November 2, 1971
Page 38844
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 181, line 10, insert the following: Immediately after "thereof" insert "or interstate agency".
On page 181, line 16, insert the following: Immediately after "submission" insert "or interstate agency".
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment. I think the distinguished Senator from Maine, who is in charge of the bill, is familiar with the amendment. It has been submitted to him, and I am persuaded that there can be no opposition to it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. I am willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I am willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. However, before there is a vote on the amendment, I would like to take the occasion while I have the floor to have a brief colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Maine regarding other aspects of the bill.
Mr. President, I would request the distinguished Senator from Maine to direct his attention to section 209. I want to make reference to that section to illustrate a point with regard to interstate agencies and that is that they need congressional consent in advance to enter into interstate compacts to fulfill the requirements of S. 2770.
It is the intention of this section, is it not, to encourage the Governors, or if not the Governors, then the local elected officials in adjoining States with interstate urban-industrial concentrations, to cooperate in providing "areawide sewer treatment management plants."
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. That is the intention.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Does not section 209(b)(2)(C) on page 62 encourage planning to include implementation and regulation features for subsequent enforcement of the plan?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Does not subsection (c) (2) on page 66 provide that these interstate agencies must be able to enforce the provisions of the plan and to, in effect, enforce this act throughout the area?
It places on those agencies the duty to enforce whatever agreement they make, as I interpret it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, there are two options open. Either the State agency in the interstate area could assume the enforcement obligation of the interstate agency, and obviously there would be arguments based on efficiency.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Then, the distinguished Senator agrees with me that in addition to section 209, effective interstate enforcement and planning is called for throughout the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct, as a function of the region involved.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. I wish to emphasize this and I call attention to article I, section 10 of our Constitution which provides that an interstate agency of this sort cannot enforce any interstate agreement containing such a plan without the consent of Congress.
I observe that the average length of time required for approval of a compact is measured in terms of years. The bill would encourage and almost command States to work together on a regional basis to solve interstate pollution problems. Yet, if each interstate river system required a separate approved compact before effective interstate action could begin, then it is quite apparent that the timetable in this bill could not be met because the compacts could hardly be approved by Congress on a timely basis if historic compact experience is a meaningful guide.
I, therefore, would most respectfully request the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works to give sympathetic and prompt attention to S. 907 when that bill reaches the Committee on Public Works. That bill is presently the pending business of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I hope that the committee can have an executive session to consider it and it will be reported soon. I hope the Committee on Public Works will carefully examine and expedite the consideration of S. 907 when the bill reaches it because S. 907 gives to the States congressional preconsent to enter into agreements which contain the enforcement powers required by S. 2770.
In other words, whatever is being done under this bill to encourage the formation of these interstate agencies whose agreements cannot be enforced; there is no enforcement power until Congress approves and grants that authority.
S. 907 grants that power to the States and agencies to make these interstate agreements. I am not opposing this bill. I simply emphasize that if this bill is going to operate expeditiously we need to pass the other bill to grant the power the committee here wants exercised and insists be exercised.
I take this occasion to call this to the attention of the Senate because I am confident we will be able to get the other bill out of the Committee on the Judiciary and before the other committee so that prompt action may be taken on it. If that is done, and if that bill is enacted into law there will be a rounded-out program here and it will insure the success of the efforts being made here today.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator, and I assure him we will give prompt consideration to that legislation. I have been aware of its existence. We held hearings on suggested compacts in this area. We hope the matter is handled expeditiously.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I think we are all in agreement that until that authority is present to make agreements there is no definite time for Congress to act, and if Congress gets congested from a number of these compacts from all over the country we will have a logjam and the entire program will be retarded. But if the other bill is passed it will expedite and insure effective results from the bill before us.
I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back my time.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded black. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 562
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 562.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the amendment be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and, without objection, the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, is as follows:
On page 48, line 19, beginning with "Approval" strike all through the period in line 22, page 48.
On page 52, lines 21 and 22, strike "or authorised to be obligated".
On page 53, line 14, strike "for obligation".
