July 29, 1975
Page 25687
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in due course I shall move to table this amendment, but I certainly do not want to cut off any debate in which Senators may desire to engage.
I would make two observations about it, at the outset. First, there is an ample record which demonstrates that population as a basis for distribution of waste treatment funds is also inequitable, and unrelated to the real needs of the States. That is why, in the 1972 law, Congress changed, at the initiative of the House of Representatives, the basis for distributing these funds, in an effort to establish a "needs" basis.
That has not been an easy task to perform, and we are in the middle of it. I must say, Mr. President, the floor of the Senate is no place to monkey with that effort. If we were to try to write a tax measure of that complication on the floor of the Senate, some of those who support this amendment would rise up in rage. The committee process has been established to deal with these kinds of complicated problems.
This amendment was introduced in March of this year. I understand the impatience of its sponsors, but they have been informed that the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution has this matter on its agenda for consideration later this year. But their impatience will not permit them to wait.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will yield on the Senator's time.
Mr. 'TALMADGE. As the Senator knows, EPA is getting ready to allocate these funds. We are getting ready to go off on a 30-day recess, and by the time we get back some and perhaps a lot of the funds will be allocated under the old formula. That is the necessity for moving now.
Mr. MUSKIE. I point out to the Senator that of the $9 billion this formula touches, only $100 million has been obligated to date. It is not being obligated that fast. It cannot be spent that fast.
As a matter of fact, the Senator himself made the point that he has a save harmless clause that applies to contracts that have been let.
Mr. TALMADGE. Only the District of Columbia has commitments greater than the funds it would be allocated under my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish? Of the contracts that have been entered into, only one State is affected by the save-harmless clause, let me say to the Senator.
Mr. TALMADGE. But we are going on recess.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that many States are affected unfavorably by his amendment.
Mr. TALMADGE. Seventeen.
Mr. MUSKIE. Many States are effected unfavorably by this amendment, and I will get into those.
Mr. TALMADGE. And 33 favorably.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
That is no reason, I submit to the Senator from Georgia, to monkey with this kind of a complicated formula in the Chamber of the Senate.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I am going to finish my case. I did not interrupt the Senator.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I would hope the Senator would yield to me.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I will yield to the Senator from Rhode Island, who would be hurt by the Talmadge-Nunn amendment.
Mr. PASTORE. Rhode Island is being crucified.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. PASTORE. Look. Take a look at this. Here we are. We have the largest unemployment in the United States of America, poor little State of Rhode Island, the largest unemployment in the United States of America. What are they doing? Georgia is doing very well. We support — oh, Georgia is doing fine.
Mr. NUNN. About 9 percent.
Mr. PASTORE. Georgia is doing fine. They have a mixed economy. We support a lot of the products from Georgia.
The consumers of Rhode Island sustain them.
Look what is being done.
Georgia goes from $117.8 million up to $199 million.
What is done to poor little Rhode Island? What do you do to poor little Rhode Island? From $45.6 million you bring me down to $37.8 million. If you do not call that crucifixion, I would like to know what you call it.
Here we are. We are the most oppressed State in the Union, and the Senator is coming out with a formula here where he is going to cut the legs right from under us. How unfair can he be?
I am telling the Senator that we support tobacco, we support grain, we support cattle, we support everything under the sun, and then when it comes to a little thing like this, a miserable $45.6 million he wants to cut us down. He wants to cut us down.
What does he do for himself? He gives himself a nice big bonus.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may continue with presenting the merits of the case before it becomes cluttered by the rhetoric, which is just bubbling under the surface, first of all, Mr. President, I say that this amendment is not germane to the pending legislation. There must be some procedure in the Senate, although I must say it is lost in our proceedings these days.
Second, it is legislation on which no hearings have been held. Its implications have not been examined thoroughly.
Third, it is wholly contrary to the commitment made by the leadership of the Committee on Public Works to the Administrator of EPA at the time he allocated the long impounded $9 billion in water pollution funds.
Mr. President, the Committee on Public Works worked diligently to obtain release of the impounded water pollution funds. We assisted and supported the litigation which finally resulted in the Supreme Court decision of February 18, 1975, that the impoundment was, in fact, illegal.
We then strongly urged the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to allocate those moneys immediately among the States in order to accomplish the dual objectives of cleaning up our Nation's waterways and creating employment.
At the time we urged the Administrator to allocate these funds, we gave him a personal commitment that we would resist any effort to reallocate these funds.Our commitment was based on an understanding that allocation of these funds would immediately trigger planning by States and communities as to how best to expend these moneys to achieve the greatest benefit.
We knew that the water pollution control program had been plagued by delay. It had been disrupted by changes in policy and regulation. We knew that with adequate funds available, States and communities could begin to plan to make the commitments that would be necessary to fulfill the objectives of the program.
