August 13, 1970
Page 28650
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY PROCUREMENT AND OTHER PURPOSES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senate that at 12 noon a vote will be taken on the amendment (No. 808) offered by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE).
The time between 11 a.m. and 12 noon is under control and will be equally divided between the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE).
Who yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I understand that the parliamentary situation at this time is that a request should be made to lay before the Senate the pending business, and I ask unanimous consent that that be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which the clerk will read by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows: H.R. 17123, to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1971 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked combat vehicles, and other weapons, and research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 808) of the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, it could be that the Senator from Mississippi would have to ask unanimous consent for more time to be allowed on the pending amendment than was requested yesterday. The unanimous-consent request was made during the only 10 minutes when I was not in this Chamber yesterday. I was not consulted and knew nothing about it. Thus, the manager of this bill was caught unaware on this matter. I am not complaining. I am just stating facts. Even though I hate very much to ask for more time, I may be compelled to do it.
The Senator who handled the legislation under consideration, the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), is tied up in the committee, of which he is chairman, and it may be impossible for him to be here between now and noon. Since this is an attack on that legislation to a degree, I think that the Senate would want to hear from the nonmilitary committee.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, what this amendment attempts to do is not to attack any legislation or to reduce its effectiveness in any way. Quite the contrary. What the amendment attempts to do is to enforce a law which we passed last year and which has been in effect since January 1, 1970, requiring an agency of the Federal Government, whenever it engages in any significant action that could have an adverse effect on the environment, or whenever it proposes any major legislative measures, to make a report on the effects of that on the environment.
Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, in that time, there have been only 75 reports made by agencies of the Government. Far less than there should have been. But of the 75, only one has come from the Department of Defense, in spite of the fact that environmental experts say the Department of Defense is responsible for 80 percent of the pollution caused by the Federal Government.
That one report, which was made with respect to the placing of poisonous gas in the ocean, the Department of Defense refused to issue a report on the transportation of the gas across the country although, of course, many people, not just conservationists, were concerned with the possible environmental effects of that transportation.
Again, this is in no way designed to inhibit or restrain the Department of Defense at all. Its only purpose is to see that a report is filed. The benefit of the report will be to alert Congress to the cost of weapons systems, the cost of testing, the cost of maneuvers, and the cost of a big contract all in environmental terms. We are aware of the money cost. We should be made aware of the cost to our environment.
It will also enable the Department of Defense and the Congress to consider what steps are being taken by the Department of Defense to mitigate and reduce environmental effects so that we know they have given consideration to the environmental consequences. That is what my amendment attempts to do.
I think it is a modest amendment and a limited amendment. If there is anything we can do to modify it or make it acceptable to the Department of Defense so that it would not in any way inhibit, slow down, or delay them, I want to do it. But we want to do it in such a way that we do not destroy the effectiveness of the amendment, of course, which is to prevent pollution.
The main moral force behind it is that the Federal Government calls on the cities, States, counties, and private industry to reduce their pollution at considerable sacrifice, certainly the least we should do would be to require the biggest department of Government to make a report on the environmental consequences, the pollution consequences, of the activities of that department.
That is what my amendment attempts to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserving my right to ask for additional time because of the reasons already given, I yield myself 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. I am prepared here and now to discuss this amendment on its merits from the opposition standpoint. There are only four or five Senators in the Chamber at this time and a vote is scheduled for 12 noon, so that I do not see how it is possible to pass on this matter on its merits within that time.
I mentioned that the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), who is trying to get to the Chamber, is tied up in committee as its chairman right now, but he handled the original bill.
One of the basic points in connection with this amendment – I am not speaking against the National Environmental Policy Act, I am for it and support it – but this amendment, in great measure, undertakes to provide that the Department of Defense cannot make contracts for weapons until all of the provisions of the pending amendment have been complied with.
I would emphasize that the amendment would apply to all appropriations of the Department of Defense and would, in effect, become permanent law. Equally important, it would affect prior year moneys not yet expended, so that, we would be, in effect, laying down a special law and tying up the money for the hardware in the military procurement bill for the Department of Defense.
If enacted, the amendment would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds for any project or activity included in six general categories enumerated in the amendment until the Department of Defense has complied with the provisions of sections 102(1) and 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The bill purports merely to require the Department of Defense to comply with the existing law; in fact, it will complicate implementation of that law.
The proposed amendment will interfere with the orderly execution of many important programs of the Department of Defense. Let us examine the specific terms of the proposed amendment, which refer to the following two sections of the act:
Section 102(1) of NEPA requires that the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States be interpreted and administered in accordance with the NEPA policies;
Section 102(2) (C) of the NEPA requires all agencies of the Federal Government to prepare a detailed statement of the environmental aspects of every recommendation or report on proposals
for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The statement will accompany the proposal through agency review processes, and copies of it will be furnished to various agencies and persons.
The problem is one of time. That is the key to this matter, Mr. President. The amendment would make the provisions of NEPA effective during fiscal year 1971.
That is the present year. NEPA does not establish deadlines for compliance with provisions of sections 102(1) and (2) (c) . Those who drafted those sections that are already in the law know that deadlines were impracticable so early in the game. That is bound to have been the basis of it, that it was impracticable to establish hard, firm deadlines and datelines at such an early date.
Section 103 of NEPA established July 1, 1971, as the date by which Federal agencies will propose to the President such measures as are needed to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes and procedures set forth in that act. This amendment, though, would set that time back a year and make it be in effect during fiscal year 1971.
The establishment of that date is clear recognition of the complexity and difficulties involved in implementing this important legislation. Establishing the necessary organization, procedures, both intra and interagency, and putting these into effective operation is a monumental task which takes time.
The details of the proposed amendment may well evolve in the normal implementation of NEPA.
There is no reason why the proposed amendment should be injected at this time because it would disrupt the action which is being taken by the Department of Defense in cooperating with the Council on Environmental Quality and following interim guidelines issued by that Council to all Federal agencies.
Another problem which results from the proposed amendment involves the description of projects or activities which are made subject to section 102(2) (C). This determination should be made as part of the normal implementation of the act. It should include direct negotiations between the Council on Environmental Quality and Defense. In my view, it is presumptive to preempt the prerogatives of the agencies and Council which have been charged directly and specifically by law with this responsibility. Definitions should be drawn by the experts in these agencies who are closest and most versed in the technicalities of these matters as they pertain to the unique missions and responsibilities of each agency. The proposed amendment would "jump-the-gun" on this whole process.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I believe that the implication of the Senator's remarks was that when the act was passed, it would not be complied with for a year and a half until guidelines were worked up. It seems to me that if we read the language of the act, it does not suggest that at all.
The section to which the Senator refers says that all agencies of the Federal Government shall review their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies on inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of the act.
What the act provides is that they have a year and a half to determine whether there is any legal, I repeat – legal reason why they cannot comply. In the meantime it was certainly contemplated that they must file reports and that they would not continue for a year and a half with whatever pollution the various Federal agencies might be engaged in without any improvements.
The best evidence of that is that 75 reports have already been made, and the Defense Department has only made one; 80 percent of the pollution and one report.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
The act we are talking about, NEPA, was approved January 1, 1970. One of the delays stemmed from the fact that the Council of Environmental Quality Control which was set up by that act finally issued implementing guidelines in early May 1970, which in turn were further implemented by agency instructions and guidelines which, in the case of the Department of Defense, were issued on August 8, 1970.
So, half a year was gone before the Council issued guidelines. Some time had to pass in which to allow the Department to get their guidelines.
I was in a hearing this morning and Secretary of Transportation Volpe emphasized that he worked on this matter and got a man in charge of environmental compliance and was able to establish an office and set this up without asking Congress for an additional secretary. I commend him for that.
They had to rush around and get ready to create a new bureau within the department and get ready for compliance.
I do not know of any department that had a more serious problem than did the Department of Transportation.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Mississippi is fair and considerate. I know that he has the same objective I do. He, too, would like to prevent pollution and recognize that the Federal Government should be setting an example and should not be dragging along in these matters.
Under these circumstances and in view of the Senator's position – which I respect, although I disagree – suppose that I modify my amendment to provide as follows:
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or any other act or for the use of the armed forces of the United States may be obligated or expended after June 30, 1971, for any project or activity described in this section.
This would do several things. It would exempt the Defense Department, in effect, from the amendment for a fiscal year. It would delay the effectiveness of this until the last deadline set in the basic law had been reached.
Would the Senator feel that this would be a reasonable and fair accommodation?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his suggestion. I will certainly consider it.
I think, though, that the committee which handled this measure and presented it to Congress, headed by the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) and who handled the bill on the floor, should have a major part in any decision made about this matter.
The Senator from Washington is trying to arrange his affairs so that he may come to the Senate floor. I expect him shortly.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his suggestion. The Senator from Washington is trying to arrange it so that he can get to the floor to be heard. I will continue with my explanations here, as we see it, on the requirements of the bill.
I emphasize that it took 5 months after the bill passed for the council to get their regulations. There certainly should be a reasonable period for the Department of Defense to get theirs, by August.
I do not know how they did it. I do not know of any proof here. I do not know of anything except the general statement that they have been dragging their feet. I do not know of any hearings. Maybe there are some facts. But I do not think that there have been any hearings on this matter – none that I know of.
I imagine that they have about as hard a job with such a large activity and so many operations as any department, and perhaps more so.
Mr. President, I continue with my statement with reference to this amendment.
NEPA has qualifying language, by deliberate design, to recognize that the implementation of all the provisions should not be absolute. Section 101(b), for example, states that it must be "consistent with other essential considerations of national policy." Section 102 states "to the fullest extent possible" agencies shall comply. I must conclude, therefore, that the proposed amendment, which is expressed in absolute terms relative to restrictions on the obligation or expenditure of funds and its implementation during fiscal year 1971, is not compatible with the broader intent of the law.
The control of the quality of the environment is a complex matter. The act represents the first attempt of the Federal Government to deal comprehensively with this important subject. The implementation of the act is under the direction of the recently established Council on Environmental Quality, and the Department of Defense is working closely and constantly with the Council in an effort to comply with the letter and spirit of the law. The Council has distributed Interim Guidelines relating to section102(2) (C) for the Federal agencies to follow.
They are interim because of the extremely technical and difficult subject matter with which they deal, and the Council needs to obtain experience in this area in order to develop permanent programs. The proposed amendment would create obstacles to the efforts of the Council. It not only requires the Department of Defense to comply with the 1969 act, but it defines what the provisions of that act are by enumerating specific categories of activities for which the Department must comply with the act, whether or not those activities would otherwise be included in the provisions of the act itself.
In substance, Mr. President, this amendment can be expected to delay many important projects for the reason that funds could not be expended until the reports called for in the law have been submitted.
Mr. President, this amendment gets ahead of the present law; it gets ahead of the surveillance of the parent committee of the Senate, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs; and it gets ahead of the whole program in picking out the Department of Defense in adding these additional requirements.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have a quorum call, the time to be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, may I have the attention of the acting minority leader?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending amendment take place at 1 o'clock rather than 12 o'clock, because of circumstances which none of us foresaw at the time the request was made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for fixing that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered and the time until 1 o'clock will be equally divided.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin a few questions. Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber yesterday when he made his presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, this will be on my time. I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I did not realize we were under controlled time.
I have a brief resume of what the Senator proposes in his amendment. The Senator states:
The Department of Defense is responsible for 80 percent of the pollution caused by the Federal Government.
That is a rather large figure. I wonder if the Senator could give an explanation of that statement.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes. This was an estimate made by an expert on the Council on Environmental Quality. The reason he estimated it this high is that this is the biggest department; this is the department that has almost 1,000 ships, 26,000 planes, and which engages in testing of all weapons, and that kind of thing.
Looking at the Federal Government as a whole, we know that that part of the Government that expends its funds in areas such as service on the national debt and social security checks paid out, engenders no pollution; and of course some other agencies for example: Transportation, do engender pollution. But Defense is No. 1.
Also, if there is a particular contract in a particular part of the country, where a small town, as has happened, might get a billion-dollar contract, this brings in a great number of people, which affects land use and sewage, and the environment problem could be serious.
I do not say we should stop or delay the contracts for a minute. I say the Department of Defense has a responsibility to say they are aware of the adverse effect on the environment and to indicate what alternatives are available to meet that situation, and the plans to reduce the adverse effect. That is what the report would achieve.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In the Senator's paper the Senator states:
4. The amendment states that no funds for the military for a specific proposal or major action "significantly affecting the human environment" in this or other Acts may be expended until the military complies with the law.
I understand what the Senator is trying to get to, but I can think of weapons systems on which reports cannot be made because of lack of knowledge of what might happen.
I think it would be easy to estimate the effect on a community by moving a military base, or a large manufacturer moving a plant to a more favorable location. I can understand how studies could be made on existing equipment.
To give an example, there has been a lot of talk lately about pollution that is going to be caused by the SST, the 747 and its large engines, and all the large air buses. The truth is there is less pollutants coming from these engines than from the 727 or the 707; the truth is that when water vapor is released from these engines the carbon monoxide molecules are turned to water and there is no pollution at all.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator may well be right, but we had some contrary testimony which indicates that the SST would provide more pollution per passenger mile flown, and so forth. But that is in controversy. All that has to be done in this case is to file a report. If the opinion just expressed is the conviction of the Defense Department, all they have to do is say that.
Mr. GOLDWATER. What would be the nature of the report?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The nature of the report is spelled out in the public law itself, and I quote from it. This is not my amendment; this is the law now on the statute books. It reads:
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.
Once again, it is hand to spell these things out. They just have to do the best they can. The report can be concise. They can speak in general terms about it. What they have to do is make a report. They do not have to stop the contract. They simply say what they have done to show the impact on the environment.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Is there any penalty in the existing law for not complying?
Mr. PROXMIRE. There is no penalty. That is why the amendment is necessary. There is no effective penalty.
Mr. President, the whole purpose of the amendment is to provide some kind of effective sanction.
At the present time it could be argued that the Defense Department and some other agencies are violating the law and not complying with it. Ordinarily, people are fined on sent to jail for violating the law. All we are doing here is providing that if they do not comply with the law, they will get no funds. Compliance with the law is going to take no great sacrifice. It will take no substantial amount of time, or it should not.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In effect, the amendment would require a report as a prerequisite for the spending of moneys for the types of activities specified?
