October 3, 1975
Page 31715
EPA APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to discuss a legislative rider which has been attached to this bill. My purpose is to clarify what is obviously the intent of the conferees as regards amendment No. 56, which is in technical disagreement between the House and Senate. Under that amendment, the Environmental Protection Agency would be forbidden from using its funds to regulate parking as a means of achieving health related air quality through transportation control plans. There are few if any instances in which EPA funds are actually used for the direct regulation of parking. However, the purpose of the authors, as I understand it, is to bar, until the Congress has had a time to review this question, the use of EPA funds to require parking regulations as a part of transportation control plans.
Mr. President, the Senate has spent 33 days this year considering the Clean Air Act Amendments. Nineteen of those days have been devoted to the markup of comprehensive legislation amending that act. The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution which I chair intends to complete action on that legislation next week.
This provision is very temporary in nature; it only lasts until the legislation on which we are working is completed and therefore, I do not intend to move to strike the amendment, nor to reject the conference report. Funds available in this appropriation are too important to delay their enactment.
The record should indicate that it would be my preference to eliminate this amendment altogether. It is not appropriate to legislate on an appropriations bill. But in order to avoid dragging this issue out, I will reluctantly agree to this amendment subject to the understandings established in this discussion today.
The thrust of this rider provides an excellent case as to why legislation should not be attached to appropriations bills. The effect of this language is directly contrary to the obvious intent and desire of Members in this body regarding the way future clean air requirements should be developed in communities that suffer from substantial pollution as a result of motor vehicles. The inclinations of the Members, which the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution is following, is to allow greater flexibility for local communities to make these decisions.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the committee of conference resolved the ticklish issue of the Environmental Protection Agency's parking regulations by striking language approved by the House to prohibit the use of funds to regulate the review of indirect sources while retaining House parking regulation prohibition language. This language is subject to the enactment of subsequent legislation.
Mr. President, some concern has been expressed over the language which makes the parking ban prohibition subject to the enactment of future legislation. The words in question are those that apply the ban only to a program to regulate "parking that is not specifically required pursuant to subsequent legislation." It has been argued that the word "required" is too strong and should be replaced by the word "authorized." I would like to take a few moments to explain how I understand the language. This may help to allay any fears or doubts that exist over the word "required".
It is important to note that the parking regulations we are talking about would be required "pursuant to subsequent legislation" rather than specifically required by the legislation itself. In other words the Congress in its wisdom might enact legislation specifically providing a number of tools that the Environmental Protection Agency as well as States and localities could use to meet ambient air quality standards. One of those tools, and this would have to be specified in the legislation, would be parking regulations. Now this tool might not be required in all instances. But if in the judgment of the parties involved in a specific situation parking regulations were needed to meet ambient air quality standards in a given locality and that tool was made available by the authorizing legislation, the tool could be used.
Mr. President, I would prefer to avoid attaching such language to an appropriations bill. By the time the next appropriations bill providing EPA funds is considered, the Congress will have acted on amendments to the Clean Air Act. That is where this issue should be settled, and I will strongly oppose any future attempts to resolve this matter in appropriations bills.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to address several questions regarding the intent of this amendment to Senator PROXMIRE, the distinguished floor manager of this bill. First, I would like to ask the Senator whether this language is meant to only prohibit the EPA from using its own funds to administer or promulgate parking programs, and that it does not, and is not intended to prevent States from adopting and implementing their own parking program as a part of State implementation plan?
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is correct; this language does not in any way limit a State's ability to adopt and administer their own parking programs.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would States be free then to use EPA grant money to promulgate or administer their own parking program?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes; States would be eligible to use EPA grant money to promulgate and administer their own parking programs. This situation would not be considered a direct or indirect EPA administration or promulgation since the States would be implementing their own chosen and desired parking programs. While EPA may provide grant money to States for purposes related to parking, the Agency cannot require a State to implement parking controls in order to be eligible for such money. It should be noted that locally adopted parking programs are already an eligible item for section 9 grant money under the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 to develop the transportation system management element of a transportation improvement program.
Mr. MUSKIE. May the Agency continue to provide technical assistance, guidance, and so forth, to areas interested in establishing their own parking control programs?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, such assistance and guidance is not directly or indirectly, administering or promulgating any parking programs. The EPA is a source of information and knowledge on parking programs and the language is not to be interpreted so as to prevent the Agency from sharing its expertise with others.