December 21, 1973
Page 43119
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when the supplemental appropriations bill was on the floor of the Senate December 12, I proposed an amendment to delete language that was designed to restrict the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to administer programs that would regulate parking facilities. This amendment was accepted by the manager of that portion of the supplemental appropriations bill, Mr. McGEE. However, in conference, the House provision prevailed and the conference report includes the restrictive language contained in the House bill.
I oppose the language in this conference report for many reasons, but I do not intend to delay the passage of the appropriations measure. This is primarily because the language has no real effect, since there are no funds in this supplemental appropriations bill for EPA's programs that regulate parking facilities. The only EPA funds in this supplemental appropriation are for research and development.
I do want to make a very clear record about the inappropriateness of the attempt to legislate on an appropriations bill. This is an issue that falls within the jurisdiction of the appropriate legislative committees of Congress. I made this point at the time my amendment was accepted during Senate action on this legislation. I promised at that time that this matter would be considered carefully by the Senate Public Works Committee.
As a demonstration of that pledge, I can now report that the emergency energy bill, which will be on the floor later today, contains language that would satisfy the objectives of those who originally proposed the amendment to the supplemental. The emergency energy legislation carries a provision that suspends the authority of EPA to impose a parking surcharge upon States and localities. Many other parking management activities have been delayed to allow further congressional consideration of these measures. So I believe we have clearly demonstrated that the appropriate legislative committees can and will carry out their responsibilities in this area. I hope that in the future, appropriations bills will not become the vehicle for further attempts to deal with questions that properly belong to the legislative committees of Congress.
In further clarification of this matter, I would point out that my judgment of the effect of the language in this supplemental on EPA's activities is shared by the Members of the House of Representatives who have responsibility for legislation governing EPA's activities. When Mr. LEGGETT offered his amendment on the House floor on November 30, Mr. ROGERS and Mr. WHITTEN both agreed that the amendment would have no real effect on EPA's legal authority or its regulatory program funds. Let me quote from that floor debate:
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Leggett: Page 2, immediately after line 9, insert the following new paragraph–
No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any program to tax limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities.
Mr. ROGERS. This section does not provide for money to apply to the parking problem. It is simply for research on different matters. So I do not think it is germane; but nevertheless, I understand the gentleman's concern. Our committee, too, is concerned and I believe it should be appropriately raised in the legislative committee.
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak for the committee, but I have no objection to this amendment. I agree that the funds in this particular section are not for this purpose. In this particular section, the funds are for the purpose of additional research to obtain answers that the EPA should have had long before they issued lots of orders which they have issued.
Mr. Chairman, I might also say that in the report and in the action of the Congress, we directed that hereafter the agency, EPA, give us the benefit of findings by themselves before taking such type action. While the money here is not for that purpose, I think it is well that this amendment be adopted here so as to serve notice to EPA to get back to its primary purpose, and if present law gives them any claimed authority such as they are attempting to enforce in the way of parking tax as that the Administration be smart enough not to attempt such action.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that there is no reason not to adopt this amendment since the funds do not go to it anyhow and it is an expression of our concern, but I do not think it has any legislative effect.
The distinguished Senator from Wyoming and I have discussed this matter extensively. I appreciate his cooperation and his assurance that the language in this supplemental will not have any binding impact. I look forward to working with him in the future on matters dealing with the funding of EPA's programs and know that he carries a strong commitment to the goals these programs seek to reach.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, in response to the senior Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), I assure him that we have made no attempt to legislate on this supplemental appropriation bill, as I understand the situation. The language, in my opinion, is simply a limitation on the use of the specific EPA funds contained in this particular bill. As such, this limitation is well within the rules and procedures of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate.
There can be no question, however, but that the language in question will have but a limited effect. It is clear from the language itself that it limits only the funds provided to the EPA in this bill. It makes no attempt to reach back and limit funds provided in prior appropriations bills, nor does it attempt to restrict or limit any funds which might be provided in future appropriations bills.
The EPA funds in this bill were requested and provided for specific and definite research areas. I am certain that EPA fully intends to utilize them for the purposes for which they were requested, justified and appropriated. EPA has advised that this limitation will not cause them any problems for the balance of this fiscal year or during the life of this supplemental.
If there are any attempts to include this limitation, or any others on appropriations bills in the future, those matters would have to be considered on the merits and after a consideration of all appropriate issues at that time.
Mr. President, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and I discussed this on the floor of the Senate a few days ago. At that time, he made certain assurances on his own behalf and on behalf of the legislative committee. As he pointed out in his remarks, he made good on that commitment and, I might add, in great haste. As I recall, he promised to have this matter considered by the proper legislative committee early next year. He expedited that timetable considerably and, in fact, the action he promised is contained in the emergency energy bill which will be considered later today. I commend the gentleman from Maine for this, and I want to assure him that I look forward to working with him on these environmental and related matters in the future.