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is correct.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Let us assume the money has been authorized and appropriated. How would that be controlled?
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the money had already been authorized and appropriated, the only way we could control it would be in the event the Defense Department were to engage in a significant action – this is what the basic law says – that had not been contemplated before, but for which moneys were available. Say they wanted to change the kind of weapons systems they had, which would adversely affect the environment. At the time they wanted to go ahead with the new project, they would be required to file a report.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I think the amendment would be very restrictive on ongoing projects or in delaying new projects because of this requirement. I am in sympathy with what the Senator is trying to do. I personally think the law can do that. If they are not complying with the law, I think we can bring the necessary pressure.
I do not like the pressure of holding back money that is badly needed for research and development to find out these things, or for the development of weapons systems that we must have, because many times we have to sort of guess. I would not be able to tell the Senator, for example, that the B-1's engines will not pollute, or if I said they would pollute, I could not tell the Senator how much they would pollute. I do not think anybody really knows.
In this general field, the Air Force would be at a great disadvantage with their planes. So would the Army. So would the Navy.
With respect to an ocean going ship, I think anyone who has ever been on one knows that it pollutes the water. But can anything be done to change that, for example? If we authorize and appropriate money for the Navy to build a new ship, can we expect the Navy to produce a clean ship that leaves no pollution?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think that is an excellent example of how this provision, if made effective, could provide protection to the environment. The Navy discharges garbage from its tremendous ships. They take action which results in pollution, in harbors and other areas. All we ask is that they be aware of it, that they are conscious of it, and that they have considered alternatives and are trying to do their best to mitigate it in ways they can. The amendment does not require that they do anything but make Congress aware of what they are trying to do to prevent pollution of the environment.
We must recognize that if we are trying to be tough about cracking down on industrial polluters, the least we can do in the Federal Government is to require the biggest department of the Government to file a report, when it does not really have to comply with the law at all. It seems to me this is a modest, limited proposal. If we could arrive at sanctions other than through limiting funds, I would be happy to consider any other way which could bring pressure on them to file a report.
There is no evidence that they really intend to do anything. They have indicated that they have some guidelines, but they are weak, as I shall indicate later.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I am far more interested in what they do. If the Senator is interested only in receiving a report, I do not think that goes far enough.
Let me cite an example that I saw last week. On Sunday I flew out West and took my boat down to San Diego. As I was coming out of the harbor, coming back to San Diego, here came a great, big freighter which was washing out its bilges. This is done by every ship in the world. Why cannot we, either by State law of California, or by Federal law, make it illegal to flush bilges out except, say, 100 miles at sea?
That is the kind of action I am in favor of taking to get at what the Senator proposes.
For example, we have said to the mining companies in my State, where we produce 52 percent of the copper produced in this country, that in 2 years they have got to get the smoke out of their stacks; we do not care whether they produce copper or not. I think the same kind of action could be taken to prevent the pollution of our streams.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I do not think it is sufficient just to ask for a report and not demand that something be done. If the report is made, for example, and they say, "This weapon will pollute," what would the Government do, under the Senator's proposal?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think the Defense Department and the other Federal agencies are sufficiently sensitive – if not, we can make them sensitive – to criticism and action by the Congress and the Executive. If it is sufficiently disclosed that there is pollution, we will be in a position to take action. That was the spirit of the Jackson bill which became law and has been in effect since January 1.
It would not – the Senator from Arizona is perfectly correct – it would not by itself stop any pollution, but it would require the agency to identify it and to demonstrate that they have considered alternatives to it, and it would put the overseeing agencies in Congress and the administration in a position to know what was at stake, and how the environment was being damaged by Federal action.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Let me pursue the amendment a little bit further. I want the Senator to understand that I am in complete sympathy with what he is trying to do. My feeling is that we have already provided the mechanism. If it is not working, let us perfect the mechanism, and not add more law to what we already have.
As I understand it, this amendment would apply not only to fiscal year 1971, but to any expenditure, including, of course, prior year moneys, being effective on the date of enactment, insofar as the reporting requirement is concerned, and could cause some real delays in major programs; am I correct in that?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator repeat his question?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes. As I understand, the amendment would apply not only to fiscal year 1971 funds, but also to any other funds.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, it would apply in the sense that those funds might conceivably be used to fund new action; and if new action with funds that have already been provided is contemplated, that could have an adverse effect on the environment, the Defense Department would be required to file a report.
Of course, let me say that as far as this amendment is concerned, I think the implication of the Senator's question is quite correct that where the funds have been appropriated, there is nothing we can do to reclaim those funds; they have been appropriated.
All I am saying is that their past action would not free them from at least a moral requirement of indicating what effect the new action would have on the environment.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Well, let us say, for example – and I am sure there are many others – that the Navy discovers a new atomic submarine is emitting waste. They did not think it would happen; it did not happen on earlier models, but the last one they built, they discover, is putting out waste – not atomic waste, necessarily, but waste. In other words, it is polluting.
What effect would the Senator's amendment have on another submarine of the same type that was being constructed, say, at Norfolk?
Mr. PROXMIRE. It would only have an effect if we have funds in this bill that would provide for the consideration of that particular submarine. Just because there are similar submarines which are polluting the environment would not absolve the further action with respect to a submarine to be constructed in the future. They would still have to file a report indicating what effect this has on the environment, and what the alternatives are, with a view to preventing it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Let me pursue this just a little further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator from Mississippi yield the Senator from Arizona further time?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. As to the Senator's comment, the application of the amendment to prior year funds will pose serious administrative problems, no matter what the effective date of the amendment might be.
For example, in a competitive contract, where the life of the bid remains over 60 days after the contracts have been revealed, there might not be, in many instances, time to assess the environmental impact, and this might impose a problem on any beginning implementing date. I can see grave reservation on a manufacturer's part on getting into a competitive bid where this problem might exist.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, this is difficult, but again, it does not require any action on the part of a contractor or on the part of the Defense Department except the filing of a report indicating what the pollution might be.
It is true that when they file that report, there may be indications that the Defense Department is going to have to change its approach and take a more expensive approach that would have an effect on the contract.
But I think once we adopt this amendment, it would be clear that the Defense Department is going to have some problems, and that this is something to consider as they move ahead on these contracts.
The whole point to consider is that if we are serious about preventing pollution, this is the minimal action, certainly, we would have to take. It would be effective under the present law, inasmuch as it would require reports not now being made.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I could not disagree with the Senator's intent, nor what he is saying, but I cannot see that just the filing of a report is going to help the thing.
Let us say they admit they have a weapon that will pollute. I think the answer should then be, "Let us do everything we can to make it non-polluting."
Mr. PROXMIRE. Exactly. But there is no one who asks that question now.
Mr. GOLDWATER. There is no provision in the Senator's amendment for that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. But we would be made aware. We would be in a position, then, to consider the cost, not only in terms of money, but in terms of environmental destruction, which may be more serious, even, than money. We would at least know about it, and could consider our options at the congressional level, when we decide to fund one weapon instead of another, or do our best to persuade the Defense Department to adopt measures which would reduce pollution.
Mr. GOLDWATER. If the Defense Department has failed to report under the existing law, then I think that the very fact that we are discussing this matter on the floor should wake them up. I am amazed that they have not done it, although I have to say that I can understand their inability to do it, because of the complete lack of knowledge, in many cases, of what the weapon might do in the way of pollution.
I think, too, that in the long run you could stretch this thing to the manufacturer.
In other words, let us say that we are going to build a tank, and the factory that builds it is polluting a stream, and the Defense Department reports that fact. Then what penalties do we have to use on the manufacturer, who is polluting the stream that is getting the Defense Department in trouble because they need the weapon?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, of course, all we get out of this law and my implementation of the law would be a report. It is true there are other provisions; I would hope we can provide those, and make them much stronger on the Federal level.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Two additional minutes. And much stronger, perhaps, on a State and local level, to prevent air pollution.
That is a different issue. But we should have the awareness of whether or not the Defense Department or other agency – and I intend to broaden this as we go along to cover the Transportation Department, public works, and so forth – so that we will at least know what pollution effect our actions have, and so we will be in a position to act to discourage pollution.
It may well be that as we go down the line, and pollution gets worse in our country, we may want to take more serious action; but at least now we can take the first step, and make that first step meaningful – not just pass a law, as we did last year, and have it flouted and ignored.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Can the Senator tell me if anyone who is in charge of the operations under this law has made a specific request of the Secretary of Defense? I wonder if he is aware of the fact that he has to submit these reports.
Mr PROXMIRE. I am sure the Secretary of Defense is aware of it. As a matter of fact, we have just gotten action by the Defense Department, after my amendment was introduced. They have enunciated some guidelines which they expect to put into effect, and that action was only taken within the last 72 hours or so by Deputy Secretary Packard, who indicated that there are some guidelines he wants to follow. I have a lot of trouble with those guidelines; I think they are pretty weak, and ignore some important areas that could result in environmental pollution. But nevertheless, they have begun to take action.
After all the Defense Department has very able people in it, including the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Let me have 5 more minutes, to complete the colloquy.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And I am sure they were aware of this Jackson bill when it was passed. I brought it up with the Defense Department when its representatives appeared before my Joint Economic Subcommittee. I asked them why they did not comply, and was told that it was in the pipeline.
So they are aware of the law, and just have not complied with it. It seems to me we need some muscle in order to make that compliance effective.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I may be wrong in this, but I am informed that the Corps of Engineers has submitted 26 or 27 reports since this law became effective, and I believe it was only set up on the 8th of this month.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Corps of Engineers, as I understand, is operating in the public works area. In making these reports, such as on dumping certain matters in a lake in connection with dredging on a public works project, the Corps of Engineers, in this capacity, is working as a part of our public works effort, not as a part of our defense effort, primarily.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Does the Senator feel that the fact that this law has only been effective, we might say, since August 8, might have some bearing on the matter?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The law has been in effect since January 1, 1970.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I know, but the machinery was not set up. It has not been a working organization, as I understand it, since the first part of this month.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, since the first part of this month, the Defense Department has begun to take cognizance, since we introduced the amendment, and since they have begun to get some questions and pressure from the chairman of the committee; at least, he has been asking
about this, and why they have not complied with it. But 75 reports have been made, including, as the Senator pointed out, 26 by the Corps of Engineers and a number by other agencies; only one by the Defense Department in connection with any military action, and that was the burying of the poisonous chemicals in the ocean.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield with respect to a matter that occurred while the Senator from Arizona was out of the Chamber momentarily?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield.
Mr. STENNIS. The proof shows that the Council on Environmental Control did not issue their guidelines until April 30, 1970. The Defense Department came along on August 8, 1970, with theirs, which was a mighty good run for the money, and that was only a few days ago. Today is the 13th.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Will the Senator put that in the RECORD?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I was unaware of that.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this memorandum printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of the colloquy between the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. PROXMIRE. May I say to the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Arizona that the issuance of guidelines is not necessary for compliance with the law. When they contemplate a new action or propose legislation, it seems to me that they can issue a report without waiting on guidelines either from the Environmental Control Administration or from the Defense Department. They know that the law requires this, and the law was effective as of January 1.
They did not say that the enactment would not take place until the later date.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I have one more comment to make, and I would like the Senator from Wisconsin to respond.
As I understand it, the amendment sets up six categories of activities that must be complied with prior to the spending of money. The 1969 act is cast in much broader terms and does not specify the activities to be covered. It is left to the discretion of the agency. The amendment, as I see it, goes beyond the intent of the act insofar as attempting to specify the activities to be covered is concerned. The act was purposely left broad because of its pioneering character. Would the Senator agree with that assumption?
Mr. PROXMIRE. No, I would not agree.
What we tried to do in setting forth these specific areas was to recognize that the failure of the department to comply had been perhaps because the law itself had been so general; that they did not feel that anything they were doing – although they were doing many things that could obviously have an adverse effect on the environment – would have a significant effect on the environment. We specified particular areas, and it seems to me – if the Senator would go over those areas – that if the DOD objects to these guidelines, it means they do not mean business about stopping pollution. It includes "developing, construction, and testing of any weapons system which significantly affects the environment."
If you are going to have an effective Environmental Quality Act requiring reports from agencies which are polluting the environment, it should be required.
Another thing that concerns me is that in our amendment we specified that the transportation or transfer of dangerous substances or devices, and this is explicitly left out of the Defense Department guidelines. They are not going to report on that, and I think they should.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Senator for engaging in this colloquy. It has cleared up some points.
My reaction at the end of this exchange is that we are not giving the Defense Department or any other department time to get going under this act, because they have only had a relatively few days. I think that the Senator and I, if we were engaged in a business, would expect departments in our business to report promptly. But we have been around this Government long enough to know that those things do not happen in the Federal Government, as he and I would like to have these things happen. I would like to have them submit these reports. I think we ought to give them a little more time.
If Secretary Laird is politically smart, as I know him to be, I think that the discussion of the Senator's amendment will give him the needed nudge to get going with these reports, even though reports have been made.
As I say, my knowledge of weaponry and weapons and manufacturing leads me to believe that in many cases there is no way that the Defense Department can make a report that would satisfy the environmentalists of this country, and I am one of them.
There are areas that I think they can correct themselves and start correcting immediately, and I would hope that the mere discussion of this matter on the floor of the Senate would suffice.
I dislike to see another law where we already have a law. If there are deficiencies in the other law, let us amend that law and not get into the business of controlling the expenditure of funds that are asked for and, I might say, thanks to the Senator from Wisconsin, are getting extremely tough to get. I dislike to see it made any tougher.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think the Senator raises a very understandable objection, as does the Senator from Mississippi, that the Defense Department should have more time.
In the first place, let me point out that they have had more than 7 months now. It went into effect on January 1 of this year. They have not complied so far.
We can say that they have had this much notice and they ought to comply from now on.
To accommodate the further allowance of time, I am willing to modify my amendment to provide that the funds would only be withheld after June 30, 1971, which will give them an entire year.
