonable action by the States.

This provision has created some controversy among boatowners. They argue the provision gives States the rights to bar discharges in some locations, an unnecessary restriction on boatowners.

We have discussed this at great length. Following the filing of the report on this bill, I received a letter from an executive who had forcefully brought to committee members his objections to the S. 7 discharge language. The letter says:

I also believe that if the administrators will follow the intention and guidance of the Committee, as I understand it in the Report, and if common sense and practicality prevails, the owners and operators of both recreational and small commercial vessels will be able to live with the situation and will be glad to cooperate toward the objective that we all have, namely, cleaner waters for the use and enjoyment of everyone in our great country.

I discuss these several points and their legislative history to demonstrate that the pending legislation holds a direct inheritance from legislation previously adopted by this body.

The distinguished Senator from Maine has discussed many of the new provisions, such as the authorization of a study on cleanup of other hazardous substances, plus a most essential provision establishing in the White House an Office of Environmental Quality. I endorse these portions of the bill, as I do the entire measure, but, in addition, there is one further provision of the bill I wish to mention briefly. This is section 16(g), dealing with manpower training, suggested to the committee by the distinguished minority leader, Senator SCOTT. The cost to implement this provision is small: $5 million during this fiscal year, $7.5 million in fiscal 1971. But the rewards should be great. The paragraph authorizes pilot projects to train technicians to operate sewage treatment plants. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration estimates that these funds will finance the training of 9,000 technicians, toward filling a national shortage of 30,000 such technicians. This will offer to the Nation greater assurance that the waste treatment plants we are building under the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 will not stand idle or inefficiently utilized. As we look ahead toward the enhancement of our environment, this training section should have an impact for good far beyond its cost.

For the reasons that I have enumerated, I am happy to support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to give it orderly consideration, and I hope they will support it. It is most essential legislation.

I again, in conclusion, wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), for his outstanding leadership and ability, and for the great privilege it has been to work with him and the other members of the committee on this legislation.

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

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Delaware, and I appreciate his comments. I shall yield in a moment to the distinguished Senator from Virginia (Mr. SPONG). Before I do, however, I should like to say, in response to something the distinguished Senator from Delaware has said, that I neglected to give appropriate credit to the distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) for the provision in the bill dealing with hazardous substances. He took a special interest in that matter, and developed the amendment and presented it to the committee, and I should like to give him full credit for that provision.

Mr. BOGGS. I join with the distinguished chairman.