On page 53, line 23, strike "and obligated".
On page 55, line 10, strike "or obligation authority".
On page 55, lines 13 and 14, Strike "or obligation authority".
On page 58, line 8, strike "is" and insert in lieu thereof "are".
On page 58, line 11, beginning with the period strike all through the period on line 1, page 59, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "; for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1972, $3,000,000,000; for the fiscal year beginning July 1, I973, $4,000,000,000; for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1974, $5,000,000,000."
On page 59, line 5, beginning with the word "to" strike all through the word "contracts" on line 6. page 59 and insert in lieu thereof "for grants".
On page 74, line 22, beginning with "(e)” srike all through the period on line 24, page 74.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to state that if Members will stay in the Chamber, we will try to move rapidly on this amendment. At the conclusion of the debate, I anticipate there will be a rollcall vote.
At this time, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, in connection with a previous commitment, I ask unanimous consent, without losing my right to the floor, that I may yield to the Senator from Nebraska for 5 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank my distinguished friend for yielding.
Mr. President, I have received a telegram from the Honorable J. James Exon, Governor of Nebraska, concerning this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the telegram may be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
LINCOLN, NEBR.,
October 29, 1971.
Hon. CART. T. CURTIS,
U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
I am deeply concerned over reports emanating from Washington with regard to proposed Senate amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act. Although I have not been able to obtain a copy of these proposed bills, I have sufficient reason to be most apprehensive about its outcome.
As I understand the proposed legislation it will extend the Federal Government regulations over water pollution control matters which are internal to the State. Already we have seen the 1899 Refuse Act bill used far beyond its original intent as a subterfuge to encroach upon the constitutional authority of the State. The proposed legislation appears to be one more unjustified step on the road to complete Federal take over.
No one is more concerned over the protection of water quality in this State than our Nebraskans. We have made much progress in correcting past mistakes and we are accelerating our program not only to include correctional action but to insure that preventive measures are initiated.
We will continue to demand our fair share of Federal funds to assist us in our program but we will resist the use of these moneys as a means to blackmail us into total submission.
We will continue to cooperate with the Federal Government and its regional offices, but we respectfully request that our State, county and city governments be respected in regard to their due authority and responsibility.
I request that these proposed Senate amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act be exposed to full and open hearings consistent with democratic process and in this way guarantee that the States' views be known to all Members of the Congress.
Sincerely,
J. JAMES EXON,
Governor of Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I would like to address a question or two to the distinguished Senator in charge of the bill, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
The Governor states, among other things:
As I understand the proposed legislation it will extend the Federal Government's regulations over water pollution control matters which are internal to the State.
Can the distinguished Senator enlighten us on that and tell us whether or not there are any recent changes in the bill from the time these questions arose?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that the section of the bill which has aroused more comment of the kind which the Senator has brought to the attention of the Senate is that dealing with the permit authority. The permit authority is now being exercised without benefit of the pending legislation under the Refuse Act of 1899, and it does not require this legislation. What we try to do in this legislation is to codify that permit authority in a way to restore permit balance between Federal and State. This legislation envisages a State role in permits to control effluent discharge. That is not found in the act of 1899.
There are Governors and State pollution control authorities who read that as an enlargement of the Federal role. I do not see it as an enlargement of the Federal role, but, rather, a codification of the bill that reestablishes the relationship between the States and the Federal Government.
I can assure Governor Exon, if that is the provision of the bill he has in mind, that we have not eliminated the role of the State, but reestablished it in a clearcut fashion.
Mr. CURTIS. He says:
Already we have seen the 1899 Refuse Act bill used far beyond its original intent as a subterfuge to encroach upon the constitutional authority of the State.
Mr. MUSKIE. So the Governor has that in mind. I will repeat what I just said. Perhaps I can say it a little more clearly. Under the Refuse Act of 1899 the Corps of Engineers has authority to prohibit the discharge of any refuse and matter of any kind. It was clearly not related to the idea of pollution when it was written in 1899. During the last 2 years it has been reexamined in the light of our pollution problems and now the executive branch has undertaken the use of the authority to control pollution by requiring permits of all polluters with conditions to be imposed by the Federal Government. The States have no role in the exercise of that authority.