It seems to me that this is a very substantial compromise on my part, and it would give them all the time in the world – a full year and a half from the time of enactment – in order to come into line with what the law requires.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 36 minutes, and the Senator from Mississippi has. 28 minutes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield myself 5 minutes to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am extremely interested in the basic provision of the law to which the Senator's amendment is directed. It is section 102 of the Environmental Quality Act as it was passed last year.
In the Public Works Committee, and specifically the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, we have over the past 6 or 8 years undertaken to develop effective policies to come to grips with the activities of Federal agencies which in themselves have an undesirable environmental impact.
Last year, two provisions were written into the law – the one upon which the Senator has focused, and a second one, which was written into the law and finally signed into law this March by the President in the Water Quality Improvement Act.
Section 21, covering cooperation by all Federal agencies in the control of pollution, was written for the purpose of policing Federal activities from an environmental point of view.
For example, section 21 (b) (1) provides that any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity, including but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate. The effect is to see that the water quality standards of that State are being complied with.
The pertinent paragraphs of section 21 read as follows:
Sec. 21. (a) Each Federal agency (which term is used in this section includes Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities) having jurisdiction over any real property or facility, or engaged in any Federal public works activity of any kind, shall, consistent with the paramount interest of the United States as determined by the President, insure compliance with applicable water quality standards and the purposes of this Act in the administration of such property, facility, or activity. In his summary of any conference pursuant to section 10(d) (4) of this Act, the Secretary shall include references to any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any such Federal property, facility, or activity, and shall transmit a copy of such summary to the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction of such property, facility, or activity. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 10(f) of this Act involving any pollution alleged to be effected by any discharges shall also be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property. facility, or activity involved, and the findings and recommendations of the hearing board conducting such hearing shall include references to any such discharges which are contributing to the pollution found by such board.
(b) (1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that there is reasonable assurance, as determined by the State or interstate agency that such activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards. Such State or interstate agency shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all applications for certification by it, and to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection with specific applications. In any case where such standards have been promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 10(c) of this Act, or where a State or interstate agency has no authority to give such a certification, such certification shall be from the Secretary. If the State, interstate agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, fails or refuses to act on a request for certification. within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification requirements of this subsection shall be waived with respect to such Federal application. No license or permit shall be granted until the certification required by this section has been obtained or has been waived as provided in the preceding sentence. No license or permit shall be granted if certification has been denied by the State, interstate agency, or the Secretary, as the case may be.
The sanction in that provision of the law is the issuance of the permit or the license which may be required. This covers dredging activities, for example. It involves any activities conducted under a Federal permit or license. It includes, in addition, the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission in approving licenses for nuclear powerplants. It also, I think, could be used to cover discharges under the Refuse Act of 1899, which prohibits the discharge from industrial or any sources into the navigable waters of the United States.
In brief, section 21 of the Water Quality Improvement Act provides sanctions – through the permitting or licensing authority of the United States which can cover every industrial establishment in the country.
That was worked out, as I say, over a period of years, as we sought to find some kind of precision instrument for getting at Federal activities.
What troubles me about the Senator's amendment is this: Section 102 was written last year under legislation reported initially by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Because it also involved the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee, we became involved with the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in writing this and other provisions of that act.
Consequently, the provision does require a report. The law as written did not include the sanction because at that time there was no central agency in existence with the authority to police it. Under the provisions of that act, the Council on Environmental Policy was created and now consists of three commissioners, chaired by Russell E. Train. The first report of the Council was just issued this week.
My Committee on Air and Water Pollution received testimony from Mr. Train and his people on the report, and one of the questions raised in the hearing this week was the implementation of section 102, under existing provisions of law. What must be done is this: First of all, the Council has assumed authority given under the act to implement section 102. It is in the process of doing so. It has developed guidelines which have been circulated to the Federal agencies for that purpose. It is going to require, under the authority of the Presidential office in which it is located, compliance with section 102.
There are two limitations at the present time – three, really.
The first is the inadequacy of the Council staff at this point. The Council was created in January.
It has been staffing up before its appropriations picture has been fully defined. The President requested full funding for this year of $1½ million. The Appropriations Committee approved only $1 million. If the $1 million is its ceiling, the total staff of the Council will be 37 or 38. That is the first limitation.
The second limitation is that the guidelines have just been developed, are being circularized, and will be implemented.
The third limitation, the extent of which we do not fully understand as yet, is that there are no sanctions other than the prestige of the Council and the backing of Presidential authority. Its effectiveness will require implementation.
May I say, in addition, to the Senator, that in the Public Works Committee, with those Federal activities under our jurisdiction, we have assumed the responsibility for insisting that the provisions of the act be complied with.
For instance, the Senate earlier this year considered the rivers and harbors bill. There were included in that bill, as it came to the committee, reports that did not include the section 102 reports. We sent them back and required that section 102 reports be filed and sent up to the committee. That demonstrates, I think, it was the intent of both the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON)–
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McINTYRE). The time of the Senator from Wisconsin has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The intent of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), who will comment on that himself, as well as the Public Works Committee, was to establish a clearcut policy to be implemented under the emerging authority and prestige of the Council on Environmental Policy, backed up by the two committees involved in writing the law.
What troubles me about the Senator's amendment are two questions.
The first is this: Section 102 requires that reports shall be filed in connection with any legislation proposed by any department on any major action proposed by the department.
Someone has to decide what is a major action requiring compliance with the law. The second question is this: The law is specific with respect to the makeup of the report and the questions it must cover. That means someone must decide, if the Senator's amendment is adopted, whether a satisfactory report has been filed under section 102, because the Senator's amendment does not impose or give that responsibility to any agency of government – it does not give that authority to any agency of government.
It may be an assumption that the Council on Environmental Policy will assume those functions. It is not equipped to do so. There may have been the assumption that some other agency of government will have that responsibility. It is not identified, if that is the case.
But in the case of the Department of Defense, what troubles me is that in order to insure that a report is filed with respect to every action that may have been recommended as major by someone, under section 102, there is going to have to be a monitoring by some agency outside the Department of Defense of all decisions taken.
That seems to me to be an administrative task of some magnitude that should be carefully examined in committee.
Thus, I should like to suggest to the Senator from Wisconsin that this proposal, which I think has merit, certainly in terms of its objective, be referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and to my Committee on Air and Water Pollution, as well as to other appropriate committees, so that we can examine it. It may well be there is a need for this kind of tough sanction to implement section 102, but we should really focus on the implication of the various sanctions which can be made available and which we can use.
The Senator from Wisconsin should be complimented on offering his amendment, but I am troubled about the mechanics of implementing it, if it should become law.
Thus, I thought it might be helpful to give this background to the Senate as a matter of record.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The distinguished Senator from Maine speaks from a great deal of experience in this area. He has worked on it as much as any Member of the Senate – perhaps more than any other Senator. He knows what he is talking about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Wisconsin has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from Maine makes a legitimate point, but I feel that the Council has guidelines, the Department of Defense now has guidelines, and in general there will be agreement. It would seem to me that where there is disagreement, it would have to be resolved by the President or the Attorney General. There could be additional consideration given by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs or the Public Works Committee, which could be useful, but what concerns me very deeply is that we have waited for more than 7 months now for some effective action under the law, and we have not received any.
There is no question that we have not gotten the kind of report we should have. The Department of Defense is the most clearly negligent because, with respect to defense itself, it filed exactly one report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read section 102. The Senator is impatient in having to wait 7 months. I have been impatient for 8 years, may I say to the Senator, as we have undertaken to write this legislation. Let me read section 102 and what is required of every department. Unless the departments equip themselves with staff and resources to do it, this is not an easy task.
This is what section 102 (C) requires: All agencies of government shall 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 Federal 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, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by Section 552 of title 5 United States Code, 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 long range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, 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;
(F) make available to States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment;
Let me say to the Senator from Wisconsin that when we wrote this provision into the law, what we were interested in getting was not some pro forma, routine, casual examination of the environmental impacts of the actions taken by the Federal agencies. We wanted the kind of in-depth study and evaluation that could come only if each agency organizes itself with the appropriate staff and with the appropriate resources in research and other activities to do the job right.
Our complaint about the Department of Defense, the Department of Interior, the Corps of Engineers, and all of the other agencies is that they have given nothing but casual attention to the environment. We have thought we should split off the environmental improvement responsibilities of agencies from their resource development responsibilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think there is a conflict and inconsistency which makes them less than an objective judge of the environmental impact of their own activities – if 7 months of useful time would not necessarily be sufficient to produce the kind of reports we had in mind for section 102.
I appreciate the impatience of the Senator, but I really earnestly ask him to consider whether this matter ought not to be given adequate care and study.
We thought about it. My committee is concerned. The committee of the Senator from Washington is concerned. We are concerned about the matter. We have written this provision into law. I think it would be most helpful for the achievement of the Senator's objective.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, it seems to me that the Defense Department certainly has staff to burn. They have plenty of personnel. They have hundreds of thousands of people. They have a colossal number of personnel. They should be able to comply with the law in 7 months and should be able to file more than one report.
They did object to filing the report but not because it took expertise. They objected to filing the report on policy grounds. They should have been able to file many more reports than just the one.
It is clear that they will not comply, in my view, with the very comprehensive charter which the Senator from Maine has detailed unless we provide this kind of effective sanction.
I have suggested that we go another year. If 7 months is not enough – and it seems to me that it is – let us give them 18 months. Would that be enough to satisfy the Senator from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have served on committees with the Senator from Wisconsin. I know how carefully he examines every detail of legislative proposals which come before him.
I undertake to do the same thing in my committee. We devoted long hours, days, and weeks to this very problem. Now the Senator is suggesting that, in the hour since I learned enough about this amendment to understand it, that I should be able to form a judgment that it ought to be written into law effective a year from now.
The Senator himself does not apply that kind of judgment making process to legislative proposals that come before him. And I find it difficult to do it myself.
It may be an answer, but it has not had that kind of attention.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes. '
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, first of all, I associate myself with the remarks of the able Senator from Maine in connection with the pending amendment.
Mr. President, much as I understand the concerns of the Senator from Wisconsin, I must oppose his amendment requiring the Department of Defense to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Because the amendment requires the Department to do what it is already legally required to do, it seems innocuous. But there are, I believe, real dangers in starting a re-codification of the National Environmental Policy Act on a department-by-department, agency- by-agency basis. If we accept this amendment today, it is only the beginning. From now on, we may expect a series of amendments designed to relate different agencies to different sections of the act. It would be tempting, for example, to write special language covering the Corps of Engineers or the Federal Highway Administration. Once this process is started, there is no logical place to draw the line.
The net result of this approach is to undermine the broad, comprehensive coverage of the National Environmental Policy Act by suggesting that some problems are more important than others and by sowing the seeds of confusion as to what matters are covered by the act. No doubt some agencies would prefer that their activities not be covered by the act. The fact remains that the act is all-inclusive in its coverage and it is the responsibility of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Congress, in the exercise of its oversight function, to see that the act is complied with.
Mr. President, the members of the Council on Environmental Quality appeared before the Senate Interior Committee this morning and I asked the chairman, Russell Train, to comment on the pending amendment. Mr. Train made it perfectly clear that the members of the Council share the views I have expressed here this morning. Although the Council has only been in office 6 months, I personally have every reason to believe that it is prepared to see that the executive branch fulfills its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. I believe that passage of the proposed amendment would unduly complicate the Council's task of administering the act.
It should be rejected.
Mr. President, this bill originated in my committee. I introduced it, as the Senator from Wisconsin knows. I worked very closely with the able Senator from Maine. We worked out the differences between the House version and the Senate version.
It is fundamental to this act that all agencies be included. I want to point out – and the Senator knows – that there are some real legal problems involved if we follow this course. If we single out the Department of Defense for special treatment, would that mean that other agencies are immune?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Of course not. We do not limit this to the Defense Department.
Mr. JACKSON. Why does not the Senator introduce an amendment to provide that it will be a condition precedent to the expenditure of any funds that agencies first comply with section 102?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I will do that when the legislation comes before us. It is not appropriate at this time.
Mr. JACKSON. We have had other appropriation bills here, and other measures. We have not added this kind of condition.
I concur completely in what the Senator is trying to do. I commend him for it.
I point out that the guidelines for compliance have now been submitted for the Department of Defense, and all its subagencies. They are moving on this problem.
I held hearings on the problem of Culebra. The Senator may be familiar with that problem in Puerto Rico. The Department is submitting to the committee the necessary information in compliance with section 102.
A lot of Federal agencies have not yet fully complied with section 102. The Department of Defense is not the only one.
We are, in our oversight authority, going into the whole problem.
I am working very closely with the able Senator from Maine in a joint effort of the Public Works Committee and the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to see that the objective of section 102 is fulfilled.
I caution about the danger here of saying that this agency is the one that is not complying when other agencies have yet to comply.
The council has been operating under very difficult circumstances. They have had a difficult problem in getting adequate staff, as the Senator from Maine knows. We provided $1.5 million for staff in the Senate version of the appropriations bill which was vetoed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, the House cut it by $500,000. Only $1 million is available. There is not adequate funding for staff purposes. We hope that the money will be restored if the veto is sustained or if a supplemental bill is submitted.
Mr. President, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think it would be helpful to read into the RECORD the comments of Chairman Train earlier this week before the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee on section 102.
He said this:
Section 102(2) (C)of the National Environmental Policy Act has helped meet the second deficiency which I noted in the Federal Government's organization with respect to environmental issues – environmental impacts of Federal action were being overlooked in decision-making.
Section 102(2) (C) requires Federal agencies to 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 on: the environmental impact of the action, adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, alternatives, the relationship between short- and long-term uses, and any irreversible commitment of resources involved.
These detailed statements are to include comments of State and local environmental agencies as well as appropriate Federal agencies with environmental expertise.
The statements are to be made available to the Council on Environmental Quality, the President and the public.
On April 30, the Council issued Interim Guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements, requiring each Federal agency to establish internal procedures for implementing this provision of the Act by June 1, 1970.
These Interim Guidelines have been published in the Federal Register, under date of May 12th, as I recall.
In response to these guidelines the agencies have been developing internal procedures to implement Section 102.
At the same time, with help from the supplementary staffing authorization contained in the Environmental Quality Act, we have been developing our own staff capacity to review agency programs with particular impact on the environment, to evaluate the Section 102 statements that have been filed and to identify actions which should be covered.
