May 7, 1974
Page 13515
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1974
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, I think that I should take some time now to outline the history of the legislation which leads us to the issue we have before us this morning.
In the first place, I would like to commend the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, my good friend, for pressing the interests of his constituents not only because that is his responsibility but also because their problem raises a question for legitimate legislative consideration in this national forum of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress.
Let me, if I may, briefly outline the history of the provision which has caused the Senator from Rhode Island such great concern. Prior to 1966, Mr. President, no provision was made under any Federal program for the use of Federal funds to deal with the treatment of industrial wastes.
The waste treatment program which had been originated in 1956, in the legislation of that year, dealt with municipal wastes and provided for Federal funding of some portion of the cost of municipal waste treatment plants. There was no provision, I repeat, prior to 1966 to have the building of waste treatment plants with Federal money deal with industrial wastes.
In the 1966 act, it seemed to us that it might be useful to experiment with the construction of combined municipal-industrial waste treatment plants with a view to dealing with the problems of smaller communities, perhaps even larger communities, and benefitting from the economies of scale. So the 1966 act did authorize the initiation of that kind of limited program. There was no provisions for repayment of the Federal share of the cost of constructing such plants. To the extent that they were planned and built, they were built with the Federal share without any requirement for repayment.
Let us review the implications of that. Under the 1966 act the Federal share of the cost of constructing municipal waste treatment plants ranged from 30 percent of the cost to a maximum of 55 percent.
The percent of the Federal share depended, first, on the extent to which States contributed to the cost of construction, and to the extent to which plants were built in accordance with regional planning requirements, and to the extent to which plants met water quality requirements. So the range of Federal support was between 30 and 55 percent of the cost.
If the plant included provisions for dealing with industrial wastes, there was a requirement under Federal regulations that the portion of the cost of Federal construction that related to industrial wastes should be repaid insofar as the local share of the cost was concerned. In other words, if a plant were built costing a million dollars, to use a number, if the Federal share of the cost of construction were 30 percent, and if there were no State matching program, then the local proportion of the cost would be 70 percent, or $700,000.
If a portion of the capacity of that plant were constructed to deal with industrial wastes in that community, then that industry was required to repay to the community its portion of the cost of the local share for building, in that industrial capacity. There was no requirement that the Federal share of 30-percent, or $300,000, should be paid in any way by the local government, by the State government, or by the Federal Government.
In the 1972 act, we were confronted with a greatly expanded Federal waste treatment program. We were confronted with the need, if that program were to get off the ground, to increase the Federal share. We were also interested in stimulating the use of the combined industrial-Federal waste treatment in the best way we could. The Federal share was increased from a range of 25 to 75 percent across the board. That was an enormous Federal commitment, representing the spending of billions upon billions of Federal dollars into the future.
That commitment had not been made because of the impoundment of funds by the President and the failure of Congress to overcome that decision of the President – which is still pending in the courts, I might add – so the commitment has not been made, and the commitment will not be there until such time as the impoundment decision has been made.
We still have the maximum 75-percent cost of construction for waste treatment facilities, greatly reducing the local responsibility and the State responsibility, and representing billions upon billions of dollars.
We felt that, inasmuch as we had thus increased the Federal commitment to build plants, we needed to review some of the other provisions of the 1966 law, so we provided with respect to building industrial waste capacity into municipal plants that the Federal share of the cost should be repaid to the Federal Government, at no interest. The Federal share of the cost should be repaid, and that repayment should be made under the system of user fees that were mandated in the law, and which applies not only to industrial users, but also to individual users, to small users, to all users. In other words, the user charge system was not directed to industry, but was directed to all users as a way of cutting the enormous investment requirement to put these enormous waste treatment plants on a sound fiscal basis, and to provide the reserves necessary to expand the waste treatment facilities as the population grew, as the problem grew, and so on. In other words, we wanted to build a sound economic basis which would insure, first, that we would catch up with the backlog, but would also build into the program a means for keeping our plants current and relevant to the growing problem which was sure to come.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield.