Thus we were prepared to agree with the Administrator on the importance of making these allocations and maintaining these allocations in the way they were originally intended.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, a copy of the letter Senator RANDOLPH and I sent to Russell Train, urging prompt allocation of the funds according to the formula in existence by law at the time of the impoundment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency precisely obeyed the law when he allocated these funds. He made them available to States and communities on the same basis they would have been made available had they not been impounded. States and communities have a legal entitlement to these funds. They earned that entitlement on the basis of the allocation formula established in the law. The Nunn-Talmadge amendment would propose to remove from some and give to others an entitlement which the 1972 law promised.
Of more serious concern, Mr. President, is the potential for new delay and disruption the Nunn-Talmadge amendment would create. Communities and States which are moving forward with plans to construct municipal waste treatment facilities will now stop. They will wait to see whether this amendment becomes law, and they will have to wait to see if the moneys which they were expecting will now be withheld.
Plans that are pending before State agencies and regional EPA offices will be withdrawn.
Jobs that would have been created — and projects which would have been constructed — will be foregone.
At the same time, States and communities which were not anticipating these funds will not be able to take up the slack. Most of the States which would appear on paper to benefit from the Nunn-Talmadge amendment simply do not have the projects in the pipeline to take advantage of the dollars which they would receive. These States and communities will have to gear up to the level of activity necessary to take advantage of substantial new funds. And some of the States will never take advantage of these funds because the hearing record of the committee discloses that population represents an exaggeration of the funds they need to meet their requirements.
The population portion of the Nunn-Talmadge formula assumes a capacity to use money for projects which is unrelated to water pollution problems. It was this inadequacy of the population formula which caused us to reject population as the basis for allocation in 1972. Some States could not use the moneys that were allocated to them on the basis of population, so we chose instead to allocate funds on the basis of needs.
Mr. President, if this amendment is accepted; we will have States which will not be able to use the money because they do not have the demand, and we will have States that will not be able to use the money because they are not prepared for this new infusion of Federal funds. And then, we will have States who are fully prepared to use every penny of the available money on the basis of their anticipation of that allocation. So, on the one hand, we will have stopped progress, and on the other hand we will not be able to move forward. And the loser will be the environment and the working man who needs the job.
To underscore how disruptive this amendment is, I would like to quote Administrator Russell Train who says this:
It is desirable from a program management standpoint, as well as a program creditability standpoint, to have a stable base on which to structure our future planning. As you have pointed out, EPA, in conjunction with the State agencies, has been working to stabilize planning and implementation efforts in the construction grants program. To change the allotment formula now would hamper these efforts.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr. Train's letter be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Committee on Public Works is fully aware of the difficulties associated with current methods of allocating water pollution funds. But we are also cognizant of the fact that we must authorize additional funds for water pollution for fiscal 1977 and beyond.
We have scheduled hearings this fall to determine not only the level of authorization but also the method by which these funds are to be allocated to the States.. One of the bills which we had expected to consider was S. 1216, the legislation proposed as an amendment today by Senators NUNN and TALMADGE.
Future funds may need to be allocated on a different formula. But that is a decision that must be made in the future. We cannot make this kind of decision in relation to past funds for the reasons I have outlined above. Mr. President, I urge that the Senate join me in tabling this highly disruptive, unnecessary and untimely proposal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the conclusion of my remarks a history of the development of the "needs" formula.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
EXHIBIT 1
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
January 29, 1975.
Hon. RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ADMINISTRATOR: We were pleased to learn on Monday that the President had authorized the release of an additional $4 billion of impounded water pollution construction grant allotments. While we had hoped that the full amount of $9 billion would be released in order to expedite the water pollution control program and help stimulate the economy, we felt that the President's action was a step in the right direction.
We are now informed that your announcement of the Presidential directive does not mean these $4 billion will be immediately available for distribution to the states and obligation to projects which are ready to go.
We understand this delay results from concern as to how these monies are to be allocated among the States. This concern, however justified, will only be construed as another attempt by the Administration to slow the flow of needed funds to the construction of waste treatment facilities.
Not only is slowdown uncalled for and unjustified, it is contrary to the national interest. These funds must be released for both environmental and economic purposes.
We find no basis whatsoever for confusion as to the distribution of these funds. The 1972 law required allotment of authorized funds on a specified date by a formula established by statute.
The funds that were impounded should be allotted in accordance with the formula that was in effect at the time they were impounded. In other words, to the extent that the $4 billion is taken from authorizations for FY 1973 and FY 1974, the money must be distributed in accordance with the formula applicable to those years. If the $4 billion comes in any part of the authorization for FY 1975, then they are to be distributed in accordance with the FY 1975 allocation formula.
There is no cause for delay. There is no reason for confusion. We can only speculate that either the Agency is not satisfied with the applicable formulas and therefore wants to conjure up a new method for distribution of monies or, in fact, is intentionally delaying the distribution of obligational authority in order to accomplish unexplained economic objectives.