With this foundation we should be able to assess the overall effectiveness of the Section 102 procedure.
Mr. Train also stated:
Finally, with respect to the Section 102 procedure, we have not limited our operating responsibility simply to the issuance of formal guidelines.
On the contrary, we have endeavored to develop and maintain close working relationships at the staff level with the key agencies.
I also call attention to this testimony by Mr. Train:
Senator SPONG. On pages 9 and 10 of your statement, you speak of Section 102. That section was employed, was it not, in the decision to dump the nerve gas in the Atlantic ocean?
Mr. TRAIN. Yes. You said "employed", and I want to comment on the use of that word, because–
Senator SPONG. Well, use your own, if you will.
Mr. TRAIN. Because it is a section of the statute which is self-operative. It comes into play whenever any Federal agency is recommending any major action with potential significant environmental impact, and these are submitted to us.
Such a statement was submitted by the Department of the Army to the Council. The Council has commented to the Department of the Army on its statement, pointing out certain deficiencies which we felt of a procedural or technical nature in that particular Section 102 report.
Senator SPONG. If I recall, this is my own conclusion from listening to testimony, the report dealt possibly with the chemical aspects, but told us very little, and possibly that is because of lack of knowledge as far as everyone is concerned about the biological effects.
But what I would like to ask you is: Was that report prepared and circularized for comment early enough to affect the decision-making process before the action was taken?
Mr. TRAIN. The report was initially submitted to the Council in draft form on the 8thof July, and a final version was submitted to the Council on the 30th of July, as I recall, and during that period, although only before us in draft form, our staff did have occasion and opportunity to comment on and discussion with the Department of the Army's staff various aspects of the project.
It is hard to state, in any case, whether sufficient time has been given. In a case that is as complicated and controversial, necessarily, as this kind of project, I would say that the 30-day period which our guidelines provide is probably on the short side.
I hesitate to generalize. I think in many cases, the answer to that question would turn upon the completeness of the information provided in the first instance, so that in this case, where we felt there were some deficiencies of information, the period probably was not long enough.
The second point, I think, is covered by Mr. Train's testimony. I ask unanimous consent that all of his testimony be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I might respond to one of the Chairman's introductory remarks, in which he expressed the hope that the Joint Committee on Environment might be established soon, I think that the Council would be glad to associate himself with that hope, noting that we are presently scheduled to testify before three committees this week on the report, and I suspect this may be only a beginning. I am sure a joint committee would be very welcome by all hands here.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, 1 hope we can help to prepare you this morning for your later bouts this week.
Mr. TRAIN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee:
It is a pleasure to appear before this distinguished committee for the first time, I would say, in our role as a Council, because, of course, I have appeared before this committee on previous occasions.
For the record, I would like to note that I am accompanied by both members of the Council, Mr. Robert Cahn, and Dr. Gordon MacDonald.
Our appearance today, in connection with the filing by the President of the First Annual Environmental Quality Report, furnishes a good opportunity to review the work of the Council and those areas in the report of particular relevance fof this committee.
As you know, the First Annual Report has been prepared during the organizing period of the Council. Only a few months have been available for the task.
Likewise, the Council has had only a small staff during this period, all of whom have carried major responsibility for the wide variety of projects and issues, other than the report, which have concerned the Council during these months.
We also recognize that we possess insufficient environmental quality indicators or systems by which to monitor the environment and outline trends with any degree of the accuracy at this time.
Nevertheless, within the bounds of these limitations, the Council has attempted to bring together a comprehensive description of environmental problems and issues facing the Nation.
It does not require a highly developed monitoring system to tell that the present state of our environment is badly degraded, that our waters remain seriously polluted, that the air in and around our cities is in unsatisfactory condition, that congestion and noise and stress are increasing, that environmentally related disease is rising, that the solid wastes of our society are continuing to mount, that open space and natural areas are diminishing, that the natural diversity of our surroundings is decreasing, that ugliness and tawdriness are spreading across our American landscape.
Nevertheless, the year 1970 has marked the beginning of a significant attack on these problems.
Not only has public awareness and concern reached new levels, but at the same time we have begun to achieve a better understanding of the complex root causes of our problems;
We have begun to build into the decision-making process of Federal agencies a consideration of a broad range of environmental factors;
We have continued and strengthened the development of a comprehensive action program that, given persistence and support, can arrest and reverse the adverse trends in our environment, and
We have begun to build the institutional base for more effective environmental management.
I would like to just give one word of emphasis to that last item, which I think is too often overlooked, when public attention tends to focus on specific problems.
We think so much in terms of programs to deal with those ad hoc, immediate problems, and rightly so, but over the long pull, we feel that the better institutional base for environmental management is one of the very basic fundamental goals which we must achieve.
The Annual Environmental Quality Report deals at some length with problems of interest to this committee. It includes analyses of the sources, effects, and major problems of water pollution, air pollution, and solid waste.
In the field of water pollution, vigorous and effective enforcement of water quality standards is necessary, as this committee well knows. The first need is to strengthen the legal basis for enforcement.
This committee has devoted much time to an examination of the Administration's proposals which would extend Federal jurisdiction to intrastate and groundwaters, streamline the conference hearing procedures, establish effluent requirements, and authorize fines up to $10,000 a day.
We understand that this committee is working on legislation along these lines. However, a strengthened legal basis is only the first step in enforcement. To be truly effective, enforcement must be triggered by information from an adequate information system. States, municipalities, and industries should systematically be warned of violation of standards.
If action does not follow, and if extenuating circumstances do not exist, the Federal Government should automatically seek court action.
The successful control of air pollution requires strengthened legislation, as does successful control of water pollution.
I know that this committee has been working long and hard on proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act, and I hope that you soon will be reporting them out of committee.
The automobile is clearly the number one air pollution problem. The President has proposed legislation to provide for certification of assembly line vehicles to assure that emission control standards are met.
The Council on Environmental Quality is overseeing an effort to develop non-polluting alternatives to the internal combustion engine. However, there is still a need to insure that once new model vehicles are certified as conforming to the standards, they continue to meet the standards under actual operating conditions.
The Council report states that alternatives to assure continued control of motor vehicle emissions under actual road conditions should be evaluated.
The international dimensions of the air pollution problem should not be overlooked. The report contains an entire chapter devoted to man's unintentional modification of world climate.
The discharge of particulates and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could have dramatic and long-term effects on the world's temperature with many major consequences.
The United States should take the initiative in forming cooperative arrangements to control air pollutants that could have widespread effects.
As this committee has recognized, we need to develop much better techniques for disposing of solid wastes. We must also aim at reducing the volume of material which is considered waste by encouraging maximum recycling and reuse of materials.
The Council is working with a number of Federal agencies to develop a recycling strategy and is studying a variety of special disposal problems, such as non-returnable bottles.
These are just a few of the many recommendations which our report makes. However, the significance of the document lies as much in its total coverage as in any of its specific recommendations.
We have tried to view the environment as a whole, and we have dealt with some of the root causes of environmental problems such as population and economic growth and land-use.
While there are many specific actions which must be taken, there is also a need to improve our thinking about the environment so that the interrelationships among problems are recognized and so that we do not create new problems by our attempts to solve existing ones.
IMPROVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
I would like to introduce the subject of the role of our Council by reviewing briefly the steps taken this year to improve the Federal Government's ability to deal with environmental problems.
In recent years, our Federal institutions responsible for environmental quality have been handicapped by organizational arrangements poorly suited to effective programs. There has been need for improvement in at least three areas.
First, there has been the need to focus environmental policy development and analysis of trends and programs. Since many problems of the environment cut across the responsibilities of a number of Federal agencies, no one entity had an overview function.
Second, environmental concerns have often been slighted when agencies pursue their primary missions with inadequate attention to side effects.
For example, the agencies constructing highways, dams, or airports are chiefly concerned with economic and engineering feasibility.
Such quantitative factors have tended to overshadow consideration of the environmental impact of proposed projects.
Finally, as pollution control programs have grown in scope and authority, effective management has become increasingly difficult.
Different agencies carrying out similar pollution control functions such as standard-setting, research, monitoring and regulation have grown up piecemeal.
There has been progress this year in all three areas. The establishment of the Council on Environmental Quality under the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91190) has provided a focal point in the Executive Branch for the development of environmental policy.
The Council's ability to perform its functions has been significantly strengthened by the passage of the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-224) which your committee initiated. This legislation provided for the Office of Environmental Quality and staff support to the Council.
The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality serves as director of the office and in practice the provisions of the two Acts have meshed together in a highly useful way. P.L. 91-224, for example, provides useful contracting authority and flexibility in the hiring of specialists and experts.
This additional legislation brought the total authorization for the Council and the Office to $800,000 for fiscal year 1970; $1,450,000 for 1971; $2,250,000 for 1972; and $2,500,000 for 1973.
For fiscal 1971, the Administration requested funding up to the full amount of our authorization. That is, $1,450,000 and an additional $50,000 for the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality.
As you know, Congress recently appropriated a total of $1 million for the Council and Office and for the Citizens' Committee.
Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act has helped meet the second deficiency which I noted in the Federal Government's organization with respect to environmental issues – environmental impacts of Federal action were being overlooked in decision-making.
Section 102(2) (C) requires Federal agencies to 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 on: the environmental impact of the action, adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, alternatives, the relationship between short- and long-term uses, and any irreversible commitment of resources involved.
These detailed statements are to include comments of State and local environmental agencies as well as appropriate Federal agencies with environmental expertise.
The statements are to be made available to the Council on Environmental Quality, the President and the Public.
On April 30, the Council issued Interim Guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements, requiring each Federal agency to establish internal procedures for implementing this provision of the Act by June 1, 1970.
These Interim Guidelines have been published in the Federal Register, under date of May 12th, as I recall.
In response to these guidelines the agencies have been developing internal procedures to implement Section 102.
At the same time, with help from the supplementary staffing authorization contained in the Environmental Quality Act, we have been developing our own staff capacity to review agency programs with particular impact on the environment, to evaluate the Section 102 statements that have been filed and to identify actions which should be covered.
With this foundation we should be able to assess the overall effectiveness of the Section 102 procedure.
In our view. it would be desirable to get another six months or so of experience before considering the desirability of any change in the law.
Our guidelines have only been in effect for a short period. The agencies' own internal procedures are even more recent. We are only now beginning to have an opportunity to develop actual operative experience with these new procedures.
Having said this, I would like to underline the understanding of the Council on two points that have occasioned some debate: First, it is our understanding that Section 102(2) (C) contemplates preparation of the impact statement and its circulation for comment by the relevant agencies early enough to affect the decision-making process before the action is taken.
We believe this interpretation to be consistent with and, indeed, required by, the statutory requirement that the statement "shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes."
Secondly, we believe Section 102(2) (C) to be a remedial provision that should be applied, to the fullest extent possible, to further actions even though they may be part of a sequence started before January 1, 1970.
As our Guidelines put it with respect to existing projects and programs:
Where it is not practicable to reassess the basic course of action, it is still important that further incremental major actions be shaped so as to minimize adverse environmental consequences.
It is also important in further action that account be taken of environmental consequences not fully evaluated at the outset of the project or program.
Finally, with respect to the Section 102 procedure, we have not limited our operating responsibility simply to the issuance of formal guidelines.
On the contrary, we have endeavored to develop and maintain close working relationships at the staff level with the key agencies.
The third gap in our Federal organization to handle environmental problems I mentioned – the fragmentation of our pollution control operating programs, is proposed to be redressed in Reorganization Plan No. 3, which would consolidate our major operating pollution control programs in a new, independent Environmental Protection Agency.
This consolidation is based on the same concept of an independent environmental standard setting and protection agency as the proposal authored by Chairman Muskie and co-sponsored by members of this committee.
Our Council strongly supports the plan of reorganization. We see no conflict between the missions of EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality. Indeed, the two organizations should be mutually reinforcing.
The Council is not intended to have operating responsibilities, and its functions are to advise the President with respect to environmental policies and to coordinate all activities of Federal agencies related to environmental quality.
EPA, on the other hand, will be responsible for executing anti-pollution policies and for carrying out the many functions involved in controlling pollution.
It will assist the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of the environment.
There is also a difference in the scope of concern of the two agencies. The Council is responsible for the environment, broadly defined. This includes such subjects as population, land use, and conservation.
I believe that our Annual Report, before this committee, bears out that scope of concern and responsibility to which I have alluded.
The new agency, on the other hand, will focus specifically on pollution control, which is only one part of the Council's responsibilities.
However, the creation of EPA will be a significant building block in achieving the comprehensive view of environmental matters which the Council has tried to encourage.
OTHER COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Apart from these matters of the Federal Government's organization and procedure to handle environmental issues, the Council has been involved in a broad variety of environmental policy questions which I will mention briefly.
In his February 10, 1970, message on the Environment, the President directed the Council to provide leadership in the areas of agricultural pollution, the research and development of non-polluting power sources for the automobile, the problem of junked automobiles and the recycling and reuse of commonly used materials.
In a subsequent message to the Congress on pollution in the Great Lakes and the oceans, the President also directed the Council, in consultation with other Federal agencies and State and local governments, to develop a Federal policy and programs for controlling disposal of wastes in the oceans.
The Executive Order which directed Federal agencies to undertake an extensive program for bringing Federal facilities into compliance with air and water quality standards also assigned the Council continuing responsibility to oversee implementation of the Order.
In addition to these Presidential directives, the Council is involved in a number of other activities. It participated with other agencies in the development of the President's proposals to control and prevent oil spills from waterborne transport.
It is currently working with a number of Federal agencies on proposals for improved control of pesticides, noise, and mercury pollution; reduction of phosphates in detergents; and pollution control programs in the Great Lakes.
A number of our projects relate to assignments made to the Director of the Office of Environmental Quality in P.L. 91-224.
For example, we are giving priority attention to review of existing environmental monitoring systems, the development of improved indicators of environmental quality and establishment of comprehensive environmental monitoring systems.
Secondly, the Council is evaluating the impact of a wide variety of Federal programs on development and growth of areas, the sufficiency of land-use planning and control at State and local levels, and alternative institutional and control mechanisms for better land-use management.