We have discussed this matter with the executive branch, with Mr. Ruckelshaus, with other representatives of the administration, and they agree with the formulation we have written into the bill. What it does is continue the Federal Government's authority with respect to major polluters – and that is what they want to use it for – until such time as the States can develop permanent authority of their own. At that time it is the expectation of this bill and of this administration to have the States assume that permanent authority and to administer the law directly.
That kind of provision is not found in the Refuse Act.
So when I say that what we try to do is reestablish the State-Federal balance in the exercise of that permanent authority, that is what I mean.
So I think when the Governor looks at it in that light, he may look at it a little differently.
We in our committee have always felt, wholly apart from any philosophical views about States' rights and the balance of the Federal-State authority, that if we could have effective State programs supplemented by effective Federal programs, it was the best way to deal with the pollution problem, because it is too enormous in its scope to be handled entirely by Federal bureaucracy.
So we have been promoting, probing, and pushing the States to fashion the necessary authority. That is what we have done in the bill.
Mr. CURTIS. Is it the opinion of the Senator that the measure before us encroaches on the States in a lesser way than is now being done under the 1899 Refuse Act?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The answer to that it a clear-cut "Yes."
Mr. CURTIS. Will the Executive be able to use this bill and the authority that he has claimed to have under the 1899 act, or does this bill supersede the 1899 act?
Mr. MUSKIE. This will supersede it at the right time. It does not by any provision in this bill, because the House has not acted. We need to get it into conference. If the House accedes to this approach and we are able to agree on an approach, then the 1899 act will be phased out and this act will be phased in.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I would like to add one word of explanation. I believe that there is a very significant change. In the last days of the executive sessions, the Administrator had reserved to him for 60 days the right to review the permit issued by the State authority and determine whether he could handle the problem, and then could veto it, in effect, which would cause the State to go over it again. This disturbed the State of New York a great deal. But the way the bill is now, the Administrator is invited in at the time of the application and he can guide and give the benefit of his knowledge to the State agency working on the permit, but after the issuance of the permit he does not have the right to come forward and then veto it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator.
Mr. COOPER. I would like to reinforce what the Senator from Maine said. In the first place, the Refuse Act was never intended to be a pollution control act, but, by Executive order, was made one and became precisely a control program of the Federal Government. It is much more dominated by the Federal Government than will be the case under this bill. I think that ought to be made clear.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I return to the discussion of amendment No. 562, which was cosponsored by Senators COOPER, BAKER, DOLE, and BIICKLEY. This amendment affects that portion of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971 authorizing grants for the construction of waste treatment facilities.
This provision is a major aspect of the bill. I believe that the level of funding authorized in the bill, as reported, is justified and necessary in order to accelerate our drive toward clean water throughout this Nation.
But I further believe that the contract authority provision – and that is the point of the amendment – is neither necessary nor useful. This amendment would simply strike out the contract authority provided in the bill. In place of it we would substitute the regular, normal procedure of annual appropriations.
This is the provision that allows the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency authority to enter into contracts prior to appropriations to commit section 207 construction grant funds for fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975.
The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. It authorizes these grant funds in fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975 to be provided through the normal appropriations process, rather than by contract authority, as now provided in the bill.
Each of the sponsors of this amendment is a cosponsor of this bill. I know that I reflect the view of the cosponsors when I say that our amendment will not lessen the effectiveness of the bill.
Rather, the annual review of the program by the Congress should serve to focus, each year, the attention and the support of the public on this program and the progress it has achieved. Our amendment will also enable the Congress to properly balance the need for construction grant funds against the other important authorizations in this legislation, which total over $5 billion.
But contract authority is a fiscal tool that is too restrictive. It lessens the flexibility of the Congress and the President to examine spending levels annually. In this case, it tends to overemphasize bricks and mortar to the possible detriment of research, reimbursement of earlier commitments, enforcement, demonstration projects, and other provisions in this bill.