We hope that you will act immediately to allocate these funds.
Sincerely,.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution.
U.S. Senators.
EXHIBIT 2
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
July 8, 1975.
Hon. RUSSELL. E. TRAIN,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ADMINISTRATOR: As you know,Senators Talmadge and Nunn have introduced an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which, in part, would provide for a reallocation of the $9 billion of previously withheld construction grant funds which were ordered allocated earlier this year by the Supreme Court. The $9 billion was allocated on the basis of the formula in effect during the fiscal year in which the funds were withheld. At the time you allocated those funds, we agreed on the importance of supporting your decision to use this formula.
The proposed amendment, S. 1216, would now reallocate those funds according to a formula based 50% on the population each State bears to the total population and 50% on each State's percentage of the national total needs as expressed for categories I, II and IV-B of the most recent EPA "Needs Survey".
In order that we might fairly evaluate the implications of the amendment, we would appreciate receiving the following information:
1. The current state-by-state status of obligation of construction grant funds for each authorized fiscal year including the $9 billion assigned as FY 1976 funds. It is important to determine at what point the States will actually begin obligation of the affected $9 billion.
2. From a program management standpoint, what difficulties do you foresee in a reallocation of construction grant funds as proposed by S. 1216? This is especially relevant in light of current EPA policy to simplify and expedite the construction grant process in order to insure obligation of the total $18 billion by September 30, 1977.
3. From a program credibility standpoint, what implications do you believe would be derived from such a reallocation of funds? States and localities have complained of the lack of continuity in the grant program over the last two to three years as a result of shifting requirements, delays in promulgation of regulations and guidelines, and uncertainty of Federal funding levels. It appears that EPA, States and localities are finally moving into a relatively stable planning and implementation period which hopefully will result in a more efficient and effective construction grant program. What impact would an additional change in funding levels have on this current effort?
We understand that EPA has endorsed the concept of a 50/50 allocation formula for future allocations. The Subcommittee will carefully review that recommendation in relation to any future authorization. Our concern is addressed specifically to the proposed reallocation of currently authorized and allocated funds. Your response will provide the necessary information for an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed amendments. Because the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution may be called upon to consider this proposal in the near future, your prompt response to these questions would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
JAMES L. BUCKLEY,
Ranking Minority Member.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
U.S. Senators.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
July 23, 1975.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1975, concerning the proposed amendment, S. 1216, to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which, in part, would provide for a reallocation of the $9 billion of previously withheld construction grant funds.
As I have testified previously, the formula for allocating waste treatment construction grant funds between the States is a matter for Congressional determination, and EPA is prepared to administer the program in accordance with whatever formula is developed.However, I believe it is important to point out that a further change in the formula at this time would be disruptive to an orderly process of planning and administration.
As you know, the $9 billion was allocated on the basis of the formula in effect during the fiscal year in which the funds were withheld. One formula was used for the $6 billion FY– 73/74 funds and another formula was used for the $3 billion FY-75 funds. These funds have been available to the States for obligation since February of this year. Attachments I and II show the actual status of FY-74/75, and FY-76 funds (all FY-73 and FY-74 funds have been obligated).You will note on Attachment III that the District of Columbia has already obligated more funds under the current formula than would be available to it under S. 1216. Our most recent obligation estimates indicate that the States of Maine and Michigan will be in a. similar position this fiscal year, although neither of these states would exhaust all their funds under the current formula until FY-77.
Although only a few States have actually obligated any of the FY-76 money to date, the amount of funds available to the States has played a key role in their recent planning efforts. The FY-76 State Program Plans have just recently been submitted to EPA. These plans contain the FY-76 construction grants priority lists which are directly linked to the current State allotments. To change these allotments now would necessitate extensive revisions to the priority lists, causing concern among those municipalities dropped from the lists due to decreased funding in certain States. An analysis of the alternative funding formula shows that allotments would be decreased in 19 States centered almost completely in Regions I, II, III and V. This would cause serious delays in the program while these problems were being resolved.
It is desirable from a program management standpoint, as well as a program credibility standpoint, to have a stable base on which to structure our future planning. As you have pointed out, EPA, in conjunction with the State agencies, has been working to stabilize planning and implementation efforts in the construction grants program. To change the allotment formula now would hamper these efforts.
I will be happy to provide you with any additional information you require to evaluate the impact of this proposed amendment.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN.
EXHIBIT 3
HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF "NEEDS" FORMULA
Prior to passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.92-500), Congress based the allocation of sewage treatment facility construction grant funds to the States on various formulae. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-845), appropriated to the Federal Security Agency an annual sum of $1,000,000 each year for five years for prevention and control of water pollution caused by industrial wastes. Section 8(a) of that Act required that these sums:
Be allotted equitably and paid to the States for expenditures by or under the direction of their respective State water pollution agencies ... for expenditure for them, for the conduct of investigations, research, surveys, and studies related to the prevention and control of water pollution caused by industrial wastes.
