July 22, 1974
Page 24385.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to compliment the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Environmental, and Consumer Protection. The members have produced a bill which shows once again that they are more sensitive to the environmental needs of the Nation than is the President and Office of Management and Budget.
Senator McGEE has long been a leader in environmental concerns, and his contribution is once again apparent. This, of course, could not be done without the assistance and support of the ranking Republican of the subcommittee, Senator FONG. They and the members of their subcommittee deserve great credit for the work they have done.
The Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act represent very significant attempts to achieve and maintain environmental quality in this Nation. They are regulatory statutes. They are accompanied by criminal sanctions. There is no disagreement that they have significant impact.
Senator John Sherman Cooper, then ranking member of the Committee on Public Works, observed on the Senate passage of the Clean Air Act:
I would go further to say that it may have a larger impact upon the social and economic life and health of this nation than any bill I have observed during my service in the Senate.
The Water Pollution Control Act was no less significant. As important as are these two bills, and the activities they are designed to support, we nevertheless continue to witness short funding on the part of the executive branch and the appropriation process of the Congress. This inadequate funding has seriously impaired the effectiveness of these two laws.
The needs of the Nation in environmental matters are great. Over the last few years Congress has substantially increased the environmental programs of the Federal Government. This has been based on the public outcry against environmental degradation and insistence upon actions that protect the environment from damage. The new laws we have enacted increase the responsibilities of the Federal Government, State government, and local governments. In order to match the commitments we have made, adequate funds to carry out the mandates of these laws are essential.
Within the limits of our present budgetary system, Senator McGEE's subcommittee has produced important increases in funding for essential activities of the Environmental Protection Agency. But in a different context – the context of what is really needed to do the job, not what is feasible within the President's restricted budget – in that context, the bill before us is still inadequate.
The President has never based his requests on the actual needs of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and other environmental laws. He has simply doled out small amounts of funds to keep these laws from starvation. That must be changed, and it is my hope that the newly enacted congressional budget reform procedure will go a great distance in upgrading this process.
Senator McGEE and his subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee have worked with me, my subcommittee, and staff to coordinate the yearly appropriations for EPA with the basic authorizations. I applaud Senator McGEE for this activity. And I do so in the context of very serious questions raised in the report of the House Appropriations Committee.
I would like to comment on some of the language contained in the House appropriations report. I believe it seriously misconstrues the intent of environmental laws that have been enacted by Congress, and distorts the roles assigned to standing legislative committees under the rules of both Houses.
Specifically, Mr. President, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to language in the House report. I will seek the views of Senator McGEE on this language.
On page 14 of the House Report 93-1120, the House committee directs the Environmental Protection Agency to submit to the House Committee on Appropriations a report on the environmental quality standards established under the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The report is requested so that the Committee on Appropriations can, in its words–
Determine whether or not funds should be appropriated to implement these laws and/ or regulations.
Mr. President, that represents a serious attack on the character of the activity conducted by standing legislative committees, activity related to both the enactment of laws and correlative oversight responsibilities.
I would like to point out that my Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution has conducted dozens of days of oversight hearings in the years since the enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1970. These include field hearings and continuous investigative activities involving the implementing agency, the States, and the cities as they implement this act. Similarly, since the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was enacted over the President's veto in 1972, my subcommittee has reviewed continuously the Agency's implementation.
The structure of the laws and the regulations established under those laws is the responsibility of the legislative committees of Congress. It is no more proper for an appropriations committee to use the leverage of the dollar to amend substantive requirements of organic statutes than it is for the Office of Management and Budget – especially regulatory statutes which carry civil and criminal sanctions for noncompliance.
I should like to point out that the standards which the House Appropriations Committee wants reviewed were promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures spelled out in the air
and water laws. Those promulgations are then subject to specific judicial review provisions for determination of consistency with the law. In fact, in many instances EPA rules have been subject to judicial review, including two cases which have already reached the Supreme Court.
This is the normal way our legislative, judicial, and executive branches interplay, it is the proper way. To inject the appropriations process in the implementation of substantive regulatory law is improper.
At another point in its report the House committee attempts to interpret the legal character of Federal pollution control requirements under the Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Control Act.
Specifically, the House committee attempts to interpret national environmental standards as maximum levels of control rather than as minimum levels. Mr. President, these matters have long been the subject of discussion within the Committee on Public Works and the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution as it has developed Federal pollution control statutes.
I can report to you that the two acts have resolved the question of whether Federal standards represent minimums and in every instance, except for specific exceptions for such things as the mobile source/automobile provisions and the aircraft emission standards under the Clean Air Act, the States are specifically provided with authority to establish more restrictive environmental standards than Federal standards.
In many instances the States are, in fact, encouraged to at least consider standards more restrictive than the Federal standards. This authority is authority which the States have requested.