This has particular importance in view of the accelerated research effort required by this legislation. Because of potential breakthroughs in technology, we believe it would be wise if the Congress, through the appropriations process, undertook an annual examination of the full water pollution control program and the needs for waste treatment grants.
The water pollution control program holds a very high priority in any list of national goals.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sense of urgency for water pollution control that exists in our Nation will assure continuity for the program. I believe that this sense of urgency will actually be magnified if the Congress and the public focus their attention on the program each and every year.
I am aware that many States are anxious and able to go forward with construction programs that exceed the limits of this year's or next year's annual allocation under the authorizations proposed in this bill. Some effort must be undertaken to encourage and enable these States to go forward with the assurance of Federal financial support.
It could be construed that our amendment would undermine this striving for continuity. If that is so, I would certainly support an effort to guarantee reimbursement for any State that moves forward with approved projects ahead of that time when sufficient State allocations exist. I have prepared language that would overcome any such deficiency.
I have not included such language with this amendment, because I believe that it is important to focus the attention of my colleagues on the merits and demerits of contract authority. This issue is an issue that should be isolated.
In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and thus to delete the provision on contract authority.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time on the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in this bill we have undertaken to do something that we have never done before on a problem with such long-range impact as this. We have set deadlines that must be met by industry, and presumably by all polluters, including governmental polluters. We have set a deadline in 1976 and we have set a deadline in 1981; and finally we set the goal of no discharges of pollutants into any waterways by 1985.
There is only one way to meet deadlines like that, and that is to make a total commitment now. If we indicate in any way any reservations about our commitment as a government and as a Congress to the achievement of those goals in the point of view of the public sector, what we have done is undermine the credibility of our determination to insist on that goal and its achievement by the private sector.
To achieve the deadlines we are talking about in this bill – I think all of us in the committee are proud of it, and we are committed to it – we are going to need the strongest kind of evidence of the Federal Government's commitment to pick up its share of the load. We cannot budge, with any credibility, from the kind of investment in waste treatment facilities that is called for by this bill. The municipalities, through the Conference of Mayors, have estimated at the request of the committee that the initial investment required is $30 to $35 billion. The authorization we have provided in this bill of $14 billion for 4 years to meet the Federal share is a hard, conservative figure. All we are saying in asking the Senate to approve contract authority is a commitment now to that $14 billion. If we have any hesitation about that commitment, then we will eliminate the contract authority and keep our options open.
What is the option? The option is to provide less than that $14 billion through the appropriations process. Why else would we want that option, unless we want the right to break that commitment at some point in the next 4 years?
Mr. President, I say to you that when the Senate enacts this bill – and I take it that it will – it must consider whether, at the same time that we approve the rhetoric, we are making the commitment with any conviction. We do not need the Appropriations Committee review every year to know that $14 billion is a hard rock figure. So let us make the commitment now, and let the States and communities go ahead to find ways to pick up their share of the load.
That is what is involved. The administration, in submitting its 1970 version of the water pollution legislation, asked for this authority. Last year the administration asked for contract authority. And Secretary Hickel, in testifying on that bill said this:
The lag between Federal authorizations and appropriations in the present legislation in the past has caused confusion and uncertainty among the States and communities.
As they were uncertain about the level of Federal funds to be available on any given year, they could not adequately plan and finance their construction activities.
The same lack of certainty has hampered the engineering and construction industry from gearing up for a sustained level of effort.
Assured funding is a key component of the proposed legislation – it will enable the Federal Government to enter "grant agreements" with municipalities at the rate of $1 billion a year for 4 years.
Pursuant to these agreements, the Federal Government will appropriate funds to satisfy obligations under these grant agreements, just as the Federal Government satisfies any other of its debt obligations.
This change will assure communities of full Federal support and allow planning and construction to proceed without the traditional gap between funds authorized and funds appropriated.
In the message on the environment sent to the Congress by the President of the United states last year, he said:
By thus assuring communities of all Federal Support, we can enable planning to begin now for all needed facilities and construction to proceed at an accelerated rate.