Mr. PASTORE. What the Senator is talking about is the act passed in October 1972. Am I correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. PASTORE. That act would require that the EPA substitute certain guidelines. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. PASTORE. Those guidelines were not instituted as of February 28. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. PASTORE. Our people filed on February 6 under existing law. They could have granted this money to the city of Woonsocket before February 28, which would have been absolutely legal, would it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. I was about to touch that point.
Mr. PASTORE. All right. I hope the Senator will touch that point.
The point I am making, if the Senator will permit – and I do not want to trespass too much on his time – is that the city of Woonsocket had no other alternative but to do what it did; and if the EPA would have granted that money before February 28, I would not be here this morning, speaking about it, and would have spared the Senator the trouble of making the statement he is making now.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall get to the point. I wanted to give the history, so that we might minimize the number of questions that might be raised.
I have described the provisions of the 1972 law. Why did we not provide for Federal funds without repayment of the industrial waste treatment capacity that was built into the municipal plants anywhere in the country? Obviously, that kind of open door would have more than doubled the Federal commitment. The act in 1972 provided a total of $24 billion of Federal money, $18 billion of it to fund the Federal portion of building waste treatment facilities. We simply did not feel that we could recommend to Congress a program involving a Federal commitment that would have included the total cost of building into every municipal waste treatment plant the treatment of industrial waste where that treatment would be compatible. We estimated that the additional cost would have been $9 billion. So we did not build it in. It was the sheer numbers that dictated our judgment. Since we were faced with the problem of moving from one policy, under the 1966 act, to a new policy, under the 1972 act, obviously we were confronted with the problem of a cutoff date. We were changing the policies and had to have a cutoff date somewhere.
There was some disagreement between the House and the Senate. The House wanted a date later than March 1, 1973. We wanted an earlier date than that. But we finally agreed on March 1, 1973, as the cutoff date. Of course, that cutoff date was public knowledge as of the date which Congress passed the legislation, which was in the fall of 1972.
We passed the bill, and the President vetoed it in October of 1972. So the cutoff date was public knowledge as of the time we overrode the veto. As of that time, many communities undertook to begin the processing of their applications for planning projects in order to get them in before the cutoff date of March 1. I think that the EPA was remiss in not getting the regulations promulgated before February 28, 1973.
Its failure to do so created real problems, not just for Woonsocket, R.I., but for Fort Fairfield, Maine, and some other communities in my State and throughout the country.
So there was a hardship created. You always have it when you have cutoff dates set by law. But we saw no alternative to writing in a cutoff date.
Now with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island: In the .first place, I am concerned about writing this legislation on an appropriation bill. Appropriation bills have been used in the other body for at least a year as a way to write in legislation to undercut the Clean Air Act, and I am sure that efforts will be made this year to use it for the same purpose. I do not like, by this action, to set a precedent for using that route to amend environmental laws. That causes me some concern.
Second, with respect to the specific language of the Senator's amendment, which obviously has been carefully written in response to the dimensions of the problem of Woonsocket, we are not sure what the implications of this amendment would be, how many projects would be covered, and so on.
In April of this year, I wrote to Mr. Russell Train, the Administrator of EPA, asking for information that would have given me the basis for analyzing the Senator's amendment. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
April 25, 1974.
Hon. RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ADMINISTRATOR: The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution is in the process of evaluating EPA's implementation of the Federal construction grant program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P. L. 92-500).
Section 204(a) of the Act lists six determinations which the Administrator shall make before approving grants for any project for any treatment works under section 201 (g) (1). One of these determinations is "... that the size and capacity of such works relate directly to the needs to be served by such works including sufficient reserve capacity."
