June 28, 1973
Page 22030
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has a number of questions he would like to ask in the field he has established as a major concern of this Congress. It is a long time coming and many did not listen to him in the early years when it might have been less expensive than now, and that is in the field of environmental pollution control.
The committee welcomes the comments and inquiries of the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. President., at the outset I wish to say that I am going to offer an amendment, but before I do so I wish to make several observations. The amendment would be to increase the appropriation for the national study commission on water quality management.
I think it is time for me to say frankly on the floor of the Senate how frustrating and difficult I find present arrangements in the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for considering appropriations for environmental protection programs.
Three members of the Committee on Public Works, which has jurisdiction over those programs, are ex officio members of the Committee on Appropriations. But we are not members of the Agriculture Subcommittee, which for some strange reason handles Environmental Protection Agency appropriations. So what we have is an agricultural oriented subcommittee without inputs from those of us who serve on the Committee on Public Works, making important decisions on appropriations for environmental programs.
This appropriations bill before us reflects the frustrations we have had. There have been three improvements made in the bill reported by the subcommittee to the full committee. Three increases were approved in full committee:
First. An increase of $20 million for sulfur oxide control;
Second. An increase of $5 million – $10 million had been recommended – for resource recovery technology; and
Third. An increase of $2 million for removal of in-place toxic pollutants from harbors.
All other recommendations relating to increases in funds, including those covering such areas as improving studies of the relationship of air pollution to public health, increasing the effectiveness of enforcement of auto emission standards, and improving Environmental Protection Agency staffing to aid in meeting deadlines specified in the laws were ignored. Further, the committee refused to consider sections of report language which were proposed in our report to the Appropriations Committee and which we believed particularly essential to assure proper implementation of the air and water pollution laws. As we know, report language is very important in appropriations legislation.
Also, the Appropriations Committee ignored the recommendation to restructure the appropriations legislation along programmatic lines authorizing funds according to the air, water, noise, and other laws rather than authorizing funds for functional areas such as research or enforcement as in now done. Our hearings indicated this change was particularly essential to improve oversight because the present appropriations structure gives great discretion to EPA and makes it very difficult to determine if funds are being allocated consistent with congressional intent.
So I would like to include in the RECORD at this point, if I may – and I ask unanimous consent to do so – language indicating the improvements in appropriations for environmental programs which we sought from the Appropriations Committee and failed to achieve.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Recommendations for appropriations: The report recommends the following changes in the EPA budget:
Air pollution from $146,369,000 to $187,360,000.
Water pollution from $192,356,000 to $209,356,000.
Solid waste from $5,760,000 to $24,760,000.
Noise $4,037,000 with no change recommended.
Totals $348,522,000 to $425,513,000.
Within the substantive areas, the following changes are recommended:
Air Pollution:
(1) Increased funding for abatement and control by $10 million to provide more support for State programs and for increasing efforts to develop and publish new source performance standards.
(2) An increase of $1 million in enforcement funds to provide more persons for certification and surveillance in the auto emissions control program.
(3) An increase of $10 million in funds for research to identify adverse effects of pollution and further examine and develop air quality criteria and standards, along with a recommendation that the Appropriations Committee find ways to terminate funding for the Coordinating Research Council.
(4) An increase of $20 million for development of emission control technology for sulfur oxide control, and an expression of concern about funding for the alternative power systems program which we do not believe has been effectively administered.
Water Pollution:
(1) An increase of $15 million in the funding for abatement and control, to provide $10 million for increased funds for State programs and another $5 million to increase EPA's capacity to meet deadlines under the water bill which it has failed to meet regularly.
(2) A recommendation that the Appropriations Committee provide no funding for section 303(e) of the water pollution program, relating to development of water quality standards, until EPA has adequately implemented other sections of the new law which recognize the new directions toward effluent limitations and areawide basin planning which the new law had mandated but which EPA is placing at a low priority.
(3) A request that the Appropriations Committee provide enough funds to implement the waste treatment facilities grant program at the full $11 billion level recently required by the courts.
Solid Waste:
An increase of $9 million in abatement and control to provide continued technical assistance and other activities in the Washington office and an increase of $10 million in grant programs to develop new resource recovery demonstration projects. (As you will recall, the solid waste program was severely cut in this year's budget from a $36 million appropriation last year, and a $30 million budget request to only $5 million.) To assure funds are spent, it is recommended the funds for EPA publicity and legislative activities be conditioned on quarterly obligations of solid waste funds being consistent with the appropriated levels.