I say to you, Mr. President, that only with the kind of commitment represented by contract authority will we truly reassure States and communities that we mean what we say when we say to them, "We expect you to build waste treatment facilities requiring $14 billion of Federal funds, and we will provide that authority."
Let me make the second argument for contract authority. Many communities in this country are required to underwrite the full construction cost of a project at the time bids are let, even though a Federal grant has been made. In other words, the community must make the commitment in advance. And without contract authority, their lesson has been, on the basis of the past 5 years, that they cannot be sure that the Federal funds will be forthcoming. The subcommittee has been requested repeatedly to change the law to require the Federal Government to contractually commit its share, so that the communities will not have to pledge local credit in excess of the actual local share of the project's cost.
Contract authority would provide this necessary commitment of Federal funds. Frankly Mr. President, it does not make any sense to me to impose this kind of a mandate and this kind of a requirement, with all the toughness we have been able to write into this law, upon States and communities, and to back off by ever so little from the Federal commitment that would be represented by contract authority.
We know $14 billion is going to be required if the States and communities do what we are demanding of them. So I say, let us put up the Federal share in a way, with language and an understanding, that makes it clear we are not backing off.
That is what is involved here, and that is why the President sought this authority last year. That is why Secretary Hickel testified for this authority last year, and that is why we must give it to them this year.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, the point just made by the manager of the bill, the Senator from Maine, is highlighted, I believe, by a very brief letter addressed to me by the mayor of the city of Detroit. It is dated November 2, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HART. Mayor Gribbs makes this point:
Given the immense complexity of planning sewage-treatment facilities and the goal of clean water by 1985, it is important that the funding of water pollution control be expedited.
Thus, I urge you to vigorously oppose and vote against the Boggs amendment.... Mayor Gribbs cites, chapter and verse, the necessity that a municipality, given the target of the obligation that this bill sets, be given the management freedom to proceed prudently with respect to the raising of the money.
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF DETROIT,
November 2, 1971.
Hon. PHILIP A. HART,
U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HART: Scheduled for consideration by the Senate today is the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971 (S. 2770). I strongly support this measure.
However, I understand that Senator Boggs has proposed an amendment which would fund the construction of sewage-treatment facilities through annual appropriations rather than the Public Works Committee's recommended one-year's annual appropriation and three years' contract authority.
Given the immense complexity of planning sewage-treatment facilities and the goal of clean water by 1985, it is important that the funding of water pollution control be expedited.
Thus, I urge you to vigorously oppose and vote against the Boggs amendment and, equally vigorously, support and vote for the Water Pollution Bill (S. 2770).
Sincerely,
ROMAN S. GRIBBS Mayor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, contract authority is an essential tool for achieving the cooperation of State and local governments in the program of waste treatment facility construction.
The public investment needed to meet our municipal waste treatment requirements is of such magnitude that it must be programed and carried forward on an orderly basis. The importance of such a step-by-step procedure with the certainty of funds to carry it out has been proven with the success of our Federal-aid-highway program which has functioned with contract authority for a half-century.
The uncertainties in timing of the appropriations process are such that a means to provide advance assurance of funding is an absolute requirement. The Appropriations Committee of the Senate has done a truly fine job in providing funds for this waste treatment program, but the appropriations process still requires that everyone wait until the money bill is approved before they can go forward.
With contract authority, those concerned with the planning, construction and operation of waste treatment facilities will know ahead of time what will be available, and they will therefore be able to proceed accordingly.
Without this authority communities which have to commit their funds long in advance of the construction of facilities will not be sure of receiving the Federal aid which this bill promises.