To enable the Subcommittee in its evaluation of the environmental effects and the cost- effectiveness of the Federal grant program, I would like the following information for every grant that has been made under section 201(g)(1) of P. L. 92-500:
1. Identification of the treatment needs (in terms of million gallons per day) for (a) industrial users and (b) non-industrial users existing at the time the grant was awarded.
2. Identification of the reserve capacity in the grant for (a) industrial users and (b) non-industrial users (to be expressed as a percentage of the needs identified in (1) above).
3. The ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the existing population to the future population to be served by the publicly owned treatment works.
4. The target date for the reserve capacity.
5. Identification of the:
(a) Location of project (city and State).
(b) Size of grant (dollars).
(c) Date of grant.
I would like to receive this information by May 20. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Jim Readle of the staff of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution
Mr. MUSKIE. But to my amazement, the information is not available. It could not be made available for this morning, so we do not know how many projects across the country might be triggered by the Senator's amendment. I think we ought to know this because the total dollar cost ought to be a matter of record before Congress acts on such an important amendment. The best that I could get from EPA this morning – and I have received this letter just a few minutes ago; I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD – in effect is a report on that proportion of the waste treatment plants across the country that are usually treated as a part of the industrial waste problem. That proportion, I gather, is about 20 percent, but that figure does not give us much to work on.
There being no objection, "the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Senate Public Works Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: In response to your telephone request of May 6, I am pleased to furnish the following information which I hope will be useful to you. You requested to know the amount of monies that would be foregone to the U.S. Treasury if the requirement for industrial cost recovery were waived for all municipalities who had applications for grants into the Environmental Protection Agency before March 2, 1973.
In order to obtain this figure the following methodology was used:
(a) The percentage of industrial use for these municipal plants was considered to be the same as the national average which was generated by last year’s Needs Survey. The Survey showed that 20 percent of the municipal use was attributable to industry.
(b) As stated in regulations, 50 percent of the monies generated by cost recovery reverts to the U.S. Treasury, the other 50 per cent remains for local use.
(c) All municipalities who had grants filed with EPA before March 2 are included even though a later grant has been made. This method was used since these municipalities could also request that their grants be reconsidered.
The total amount of grants that fall within this category is approximately $342,000,000. Using the methodology as outlined above, the approximate amount that might be foregone to the U.S. Treasury by the waiver of this portion of the grants from cost recovery would be $34,200,000.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT G. RYAN,
Director, Office of Legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. In addition, I have received from EPA a list of the projects applications for which were pending on March 2, 1973. There are listed some 38, plus a possible additional 6. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
LIST OF PROJECTS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BY REGION FOR CONSIDERATION FOR A STEP III GRANT PRIOR TO MAR. 2, 1973
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. The problem is that there is no indication as to which of those projects include industrial pollution.
The total additional cost of those projects is $176 million, so obviously we are talking about a figure that is of some significance.
The third point I would like to make this morning, and then I will yield for whatever questions I may be asked, is that the Pastore amendment undertakes to write into the policy of the clean water law a hardship basis for providing Federal funding.
There is no hardship basis in present environmental law. There is in other legislation which comes before the full Committee on Public Works. The Economic Development Act, the Land Area Redevelopment Administration, and the disaster relief legislation that comes out of our committee have such a basis, so our committee is concerned with that problem. The Appalachia legislation came out of our committee. We are concerned about the matter in the work of our committee, but never before have we written into the environmental laws a hardship basis for environmental funding. I think before we write that into the law, we ought to have hearings to develop a rational basis for implementing such legislation.
Therefore, I would like to suggest to the Senate, first, that this matter be dropped from this bill, and that we on the Public Works Committee commit ourselves to hold hearings. I am not sure that we can hold them within 10 days, but it will not be our purpose to delay; second, that we take testimony not only with respect to the problem of Woonsocket and other communities in like situations, but also with respect to other proposals to write into this whole program a hardship basis for funding, and other possible solutions.