In 1956 Congress changed the manner of grant allocation when it amended the Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 84-660). Section 6 of that Act provided for payments of 50 percent of the cost of construction of "... necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or waste into any waters." Section 6(c) made the following provisions for allocation:
The sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for any fiscal year shall be allotted by the Surgeon General from time to time ... as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such sums in the ratio that the population of each State bears to the population of all the States and (2) 50 per centum of such sums in the ratio that the quotient obtained by dividing the per capita income of the United States by the per capita income of each State bears to the sum of such quotients for all the States.
In 1965, Congress again changed the method of allocating grant money to the States when it amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P. L. 89-234) . Section 8(c) provided:
All sums in excess of $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from time to time, in accordance with regulations, in the ratio that the population of each State bears to the population of all States.
This formula remained in use until passage of the 1972 Amendments (P.L. 92-500) to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. That Act replaced the prior law's formula based on population with one that uses the actual waste treatment needs of each State. Section 205(a) provided:
Such sums shall be allotted among the States by the Administrator in accordance with regulations promulgated by him, in the ratio that the estimated cost of constructing all needed publicly owned treatment works in each State bears to the estimated cost of construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works in all of the States.
Section 205(a) reflected the House amendment to the Senate bill. This section as it passed the Senate, had provided that allocation for sewage treatment construction grants be made on the basis of population. Concerning the utility of a needs formula, the House Report on H.R. 11896 (Report No. 92-911) stated in section 205:
[The] needs formula is a sound basis for allotting funds since our experience to date clearly demonstrates that there is no necessary correlation between the financial assistance needed for waste treatment works in a given State and its population.
In that same report, the House Committee on Public Works noted that:
[A] t the present time [March 1972] there is no satisfactory estimate of the total funds required by the States for the construction of publicly owned treatment works. (Date added.)
For the fiscal years 1973 and 1974, the new law provided that the ratios used in section 205 were to be based on the estimate of needs prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency in December, 1971. For these allotments to be made for fiscal year 1975, and subsequent years, the law requires that they be made according to a revised cost estimate prepared by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The 1972 Act, therefore, became the first water pollution control legislation that connects inventories "needs" for treatment facilities and the allotment of construction grant funds.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my good friend the Senator from Tennessee, the distinguished ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Public Works, Mr. BAKER.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding.
I rise, regretfully, to oppose the amendment by the Senator from Georgia. I say that with full foreknowledge that my State of Tennessee is one of the States that, on paper, would benefit from the adoption of the amendment. It would give Tennessee about $150 million in funds instead of $107 million.
I am not unsympathetic to the importance of that nor to the need within my State. "Need" is the key and operative word. The present formula is based on need and it should not be arbitrarily based on the comparison of a tabular chart of how much money we get under this amendment or the existing law. The formula should be based on the need in terms of the amount that can be utilized effectively within plans calculated to carry out the entire program for my State and every other State in the Union. We are not dealing with a small program. This is an $18 billion program, as the result of the 1972 Act.
The needs formula was adopted after extensive debate within the Public Works Committee on the question of whether or not there should be a geographical formula, a population formula, a needs formula, or a hybrid formula of some type.
We in the Congress finally decided – and I believe correctly – that nothing was more empirically correct or definitive than a statement that need, itself, was unrelated to population or the geographical area of the State, and a formula based on need is precisely what we adopted in 1972.
So far as Tennessee is concerned, the important thing to me is, first, that there is adequate funding, and I think there is an adequate authorization under the 1972 act — $18 billion. Second, it is important that funding can be provided for phases and steps, that funds can be dispersed as these increments of improvement are ready to go. You need not fund for the whole project or operable section at the same time. This prevents a single large project from blocking a State's priority list. We provided for that in a 1973 amendment to the act which I sponsored. That amendment has let my State and other States go forward with projects which could not have been funded under the EPA practice that existed previously.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. In 1972, according to the understanding of the Senator from Georgia, the Senate position was based on population and the House position was based on need, and the conference committee came back with the House position.
When the Senator says "we," he does not mean the Senate; he means the final report which was imposed on the Senate by the House conferees, as the Senator from Georgia understands the history. In fact, the entire history of this battle has been that the Senate constantly has wanted to use population to a greater extent in the formula than the House has. Is that correct?
Mr. BAKER. The answer to the Senator from Georgia is that the House Position was not imposed on the Senate conferees. The House position was the position that was accepted.
The hearings, markup, and debate that were conducted in the Senate took into account the various aspects of the formula I have mentioned. When I am speaking of we, I am speaking of my colleagues and I, who have always felt that the need formula was the one that should be adopted.
