May 26, 1970
Page 17145
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WHITE PAPER
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, recently I had the privilege of addressing the National Association of Counties Environmental Quality Steering Committee. I was impressed with the concern shown and the efforts made by this committee with regard to the improvement of our environment.
For this reason, I ask unanimous consent that the National Association of Counties 1970 Platform on Environmental Quality be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the platform was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WHITE PAPER
Issue: How can counties, cities, states and the federal government take advantage of the current political concern to obtain support for greater funding of action antipollution programs?
Background: In the 1960s, Congress passed a steady flow of legislation in the fields of air and water pollution abatement, soil and forest conservation, oceanography, highway beautification and protection of public lands, minerals, wildlife and fish. From 1961 through 1968, more than 214 million acres were added to the national park system, compared with 30,000 acres in the previous decade. Among the significant bills introduced were the Water Resources Recovery Act of 1964,the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, the Clean Air Act of 1965, the Solid Wastes Act of 1965, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and the Air Quality Act of 1967. These bills were enthusiastically deliberated and passed, but suffered because of the failure of Congress to appropriate full authorizations, to insist upon standards and enforcement, and because of the inability of states and localities to raise the matching share of federal pollution control grant programs. Congress also passed PL 90-101 to provide additional revenue up to an annual total of at least $200 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is intended to finance the acquisition of parks and recreation areas.
The responsibility for environmental protection within the federal government is scattered through six different departments and agencies which, administer 90 separate programs, resulting in a lack of clearly defined goals and overall planning. In addition, the funding of new programs has been an early victim to the exigencies of the war in Vietnam, and later to the war against inflation.
As his first act of the new decade, PL 91-190, the National Environmental Policy Act, of 1969, introduced by Senator Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) which stated that the Congress recognizes that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. The bill made environmental protection a matter of national policy and created a three-man Council on Environmental Quality, with members appointed by the President.
Executive order 11472 created a cabinet level Environmental Quality Council composed of six Cabinet officers with the President serving as Chairman. However, the House Appropriations Committee negated a proposal which would have made funds available for the Cabinet level council, terming the councils a patchwork approach to solving environmental problems.
Legislative proposals and status: Perhaps the hottest environmental issue this session of Congress has been the public works appropriations for construction of sewage treatment plants.
Originally, the Administration proposed only $214 million for sewage treatment, which was the same amount President Johnson had recommended during his Administration. The $214 million was in sharp contrast to the $1 billion authorized for Fiscal Year 1970 in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. The House-Senate Conference Committee compromised the dispute between the Administration (requesting $214 million), the House, (requesting $600 million) and the Senate (requesting $1 billion); by appropriating $800 million for Fiscal Year 1970. (Efforts are currently underway to secure $1.25 billion for Fiscal Year 1971)
One of the first major water bills before the 91st Congress was S.7 and H.R. 4148, known as the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969. It is an omnibus clean water bill which intends to clear waterways and upgrade federal water quality standards. Its major provisions are:
(1) To change the name of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration at the Department of the Interior to the National Water Quality Administration;
(2) To provide for the development and demonstration of new and improved methods for the prevention and control of lake pollution; and
(3) To control oil and sewage pollution from vessels and on and offshore installations and mine water pollution.
H.R. 4148 was reported out of a House-Senate Conference Committee on March 12, 1970, and was signed as PL 91-224 by Nixon.
A recent Administration proposal introduced by Senator Hugh Scott (R. Penn.), S. 3470, would replace the current authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by:
(1) Providing $10 billion in grants-in-aid over the next four fiscal years, for the construction of modern municipal water treatment plants;
(2) Having the federal government contribute $4 billion, and state and local governments $6 billion of the total $10 billion;
(3) Encouraging that research be conducted to determine waste water reuse technology. and efforts be made to restore the ecological balance to bodies of water; and
(4) Replace current fiscal Year 1971 authorization of $1.25 billion with a new contract authority amounting to $1 billion. To liquidate current obligations only $40 million would be needed Fiscal Year 1971.
Hearings on this legislation have been scheduled in both houses.
To assist localities, particularly those which are unable to sell bonds for water treatment construction at reasonable rates, in raising the money for construction of waste treatment facilities, S. 3468 would establish the Environmental Financing Authority. Also submitted by Senator Scott, the EFA would:
(1) Buy water treatment bonds which localities were not able to sell;
(2) Guarantee timely payments of principal and interest on bonds which it purchased;
(3) Obtain funds to make these purchases by issuing its (EFA’s) own taxable obligations in the capital market in large enough blocks to provide favorable reception by prospective buyers;
(4) Allow the Secretary of the Treasury to set a fair interest rate on the local obligations which it purchased and make up the difference between the interest received on the tax-exempt local bonds purchased and the interest paid on the taxable bonds issued in the capital market; and
(5) Provide an initial $100 million to get the EFA underway.
Hearings are in progress in, the Senate.
