September 19, 1972
Page 31199
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, with the approval of my cosponsors, I would like to offer a substitute for the amendment I had before the Senate last night, and I ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 88, line 17, Strike all through page 91, line 9.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HANSEN. If I may just try to explain what the amendment proposes to do, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Maine after yielding first to the Senator from Virginia who asked to be yielded to. Does the Senator have a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I wanted to express the hope that before the Senator brought up his amendment the Senate would dispose of my next amendment, since the reaction depends on what happens to the next amendment I will call up.
Mr. HANSEN. I think I should go ahead with the explanation I would like to make.
Mr. President, this amendment would delete that part of section 307 which could permit the Secretary of the Interior to deny up to 21 percent of the funds, the Land and Water Conservation Act funds, and certain Federal Aid Highway Act funds.
My amendment would delete these economic sanctions. The amendment, if agreed to, would still permit the States to be encouraged to submit acceptable land use plans. The grants in aid to the States would not be deleted. It would simply remove the economic sanctions that I feel should be deleted.
I have discussed the amendment with the distinguished Senator from Washington, the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, who is the manager of the bill. He can speak for himself.
Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia (HARRY F. BYRD, Jr.).
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
It seems to me that his amendment is most appropriate. The bill as it now stands without the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming would impose up to a 21 percent reduction in highway funds for a State and airport funds for a State which did not meet land use standards established here in the city of Washington. It seems to me that is pretty raw and going too far.
Why would those two funds be singled out over all other funds, assuming economic sanctions were to be applied. I think it important that this section, beginning on page 88, line 20, through page 91, line 9, be eliminated from the bill. This matter of Washington saying that some agency or bureau here in Washington knows more about all the problems of this Nation than do the States and localities, and, therefore, "If you do not do what we tell you to do we are going to withhold 20 percent of your highway funds, and 21 percent of the airport funds," I think is an injustice and improper, and I strongly support the amendment offered by the able Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank my colleague from Virginia. I would like to recognize the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the original version of amendment No. 1520, I support the modified version as proposed by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
Some people may feel that the sanctions should be retained in this legislation, but to those individuals I would point out that there will be other Congresses which can deal with the subject of sanctions, if and when it becomes evident that sanctions are indeed needed. No one, at this point in time, can say with any degree of certainty that the States will not comply voluntarily, as indeed several States already have, even prior to the enactment of this measure.
The withholding of the grants should be an adequate sanction for State participation. It has been in innumerable other Federal grant-in-aid programs. If it is not, there will be opportunity for Congress to determine whether other sanctions are needed at the two mandatory reviews of the program – the one at the end of 5 years and the one at the end of 8 years.
Mr. President, I feel it behooves the Congress to act on the basis that the States will proceed in good faith. I believe they will. I urge the adoption of the amendment as modified.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank my distinguished colleague.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. I direct my question to the Senator from Washington.
With this amendment accepted and approved, as I hope it will be, is there any other provision in the bill that provides similar sanctions against grants?
Mr. JACKSON. No.
Mr. COOPER. I was a sponsor with the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Idaho, and it is a proper amendment. I think this is the problem: This is a very complex bill, as the Senator from Washington knows very well, and as has been developed by debate on the amendments offered by the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
As the bill came to us, it would require 5 years of adoption by the States of the plans actually finally approved and as may be directed by the Federal Government. I think that is too far reaching. I think planning and encouragement of planning for the next 5 years is satisfactory. As the Senator from Idaho stated, some States are ahead now, and many others will come in voluntarily. Then will be time to discuss whether or not sanctions should be imposed.
I shall support the amendment.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the pending measure as reported by the committee had two penalty provisions: first, that funds available under S. 632 could be held up if a State failed to make an effort at good-faith compliance, second, a small percentage of funds for three Federal programs could be put in escrow until the State became eligible for grants under the act.
I personally favor strong sanctions to insure compliance with the act. My fear is that the State legislatures are not going to comply with the provisions of this act if the only sanction will be, as is provided in this amendment, the denial of planning grant funds, $100 million a year, as authorized.
However, in view of all the concerns that have been expressed by many Members of the Senate, I plan to reluctantly support the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, and I hope that at least this will help to expedite action on the bill. But I want to reiterate my deep concern about compliance. I would not be for any sanctions if we could get full compliance, but the question is, can we get compliance?
I shall reluctantly, as I have said, go along with the amendment, and I hope we will proceed expeditiously so we can complete action on this bill.
I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has been yielded back
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the Chair reserve making that decision?
I yield to the Senator from Maine. How much does the Senator want?
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield me 2 or 3 minutes?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, my concern about the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Washington is that it comes before I could get to the issue with the amendment I will offer of what guidelines there ought to be in the legislation on the development of land use policy.
Before those guidelines were included, I was disposed to vote against the sanctions. If there were adequate guidelines, it seems to me sanctions would be essential if they are to mean anything, but I think it would be useful to make reference at this point to certain language in the bill which is ambiguous on the question of whether or not, and to what extent, sanctions are involved. That is language that appears on page 87, lines 9 to 14, and I read them:
(c) Federal agencies conducting or assisting public works activities in areas not subject to a State land use program in a State found eligible for grants pursuant to this Act shall, to the extent practicable, conduct such activities in such a manner as to minimize any adverse impact on the environment resulting from decisions concerning land use.
That seems to say – I do not know whether that is its intent; it is not language covered by the Hansen amendment – that the Federal agencies in these 112 programs that are involved can themselves make a decision – make a finding – without guidelines as to whether or not a project for which application for Federal funds is made under some current Federal program carries environmental implications that are adverse.
So I take it that such an agency which made such a determination could, on its own motion, withhold Federal funds under those programs. I suggest that as a possibility, and a possibility that is not touched by the Hansen amendment.
I repeat, however, that if I were satisfied that this legislation contained adequate guidelines to govern Federal judgments and decisions on State land use policies, I would want legislation then that had teeth in it. This legislation does not yet have those guidelines, and in its present form I would support the Hansen amendment or a similar amendment in order to eliminate teeth from an ambiguous and vague piece of legislation; but under the present legislative situation, I would have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.