In 1971, EPA did conduct a needs survey, at the behest of the Senate Public Works Committee — and the House Public Works Committee — that established the probability of the requirement for financial assistance of the States in this particular field. Updated surveys were taken later. The needs formula has been the basis for funding under the act since 1972.
The Senate floor is not the place to start tinkering with this. If we open up this formula in this bill at this time, we are going to open it up on every other major funding program we have. I do not think that is the way it should be done.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I express my deep appreciation to Senator BAKER for saying what he has, though his State would benefit. We have seen many examples of this nice scalpel which neatly cuts the heart out of the industrial States in order to help smaller or rural States where these formulas come up.
The people of my State, I found in the last campaign, really feel ripped off. It is very disheartening to them to go through this experience — that we are not a Nation but that we are a set of parochial interests, each of whom is trying to best the other. If that gets to be a way of life, the industrial States can retaliate very sharply and very damagingly, and I hope it will not be.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. Not until I finish. I have only a minute. The Senator from Georgia had a great deal of time.
I have no quarrels with those who act as they do or seek new formulae. We faced it in education. Now we face it in water pollution, and so forth. I hope very much that this reiteration of the same proposition may at last convince many Senators. This is on the nice basis of cutting around 19 States or 17 States, whatever may be their population, their tax contribution, their essentiality to the Nation, and other troubles — such as in the case of Senator PASTORE.
My home city of New York today has 11.7 percent unemployment. No wonder it faces bankruptcy. It is not a surprise, no matter what they do.
So I rise primarily to thank Senator BAKER. for his statesmanship.
We furnish the sinews for war, and our blood is shed, just as is that of many other Americans, except that we are 10 percent of the population instead of 1 or 2 percent of the population.
I thank Senator BAKER for his statesmanship in taking the position he has taken.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. Senator MUSKIE has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, may I yield myself 1 minute on the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is not transferable.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I yielded the time to Senator McCLURE. He is not on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, time cannot be taken from the bill and used on an amendment.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 30 seconds to respond to the Senator from New York.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 minute.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I express my gratitude and appreciation to one of the great Senators of our time. I appreciate his characterization of those remarks.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Martin Frank, of Senator Tunney's staff, be allowed the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leon Billings, of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee staff, have the privilege of the floor, together with James George and Reggie Gilliam.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield?
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senators from Georgia, and I express my appreciation for being a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment which has been offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia. As a cosponsor of S. 1216, which has the same provisions as the amendment before us, I find it extremely gratifying that we have been able to find a vehicle for the implementation of a formula which the Environmental Protection Agency has called for in its Needs Survey. I reiterate the comments of my colleagues in stating that this survey was undertaken pursuant to a congressional mandate in Public Law 92-500 as amended by Public Law 93-243. The new formula provides for the allocation of some $9 billion in EPA construction grant funds which the Supreme Court ordered spent on February 18 of this year.
The revisions in the distribution formula called for in the amendment would be a substantial benefit to numerous localities. In my home State of Kentucky alone, the following projects would be in a much better position to receive assistance from EPA should this amendment 7)e approved:
Winchester, Augusta, Bowling Green, Somerset, Campbellsville, Jeffersontown, Mount Sterling, Greenup County Environmental Commission, Richmond, Shelbyville, Corbin, London, Berea, Millersburg, and Grayson.
I am quick to point out that these projects I have listed, plus a number of others in Kentucky which might also benefit, are in areas of extreme high unemployment. For example, were the Jeffersontown project I had listed to be funded, I have no doubt that the 9.8 percent unemployment rate in the Jeffersontown area would be reduced significantly. The same would be true in Corbin, where the unemployment rate is over 11 percent, and in Grayson, where the unemployment rate exceeds 13 percent. I have no doubts that my colleagues will find that many severely impacted areas in their States would derive the same advantages.
As it now stands, EPA intends to allocate the $9 billion in accordance with the formula in effect for the years in which the money had been impounded. This distribution formula was devised in 1972 and certainly does not reflect the conditions that exist today. If it did reflect today's needs, one would wonder to what use EPA intends to put the most recent "needs" survey, a survey conducted at great expense of time and money.
Why EPA would not want to allocate the $9 billion we are talking about for its construction grant program in a manner consistent with its own recommendations for future funding as contained in February 10, 1975, report to Congress, revised on May 6, 1975, "Cost Estimates for Construction of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities," is indeed baffling. It is particularly baffling in light of Administrator Train's February 4, 1975, testimony before the Senate Public Works Committee's Environmental Subcommittee. Mr. Train stated that ‘needs’ is the most rapidly growing aspect of the construction grant program. He went on to say that as a result of insufficient funds, "we must identify needs carefully and fund them on the basis of intelligently selected priorities." This is certainly the intent of the amendment we are now considering.
I should not fail to point out that the amendment we are advocating does not call for any new authorization of funds. It simply provides for a redistribution of funds which have been provided by law.
