October 4, 1972
Page 33711
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, first I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Maine for the excellent work he has done, along with the committee members, in preparing and negotiating this bill through. It is a long step forward from where the committee started a half dozen years ago.
Mr. President, on balance, the greatly increased funding and new initiatives such as the clean lakes drive make this water quality measure an important forward step in the Nation's clean environment effort.
The measure authorizes $18 billion over the next 3 fiscal years for the key program of Federal aid for municipal waste treatment plant construction.
As I understand it, in a response to State complaints that earlier Federal money commitments were not being met, the money authorized by this legislation could be obligated for the aid grants to municipalities without annual action by Congress.
Only if the President's Office of Management and Budget or the Congress specifically directed otherwise would the money not be available at the levels in the legislation, according to my understanding.
There has been considerable discussion in recent days about another provision in the bill, section 511 (c) (1), which deals with the National Environmental Policy Act. While this section does specifically authorize some exemptions from the environmental policy act to avoid conflict with other key environmental aims, the reach of these exemptions would appear to be narrow.
For example, while the section does appear to mean that the Administrator's actions are not defined as "major Federal actions" under section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA, the rest of NEPA appears to be left intact and applicable as far as this bill is concerned.
Is that a correct statement?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I have answered the point in response to Senator JACKSON. Let me read something from the colloquy at the time NEPA was enacted. This is Senator JACKSON'S language:
Many existing agencies, such as the National Park Service, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and the National Air Pollution Control Administration, already have important responsibilities in the area of environmental control. The provisions of section 102 as well as 103 are not designed to result in any change in the manner in which they carry out their environmental protection authority.
Why did we put this in? We put it in because we wanted the water pollution control agency to have the authority to clean up the waters in connection with the specific requirements set out in this legislation.
To inject now, from the outside, other influences, other agencies, including EPA, is simply to give industrial polluters another forum to block progress toward our objective.
I want this legislative history to be clear on this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield the Senator the remainder of my time.
Mr. NELSON. I am glad to see this doubly clarified. That was my understanding.
May I ask one question: Is there anything in the bill that would prohibit any State from establishing any water quality standard higher than the standards established under this act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute, to permit the Senator from Maine to answer.
Mr. JACKSON. Only 1 minute, because I had requested time originally from the leadership, and I agreed to a half hour, and I have had 4 minutes. It does affect the committee I chair. If it is only 1 minute, I will not object; otherwise, I shall ask unanimous consent for time, because I have a long series of questions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that I wanted to check with the staff, to be sure I was correct that the States' rights are fully protected.
Mr. NELSON. They may have a higher standard?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. NELSON. While EPA may not be subject to the "impact statement" requirements that it has complained about, its actions nevertheless, under this language, would seem to be subject to those important parts of the National Environmental Policy Act falling outside section 102(2) (C). The language of section 511 (c) (1) of this bill appears to be drawn specifically enough on that point that I assume the courts will restrict its applicability in this manner.
However, I would also like to point out that section 104 of the National Environmental Policy Act requires that nothing in sections 102 or 103 shall in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other Federal or State agency.
Thus, it seems clear that NEPA could not be used to frustrate the vital environmental purpose of this measure, which is to clean up the Nation's waters without delay, and this is as it should be.