Thirdly, as an aspect of the impact of new technology, the Council is giving attention to the growing levels of toxic substances in the environment resulting from new and complex manufacturing processes and is evaluating alternative methods of pre-testing and controlling these substances.
In the Council and the Office of Environmental Quality, the President now has a permanent staff in the Executive Office for the specific purpose of evaluating the effects of Federal programs and policies on the environment and for developing environmental policy recommendations. We have built this staff capacity slowly and carefully.
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly proud of our Council's staff.
As you might imagine, the nature of our responsibilities has excited interest throughout the country, and we have received literally hundreds of applications for employment.
We have been able to accept, of course, only a few of the many outstanding candidates. I believe the group we have put together is exceptional.
The first Environmental Quality Report shows that much can be done to prevent some of the worst forms of environmental deterioration.
If I might go back to the staff again for a moment, Mr. Chairman, we have – I think it would be of interest to this committee – about seven interns working with us this summer, which I suspect, given the total number of our staff, may represent a higher proportion of interns than any other agency of the Government, and this has been a highly successful endeavor on our part.
The young people come from law school, colleges, and I believe one high school, and they have worked out absolutely splendidly, and have made a substantial contribution. in fact, to the work of the Council during this month, and I think speaking for the Council, we will miss them when they go.
Senator MUSKIE. They are good. I have got 38.
Mr. TRAIN. You have 38. Well, perhaps you have larger resources than we do. (Laughter.)
Senator MUSKIE. That certainly reflects my lack of resources. I have to reach out and get them, but they are good, delightful.
Mr. TRAIN. And I would like to mention. also, that yesterday the President had our entire staff to the White House, at noon, and he met with the entire staff, professional, secretaries, interns, temporary people on loan from other agencies to help on the report, and so forth, and the President was able to speak with and meet each single individual, and this was, I think, a very inspiring occasion for the staff.
Senator MUSKIE. How large is your staff altogether at this point?
Mr. TRAIN. We have at the present time, if I could focus on full-time professional people, approximately 17, of whom either two or three are on detail from other agencies on a rather long-term basis, and we have one Foreign Service Officer, for example, working with us, on international programs.
Senator MUSKIE. How large a staff will you be able to assemble under the appropriation already approved by the Congress, of a million dollars?
Mr. TRAIN. Our expectation and plan, under the requested appropriation, had been a staff in both professional and clerical, totalling approximately, as I recall, 54.
Now our reexamination of the state of the Council's economy, based upon the recent appropriations, would indicate that we probably would have to cut this back to about 39 personnel all told and I believe a second serious effect would be an almost complete erasure of our capacity to enter into contracts, because I think that we would, if forced to a choice, rather put the available funds on strengthening our staffing, rather than on outside contracts.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, I think this whole committee sympathizes with your need for the full funding that you have requested. I think this view is shared by Senator Jackson and his colleagues, so maybe we can mount an effective effort to get full funding for your work.
I think it is terribly important that you get off to a good, solid start, with the adequate staffing, and I am sure you have not been excessive in your request, from my understanding of the problem, and what needs to be done.
Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We believe, on this point, that looking ahead, and looking to the authorizations for subsequent years, it is very important to build the staff in a methodical fashion, and our own analysis is that the kind of staff level which we had requested for 1971 is fully within our ability to manage and make effective use of, and we have kept away, I think, from seeking large levels of staffing and funding, simply for the sake of large levels.
Now, the levels requested are those which we believe we can effectively use at this time, and would represent a very important step in our development as an effective instrument of government.
I will return to the beginning of this paragraph – The first Environmental Quality Report shows that much can be done to prevent some of the worst forms of environmental deterioration. As it spells out in detail, much improvement can be accomplished despite serious deficiencies in research and monitoring.
In the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to expect to be able to slow or to stop environmental degradation, especially air and water pollution. Many essential steps toward this end have been proposed by the President and are awaiting action by the Congress.
Our Report lists a number of specific recommendations for the directions in which we should move in the future.
We believe that the Annual Environmental Quality Report should be of considerable use to your committee by providing a regular survey of our environmental problems and measurement of our progress.
It should also aid your work by fostering greater public understanding of the nature of environmental problems and the prospects for taking action to control them. Improved monitoring systems and the development of indicators of environmental quality should also prove as useful to your committee as to the Council.
I will conclude this first appearance before your committee by saying that we have valued the sustained support and interest of this committee and the help we have received from many quarters.
We are conscious of the many contributions made by the Congress to our understanding and better handling of environmental problems. This committee, in particular, has played a vital role in the development of our pollution problems programs and deserves much credit for the progress that has been made.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I suggest to my colleagues that we might invoke the 10-minute rule on the first round of questions. That may exhaust them, although I doubt it, and then we will proceed from there.
With respect to the air, water and solid waste proposals in the Report, I gather there are no new recommendations in this Report. The recommendations are those submitted to us by the President earlier this year, and upon which this subcommittee is now working. Am I right?
I detect no new recommendations.
Mr. TRAIN. No, there are a good many new directions which we recommend, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MUSKIE. I mean, legislative recommendations.
Mr. TRAIN. Specific legislative recommendations for action now are restricted to those already pending before Congress.
In addition, the Council has set out in varying detail a large number of recommendations for the directions in which we should be moving in all of these programs. I think in the pollution sections alone, we have some 50 proposals for action. But we have not set these out as "must" legislative items at this time.
Senator MUSKIE. No, I understand the distinction. I wanted to be sure we didn't overlook any specific legislative proposals at this time.
The reason I put the question, in addition to wanting to identify the nature of the report in this respect is this: One of the reasons we still are discussing, for example, the air pollution legislation in the committee is that in response to the testimony that we received in 10 days of hearings which we conducted, in response to, I think, much that we have learned about the urgency of the problem this year, and the reaction of the public to it, we felt a responsibility to re-focus on some of the legislative proposals which the President introduced, which I introduced, which other members of the Senate introduced, to determine whether or not there were not better answers than those contained in that initial legislation to the problems with which we must deal.
We are conscious of the fact that lead times are vanishing on us, and the policy we write this year is policy we are going to have to live with and work with for some time in the future, and so wanted to be sure that we had the best answers that we were capable of putting together this year.
Because the committee hasn't reached agreement yet on what concepts we ought to write into the law. I don't know if I can surface all of the options that we are considering, but we may get into some of them, if we have enough time.
Mr. TRAIN. We certainly wouldn't wish to discourage this committee from acting affirmatively on any of the additional proposals which the Council has set forth.
Senator MUSKIE. No, we look at those, too.
Mr. TRAIN. We feel that they very definitely deserve careful consideration, and the President himself has said that, in his letter of transmittal.
Senator MUSKIE. May I ask this question: Have you developed a sufficient expertise in
your own staff to get into specific legislative proposals, in the air pollution field, for example, or do you rely upon the air quality, the Air Pollution Control Administration to develop specific legislative proposals which appear in your Report?
Mr. TRAIN. We do have expertise within our own staff, in the field of air pollution. Naturally, we also do look to the responsible program agency for a great deal of technical support in the air pollution field, as well as others.
So, it is neither one or the other, but we do definitely have our own staff competence in that particular field.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, in due course, then, I suspect that the committee will be in touch with you as well as the Air Pollution Control Administration, to test out whatever new concepts the committee has agreed upon.
May I say this: I realize, out of the months that have passed since last January, that there is a tendency to think of the development of ideas in this field as an exercise in partisanship.
That is understandable, I suppose. But these ideas really don't fall under those labels very comfortably, or very usefully. We welcome ideas. We deal with them in our committee on a non-partisan basis. That doesn't mean that we are not going to disagree with each other, or with the Administration, but I think we have got some hard decisions to make in this situation, and we can't hope to make them if the basis of our judgment is political partisanship.
That is our attitude, and I am sure it is yours: At least, that has always been my reaction to your approach to the problem.
So we hope to have a tough air pollution law, and we may ask for your reaction to it before we reach our own final decision.
Mr. TRAIN. Well, we may have differences in detail, Mr. Chairman, but I assure you that the Administration also wants a tough air pollution law, and will be happy to cooperate with this committee in helping to produce such legislation.
Senator MUSKIE. I would like to ask two or three questions related to your testimony, if I may. You spoke about the need for international cooperation in this field, and I must say I compliment you for focusing upon that need.
On the top of page five, you discuss this briefly.
Now there is an international problem, it seems to me, which falls right in the context of your comments. The most obvious basis for international action, of course, is the effect on the atmosphere of the earth, which doesn't distinguish between peoples on the basis of political boundaries.
Now, as far as long-term, world-wide weather effects are concerned, there are reports that the operation of the SST at high altitudes will emit water vapor which will have profound effects on world climate. Whenever questions of this kind are raised, the usual argument that we get in response is that the SST is necessary, because of competition from abroad, and the possible unfavorable impact upon our balance of payments situation if some other country develops an SST that is attractive in the world market before we do.
Now, if the SST has these potential atmospheric effects, then we ought to be looking toward an international judgment on whether or not it ought to be developed on a competitive basis. An agreement among all the nations to drop the SST might serve the needs of humanity better than competition among the nations to build it.
Would you have any comment on that?
Mr. TRAIN. Well, on two points: We certainly agree wholeheartedly on the importance that international cooperation bears to this whole business of producing a better environment for all people. The problems are global, in many cases. Atmospheric problems, and, of course, related climatic problems, that an area such as Europe has, and river basin problems are frequently international in nature. Of course, in our own case, the problems of the Great Lakes are international in nature.
In very many ways, problems of the enviromnent can only be gotten at effectively by international initiatives of various kinds, and we strongly support a leadership role on the part of the united States, world-wide, in the fight for a better environment.
On the second point, with respect to the supersonic transport specifically, the uncertainties as to possible atmospheric impact of the operation of a commercial fleet of supersonic transports sometime in the future are certainly of a kind which lend themselves naturally to international cooperative efforts, leading to the resolution of those uncertainties, and in the testimony which I presented on May 12th, I think, before the Joint Economic Committee on behalf of the Council, I stressed the desirability of international discussions of the various possible long-range atmospheric consequences in particular, and also noise characteristics of the SST.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, the report on page 99, for example, says "Further study is necessary to better determine the effects of supersonic jet transports in the stratosphere before they are mass produced."
And on page 127, you have similar comments on the noise effects to which you referred. And we are now considering in Congress, and this subcommittee had hearings recently, on an international agreement to deal with the consequences of oil spills.
It seems to me that our Government might well take the initiative and raise the question of the SST as another environmental hazard with international implications.
All of the momentum is on the other side. That is, in the interest of international economic competition, we have got to be in the head of the race, and to do that, we have got to build.
It seems to me we might well take the initiative to raise these environmental questions with governments of the other countries involved, the Soviet Union, and France, to see whether or not it is in the interest of mankind to go forward with this kind of technological development.
As the report emphasizes over and over again, in a sense, the environmental crisis of today is the product of heedless and headlong technological development. The SST represents and symbolizes this very thing, and gives us an opportunity, it seems to me, to focus internationally upon the kind of rearrangement of values that your report represents domestically here at home.
I don't know that you have any role or any influence in the international area, with respect to the State Department, the White House, or any other agency of the Government that might be able to take such an initiative, but if you have, I would urge its consideration.
Mr. TRAIN. Well, we very definitely do have a role. The President has confirmed this by the Executive Order which he issued shortly after the Council was set up by legislation. The legislation itself didn't address itself expressly to the international aspects of the environment, although I think the legislative history indicated the intent of Congress quite clearly, to the effect that the Council should concern itself with the broader international concerns.
As I mentioned in my testimony on the supersonic transport, in addition to proposing international discussions, which have taken place on a very informal basis so far, and which we would recommend be carried out on a definite basis, and a positive scale, in the near future, we have also suggested that the possibility of this kind of technological development being the subject of discussions at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Problems of the Human Environment.
We have had very informal discussions, again, with officials of both France and Great Britain on this general subject.
You will also recall, I think, that in my testimony of May 12th, we in pointing out some of the more significant, as it seemed to us, environmental uncertainties, recommended a concerted research effort on the part of the Federal Government, to address itself to those uncertainties, hopefully, to lead to their resolution, and the Department of. Transportation has developed, and I believe has discussed with the appropriate committees, a fairly comprehensive research package, costing, I think, in the neighborhood of 26 plus millions of dollars, which our Council has reviewed and, based on that review, feel is responsive and does address itself to the environmental questions which we believe should be answered.
Senator MUSKIE. With respect to the SST.
Mr. TRAIN. Yes.
Senator MUSKIE. Should they be answered before we proceed with further investment of public funds?
Mr. TRAIN. Of course, this represents a judgment involving a great many matters that this Council really does not consider itself appropriate to offer public conclusions on, such as balance of payments, technological spin-off, airframe sales, and things of this sort, or the competitive situations with other aircraft.
We really are not experts in those particular fields. We have looked at the prototype program, which has been proposed by the Administration, which calls for the design, development and, I believe, 100-hour or so flight testing of two prototype commercial supersonic transports, and we believe that those prototypes, in and of themselves, raise no significant environmental problems at all, assuming that the flight testing is carried out under reasonably appropriate control circumstances.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, you can answer this question, perhaps, then, or will, at some point: Whether or not if the environmental risks which the report refers to in connection with the SST are not resolved, whether or not we should proceed to build it and operate it.
Mr. TRAIN. It is always difficult to look ahead, but I would risk stating this amount of looking ahead, and that is, if it is the conclusion of this Council, following research, reasonable research efforts, over the next two, three, four years, whatever is available, if it is then determined that there are remaining significant environmental uncertainties, then I have no question in my own mind that this Council would recommend against the development of a commercial fleet of SSTs at that time, until those uncertainties were resolved.
That is our present position.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, with that advice, the Congress, I think, is in a better position to decide, I think, whether or not to invest more money in it at this time. That is a decision for us to make.
I have used more than my 10 minutes, but I will be back.
I yield to Senator Boggs at this time.
Senator BOGGS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you want to follow the 10-minute rule, and I think you are very good to do that. I will be brief, but if you want to pursue the questions at this time, I will be glad to yield to you.
Senator MUSKIE. No, I was going to shift to another subject.