Yesterday's goals are not necessarily in line with the realities of today. Accordingly, I urge that my colleagues act favorably on this amendment in order that EPA's construction grant program might be brought in line with the waste-water treatment needs of today.
At this time I would like to make some remarks in response to the assertions that have been made on the floor.
First of all, in relation to the formula that is being proposed by this amendment, it has been suggested that this is something that has been hurriedly put together on the floor by a group of Senators who are interested only in acquiring for their States additional funding. This is not the case. This is not a hurried-up formula that has been devised by a group of Senators. It is a formula that has been suggested by the Agency that is charged with the responsibility of administering these funds. It has been recommended to Congress by the Administrator of EPA himself, Mr. Russell Train.
It does not make much sense to me to attempt to allocate some $9 billion of money that is now available on the basis of an old formula, designed in a different time to meet different needs and different situations, when the Agency itself says it is not the proper formula under which these funds ought to be distributed.
Mr. TALMADGE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Yes, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
Mr. TALMADGE. Did not a subcommittee of the Public Works Committee of the House recently refer to the 1971 EPA needs survey as an educated guess at best?
Mr. HUDDLESTON. That is right.
I point out further that there has been some question about whether population or needs might be the guiding principle on which to allocate these funds. The formula suggested incorporates both these elements and, it seems to me, comes closest to what is actually the situation today and to what these funds ought to be directed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I make the point that the recommendation of the Administrator of EPA was based on his understanding and assumption that that recommendation would be thoroughly examined in hearings, by the committee as well as the Agency.
Second, with respect to this amendment, whatever the Agency's view of the formula, Mr. Train's letter of July 23 clearly and emphatically says that any change in the formula at this point, even to the one recommended by him, would be disruptive.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Yes, but that does not really address itself to the problem of what to do with this $9 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, we do not decide what to do with $9 billion in a single afternoon on the Senate floor, when there is a committee process available to us to examine what we can do with that $9 billion and to do it in response to a thorough examination and review and analysis. If the Senator is interested in dispensing with the committee processes, that is one thing.
But why it should be suddenly abrogated with respect to this complicated problem confuses this Senator.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. As I pointed out, we are dealing with something that has already been studied by the very agency that is charged with distributing these funds. This Agency has recommended a different formula. It is that formula which we are here voting on today.
Many times since I have been here in the Senate, we have found it necessary to circumvent the long, tedious process of committee hearings when it became necessary to expedite the business of the Senate. I think this is such a case. As the senior Senator from Georgia has pointed out, we are about to go on recess. This money is there, ready to be allocated, and it should be allocated under a formula that is designed to meet the present needs of the entire country.
As far as who is to benefit and who is not and where the people are, in my judgment, the people of Kentucky or Georgia or other States are still people and they are still citizens of the United States. There can be found, in any of these States, pockets of unemployment as high as that in any other State. These projects are needed.
Speaking for my own State, I can assure the Senator that whatever allocation is made available to it, it can be utilized very quietly and very effectively and very helpfully by our State. These projects are just as important there, to the people of our State, as they are to the people of any other State.
Mr. President, I urge the passage of this amendment and defeat of the motion to table this amendment so that we can bring up to date, in the light of the present needs and in light of the present demands, a formula for the allocation of this new money that is available under this program.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator from Maine yield to me 2 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Maine. I find this proposed change in formula at this time to be most inequitable and unfair. I think most of us had little advance notice that it was going to come up and we had no basis for knowing what it would do to the various States until a short time ago.
In the case of Delaware, which has been a leader in environmental matters, it will mean a loss of income of almost $23 million,
I hope that the Senate will reject it, because it seems to me that it sets a bad precedent in modifying a formula on the floor, certain Members having advance notice. It is also penalizing those States which have done, in many ways, the most in cleaning up the environment. Delaware, as I said, is one of the States that has worked hardest in its water treatment program. This will be a very substantial setback for it.
Mr. TALMADGE. Will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. ROTH. Yes, I am happy to yield.
Mr. TALMADGE. Is the Senator aware that the Administrator of Environmental Protection in Delaware supports the formula proposed by Mr. Train?
Mr. ROTH. If that is the case, I have not been so advised. I had no knowledge that he so supports it. As I stated, I had little advance notice that this legislation was going to be proposed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is a great deal of difference between support of a formula concept for consideration and another proposing an allocation today, retroactively, which deprives 19 States of money they are already in the process of committing, relying upon the promise made by Congress. There is a great difference.
With respect to the Administration's formula, if I may say so, the Administrator, Mr. Train, has not yet defined the elements of that 50-50 formula. He has not told the committee as yet how he would propose to define needs under this new formula. So we do not have the benefit of that. The committee has not made that analysis.
There is absolutely no basis, no hearing record. The Senator from Georgia, himself, discounts the basis now being used. So there is no new basis for the needs part of this formula.