We have honored that request. The interpretation rendered by the House Appropriations Committee in its report is directly contrary to these provisions of law and can only serve to obfuscate matters. They can serve no useful purpose, and are likely to increase the divisiveness and controversy that surrounds implementation of provisions to protect the quality of the environment of the American people. That can hardly satisfy any objective of the House committee.
Senator McGEE and I and the members of our two committees and staffs have worked closely together to apprise each other of information drawn from carrying out our respective responsibilities. In this manner the legislative committee is able to inform the Appropriations Committee of the areas where the agency is in greatest need of appropriation assistance and the Appropriations Committee is able to advise the legislative committee of those areas in which the agency is spending moneys in the most effective manner. This is the relationship between appropriation and legislative activities that underlies the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.
We must seek to protect the distinction between the two committees, and I am glad that Senator McGEE has sought to clarify the nature of the appropriation process relative to the substantive requirements of EPA. Certainly the interpretations of the Clean Air Act as contained in the House report carry no basis in law.
I would like to comment upon some of the appropriation increases and other actions taken by the Senate Appropriations Committee. These actions are sound improvements in the bill and its legislative history.
One of the more serious limitations placed on the implementation of environmental laws has been the imposition of manpower ceilings on the Environmental Protection Agency. At the present time the limitation on the agency is 9,200 personnel. Yet, every time my committee reviews the performance of the agency in a particular area, the standard refrain is that EPA lacks the manpower and resources to carry out the acts as they were intended to be carried out. Consequently, we do not see regulations and investigations on vinyl chloride or sulfates in air pollution control because of the failure to apply sufficient manpower to perform the work necessary to protect the American people from direct health hazards.
The bill that is presently before the Senate as a result of Senator McGEE'S efforts carries additional manpower provisions. I cannot understate the importance of providing this additional manpower to the Environmental Protection Agency. For instance July 1, 1974, marks the date upon which unleaded gasoline had to be available nationwide for use in model year 1975 cars which will be sold this fall. In order to assure that the regulatory aspects of this program are conducted properly, it is necessary to provide EPA with at least 50 additional personnel to supervise this program.
One of the most significant results of the research to date on catalytic converters and other sources of air emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil fuel is the threat to health presented by sulfates which could result from these emission sources. The evidence is sufficient to establish that sulfates are a health hazard and it is probable that sulfates should be the subject of a primary national ambient air quality standard necessary to protect public health. Yet, the agency has insufficient manpower and resources to carry out this activity. I recommended increases here when I testified before the subcommittee, and I am happy to see that the bill before us would apply 25 additional people to this area of activity from the increased energy funds appropriated.
I am sure all Senators have read recently of the carcinogenic hazards of vinyl chloride. In part because of manpower limitations, the Agency was forced to seek voluntary compliance in the reduction of emissions of this substance. Voluntary compliance was sought because EPA was unable to give sufficient attention to the research and development aspects of vinyl chloride.
Additional manpower is necessary and should be assigned from increased manpower provided in this bill.
The entire air pollution control program rests on the quality of the monitoring system established by EPA and the States. The present monitoring program is not sufficient to support the regulatory program in a manner that the American people should expect. Part of this insufficiency is the result of inadequate manpower. As a result of the consultation between my subcommittee and Senator McGEE's subcommittee, the bill before us would add 40 additional persons in the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out this activity.
The water pollution control program is no less hindered than the air pollution control program. Many people are dependent upon EPA action and decisions in the conduct of their business and in the conduct of municipal administration. Permit processing, construction grant processing, and monitoring are all prerequisites to effective water pollution control programs. These, however, are all constrained by failure of the administration to apply sufficient personnel to carry out these activities effectively. The bill before us would allot 150 additional people to this activity.
Congress cannot enact important regulatory legislation if it is not prepared to attach to that regulatory legislation the necessary resources which are required to execute that authority. Manpower is a significant component of these resources. It is absolutely essential that the Agency be properly staffed to carry out its very important responsibilities.
The Senate committee has recommended $176.7 million for research and development for EPA. Both the Senate and the House committee recommendations are almost $10 million over the President's budget request in this area. In addition, there are funds in the energy portion of EPA's budget for health effects research. As I have mentioned, one of the key areas for the use of both of these categories of funds is in the development of a national ambient air quality standard for sulfates.
The Senate committee has also increased funds for grants to States under air and water programs. This $12.5 million increase in each of these categories will help to provide badly needed manpower additions in State programs. This action directly negates the suggestion of the Office of Management and Budget to phase out grants to States for pollution control programs, but it is consistent with a recently reported recommendation of the EPA Administrator to maintain Federal support grants.
As I noted in my testimony before the Senate Appropriation's subcommittee, I became aware earlier this year of a letter by Fred Malek of the Office of Management and Budget to Russell Train dated February 4, 1974, indicating that the Agency must phase out its aid to State programs.