I stress that contract authority will not deprive the Committee on Appropriations, so ably led by the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) of its ability to independently review the program levels as they have reviewed other programs with contract authority, such as the highway safety program. They can, in advance of any particular fiscal year, direct by statute that the obligation level be lowered. I know they would do this only if insurmountable budgetary problems required it. The Appropriations Committee would have the ability to review, and this is essential, but with the recommendation for contract authority in the pending bill, the Congress will provide the funding certainty which States and cities need to carry out their crucial role of building the needed treatment works.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD, a letter from the National League of Cities expressing, on behalf of local governments all over the Nation, their strong support for the retention of contract authority as it is contained in S. 2770.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CTTIES, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
November 1, 1971.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH : The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are unalterably opposed to any amendments of S. 2770 that would eliminate provisions granting the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency contractual authority for financing urgently needed waste treatment facilities.
Mayor Roman S. Gribbs of Detroit, Michigan, testified last February 8, 1971, before the Subcommittee of Air and Water Pollution on behalf of the National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors. In that testimony he stated:
"As we look to the future, however, we must recognize that the current structure of the (Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966) has created many problems. Cities have had serious difficulties in implementing programs with federal assistance. Significant revisions must be made to build an effective partnership with the federal government, states, and the cities if our goal is to develop and finance a water pollution control effort which will make noticeable progress in cleaning up the nation's waterways."
The specific objections to the current procedure were the inadequacy of the federal money and that the available money would come in uncertain fits and starts, making long-term planning impossible.
In an accompanying background paper, the National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors detailed its proposals for improvements to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
A third necessary amendment is to change the financing method in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from the present annual appropriations process to provide an assured long-term commitment of Federal assistance upon which local governments can depend in developing their pollution control programs. Planning and financing the substantial construction projects necessary for truly comprehensive local pollution control program is a long-term process. Cities must enter into binding commitments extending over many years to provide their share of program financing. For federal aid to be effectively integrated into this program structure, its availability must be assured at the time local governments are planning the financing element of their projects.
Under the existing annual appropriations structure. there is no such assurance. Availability of funds depends on the uncertainties of the appropriations process. The result is that many localities proceed slower than they might on pollution control projects because they can only enter into financing commitments up to the extent of local resources which are likely to be available. Any federal assistance is accepted gladly and relieves severe strains on local financing structures, but if a level of federal assistance could be assured, many localities could proceed much more expeditiously to construct waste treatment facilities.
To provide this long-term commitment, the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors urge revision of the financing structure of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow immediate obligation of a large sum of funds ($15 billion) to aid local projects with actual use of the federal funds spread over a reasonable period.
A financing structure approaching these criteria was adopted for the Urban Mass Transportation Act in the 1970 Amendments (P.L. 91-453). We suggest that similar language be added to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act unless a more effective means of long-term financing, at the funding levels we propose, can be developed.
In addition to making grant-in-aid support under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act more compatible with the realities of local funding, long-term financing would avoid several other problems which have developed with the present programs.
1. A system could be established, under the current population based allocation formula, for reallocation of funds from those states which do not need them to states that do, ahead of the time when these funds actually become available for expenditure. This would be possible because each state could develop a long-term plan for use of water pollution control funds and accurately estimate the amount of federal assistance required for its projects in any given year. Allocations made to those states which did not identify sufficient needs to use the full amount of their federal assistance in any particular year could be redistributed to other states, perhaps a year in advance of the time when these funds were scheduled for expenditure under the Act.
2. Accurately estimating need levels upon which to base legislative authorizations is difficult because of changing perceptions of what level of water quality is required and improvements in water quality technology. Under the appropriations process money must first be appropriated and then projects found on which to use the money. Where projects are not found, federal dollars remain unused for periods of time.
3. Enforcement of water quality standards as they apply to localities could proceed with much greater fairness than at present because enforcement schedules could be tied to capacity of local financing and availability of federal assistance. With financing capability determined, enforcement could be developed which assure that water cleanup programs will proceed quickly and fairly, consistent with the financing capacity of local governments. We would not face situations, as we do today, where localities have almost impossible demands placed upon them to comply with water quality standards at a time when it is very difficult and perhaps impossible to scrape together sufficient funds to finance required water pollution projects.