It is for that reason that the administration's recommendation of 50-50 as a formula for study should not be equated with the commitment for reallocation on the basis of that formula this afternoon. There is no such basis. Indeed, I put in the RECORD Mr. Train's letter to the contrary.
Mr. ROTH. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine, irrespective of whether the Administrator supports the change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GARN) . The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ROTH. May I have 30 seconds?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 30 seconds.
Mr. ROTH. I have no basis to know the impact of this proposal except for what has been pointed out by the advocates of the amendment. It says we would lose something like $23 million. For that reason I strongly oppose it. It seems to me if we are going to make any change intelligently, we should have a detailed analysis as to what it will do to the water treatment program. I understand that many States will be unable to use the additional funds they will receive. Other States, like mine, will be seriously handicapped.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield a minute to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
May I ask how much time I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the situation really is so bad that I had great hesitancy deciding whether I would even get to my feet, though my State is the biggest tax contributor in the country and, incidentally, is the most hurt, second to New Jersey — which, by the way, is half our size, to show how inequitably this formula really works. They are hurt much worse than we are.
Mr. President, the letter of July 23 from the Environmental Protection Administrator says that he does not believe a change should be made. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
July 23, 1975.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1975, concerning the proposed amendment, S. 1216, to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which, in part, would provide for a reallocation of the $9 billion of previously withheld construction grant funds.
As I have testified previously, the formula for allocating waste treatment construction grant funds between the States is a matter for Congressional determination, and EPA is prepared to administer the program in accordance with whatever formula is developed. However, I believe it is important to point out that a further change in the formula at this time would be disruptive to an orderly process of planning and administration.
As you know, the $9 billion was allocated on the basis of the formula in effect during the fiscal year in which the funds were withheld. One formula was used for the $6 billion FY–73/74 funds and another formula was used for the $3 billion FY–75 funds. These funds have been available to the States for obligation since February of this year. Attachments I and II show the actual status of FY–74/75, and FY–76 funds (all FY–73 and FY–74 funds have been obligated). You will note on Attachment III that the District of Columbia has already obligated more funds under the current formula than would be available to it under S. 1216. Our most recent obligation estimates indicate that the States of Maine and Michigan will be in a similar position this fiscal year, although neither of these states would exhaust all their funds under the current formula until
FY–77.
Although only a few States have actually obligated any of the FY–76 money to date, the amount of funds available to the States has played a key role in their recent planning efforts. The FY–76 State Program Plans have just recently been submitted to EPA. These plans contain the FY–76 construction grants priority lists which are directly linked to the current State allotments. To change these allotments now would necessitate extensive revisions to the priority lists, causing concern among those municipalities dropped from the lists due to decreased funding in certain States. An analysis of the alternative funding formula shows that allotments would be decreased in 19 States centered almost completely in Regions I, II, III and V. This would cause serious delays in the program while these problems were being resolved.
It is desirable from a program management standpoint, as well as a program credibility standpoint, to have a stable base on which to structure our future planning. As you have pointed out, EPA, in conjunction with the State agencies, has been working to stabilize planning and implementation efforts in the construction grants program. To change the allotment formula now would hamper these efforts.
I will be happy to provide you with any additional information you require to evaluate the impact of this proposed amendment.
Sincerely yours.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN.
Mr. JAVITS. Second, the proponents of the amendment are not only changing the past, re-dealing the deals, but are also changing the future, even though the administrator has not yet advised the committee as to what it ought to be for the future.
The Senator from Georgia wanted me to yield before. I am glad to yield.
Mr. NUNN. I refer the Senator to my original remarks quoting Mr. Train as saying over and over again that the 1971 formula is entirely inequitable. What the Senator from New York and the Senator from Maine are arguing is, do not accept the new formula based on the 1974 needs survey of Mr. Train, but, rather, go back and accept the 1971 formula which has been proved to be inaccurate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not have that much time remaining.
Mr. JAVITS. Let the Senator do it on his own time.
Mr. NUNN. I will do that.
The only thing is, if Senator TALMADGE will yield 1 minute. Mr. President, the Senator from New York is arguing that we are doing something to his State because we are making population part of the formula. To me that is an incredible position. I do not see how it can be argued from the largest or the second largest State in the Union. Population, it seems like to me, would benefit the Senator from New York, and I have heard him argue before that we ought to proceed on the basis of population.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from New York has never argued that, but has voted formulas for education 3 or 4 to 1 in his State because he believes this is a nation. New York will do best if the Nation does best.
I hope the States which are being somewhat benefitted by this will think of the situation the way the Senator from New York thinks of it, and has voted for 25 years in the House and Senate, and then that this will be resoundingly defeated.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take.
It has been intimated by some on the floor that the formula in this amendment was designed deliberately to try to get a majority of the Senate votes. It is true that it does benefit 33 States. It does reduce funds for some 13 States. But let me tell you what the old formula did.