Senator BOGGS. Very good. I want to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I have been impressed with this First Annual Report of the Council. I realize in the brief time that you have had, the six months, the organizing period, that it has been very difficult to cover the whole subject, and you have covered it well, and I don't mean to repeat this, but the format of it, I think, is helpful not only to the Members of the Congress, the committees, and so forth, but I would think to State and local organizations, and citizens' groups, advisory groups.
I can't imagine a question I get more often, since I have been serving on this committee, and certainly in the last year, from citizens all over the country, and especially in my own State, than, "What can we do?" And I think your approach and your format is very good and helps me in answering those questions, and I think this report, the First Annual one, is going to help to accomplish a lot of progress in itself, regardless of the recommendations and your recommendations to the Congress, and how the Congress, after hearings, may approach those recommendations and so forth.
I know, out of all of it, we are going to make some great forward progress in this environmental control.
And the concept, Mr. Chairman, of the Annual Report, is a great thing in this field. As you mention in your testimony, to institutionalize, or lay the firm foundation of government organization for the meeting of the total environmental program, I again want to compliment the report aspect of it.
I think in itself it is a great contributor to the goals we must attain.
I didn't mean to take up all my time by making a statement, Mr. Chairman, but I couldn't help but say that, because this committee, under the outstanding leadership of Chairman Muskie, as you well know, since 1963, when the committee was organized, has been struggling along, and I say for the committee, and I believe made great accomplishments during this period, under rather difficult circumstances, and this past year, development and the public recognition of the problem, and that something must be done about it, in its total aspect, has been most encouraging, and this report, I think, pulls together this whole picture, and to me, it is very encouraging, and very pleasing.
I realize the Council is not an operating agency, but I suppose there are a lot of twilight areas there, gray area between the Council and the operating program agencies, the EPA, for example, but I just had people in my office this morning, including a constituent of mine, from the area of Dover, Delaware, who has been working in this problem of waste oil, crankcase oil, as one example, and as you know, there is about a billion gallons of that a year, and some of it is used, and some of it is collected, but a lot of it, millions of gallons, nobody knows what happens to, and it is presumed that that gets into streams and sewers, and in the ground, and so forth, and I was wondering if the Council has been directing any attention on this subject, and what observations you may care to make, as one example of the recycling and one example o1 the things we must look to that are, every day, polluting, really, the air, the water, and the land.
Mr. TRAIN. Well, we certainly recognize the problem of waste oils as one of the more important of our waste problems, and the Council has been directing attention to this.
We have set up an interagency task force, with representatives of the various departments that are concerned with the problem. For example. HEW, Interior, Treasury, Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission, and we are working with them, taking a look, to get a better understanding of what causes the problem, what the economic forces are that are at work here, and what possible economic incentives or disincentive could be generated to help meet the problem, but we are by no means at any point of conclusion on this at this time.
Senator BOGGS. Well, I commend you for that, and that encourages me, that you do have the problem in focus, and are working on it, because I think that is one example of how if we can meet this problem successfully, that one item, that a great deal can be accomplished in both air and water pollution and land pollution control. I commend you on that.
Now, your Report discusses the need for land-use planning, which is certainly very important.
Could you discuss and make any observations on how such planning would be complemented by the imposition of regulations dealing with air and water quality standards?
While land-use planning, as you know, is not necessarily before this subcommittee, it seems to me that the air and water pollution regulations and standards, quality standards, would have a considerable impact on land-use programs, and vice versa, too.
Mr. TRAIN. There is obviously – I think this committee is well aware of it – a very close and intimate relationship between air, water pollution programs in particular, and wise land-use, and one need only look at the air quality impact of highways, expressways, in the close proximity to our metropolitan areas, to see one example.
The siting of power-generating plants is another exceedingly important example of the relationship of pollution problems to land use. and I think this, the latter one in particular, is an area in which we must be moving forward very, very shortly, and we, here again, are working closely in this case particularly, with the Office of Science and Technology, Dr. DuBridge's group, on the development of appropriate Federal policy in connection with the siting of electric generating plants for later submission to the Congress.
Senator BOGGS. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, I know our time is moving on, and I want to yield back the balance of my time for you and my colleague here.
Senator MUSKIE. Senator Spong.
Senator SPONG. Mr. Train, the battle for a better environment has been very gleefully joined by Madison Avenue. Many enterprises – we hear jingles every day about lead-free gasoline. I don't know the effect of lead-free gasoline on either the environment or on one's automobile, but I hear of it daily.
Just around the bend, I foresee phosphate-free detergents being sung about. Do you believe that the Council has any power or responsibility to the public or to the Congress, to try to comment upon what might be called fraudulent advertising in this area, either to the public or to FTC, or the FCC?
Mr. TRAIN. I think we certainly would have a responsibility to work closely with the appropriate regulatory agencies, and I suppose this would be mainly the Federal Trade Commission, and if anything of this sort came to our attention. we certainly would take it up with the FTC.
Senator SPONG. On pages 9 and 10 of your statement. you speak of Section 102. That section was employed, was it not, in the decision to dump the nerve gas in the Atlantic ocean?
Mr. TRAIN. Yes. You said "employed," and I want to comment on the use of that word, because–
Senator SPONG. Well, use your own. if you will.
Mr. TRAIN. Because it is a section of the statute which is self-operative. It comes into play whenever any Federal agency is recommending any major action with potential significant environmental impact, and these are submitted to us.
Such a statement was submitted by the Department of the Army to the Council. The Council has commented to the Department of the Army on its statement, pointing out certain deficiencies which we felt of a procedural or technical nature in that particular Section 102 report.
Senator SPONG. If I recall, this is my own conclusions from listening to testimony, the report dealt possibly with the chemical aspects, but told us very little, and possibly that is because of lack of knowledge as far as everyone is concerned, about the biological effects.
But what I would like to ask you is: Was that report prepared and circularized for comment early enough to affect the decisionmaking process before the action was taken?
Mr. TRAIN. The report was initially submitted to the Council in draft form on the 8th of July, and a final version was submitted to the Council on the 30thof July, as I recall, and during that period, although only before us in draft form, our staff did have occasion and opportunity to comment on and discussion with the Department of the Army's staff various aspects of the project.
It is hard to state, in any case, whether sufficient time has been given. In a case that is as complicated and controversial, necessarily, as this kind of project, I would say that the 30-day period which our guidelines provide is probably on the short side.
I hesitate to generalize. I think in many cases, the answer to that question would turn upon the completeness of the information provided in the first instance, so that in this case, where we felt there were some deficiencies of information, the period probably was not long enough.
Senator SPONG. Well, this will certainly be one of the decisions that you will have under review in your six-month's study that you referred to.
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.
Senator SPONG. Senator Boggs questioned you about land-use.
In your statement, you referred to land-use as one of the root causes of environmental problems.
Senator Muskie, in his opening statement, said that any land-use policy that failed to consider the existing Federal system would not be better than no policy at all.
Has the Council focused upon land-use policy to the extent that you have commented on what you see as the role of the States in the formulation of this policy.
Mr. TRAIN. In a very general way, I would comment. And we are actively engaged in looking at this whole, very complex area of land-use.
I think the chapter in our Report on this subject indicates the scope and complexity of this problem. It is not a single-shot kind of thing. It involves a whole range of functions and responsibilities.
I think we can be absolutely certain that under any allocation of responsibilities, there is going to be a very important role for the Federal Government, for State governments, and for local governments, in land-use.
I don't think there is any suggestion, when we talk about a national land-use policy, that Washington take overall responsibility for all land-use decisions at the local level. Obviously not.
Now, if there is a major shift in the allocation of responsibilities that is needed, I would say that this would be a shift of some responsibility from the local units of government, both municipality and county, back toward the State.
So many of the problems of land-use, with which we are all becoming increasingly familiar, extend by their very nature well beyond the boundaries of the particular political entity which may have, in fact, the responsibility.
The town has a responsibility, but the impact of its decision goes far beyond that town, so that we have to, in some fashion, institutionalize this broader kind of responsibility for dealing with these problems, on a regional basis, and in many cases, on a State basis.
As you know, in most States, all zoning authority resides in the local unit of government. Sometimes towns, sometimes county, and none in the State government. There is very definitely a trend in the other direction underway. Some States have already established, I think – about two States have a State zoning law.
There is also the taking back of authority in some States over specific kinds of zoning, such as flood plains zoning, shoreline zoning, in the State of Wisconsin.
I think these are indicative of a growing recognition that these problems have a much broader geographical makeup than can be adequately handled by most local units of government.
So I would say this is the major direction I would see in the years ahead, in terms of the allocation of responsibility between different units of government. It is apt to be very controversial, as you all certainly are aware. I mean, this is a very jealously guarded prerogative of local government, and local governments and local communities should play a very significant role in the making of decisions that so significantly affect the wellbeing and futures of their own communities, so there is a balance hereof interests and of responsibilities that must be achieved.
Senator SPONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MUSKIE. Senator Dole.
Senator DOLE. Let me say as others have said that I certainly appreciate what I consider to be an excellent report that has been very helpful and will be very helpful.
I have been viewing with great interest the very excellent program on CBS morning news with reference to radiation, apparently triggered, since this is the 25th anniversary of dropping the A-bomb, particularly concerned because Kansas may become the dumping ground for atomic wastes, solid wastes.
We are very eager to have new industry in Kansas, but we have some qualms about becoming a dumping ground in abandoned salt mines for atomic wastes, and I note some serious questions have been raised on the CBS programs – they have been continuing all week. and will continue the balance of the week.
Do you have any jurisdiction? Does this fall in the same category under Section 102 as the so-called nerve gas question?
Mr. TRAIN. Yes, certainly, Senator. Any program for the below-ground disposition or storage of large amounts of radioactive wastes would, in my opinion, call for the preparation of an environmental impact statement, under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, and submission to our Council.
And I think as you know, the Act also contemplates that in the preparation of such statements, the comments of other agencies with expertise or jurisdiction in a particular matter is required to be gotten, as well as the comments of State and local governments that may be involved in some way in the particular project.
So that there should be, in the process of developing a decision in this area, full opportunity for the people of your State and the communities concerned to make their views known fully.
Senator DOLE. There appears to be a great potential for storage of solid wastes in the State of Kansas, because of the salt mines, and they appear to be ideally suited, at least according to the AEC, for safe storage for hundreds and hundreds of years.
But it was pointed out, I think, on this morning's program, that because of a so-called melting process near Detroit, Michigan, a few years ago, there was some serious talk about a total evacuation of the City of Detroit. There were also estimates of possible destruction, contamination, as well as physical injury and death, which were very frightening to me.
So it indicates it is a very serious problem, because we are building more and more atomic reactors, and they are larger and larger, and apparently, every day of production means a problem that extends for as much as 200 years.
Now, in a recent bill passed by this committee, and I understand it is now awaiting action by House and Senate conferees – at least, waiting for the House to respond – Solid Waste Resource Recovery Act, we provide in Section 212 a National Disposal Sites Study, which would create a system of national disposal sites for storage, and also of hazardous, radioactive, toxic in chemical and biological and other ways, which might endanger the public health, and in addition, the Environmental Protection Agency would have jurisdiction in the event this program becomes operable.
Now I don't criticize the AEC, but it does appear that some independent review would be most helpful; because they are in part a party in interest, not only developing reactors, but disposing of the waste, and we have had some very serious questions raised in our area. And I am certain they have been raised and will be raised; I think the chairman raised some questions, just last week, about the potential hazards of disposal of liquid or solid atomic wastes.
Dr. MacDonald, do you have any comment on that area?
Dr. MacDONALD. I would of course, like to distinguish between the disposal of the waste and the reactor accident that you referred to, or a potential accident in Detroit.
However, we will certainly be reviewing the AEC's 102 statement, when they have prepared it, and as Chairman Train pointed out, there will be an opportunity at that time for a really rather wide-ranging discussion of the whole issue of the disposal of waste.
It does underline one point that we consider very important: That as one develops new technologies, it is important to look way ahead, to the whole process. It is not just the creation of electrical power, but everything that goes with it, and when we talk of a national energy policy in the report, it is addressed just to this question, and we can't just look at the building of a particular power site, but how that fits into overall national needs.
Senator DOLE. Well, I agree with that, and I think the report indicates that there has been may be some lack of looking at the entire problem.
We have looked at the consumers' interests, and production, the national energy policy, creation of power, and I assume at the same time, a great emphasis on disposal of the waste, but perhaps not in the priority that it deserves.
There are questions being raised, again, on this same program, which to me appears to be most interesting, that didn't suggest we were near a crisis point, but there are areas where we have liquid atomic wastes stored, and the tanks are corroding, and the question very properly raised as to how much time do we have, and what policy do we have?
Now the other side of the coin, of course, from AEC, is that there really is no danger, there was no danger in Detroit, there was no danger in Washington, but there have been instances, I think, in Idaho, where three persons were killed because of some – I don't understand the melting process, but at least there is potential danger.
This may not, hopefully will never happen, but the threat is there, and it is encouraging to me to know that the Council as well as the EPA, and provision in the Resource Recovery Act will provide more review of this very important problem.
Mr. TRAIN. You know, I just add on that point, Senator Dole, that the AEC's own agency procedures, which have been adopted and published for compliance with Section 102, specifically list designation of disposal sites as one of the programs which will call for a Section 102 statement and its submission to the Council by the AEC.
So the agency itself very definitely recognizes that this kind of program which we describe comes under the requirements of that section.
Senator DOLE. Well, I say very seriously that there is a site now in central Kansas, which if approved – it has been under study for seven years or longer – would have some economic impact in the area, but there is some reluctance, bipartisan reluctance – a Democratic governor and Republican Members of Congress – to encourage this type industry, and I think it is much like the nerve gas; you know, there are many opportunities to bring in a little industry, if you want nerve gas in your State.
But there also needs some assurance that nothing will happen. I am not certain it is possible to ever guarantee that you can store solid wastes or liquid wastes, but at least, the people of Kansas appreciate the fact that there will be additional review. Nothing is certain, I guess.
Thank you.
Senator MUSKIE. Along that line, Senator Dole, there is an interesting little story in this morning's Washington Post, based on a Reuters dispatch. It is short, and I think it is worth reading:
"Dateline London, August 10th: Police today toured vacation resorts in the Isle of Wight off Britain's south coast, to warn swimmers of lethal gas, after cannisters containing a corrosive chemical washed ashore on some beaches.