Senator Edmund Muskie (D-Maine) introduced the Resources Recovery Act of 1969, S.2005, last year in an effort to recognize and manage the least publicized form of pollution – solid waste. This legislation, which has accumulated the comments of many interested groups, includes four basic parts:
(1) Grants for research and demonstration of methods to efficiently reuse and recycle solid waste;
(2) Grants for construction of treatment facilities including an incentive for multi-county and multi-jurisdictional programs;
(3) Recommended federal standards which would be in conjunction with federal air, water and environmental health standards;
(4) The establishment of a National Materials Policy Commission (an amendment by Senator Caleb Boggs(R-Del.) ); and
(5) Appropriations of $17.5 million for Fiscal Year 1971. (Nixon requested $14.3 million.)
Hearings have been conducted by the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee in the Senate over the last six months. The House proposes to take up its version of the bill next month.
H.R. 15848 and S. 3466 are known as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, and they will provide for new, stringent pollution controls on automobiles and on stationary sources. Among their provisions are:
(1) Authority for the federal government to set national air quality standards for specific pollutants from factories, power plants, incinerators, etc.;
(2) Requirements that states include emission standards in their implementation plans, subject to federal approval;
(3) Strengthening and expediting the federal enforcement process;
(4) Requiring federal testing of emission control devices on motor vehicles and regulation of fuels and fuel additives; and
(5) Recommendation of $106 million for Fiscal Year 1971 for air pollution control (authorization is $200 million).
Senate and House hearings are in progress.
The $200 million minimum which is now deposited in the Land and Water Conservation Fund each fiscal year would be increased to $300 million under authority of S. 3505, introduced by Senator Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) and Congressman Wayne Aspin all (D-Col.):
(1) The extra $100 million income to the fund would be derived from admission and user fees from certain designated federal recreation areas, income from the sale of surplus federal real property; taxes paid on special motor fuels and gasoline used in motor boats; and
(2) Surplus federal property may be requested for use by state and local governments for purposes of parks and recreational areas.
Future prospects: S. 3466, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, will be tied up in Committee for the remainder of the 91st Congress so as to allow any citizen or group to present testimony;
H.R. 4148: and S. 7, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969, was signed by the President on, April 3, 1970 (P.L.91-224).
S.2005, the Resources Recovery Act of 1969, has a very bright future and will be reported out of both Houses this session. Requested funds of $17.5 million for Fiscal Year 1971 will probably be reduced to $15 million when considered by the Appropriations Committee.
S. 3468, the Environmental Financing Authority, will receive hearings this session, but will stay in Committee due to its complex nature.
The brunt of the new effective environmental programs will be felt in the 92nd Congress – 1971-1972.
Committee recommendations: (1) The Environmental Financing Authority should be extended to assist financing of all pollution control facilities, not just waste treatment;
(2) Bonds to finance pollution control facilities must be sold at a lower than market interest rate, whether the purchaser is private or public (EFA). Three percent is suggested as an appropriate rate;
(3)Multi-jurisdictional planning and/or implementation of any federal pollution abatement programs should be rewarded by a higher input of federal funds (75%);
(4) A cabinet level agency should be established to coordinate and conduct all federal pollution prevention and abatement programs ;
(5 )States and localities which have spent funds for sewage treatment plants under the auspices of federal reimbursement should be fully repaid;
(6) The Administration proposal of providing $4 billion over the next four years for waste treatment facilities is not adequate, as it would only provide $1 billion of federal funds per year. Support should be given to full appropriations for the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, which will provide authorizations of $1.25 billion in FY 1971;
(7) A packaging tax should be imposed upon all difficult-to-dispose-of items such as automobiles, tires, plastics, glass, synthetics, and appliances. This assessment should be
returned to the locality in which the material is disposed of to help defray the cost of such disposal;
(8) Grants for construction of facilities for the treatment of solid waste should include monies for the acquisition of land for sanitary landfill purposes. (Many localities must seek immediate short-term solutions to solid waste disposal problems.);
(9) Localities should encourage the early involvement of private enterprise in the research and development phase of solid waste management as outlined in the Resources Recovery Act of 1969;
(10) Legislation should be passed to encourage federal funding and enforcement of all federal waterways (oceans, rivers, lakes);
(11) The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 should include total ambient water pollution standards;
(12) Land and Water Conservation Fund should remain at a. level of at least $200 million in contributions each fiscal year. Excess revenue may be collected by charging a user fee;
(13) Congress should consider the environmental effect (noise, health, safety, pollution, transportation) before military airports are released for civil airport use;
(14) Federal assistance should be given to schools, colleges, technical and vocational institutions for the purpose of developing curriculum, furnishing laboratories, training staff, and teaching students in the environmental fields. Shorter term public awareness programs in antipollution techniques conducted by local information and social service agencies should also receive federal assistance;
(15) Minority views of Warren G. Reynolds: Warren G. Reynolds respectfully disagrees with the Committees opposition to tax incentives to industry to correct pollution problems. He believes that tax incentives can encourage earlier, more equitable solutions to environmental problems. Pollution control equipment is incredibly expensive, and its exorbitant cost can result in the closing down of facilities which otherwise serve society well. Tax incentives can correct the problem and keep needed plants open. Further, pollution elimination will benefit the whole of society – why shouldn’t all of society appropriately share in the cost of eliminating pollution through tax incentives? If technology exists to eliminate pollution, the only remaining roadblock is the funding of these installations. Let us remove this roadblock by permitting companies to credit the cost of pollution control installations and operations against their federal taxes, and move ahead to a better environment now.