July 27, 1976
Page 23984
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at this point in the debate I want to comment briefly on the budgetary impact of S. 3219, the clean air amendments.
The bill is an authorization bill and, as such, does not provide budget authority. Actual funding is done through the appropriations process. In the past the Committee on Appropriations has not provided funds for the clean air program at the levels authorized by the bills we have enacted over the past few years. While I understand the need for restraint exercised by the Appropriations Committee, I believe that as a nation we cannot afford to underfund our environmental programs.
Clean air, clean water and a healthy environment in general cannot be achieved without committing an adequate level of funds.
The clean air amendments, as reported by the Committee on Public Works authorizes $867 million for clean air programs over a period of 3 fiscal years plus the transition quarter. For fiscal 1977 the bill authorizes $292 million. Were the bill to be fully funded, outlays in fiscal year 1977 are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $256 million.
Actual budget authority and outlays in 1977 for clean air are likely to be considerably less than this amount as the Senate has already acted upon the HUD-independent agencies appropriation bill that funds the clean air program. This bill provided $147 million in budget authority for the program, about one-half of the amount authorized in S. 3219 for clean air in fiscal 1977. At this level, outlays would be approximately $156 million.
How that funding for the clean air programs measures up to the budget resolution can best be determined by looking at the Appropriations Committee's allocation to the HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee. The subcommittee's allocation, when adjusted for the subcommittee's action on the FHA fund, is $52.8 billion on budget authority and $36.8 billion in outlays. The HUD-independent agencies appropriation bill, as passed by the Senate, provided $43.3 billion in budget authority with resulting outlays estimated to be $34.6 billion; thus there is $9.5 billion in budget authority and $2.2 billion in outlays remaining for possible supplementals. These amounts would be available — if Congress saw fit — for additional expenditures in veterans' benefits, housing programs, science and space programs, and environmental programs such as clean air, which are under the jurisdiction of the HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee.
Given the amount of these remaining funds, it is fair to conclude that S. 3219, as it is being funded in the regular appropriation bill and even if it were fully funded, would be consistent with the budget resolution.
Lest anyone think, however, that this remaining $9.5 billion in budget authority and $2.2 billion in outlays constitutes an open fund from which many new expensive projects can be paid for, let me point out to the Members — as I did when the Senate passed the HUD appropriations bill — that several possible supplementals may use up much of the remaining funds.
Our latest calculations indicate that several supplementals for veterans programs plus funds for EPA construction grants may use up $6.9 billion in budget authority and $1.9 billion in outlays of these remaining funds. I would also point out that we are not yet even into fiscal year 1977 and further unexpected demands could easily arise so by no means do we have a windfall.
In the coming months ahead we must be sure to watch closely how any remaining funds are utilized. In cooperation with the Committee on Appropriations, the Budget Committee intends to review carefully the many supplemental requests for appropriations to make sure that the Senate's spending decisions are consistent with the budget resolution.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, the definition of a major emitter is an important aspect of the no significant deterioration policy contained in the bill before us. The bill language states that the source must meet two criteria; the source must be among the 28 identified categories of facilities, and must also have the potential to emit over 100 tons per year. The bill language also gives the Administrator of EPA the authority to add categories to the 28 listed. It is important that we establish guidance for the use of this authority.
It is my understanding that this authority should be used cautiously and only after careful analysis indicates that a category of sources clearly presents a significant problem requiring the application of the requirements and procedures that are a part of the conditions major emitters must meet prior to approval for construction of the source. Is that the same understanding reached by the floor manager of the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. This authority is neither a permissive license to add extensively to the committee's list nor an ironclad definition of sources forever frozen in print. The committee selected 28 categories from a list of 190 compiled by the stationary source program within the Environmental Protection Agency. The fact that the committee selected less than one-sixth of the sources on that list indicates that the committee was selective about the types of facilities that it feels are necessary to be reviewed in order to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality in clean air areas. The 28 categories also indicates that the committee felt that some categories should be added to the rather narrow list which EPA presently uses under its present nondegradation regulations.
EPA's present regulations require review of only 19 categories of major emitters. The Committee made substantial additions to this list, feeling that many sources had been ignored by EPA which had the potential of having significant impact on air quality.
The EPA will need to chart a middle course in this area. Any additions to the list of 28 must be based on careful analysis. Yet the agency has a direct responsibility to protect air quality in clean air areas, and can only fulfill that responsibility if sources that create pollution problems are adequately reviewed and controlled prior to their construction.
Mr. McCLURE. I have some concern that EPA might not exercise adequate restraint in selecting new categories to be added to this list of 28.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is a legitimate concern, and one that I believe has received instruction in the committee report but could benefit from further guidance at this time. The EPA has obviously shown restraint in this area already — in fact more restraint than the committee felt was proper to protect air quality in clean air areas. The Agency made its own review and determination when it published its regulations December 5, 1974, and in those regulations only covered 19 sources.
That was clearly an act of restraint rather than an act of aggressive over-control. We would expect and instruct the Agency to continue to exercise care in any additions made to this list.
To be more specific, the Agency should apply this authority to two particular cases: First. In the first case, new processes may be developed which are unknown to us at this date but which will create new activities that bring potential for significant adverse effect on air quality. We can only assume the development of such technologies or such activities, and it is essential that the Agency have the authority to place such activities on the list as they are developed and as control is justified. Second. In the second case, there may be existing processes or activities that are found, through subsequent analysis or through existing information that was not known to the committee at the time of its decision, that do in fact create significant problems for the prevention of significant deterioration. It may be that such sources are existing processes that for some reason have an accelerating rate of growth that is more substantial than other kinds of sources. Or it may be that their emissions are more troublesome than early analyses had indicated.
In any event, we would expect the Environmental Protection Agency to examine all of these factors carefully, prior to any additions to the list.
Mr. McCLURE. It is certainly not my intent to indicate that sources that clearly need to be added to the list be somehow kept from that list. But I did feel it was necessary to also insure that the discretionary authority provided to EPA in this language is used carefully and selectively by the Agency.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the Senator's intentions and I believe his discussion here has helped to provide a useful guideline for the Agency in implementing this authority. I thank the Senator from Idaho for raising this issue.