"The chemical, ferrous chloride, used in dye manufacture, gives off deadly hydrochloric gas when mixed with water. The manufacturers believed that the one-gallon cannisters were dumped at sea several years ago. It was normal practice to puncture the drums before disposal."
These foolproof methods of disposing of nerve gas, radioactive wastes, may turn out not to be so foolproof after all.
The time is rapidly slipping by, Mr. Chairman. It is clear we are not going to be able to get into all of the aspects of the Report that we might like to, let alone all of the others that merit discussion.
I am going to try to concentrate on two or three other points that might be useful, and one of them relates to something the report says on page 53.
On that page, the report discusses the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and as you noted in your testimony, this committee is working on legislation proposed by the Administration as well as other bills that have been introduced to strengthen that Act, and we all recognize the need to strengthen it.
But you say this in the report: "Finally, the only force that the government can wield against a polluter is a cease-and-desist order. The court's only option in the case of noncompliance is a contempt-of-court action."
I think a cease-and-desist order, rather than an injunction, or a specific performance of relief, can be very effective tools, but I would like to suggest another one, that I gather the Administration is turning to increasingly, and it may be the kind of a policy question you would like to consider
as a Council, in conjunction with the Air Quality Administration, and this is the Refuse Act of 1899, in conjunction with Section 21 (b) of the new Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970.
Now, the Refuse Act of 1899 says this:
"It shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged or deposited, either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever."
Now, that was not written as an antipollution piece of legislation. It was legislation written to protect navigation. But nevertheless, it provides the authority to stop any discharge whatsoever.
Then there is a provision that reads as follows:
"Provided that the Secretary of the Army, whenever in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers, anchorage and navigation would not be injured thereby, may permit the deposit of any material above-mentioned in navigable water, within limits to be defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him."
So there is a permit authority, that gives them a handle on these discharges.
Now, under the language of that Act, the conditions apparently relate to anchorage and navigation. But then we come to Section 21(b) of this year's Water Quality Improvement Act, it reads as follows:
"Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity, including, but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or if appropriate, from the Interstate Water Pollution Control Agency having jurisdiction, certification that there is reasonable assurance, as determined by the State or interstate agency, that such activity will be conducted in a manner which would not violate applicable water quality standards."
Now, what is the state of the 1899 law? Congressman Reuss, and I want to read this into the record. Congressman Reuss, in, I think, an excellent study which reports to the Cogress on July 29, 1970, and you might want to look at that, points out that that is permit authority, has not been used.
Table A, which is attached to his statement, "shows that there are no existing Corps permits for industrial wastes in 23 States." That includes mine, I might add.
And in all of those States, then, those discharges into navigable waters or tributaries of navigable waters, are illegal at the present time. They are not operating under permits of any kind.
"In Massachusetts, the only existing Corps permits" – there is only one of them – "was suspended on February 13, 1970, because of unspecified complaints by State officials. Except for New Jersey, California, and Louisiana, there are less than 25 existing Corps permits for industrial waste discharges in each of the remaining States and Puerto Rico.
"The discharges covered include some of the nation's producers of pulp and paper, synthetic fibers, chemicals, petroleum products, steel and aluminum."
So there is here authority which, if used, could establish by means of permit guidelines controls, direct controls over all industrial discharges into navigable waters of the United States, those permits to be conditioned upon compliance with water quality standards set up under the 1965 Act.
I think it would be useful, and I am not going to ask for an off-the-cuff policy opinion from you on this, but it would seem to me that here is an area of established authority, and we are going to supplement it this year with additional law, established authority that is not being used – and that is no criticism of this Administration; it hasn't been used since 1899, so there is a lot of blame to be spread out over a long period of time – authority that might be very useful to more effectively control discharges of industrial wastes into our navigable waters.
Mr. TRAIN. Well, let me comment on that, Senator Muskie.
We are quite aware of the existence of this authority in the statute, and while it has not been used, as you point out, since the statute was put on the books in 1899, the Corps of Engineers has recently announced in, I believe, public hearings before another subcommittee of the Senate, that it intends to and in fact, is developing a program which would involve the use of this permit authority, and our Council is working closely with the Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Justice, and the Department of Interior – FWQA, specifically – to coordinate the various interests involved here, because as you point out, we are now also very much aware of the relationship between this permit authority in the 1899 Act and the certification requirement in the legislation Section 21(b) which you mentioned.
And speaking insofar as the Council is concerned, we are fully in accord with the maximum use of the Refuse Act of 1899 and all other available tools to the Federal Government for the enforcement of water quality standards. No question about it.
And we believe that this permit authority does – although apparently it has never been used, really, over the years – it does provide a very significant kind of Federal leverage, and I would be hopeful that in a very short period of time – I don't know quite what I mean by that, perhaps a month's time – there will be a promulgation of an actual program.
But just exactly what the timing on that is, I can't answer. I would presume that this would address itself first to new facilities, rather than trying to deal ex post facto way, with – what is it someone said? – some 50,000 plants scattered all oven the United States already.
But with respect to new facilities, I would think that this program would get underway fairly soon, and be very effective, and would require the certification by the appropriate water standard administration of the various States.
Senator MUSKIE. It would be ironic, wouldn't it? Perhaps one of the most effective statutory tools we have is one written in 1899, for other purposes entirely.
Mr. TRAIN. I would also point out, of course, the cease-and-desist authority of the 1899 Act is being employed. It is the basis of the action recently brought by the Department of Justiceagainst some eight concerns in connection with alleged mercury violations.
Senator MUSKIE. That includes firms in my State.
We are back on the record now.
Did you complete your statement on that? You did.
Mr. TRAIN. Yes. sir; I believe I did.
Senator MUSKIE. Now on the question of new legislation, I would like to pose just one or two questions. Not so much to get at this point your definite response to policies that this committee is considering, but to test the flavor of your reaction to this kind of thing.
I think the most difficult problem we are facing in the Air Pollution Subcommittee is the question of national deadlines of some kind to meet – either ambient air quality standards or emission standards, on a national scale.
And the single most important problem that we see in this is the automobile, which you have correctly, identified in your statement as the single most important air polluter.
The problem is not the new automobile we have tended to focus on since the 1965 Act, but the used car. There are 110 million of them on our highways, and although there have been developed, add-on hardware of one kind or another, which initially, at least, might improve the environmental performance of used cars, they involve considerable cost; $150 to $250 per car.
They involve the problem of enforcing their attachment on 110 million automobile owners, and involve the problem of leaded gasoline, which we still have, even though there seems to be increasing consensus that we ought to get rid of leaded gasoline.
In other words, we still have it, and that affects the performance of these devices. You have the economic burden on a lot of people who can't afford it, who need the automobile, in day-to-day work, and so on.
There are all sorts of other questions that arise, as we pursue the implications of a national policy.
But what is the answer, to cleaning up the performance of this huge used car population?
If we proceed under the present policy, even strengthened by the amendments which the Administration has submitted, and others which we have submitted, what the Congress talks about is 1990, before we have turnover in this used car population, and new technology on new cars that are manufactured in the future, before we begin to get a clean automobile in cities and urban areas.
Can we wait that long? Must we set what might appear to be arbitrary national deadlines, in order to increase the sense of urgency to develop the new technology or to find some substitute for the automobile in our crowded cities?
This is really a tough problem, with tough choices, that this committee is faced with. We could simply, you know, try to accelerate the evolutionary process that we tried to set in motion with the 1965 Act and the 1967 Act, but that clearly is not going to move us along the road fast enough to deal with this automobile problem, in my judgment.
Has the Council really focused on this? Does it have some guidance to give us?
Mr. TRAIN. Well, the Council very definitely is focusing on this particular problem, Mr. Chairman.
The President, in his February 10th Message, devoted quite a bit of attention, as you will recall, to the problem of automotive emissions, and I believe he singled it out as, if memory serves, the single most important problem that we had to deal with.
And he made a number of suggestions, but specifically, I believe, directed to your concern, he charged our Council with responsibility for coordinating the Federal Government's research and development efforts with respect to the development of what has been called unconventional vehicles, substitutes for the internal combustion engine, and the goal of that program, as established by the President, is the development of two commercially feasible alternatives by 1975.
And that is a goal toward which we are working, and there is a research and development program in this year's budget of $9 million, with primary responsibility in HEW, in furtherance of that goal.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, you see, that is the evolutionary approach, and that is the one this committee adopted in 1965. It means, perhaps, that if you do develop those commercially feasible clean cars by 1975, the industry may be able to tool-up and put them on the road in another couple of years, but in the meantime, we will be putting on the road unsatisfactory automobiles, from the environmental point of view, for another seven or eight years, at the rate of seven million or eight million a year or more, thus perpetuating this problem.
The automobiles that were built under the guidelines established under the 1965 Act simply haven't been satisfactory, from an environmental point of view. We wrote the law. We hoped that we would stimulate the evolutionary process, but they are not satisfactory now, and I suspect that 1975 may be as early as you could hope to get a prototype of the internal combustion engine, at least, developed by 1975. Or maybe even an electric automobile, but if we get an electric automobile developed by 1975, what do we do about providing the electric power to fuel those cars?
We have had hearings in another subcommittee pointing up the dilemma that the power companies face, especially in the New York area, with respect to providing their present projected needs, let alone the massive amounts of power that would be needed to fuel an electric automobile.
What is the answer to this? Do we need to restrict the use of individually operated automobiles in our urban centers? Are we going to get some judgments from the Council on questions like that, say, in its second Annual Report?
I realize it is not a judgment you are in a position to make in this Annual Report. But how do you do it? We have just had this air pollution problem on the whole East Coast within the last two weeks, and that was the automobile. There is no other important source of pollution here in Washington.
We approached the air pollution alert stage here, in the District of Columbia. That was the automobile. And in accordance to the Administration's program, and indeed, legislation that we have written, it is going to be some time later than 1975 before we really begin to clean up the problem that is created by the automobile. Isn't that right?
Mr. TRAIN. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Senator MUSKIE. So that isn't a satisfactory, answer. I am not being critical of you. I am as frustrated as anybody else is.
Mr. TRAIN. No, I would hope not.
Senator MUSKIE. You have been in office six months. Another year, maybe we, will blame you a little.
Mr. TRAIN. I am a little bit alarmed by the fact we only filed our Annual Report yesterday, and now you already have me worrying about the contents of the second Annual Report. We had hoped for a little longer vacation than that.
Seriously, in terms of the unconventional vehicle, you refer to the problems of the electric-battery driven alternative and I think that we give this a very low priority at the present time as a viable possibility.
It certainly would represent a major new demand on electric power, with all of the pollution side-effects that we are all too familiar with, and I think our present best bet would be in the area of the steam turbine and gas turbine and hybrid vehicles.
You asked me whether we recommend a banning of the automobile, and I certainly do not believe that the time has yet come when we would recommend undertaking such a step. That is not to say it could not be a possibility at some future date, of course.
The automobile does represent, particularly in our urban areas, a very major source of air pollution.
Now we believe that as new emission standards take hold, and as the older cars get phased out, that there need not be in the immediate future any substantial worsening of the situation. There will come a time, as the President indicated in his February Message, and as we do in our Report, that despite the improvement in individual automobile emission controls, the sheer increase in automobile population will at some point probably toward 1980, overcome any possible, or could overcome any possible improvement such as I have described.
It is for this reason, and to guard against this kind of eventuality, that is leading us to emphasize the development of viable alternatives. But first, we do not have. the alternatives at hand as yet.
I would not believe that the pollution impact of the automobile is yet to a degree which would lead this Congress to tell the American people that you can't drive a car anymore.
Now that day may come, but I would say it is a considerable ways off yet.
And in the meantime, I think that what we should be doing is emphasizing the development of alternatives, and that is what we are doing.
Senator MUSKIE. According to the criteria on carbon monoxide emissions, by the Department of HEW just what, within the last six months, the carbon monoxide concentrations exceed, what would be the health effects limits in every major city of the United States today, for some period of time, during the day.
Now, this is bound to increase, because the used car population is going to be increased by some millions of unsatisfactorily operating automobiles, before we begin to get the satisfactory substitute which you are talking about, so that the level of carbon monoxide levels in these cities is going to rise, even above the present levels.
I don't think that is going to stabilize at present levels. I think it is going to rise above the present level, that over the years, we are talking about finally getting something like a clean, new car.
It seems to me that unless we impose some kind of pressure we do not now have, that the evolutionary approach isn't satisfactory.
Now, this is the question the committee is laboring with. I can't prejudge what the committee will do. I think we are all frustrated by it. But I think we are strongly drawn to the idea of national deadlines as a way of applying the pressure, leaving it, of course, to the particular regions to establish stronger standards or more restrictive ones, within their own areas.
We are not talking about the national mandate to limit the movement of cars, but national standards which give regions that option, if that is the one they choose.
Mr. TRAIN. Of course, I haven't seen the language which the committee may have developed. I am not even sure whether the committee has developed language along these lines.
But if I could comment very generally, not having seen any specifics, and addressing myself to this idea of deadlines, national deadlines on an across-the-board kind of way, and not speaking specifically of the automobile problem, but of a range of problems, I think that probably much could be said for that kind of an approach.
Now again, I would want to know what the details would be, before committing myself to that statement, but in principle, I think there is much to be said for the use of that kind of deadline.
I think we all have to recognize that deadlines don't solve problems. There is a lot else that has to go with it. Tough standards, and tough enforcement, and funding to support those programs, training, and so forth,
But deadlines, I suppose, can help create an atmosphere of urgency, and help encourage the kind of action which leads toward solutions.
I think that would be my general reservation. I don't think that the public should be led to believe that just because we set some deadline dates, that the particular problems will go away on that date. They might or might not.
We must make some technological breakthroughs, and this takes a lot else beyond just deadlines, but in principle, I am not a bit opposed to the idea. I think that there may be much to be said for it.
Senator MUSKIE. It might be useful to you to give a little bit of the argument we have with ourselves, that led us to our present state.
First, the Administration proposed national ambient air quality standards. We felt that, at least I felt, and there have been several members of the committee who felt, that that would be deluding the public, to set national ambient air quality standards, without a deadline.
Without a deadline, there is nothing national about the standard.