This was a very irresponsible suggestion and one that has met almost unanimous opposition throughout the States and in Congress. I hope the action of the Senate committee, which I believe will be approved by the conference committee, will finally lay to rest any attempt by the Office of Management and Budget to restrict these programs. Instead, States must be given further assistance. I compliment Senator McGEE and his subcommittee for the action taken in this area.
Mr. President, the money we allocate to Federal programs often is the best test of our commitment. In Congress, we have made a substantial commitment to environmental protection programs. The budgetary resources have not yet closed the gap between the commitments in our laws and the funding needed to support those commitments. I again compliment the Senator from Wyoming for the diligence and sensitivity he has shown in this area. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
First of all, on behalf of myself and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works, Senator RANDOLPH, and the committee, I want to take this opportunity to compliment the Senate Appropriations subcommittee. The members have produced a bill which shows, once again, that they are more sensitive to the environmental needs of the Nation than is the President and the Office of Management and Budget. Senator McGEE has long been a leader in environmental concerns, and his contribution is once again apparent. This, of course, could not be done without the assistance and support of the ranking Republican of the subcommittee, Senator FONG. They and the members of their subcommittee deserve great credit for the work they have done, and I express my appreciation.
I wish to focus, Mr. President, an two questions related to this bill and the House committee report, which I have discussed in advance with Senator McGEE, and which narrows the issue to a point that I think needs to be covered on the floor of the Senate. I would like to address that question to Senator McGEE concerning his views of the House language on page 14 of the House report, which attempts to require that the Environmental Protection Agency submit the report described by the House committee. Is the Senator satisfied with the oversight responsibility conducted by the legislative committee, in this case the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, and the materials and information which have been generated pursuant to that activity?
Mr. McGEE. I say to the distinguished Senator from Maine, who has been literally a pioneer in this body in this exciting, very difficult, and complex new area, that his activities as chairman of that subcommittee in the past year have been exceedingly astute and sharp and on target.
I want to say, also, that he has made it a special point to stay in touch with the Appropriations Committee at all points along the line. It would be my judgment that he has, in a very commendable way, lived up to the oversight responsibilities with which his committee is burdened.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator.
May I at this point take the opportunity to express my regret to Senator FONG for one occasion earlier this year when communications did break down. It was probably as much my responsibility as his, and it led to what I have come to regard as an unfortunate incident on the floor of the Senate. The issue was resolved in the way I wanted it resolved, but that is not the point. I should like to make clear this afternoon my appreciation of what I think is a harmonious and constructive rapport between the subcommittee headed by these two distinguished Senators and my own.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, the matter has been resolved, and we are working together very cooperatively.
Mr. McGEE. I would hope that the record would show that that was a breakdown in communications that had no relation to the Post Office Department. It is refreshing to find that here is one item, at least, that we cannot blame on the Postal Service.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the two distinguished Senators.
I now come to my other question. I should like to point out that the standards which the House Appropriations Committee wants reviewed were promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures spelled out in the air and water laws. Those promulgations are then subject to specific judicial review provisions for determination of consistency with the law. In fact, in many instances EPA rules have been subject to judicial review, including two cases which have already reached the Supreme Court.
This is the normal legislative, judicial, and executive branches interplay ; it is the proper way. To inject the appropriations process in the implementation of substantive regulatory law is improper, in my judgment. Does the Senator from Wyoming agree?
Mr. McGEE. Yes. It is the Senator from Wyoming's judgment that that is a correct and proper and important phrasing of the position. The appropriating process, as the Senator from Wyoming envisages it, is to allocate the funds and to that extent has discretion in terms of the total amount, but it does not involve the basic prerogative of authorizing, by withholding or in some other devious manner. Although, that question, I am sure, was beaten around rather badly during the earlier debates on the war question and that sort of thing, when everyone kept saying, "You have the appropriating process and you can cut off the funds." But if we had cut off all funds, it would have been, in effect, legislating then.
As the Senator appreciates, historically, it is a tough question. It is particularly tough when one is developing important new areas of crisis decisions. Certainly, one of those important areas is in the whole new spectrum of the environment and the consequence of its neglect. That is why it is very necessary that we spell out legislative intent and the procedure here, so that we do not forfeit the horrendous implications of the neglect otherwise of the environmental question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. McGEE. I yield 30 seconds from the time of the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. FONG. Yes.
Mr. McGEE. I still have some time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have undertaken to identify the positive contributions which the Senator's subcommittee has made to enhance the appropriations available to the Environmental Protection Agency, to enable them to achieve their objectives. I wanted to do that in order to highlight the contribution made by the subcommittee to the important work of the Environmental Protection Agency. I again express my personal appreciation.