Noise
A recognition that the noise program needs increased staff, but without a recommended increase in the budget because of concern expressed to the current confused way in which the program is run.
Mr. MUSKIE. And, Mr. President, one of the reasons, I think, is that those of us who have been close to these programs do not have an effective voice in subcommittee consideration of these appropriations.
Both with respect to the Clear Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972, in connection with our action in reporting those bills to the floor, we sought and obtained from the administration estimates of the appropriations needed to implement the legislation.
It was our feeling that too often legislative committees report legislation to the floor and get Senate approval of policy that is later not implemented for lack of funds.
So we undertook to put in the record and it is in the record of the debate on that legislation, the actual numbers reflecting the dollars necessary to do what the Senate was committing itself to do in approving the authorizing legislation.
In 1966 we increased the authorization for waste treatment facilities several fold, but it took several years to persuade the Appropriations Committee to reflect that change in policy in appropriation bills, and we still have not fully overcome this problem.
I am not going to offer a multitude of amendments to try to achieve on the floor what we were unable to achieve in committee, but I am going to propose one amendment which illustrates the point I am making.
In the Clean Water Act of last year, we laid down specific deadlines in 1977, 1983, and 1985.
The achievement of those deadlines depended upon the ability of American industry and government to stimulate the development of the technological breakthroughs necessary to do the cleanup job, but we set the deadlines notwithstanding those uncertainties because at the same time we created a National Study Commission whose job it is, under that law, to examine the possibilities, to tell us what the problems are, and to lay them out for us before those deadlines arrive, so that we can decide whether or not what we required of the American people in last year's law is achievable in 1977, 1983, and 1985.
For that purpose, the Congress authorized $15 million for a 2-year study. The administration has asked for that full $15 million to be appropriated this year. The commission has been created, headed by Governor Rockefeller of New York, made up of distinguished people, who also urged that the full amount be appropriated. The committee rejected the recommendation and appropriated half of that amount. The explanation in the committee report is as follows:
The committee is concerned with the possible duplication of the resources and efforts by the commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. President, there is no conflict or overlap between this commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.
We are charged to inform the Congress on the impact of the 1972 clean water legislation and are given 2 years to do it. We asked for the full $15 million at the outset because much of this work is going to have to be contracted out. Some of it may take no longer than 30 days, some of it no longer than 6 months, some of it as much as 2 years; but we would like to get it all started now.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Under the committee proposal, we must hold up half of the work until next year.
Yes, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator has burned up the remainder of the time on the bill itself, because there is no amendment pending. I wonder if he would submit an amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right. I will submit my amendment.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 37, line 18, strike "$7,500,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$14,800,000".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the amendment increases the amount from $7.5 million to $14.8 million, because the committee has received $200,000 of its appropriation in the current fiscal year. So this is the full amount that was authorized.
I would like to read, if I may, from the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Public Works (Mr. RANDOLPH) last year on this commission. He said then–
Mr. President, the impact of programs contained in S. 2770 will undoubtedly be substantial. The large amounts of the money authorizations for pollution control would alone be felt, but in addition, we are directing new approaches to the total problem which should be carefully evaluated as they are placed in operation.
The House version of S. 2770 required the National Academies of Science and of Engineering to conduct certain studies on the impact of this legislation. The Senate conferees preferred a different approach, and as a result, I offered a proposal to create a National Study Commission which was accepted by the conference. Since the goals of this legislation are to be achieved through long-range programs, I believe it is essential to maintain some surveillance over these programs, particularly since, as I have said, much that is in this legislation is new. The study commission authorized by section 315 will have congressional representation. This is extremely important for it is the Members of Congress who will have the responsibility in the years ahead to make whatever changes may become necessary in our national water pollution control program.
Since the success of our program is to a large degree dependent on existing and anticipated technologies, the National Study Commission will give its principal attention to the technological aspects of achieving the effluent limitations and goals set for 1983. It also will examine the total economic, social, and environmental effects of achieving these goals. Only by being fully informed can the Congress act when it is again called on to consider legislation in this general field. The National Study Commission will help provide the information on which to base the necessary decisions.
Mr. President, we are seeing almost every day now the consequences and the potential for disruption of our economy associated with achieving air quality and water quality goals, and these problems exist because all too often in the past we have failed to do what needed to be done at the time it needed to be done.