To make them national, there must be a national deadline, it seems to us, because under the proposal submitted, we have national standards, but the deadline for meeting them would have varied within various regions and various cities of the country.
I am saying this not in critical context at all, but this was the way our reasoning went.
So then we began to debate with ourselves the idea of a national deadline for ambient air quality standards. This seemed to us to pose the problem then that we have discussed – of the automobile. We are talking about a national deadline three or four or five years from now; how do we on a national basis insure that at the end of that period, whichever we choose, the automobile is going to be in a position to comply? That created a problem for us.
Now we are considering a combination of national emission standards for automobiles, tied to a deadline, combined with regional ambient air quality standards, which gives communities with the tougher problems the option of being tougher in dealing with them, by either requiring add-on devices, or restricting the movement of automobiles within their own limits.
Now this, I think, this traces the route that I think it has taken, and this takes you to the point at which we are now trying to decide what we ought to do, and I would be interested in having any followup comments off the record or in any way representing your reaction to this approach.
Mr. TRAIN. Well, naturally, we would be delighted, members of the Council and our staff, to discuss these matters with the members of your subcommittee, your staff.
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.
Senator BOGGS. No further questions.
Senator MUSKIE. I guess that there are no further questions that we have time to ask at this point. There are many we would like to ask, and I am sure in the course of the months and years ahead, we will have many exchanges.
Mr. TRAIN. We would be willing to come back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would say the Council regards this as one of its prime responsibilities and that it is moving actively and positively to implement it. I expect, under the leadership and stimulation of the Council, that the agencies of Government, including the Department of Defense, will respond to the mandate of the law.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I concur in the Senator's statement. I was about to get to that point, but I do concur in the statement which has been made by the able Senator from Maine.
The agency response under section 102 has been quite good. We have to realize that this applies to every Federal agency in the Government. It is a complicated matter to implement. The agencies have accelerated their planning in this regard. The Senator from Maine pointed out that the Department of Defense has submitted its guidelines for compliance under this particular provision.
There is an obvious need for amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act. We asked Chairman Train about this this morning. As the Senator from Colorado knows, he indicated that the Council would be submitting recommendations for amendments to the act to better do their job and carry out the charter we gave them.
I believe the sensible thing to do here is to let the committees responsible for this program do the job of oversight they have started.
The Senator from Maine has started his hearings. We started ours today to review the entire National Environmental Policy Act in connection with the annual report just submitted as required by law.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I wish to make an observation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, we are all involved very deeply in the writing of section 102; and section 102 involved a great deal of time in the conferences on that bill, as the Senator knows.
My observation with regard to this matter and the amendment pending is that we are moving, in my opinion, in a sensible way now in the entire environmental problem; not as fast as some people would like, but we are moving sensibly. It is my hope that we do not clutter this matter with a lot of other provisions of law which, in my opinion, would keep the provisions of S. 1075, if it became law, from being meaningful and constructive in the objective of getting a world that is more environmentally acceptible to all of us.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. I wish to make one comment and then I shall be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. President, I wish to say that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and, I know also, the Committee on Public Works, are reviewing this entire matter very carefully and the sensible thing here is to give us the opportunity to complete that process. The report was just submitted. It was submitted as of August 10. Our responsibility under the law is to review this situation. We have an oversight responsibility. We have started that process; and I know we are going to complete it. I know the Senator from Maine is of the same mind.
I wish to emphasize again what has been said by the Senator from Maine. There is a conflict of interest under the amendment because although the Council on Environmental Quality is policing this matter under the act, the Department of Defense would police its obligation under the amendment. I point this out as all the more reason this matter should be studied carefully.
I admire the Senator from Wisconsin for what he is endeavoring to do.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. There is nothing in my amendment which would change the Jackson bill that passed. All we say is that we will not appropriate funds, or authorize funds until the act is complied with. As far as the administration of the act, we do not touch the basic law at all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the matter is quite clear to me.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. This goes to the question that puzzles me. The basic act gives the Council no authority over expenditures. We give them no authority to decide whether the departments can spend money in connection with an amendment, such as the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.
I assume that since that responsibility is not placed anywhere else, either the Department of Defense will decide if it complies with this amendment, or the question will be left in confusion.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in order that I may reply to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. PROXMIRE. What we specify here is that a report has to be made.
Mr. MUSKIE. But that is already a requirement by law, so it is not new.
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is correct, but we indicate to the Department of Defense specific areas where a report must be required.
That differs from the views which the Department of Defense indicated in the guidelines. They would not report on transportation of dangerous substances or devices, for instance.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is nothing in section 102 which would exclude these things–
Mr. PROXMIRE. The guidelines exclude them.
Mr. MUSKIE. The guidelines presumably would not be approved by the Council. They are too narrow. They are proposed guidelines by the Department of Defense; so section 102 is administered by the Council, and the Council, I am sure, will zero in on that point.
The question is: Who decides whether or not expenditures should be withheld under the operation of the amendment? As I read it, either the Department decides it, or it is left in the air.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Under the present circumstances funds are not limited at all; they can make the report or not make it.
Mr. MUSKIE: I disagree with the Senator. I have undertaken to explain the history and the thrust of the act. I have undertaken to elicit from Mr. Train this week the steps he has taken to implement it. They are positive steps, they are working, and I am sure they will be effective in implementing the law.
Mr. JACKSON. The effectiveness of the section has been dramatized in lawsuits. Failure to comply with this section makes it possible to get injunctive relief, and it has been granted. There is legal authority for an individual or cities or States to go into court for failure to comply with section 102, and there have been a number of decisions rendered in such cases.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Washington have made clear that there has been compliance by the Corps of Engineers. There has not been compliance by the rest of the Department of Defense. They filed only one report, and that was under great duress, with respect to burying chemicals in the ocean, but nothing else. Do Senators mean to say there has been no action by the Defense Department in 7 months that had an adverse reaction on this environment?
Mr. JACKSON. May I say to my friend – and let us make this very clear – it is simply not possible to overcome all the guidelines that have to be proposed and approved in this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JACKSON. It is just not physically possible to do it.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Washington.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, what concerns me is that I do not know why the Senator wants to single out one agency. If we go through the list of them, we will find that all the agencies have not had time to fully comply with the law.
I certainly concur with the objective of the Senator from Wisconsin, but the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, Mr. Russell Train, said today they are considering amendments to the act and they want time to be able to determine what new tools they may need.
They are insisting on compliance, but I do not think it is humanly possible to get definitive guidelines on all the needs in this time frame. First of all, Congress has not even given them money to provide a full staff. They are struggling without the people to administer this program.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on this point, the Council on Environmental Quality last year was provided a limited authorization of funds. The additional authorization was included in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act which was signed into law by the President this March.
It was not until March that the Council was in a position to come to the Congress and ask for the $1.5 million in appropriations necessary to do the job. It has been only since March that the Congress has been in a position to arm the Council with the kind of authority to implement section 102.
March to August is not an unreasonable amount of time, since the money has not yet been appropriated. The Council has not been able to get a full staff to do the job. I do not think the
Council could be faulted on the performance of its job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
They could do the job far better than they have done it. They have filed only a single report. That is the first point. Second, this amendment would give them another year before it would be effective, before it would restrain funds for not complying with the law. So the agency would be given ample time to develop its guidelines.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I respond to that?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Let me finish this thought, because the Senator from Washington has asked me again and again why we do not apply it to other agencies. The answer to that is that we ought to, and I intend to do so, but the testimony is, and it has not been challenged, that 80 percent of the pollution caused by Federal agencies is by the Defense Department. This was the opinion of an official of the Council on Environmental Quality. So I think it reasonable to provide an amendment that would include some muscle requiring such a report.
The Senators from Maine and Washington are two of the ablest men in this body, but I think on this particular matter they are just too patient, if, from the biggest agency of the Federal Government, we are told that they cannot file more than one report on this matter
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say that the first effective provisions on this subject were written last year by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and my committee, laws that we are now trying to implement with the product of our committees. We have formed some judgment which I hope we can get to the Senate on how best to proceed. That does not mean we are infallible, but it suggests that we ought to be able to make some inquiry into the sanctions that are provided.
The Senator is saying, all right, it has not had enough experience; let us give them a year's time, but at the end of the year, let us make sure that this is the solution, no matter what they may find.
It does not matter that they may identify some other sanction in that year that would work better, but whatever finding they make in that year, they have to do this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. It seems to me this is not the intelligent way to be proceeding. If the Senator concedes that a year's experience would be useful, why do we not use that year's experience to examine not only this kind of sanction but also other kinds of sanctions that might be applicable, and then make the judgment about which one should be selected? Instead, the Senator says:
We will give you one year to develop an experience, but at the end of the experience we want only one kind of answer, and that is this sanction.
Mr. PROXMIRE. They are having 1 year's notice, or 10 or 11 months' notice, that they are going to have to comply; that there is real muscle in the law; that they have to make reports.
If that is not done, if we delay until next year then next year they will say, "Give us another 6 or 7 months in order to comply."
It seems to me, on the basis of the way things operate, if we act today, get it into the bill, and the bill becomes law next month, then Defense will have ample time to prepare, to make their reports, beginning July 1. If we wait until next July 1 to do it, we will have to wait that much longer.
If we are going to have action, we should indicate that we mean business as far as the biggest department of the Federal Government is concerned.
I agree that we should crack down on industrial and private polluters, but I do not think we should permit the Defense Department to get into a position in which they drag their feet. They do not seem to be complying. It is true that there are situations in which these kinds of delay can be rationalized or justified, but it seems to me the Department could do a better job than it has done.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not an easy judgment to challenge. We all could have done better. We could have written a better law. We could have written it earlier than we did. We could have had it enacted 3 or 4 years earlier. That is the kind of judgment I cannot contest. The Senator probably can.
What I am saying is that we have been working since the first of the year on the new antipollution law. The committee has spent more hours in executive sessions on the question of how tough it should be, what sanctions should be included, how they should be put together in a comprehensive policy that makes sense, than I could count on the fingers of my hand if I stood here counting the rest of the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator is saying is that all that is wasted effort; that, instead, we should put together an amendment on the first day of the session, bring it in, and let the Senate act on it, just because somebody has not done as good a job as he should have done in the past.
I take the view that when we get into complicated questions of this kind, they are deserving of some time and testing and dialog and testimony and interaction of opinions. But, no; the Senator has developed his sanction and has brought it on the floor of the Senate. The Senate is not deserving of further consideration of it. It is not important that the Senate does not know enough about it.
If that is his view, then we should not hold any more executive sessions or markup sessions on the air pollution law. I will report it tomorow as an amendment on the floor, without further consideration of it.
These are complicated questions, I may say.
The Senator paid a tribute to my interest in this area. May I just suggest that he consider this opinion from me: That it is complicated; that it does take time to develop ways and guidelines; that we have worked on it; that the provisions of the law we enacted last year dealing with that question
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think the law is very helpful.
Mr. MUSKIE. But it requires that kind of time.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think the law specifying that kind of policy should be followed. The report required can be enormously helpful. The provisions are the result of discussions, hearings, and careful deliberation, and I commend the Senator for that.
I think that the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Maine have cooperated very effectively in getting a good law. All I say is that it has not been complied with, on the basis of the record we have and the hearings we have had before my committee. When we have asked witnesses who have appeared in behalf of the Defense Department and others, they say they have not filed reports. It seems to me it does not take a great deal of time and effort, or they should not have to have an enormous amount of detail and extensive hearings, to provide this simple and limited sanction. All we say is, "The law has been worked out very carefully; comply with the law, or you do not get any funds."
Mr. MUSKIE. I must say to the Senator it is not that simple. If it were, we would not need any legislative hearings on environmental legislation. Wherever there are sanctions of any kind, whether in the form of criminal penalties, civil penalties, or otherwise, it is just as complicated, with respect to the report being filed.
Senator PROXMIRE's amendment, by requiring the Department of Defense to impose sanctions on itself for not implementing the requirements of Federal law, would establish an unacceptable precedent. The Department of Defense and other Federal agencies whose activities may affect the environment should not have the final authority to determine whether or not sanctions will be imposed, which activities will have environmental effects or what environmental effects may result. These decisions should be made by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I wanted to yield to the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), but he does not seem to be present at the moment.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Will the Senator give me 2 minutes while we wait for the Senator from Tennessee?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Florida had asked me first. How much time does the Senator from Florida require?
Mr. GURNEY. Two minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GURNEY. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for yielding,
Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the colloquy between the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Wisconsin on this matter of the environment. It seems to me that the argument made by the Senator from Maine is a valid one. What he is saying is that this whole area of the environment is something that is not a new problem, but it is new as far as Congress is concerned, and therefore we ought to have a little more time on the part of the people concerned with the problem.
The Public Works Committee and the Council on Environmental Quality have been dealing with it, attempting to come to grips with the proper solutions; and, once having found some key to the proper solutions, to implement them, and then go after the Defense Department and the other agencies of the Government to enforce compliance. That makes all kinds of sense to me.
It occurs to me, as to this great problem of the environment and environmental quality that faces the Nation today, that I do not think the Federal Government has ever taken faster action or come to grips more quickly with a national problem, once we realized it, than we have with this one.
Certainly asking for more time – say 6 months or a year – for the guidelines to be established and further hearings to be conducted on how to implement the solution to the problem more properly, is the sensible way to go about it, rather than come up with some sort of big stick to hold over the Department of Defense and say, "Unless you comply we are going to hit you over the head."
The job of the Defense Department is defense. That is their main business; and as a matter of fact, right now they are fighting a war – one of the longest, most difficult, and most extensive in our history. I would think that would be occupying their attention more than the environment.
So let us let the people who are handling the environmental problem–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield the Senator an additional minute.
Mr. GURNEY. I might say that the Senator from Maine has made a valuable contribution to this effort, in his leadership in coming to grips with the problem.
I say let those people who are primarily saddled with the responsibility of coming up with answers to the problem of environmental quality get a little better handle on this problem. Then we can go to the Defense Department and say, "This is what we want you to do; these are the guidelines." Then I think we will have compliance. That certainly is the businesslike, sensible, reasonable way to go about it.
I certainly am opposed to the amendment, and I think the argument of the Senator from Maine makes eminent good sense.