Mr. President. The old formula that the Senator from New York and the Senator from Maine are arguing for allocated 64 percent of this impounded money to 10 States.
Does any Member of this body think that 64 percent of the water pollution problems of this Nation are in 10 States? Certainly not.
Mr. Train has been quoted by others. I want to read from a letter of. February 10 signed by Mr. Russell Train, and I quote:
A new construction grant allocation formula is therefore recommended that would be based on an equal 50 percent division between the population and the agency-adjusted cost estimates for use in allocating any new funds.
That is what Mr. Train recommended February 10, almost 6 months ago.
My distinguished colleague from Georgia and I offered this amendment in bill form, and as I recall it was on March 10, and the committee has not acted on that bill yet. The Senate floor is the court of last resort when committees refuse to act, and we are here trying to correct an inequity.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TALMADGE. I will yield when I finish my statement, and if I have more time.
We are here trying to correct an error. Thirty-seven water pollution control administrators out of 50 say, in effect, the old formula is erroneous. They want this new formula for future funding.
We are here trying to correct an error that six administrators from States that would lose money under this amendment say the formula is wrong and they are recommending it be changed. But we are here trying to correct an error that was made years ago when the House investigating subcommittee said the estimates at that time were at best an educated guess.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. Why not be fair and raise the money and give the States that have a pledge and are relying on the older formula an opportunity to stay where they have always been? That is my question. I do not want to take anything from Georgia.
Mr. TALMADGE. I understand.
Mr. PASTORE. But Georgia is taking something away from me and I do not like that, and the Senator would not like it either.
Mr. TALMADGE. I agree.
Mr. PASTORE. All the Senator has to do is to add the money to put the 17 States where they have always been, and then he has got it made.
Mr. TALMADGE. What happened, I point out to the distinguished Senator, when they were passing this bill they had the States make a hasty estimate, and the estimate, according to the Public Works Investigating Committee of the House of Representatives, was an educated guess at best.
Now the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island is a reasonable man, and I am sure he recognizes that 10 States out of 50 in this Union do not have 64 percent of the water pollution problems in this Union, and that is exactly what the old formula provides.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield for a question?
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield to my colleague.
Mr. NUNN. Has the Senator detected the same kind of arguments by the opposition that I have, that we ought to be patient, we ought to wait on hearings, we ought not to legislate on the floor of the Senate, on the one hand; yet, on the other hand, the same proponents who argue that way say that we cannot do this because it is going to disrupt things that are going on now, plans and allocations, and so forth?
It seems to the junior Senator from Georgia that it is a totally inconsistent argument. It is one thing to be patient. However, it is another thing to be stupid.
Mr. TALMADGE. I agree with my distinguished colleague.
I point out these funds were impounded for some 3 years. The States' needs have changed; their populations have changed. Many of those who voted the formula originally now recognize that the formula was wrong. The administrator of EPA has recognized that the formula has been wrong. All we are doing is asking the Senate to correct that inequity of several years ago under which EPA would have allocated to 10 States out of 50 64 percent of this money.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time remains to the supporters of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia also has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, Mr. President, I will use such time as I need.
First of all, I take issue with the Senator from Georgia when he accuses the committee of refusing to act. We have been involved in the most complicated consideration of amendments to the Clean Air Act that I have ever encountered. It has been time-consuming. We were still caught up, and there was pressure on the committee in order to give the automobile industry a clear lead as to what it can expect, so we take these things up one at a time.
I have heard similar excuses made by the Committee on Finance now — we cannot attend to this piece of legislation because we are caught up in another.
I would think the chairman of one of the standing committees of the Senate would understand that committees are busy and have a lot of responsibilities to meet. But he has had a commitment from me for weeks because we have made it clear we were going to consider this as a formula. This is no sudden conversion of the committee to consideration of this matter. We have got it coming.
What is the basis for legitimacy of this formula? There have been absolutely no committee hearings on this formula. There has been absolutely no analysis of the impact on the States by a committee of the Senate or of the House. There has been a record of 3 years built on the formula included in the 1972 law. That formula ought to be changed only by law after committee study and analysis and recommendation to the Senate and to the House.
Let me make another point, Mr. President: This formula, if it passes the Senate, is going to have to be sold to the House. I do not know if the sponsors have looked at the lineup in the numbers on the House side. I do not think they will find the majority with them on the other side in terms of the States that gain or lose on this amendment. So if you pass this amendment, all you will have succeeded in doing is to put a monkey wrench in the works, alerting every state to the potential change, holding up progress in those States that are ready to move, and not really giving the other States, the States that would get more money, a sufficiently firm commitment to trigger their action. All you are going to do with this is what President Nixon did with the impoundment in the first place, you are going to bring the program to a screeching halt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will make a motion to table.