S. 2770 is a major step toward meeting the needs of our nation's cities. But S. 2770 will be effective only if cities are assured the financial resources to do what the bill would require them to do. To adopt Amendment No. 562, proposed by Senator Boggs of Delaware, would seriously impair the cities' efforts to end the pollution of our nation's waters, and would render the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971 much less effective than it can or must be. Sincerely,
SAMUEL MERRICK
Director, Congressional Relations.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield to the ranking Republican member of the Committee on Public Works, who is a member of the subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, all of us joined in reporting this bill, and we support it strongly. We did disagree upon the method of financing, whether it should be by appropriations or by contract authority.
I make this point: The distinguished Senator from Maine has spoken correctly of the commitment we are making to the American people in this bill, and we have made this commitment.
The great commitment is found in those provisions which require compliance with the bill. The municipal facilities are required to come into compliance with this bill. If they do not, sanctions may be taken against the municipality, and Federal grants will not be made. The contract authority, or financing authority, only applies to the municipalities, so we are talking about municipalities.
I must say that since we have ordered these strict prohibitions and restrictions, which become effective in three phases, that is the chief commitment, and we must live up to it, whether by contract authority or by appropriations. I think it is as simple as that.
The sums in the bill are just estimates. In my judgment, in time they will be too small. We authorize $3, $4, and $5 billion for contracts. I think it is $14 billion all together, including fiscal 1972. It may be too small or too large. A few years experience will inform us.
I make one other point: We know about contract authority. My judgment is that in the first 2 years the $2 or $3 billion will not be presented for payment, but in about the fourth or fifth year, $6 or $8 billion could fall due for payment from the Treasury. My judgment is that Congress should keep reviewing this program, to keep the Congress interested in it, and not leave the Congress to be a mere disbursing agency – and that is what could happen under contract authority.
After 2 years of trial with this program, we might then want to go to contract authority – for I recognize its advantages when we know all the facts and have some experience.
I would say, with all respect for the chairman of our subcommittee, who, as we know, has given his thought and his effort and his heart to this matter, that I think it is more practical to look at this new program for a couple of years, and then see what actually is needed to carry this program along.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the points he has made, which certainly are most valid in this instance.
Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) , the President pro tempore and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, such time as he desires.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware. Certainly no one can deny that the water pollution control program should be implemented as rapidly as possible in view of the critical condition of many of our Nation's waterways. For this the bill provides $2 billion for the current fiscal year. I have no quarrel with that.
However, the bill also provides that the Administrator is authorized to incur obligations in the form of grant contracts in amounts aggregating $3 billion in fiscal year 1973, $4 billion in fiscal year 1974, and $5 billion in fiscal year 1975. This does not by any means assure the funds. The money will still have to be appropriated by Congress.
I strongly oppose such a fiscal procedure. It would provide carte blanche authority to be lodged in the executive branch over a period of several years without further legislative action. Regardless of what the intent may be, in effect it would obviate any further requirement for congressional review prior to the obligation of these huge amounts of money. I do not believe that we want to do that, I believe that the control of the purse should remain where the Constitution specifies it should remain – under the control of the Congress of the United States.
If the amendment is adopted, as I hope it will be, the Congress will retain that control of the purse strings and be able to review the program annually and provide such appropriations as it deems necessary and desirable. It may be that we would, in the years to come, appropriate sums equal to or even exceeding those described in the bill, but we would do so with the full facts before us, the experiences of the past to help guide our thinking, the budgetary impact of the requirements then present to assist our deliberations.
There is also another factor involved in this procedure. The use of the device of contract authorization is not new. Its origins may be lost in antiquity, but I can state definitely that as early as fiscal year 1926 it was utilized by the Department of the Navy to finance its aviation program, the Secretary of the Navy being authorized to enter into contracts totaling $4.1 million in addition to the regular appropriation. In the early 1950's, this method of financing was eliminated by the Congress which insisted that a department or agency request annually the funding required for a given program. This has the advantage of providing an annual review of ongoing programs and also enables the Government as well as the taxpayers of the country to judge the full impact of funding actions. Although this procedure, through the years, has suffered some exceptions, I believe that, by and large, it has been a valuable contribution to sound fiscal policy. We do not know what will be the situation 1, 2, 3 years hence in an era of changing priorities. This method of financing will place another large amount in the area of uncontrollable items, not subject to annual controls. I would hate to see the Congress take such a long step backward at this time, involving as it does a very substantial amount of money.