I have discussed this matter with the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) who is chairman of our Public Works Committee, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), the ranking Republican on the full committee, and the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), the ranking Republican on the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, and they are all sympathetic with the Senator's problem. They are all interested and willing to do whatever we can, with as little delay as possible, to deal with the problem, to hold hearings, to consider it, to discuss it, and to try to develop an answer for it. I make that commitment, and am delighted to do so.
At this point I yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for yielding. As the ranking Republican member on the committee, I am more than happy, in fact I enthusiastically
endorse the proposal that we have early, thorough, and effective hearings on this very delicate subject that has been brought to our attention by the diligent, industrious, and distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
It has been a matter of some interest to me to follow the description of the evolution and development of the environmental legislation with which we are concerned, as it was outlined by the Senator from Maine, and then to see the unintended consequences, in effect, that were described by the Senator from Rhode Island.
Such a result is not untypical of the legislative experience, however. We do our best, and then we find we have not picked up all the stitches, and there are genuine problems that we had not anticipated and that must be accounted for.
This problem falls into that category. The basis for providing an economic hardship test is one, if my memory serves me, that we did think of and rejected as we wrote up the several pieces of environmental legislation that make up the body of our effort in that regard. But that does not mean we should not consider it, and I am willing now to assure the Senator from Rhode Island, as the senior Republican on the committee, that we will consider the whole range of suggestions and ideas, and will look forward, most assuredly, to his observations on how we can take care not only of this problem, but others similar to it which may arise throughout the country.
I think the Senator from Rhode Island has done us all a great favor by bringing this matter to our attention, and I thank him for his agreement not to pursue his efforts on this appropriation bill.
He is very eloquent and persuasive, and his efforts might succeed. I think his willingness not to pursue it, but to hold hearings in the Public Works Committee, is testimony to his respect for our institutions and his confidence in this body.
I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield now to the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has very properly used his time to sketch the background of the Clean Water Act and amendments which bear directly on modification of industrial user charge requirements under which projects could be eligible for assistance. I quickly commend the able Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) for once again speaking so eloquently and effectively .about something that concerns not only a community in his State, but many other communities throughout the country.
We have through the years developed a body of law not only on clear water and clean air but also on solid waste disposal. All of these matters have been of continuing concern to us. The subcommittee headed by the knowledgeable Senator from Maine, and all the members of the committee, have given their time to the writing of legislation which would be applicable to the Nation, its communities, and the people as a whole.
I feel that what has been said today by Senator PASTORE, Senator MUSKIE, and Senator BAKER, has not in any sense muddied the waters. We have through the colloquy clarified the situation. As chairman of the committee, I reinforce what has been said about the necessity for prompt action within the committee on this matter.
But I have some thoughts about attaching the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island to this legislation. It would be more practical to consider it in relation to legislation that is under the jurisdiction of our committee and also the Public Works Committee in the other body. I am sure we will attempt to be resourceful and creative in finding the answers to the problem of the Rhode Island community and similar problems in other parts of the country.
In Huntington, W. Va., because of this incident, we have been checking certain projects in our State. The same is true in other parts of the country.
So what has been said here has been wholesome and I am sure that it will be helpful. The committee members pledge to the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) our attention and our desire, as well as our determination, to move this matter forward.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) for his typical cooperation, understanding, and commitment to deal with this problem.
I hope that the Senator from Rhode Island will now understand this is a real promise and not a brush-off. We do want to come to grips with the matter. We do want to be helpful.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues for their cooperation in this matter. I realize that this is legislation on an appropriation bill and, for that reason, it is subject to a point of order. In order to waive rule XVI, which would require a two-thirds vote in the affirmative which, under the circumstances – because of the pleas already made – might be rather difficult to obtain, I only hope that we would do this as expeditiously as possible.
The only reason why I had it written on an appropriation bill was that I had no other vehicle to use. This is an emergency, as I have already said. This is a poor town in terms of its wealth, but it is a rich town in terms of its people and very progressive in terms of its people.