There was no doubt in the Congress about what we wanted this Commission to do when we created it. We wanted it to provide us with information necessary to get things moving as soon as possible. Now, what do we do? We have the Commission's requested appropriation cut in half so that we may have to postpone half our work for a full year.
We are going to spend the money. It is a question of deciding how best we can do 2 years of work, authorizing or appropriating the full amount now or delaying half of it for a year.
And it is for that reason that out of several subjects that I might have picked this afternoon, I chose this one.
This Commission has just been formed.
Governor Rockefeller organized it in May. That is why we delayed the testimony before the committee. He is assembling his staff at the present time. It will be a distinguished staff. We should provide it with the resources already authorized by the Congress.
Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine makes an eloquent case, and he always does. I would have to say in behalf of the committee that the amount which was submitted to the committee from the House of Representatives was zero. They gave them not one nickel. The administration requested $1 million. The subcommittee, on which two members of the Public Works Committee Subcommittee on the Environment were present, made no additional representation on these instances. However, because we also sensed the urgency of the matter which the Senator from Maine has pled so well, we increased the budget request 7½ times, to $7.5 million.
I simply submit it was attesting to the sense of urgency, knowing that we had to go to the House of Representatives which had provided nothing.
The Senator from Maine makes the case for congressional action.
That is why we proceeded in this fashion. We, too, have some responsibility to live up to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, at the time the House acted, the commission had not been appointed or organized. So, the House had no basis on which to act.
Mr. McGEE. But the point is that we considered this with a budget estimate of $1 million and a House allowance of zero.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand. Let me fill in the rest of the picture. The budget request was based upon that same set of circumstances. However, the circumstances changed. In May the commission was appointed. It was organized. It is working on this program. It is appointing the staff, and it needs to get started. The executive branch supports our request for the full $14.8 million from the committee. Am I misinformed on that?
Mr. McGEE. The subcommittee has received no such affirmation from the director. That is the reason behind the committee's action.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can try to get it for the Senator this afternoon. Governor Rockefeller was on the telephone, and I was present with Mr. Ash on the other end. They assured me this was the administration's position.
Mr. McGEE. This is the second time that we have heard he is going to do that. We have had reports of a forthcoming budget amendment but I have not seen any such document, yet. That is the reason for the explanation.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not the reason given here in the committee report. The reason given here is:
The committee is concerned with the possible duplication of resources and efforts by the Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.
That is entirely without justification.
Mr. President, it is evident the committee shares some of the frustrations I find in trying to get environmental appropriations up to the levels needed.
If the position of the Bureau of the Budget is not as I have stated, Mr. Ash is in difficulty with Senator MUSKIE, Governor Rockefeller, and Mr. Congressman JONES. We were assured that the letter was coming up and going to the committee.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I wonder if in the interest of saving time, we were to agree with the Senator from Maine on a figure of $10 million to get going and agree that he could perhaps get another $2.3 million later. As these things come up we could consider them later.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when will the first supplemental appropriations be up?
Mr. McGEE. It will likely be up in the early fall. However, this will at least assure that they are going full steam because it will be a relatively short period of time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would be willing to cooperate in that respect. All I want is a hearing at the right time so that the committee can get at least an exposure to our point of view.
I understand the difficulties of the committee. It is so close to the end of the fiscal year. My principal objective was to get more money. Secondly, I wanted to try to get attention. I hope that we have gotten attention. If we get more money, we can go along.
Mr. President, I modify my amendment to change the $14,800,000 to $10,000,000, with the understanding that we can consider additional amounts later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, we have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, of the Senator from Maine (putting the question).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I call the attention of the Senate to another point. The last sentence of the language which I was reading from the report states :
The commission is directed to notify this committee 30 days in advance of letting or awarding of any contracts.
That is going to be a very stultifying kind of requirement on the commission.
Mr. McGEE. If the Senator would wait just a moment, I will check that language. It is on page 50 of the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to have agreement that there be a suspension of that requirement until we can discuss that with the commission and the members of the committee later on.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the committee would be willing to amend that portion of the report and delete the last sentence which the Senator has just read.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to both the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Hawaii for this evidence of their cooperation.
I look forward to discussing the first supplemental appropriations bill with them. I think that by that time we should have specific and sufficient indication of the direction in which we are moving and the things we want to do so that we can reassure the committee as to the budgetary aspects of the matter.
I am pleased to yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. President.