For these reasons, I shall vote in favor of the amendment, and I hope that all those who believe congressional control and review of executive programs to be essential will do likewise.
Mr. President, I want to point out – my good friend, the Senator from Maine, will recall this – that we had no trouble in recent years in appropriating all the funds that the then Federal Water Pollution Control Agency said they could use, funds far in excess of the budget request. I know that because – as he knows – I handled the bill. When the authorization was for a billion dollars, the subcommittee and the full committee supported that amount, and I was successful in obtaining that sum without trouble. If I remain chairman of this committee, I feel confident that whatever sum is authorized and necessary will be appropriated to be spent in any given year. The Congress can better discharge its responsibility by an annual review of the needs of the municipalities than by merely letting the Administrator make the contracts without regard to congressional review. There is no assurance that the contract authorization will not be subsequently modified by Congress. It will merely be a contract to be entered into by the Administrator, hopefully to be paid by moneys to be appropriated by Congress. It is just that simple.
I believe it is a mistake for us to follow that procedure. I can well remember, since I have been in the Senate, that that effort was tried on many occasions with the Defense Department and particularly with the Navy Department. We had contract authorization, and there was such an abuse of the program of contract authorization that Congress saw fit to eliminate it in 1956, I believe. It is a poor way for Congress to discharge its responsibilities.
I am very hopeful that the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware will be adopted.
I can give assurance that as long as I am chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I will do my best to obtain from Congress any funds necessary up to the full authorization to carry out this worthy program.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I must point out that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has been most understanding of this program and a real supporter of appropriations for water pollution control. I appreciate his comments on this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield to the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG), for such time as he may need.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The contract authority method was used extensively when I first came to the Senate on public works projects and on defense matters. There are many disadvantages. Congress lost control of projects and never knew exactly where they were financially. Here we have appropriations year by year so that Congress gets some kind of control that otherwise would go to the executive branch of the Government.
I believe that it would be a sad mistake if we made a practice of using a contract authority on major projects such as this, which we found to be unworkable years ago.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his comments. In view of his experience in these matters, his comments are most appropriate.
Mr. President, I now yield, for such time as he may need, to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), a member of the subcommittee. Senator BAKER made a great contribution to this legislation. As always, he has made a great contribution to the work of the committee and to the legislation reported by the committee.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. I realize that we have used contract authority, as the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking minority member have just pointed out. I also realize that we have used it in this program of air and water pollution control legislation in the past. But now we are taking a giant step, so to speak. We are estimating that there will be some $14 billion necessary in Federal funds to carry out the program for the next 4 years.
It seems to me that under the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the leadership given by Senators COOPER and BOGGS, this committee, in this field, has done a remarkable thing. It has brought a consensus to the field which we seldom see in important domestic legislation.
I believe, as a matter of fact, that the last pollution control bill passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. It seems to me that we should not launch into a financing technique or method likely to stir dissension in the Senate.
I am convinced that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee will well and amply take care of the requirements of the program.
I am convinced that all the members of the Appropriations Committee and the Public Works Committee are fully aware of the requirements of the program in the field of air and water pollution.
I am also convinced that we should not start such a big charge account now, as we would be starting with the contract authority technique.
I believe there is such a broad base of support for the program that we should proceed in the usual and traditional and certainly the better way – and that is the authorization procedure, instead of contract authority.
I commend the distinguished ranking minority on the subcommittee for introducing the amendment, which I am happy to cosponsor and which I wholeheartedly support.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for his contribution to this amendment and for his pertinent and most forceful comments.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. EAGLETON). Fourteen minutes remain to the Senator.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) who has had a great deal of experience with this matter of contract authority. He has recommended it from time to time, and I shall be delighted to listen to his comments.