Much of this condition is concentrated within the environment of Woonsocket. We have done a tremendous job in diversifying and trying to bring in industries. We have a progressive mayor in John Cummings. He has really worked assiduously on this. He started two or three years ago. It has required a lot of planning and many conferences. It has required speaking to officials of municipalities in another State. It has required the municipalities in another State, Massachusetts, to wait for their legislatures to act. That all takes time, as we all know, the Senator from Maine in particular, having been previously a governor of his own State.
Mr. President, let me read one letter into the RECORD and I will have the other printed in the RECORD a little later, which points out dramatically exactly what the problem is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HATHAWAY). The time of the Senator from Maine has now expired. The Senator from Rhode Island has 13 minutes remaining on his own time.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I will take whatever time I may need and then will grant to my colleagues whatever time they may need to speak on this subject. I think we are nearly finished.
Here is the letter from Hanora Industries Division, First Republic Corp. of America, to Mayor John Cummings, City Hall, Woonsocket, R.I. It reads:
DEAR MAYOR: I have been advised of recent events concerning a pending matter as between the city of Woonsocket and the federal government, whereby Hanora Industries as well as other companies will be required to pay an additional assessment of approximately $10,500.00 per year towards the improvement of the sewerage system and plant in our city.
I find this news both shocking and disturbing. Hanora Industries is currently paying $125,000.00 in real estate and machinery taxes to the city of Woonsocket. The tax burden at the present time is enormous. Our company is presently enduring severe economic hardship. We are incurring enormous operating losses as a result of extremely poor conditions in the textile industry.
As a result of these poor business conditions–
And this is important–
– we have recently laid off 135 employees.
Any additional assessments in our local tax structure by the city or the federal government, directly or indirectly, would create an untenable economic hardship. I look for every assistance possible from your office to deter and eliminate any proposed increase or additional taxes.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
BERNARD TURRET,
President.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from Alan E. Symonds, chairman, Quincy Dye Works, Inc., Woonsocket, R.I., dated April 2, 1974, to Mayor John Cummings.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
QUINCY DYE WORKS, INC.,
Woonsocket, RI.,
April 2,1974.
Hon. JOHN A. CUMMINGS,
Mayor of the City of Woonsocket, R.I.
Sir: It has come to my attention that there is currently a bill before the Congressional Subcommittee on Public Works relative to a particular water pollution bill that will necessitate the construction of a new sewage treatment plant for the City of Woonsocket. It is my understanding that the cost of this sewage treatment plant will be paid for by local industry and a proration of this cost to our company will increase our tax bill by $15,266 per year. This additional charge will represent an approximate 100% increase over our present annual tax charges.
While one cannot dispute the value of pollution abatement and while this company itself spent substantial sums of money a few years ago for this very purpose, we certainly are not prepared for any additional tax charges of the amount contemplated. With the continuing and dramatic increases in costs of raw material and labor in an industry which is particularly being hard hit with the current economic crunch, we would appreciate your passing along to the proper authorities our opposition to this plan for the indefinite future.
Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
ALAN E. SYMONDS,
Chairman.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that this is a serious situation. I am appealing to my colleagues to use their best judgment, to be compassionate in achieving some kind of solution for those municipalities where it would be disastrous to insist that in order to clean the water we must create widespread unemployment.
I know the compassion of my colleague from Maine, and also my colleagues from West Virginia and Tennessee, and I would hope that we would not wait too long before we resolve this
problem.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I give the Senator from Rhode Island my commitment on that.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is it in order now to make the point of order we have been discussing?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it would be in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then, I make the point of order.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, in view of the commitment, I shall not proceed with the notice I have already placed on the desk to ask for the suspension of rule XVI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. This amendment obviously is legislation on appropriation bills, and under rule XVI it is not in order. It is, therefore, stricken from the bill.
[Intervening unrelated action omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine such time as he may require.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the point of order that I previously raised cover only the following language:
From line 14, page 3, through line 11, page 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.