June 26, 1976
Page 20844
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish to make some comments on this bill from the point of view of the Budget Committee and then, subsequently, from the point of view of my interest in the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. President, the bill now under consideration, H.R. 14233, the HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill for 1977, would provide $43.3 billion in budget authority and $34.6 billion in outlays to fund the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Veterans' Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and a number of other Federal agencies. This bill is well within the Appropriations Committee's allocations of budget authority and outlays to the HUD subcommittee under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, and I plan to support the committee bill.
But, Mr. President, I do want to highlight a few points with respect to the congressional budget that we should be aware of in considering the bill before us.
The HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee's allocation under section 302 (b) amounts to $53.2 billion in budget authority and $37.2 billion in outlays. Enactment of H.R. 14233 as reported to the Senate would still leave available $9.9 billion in budget authority and $2.6 billion in outlays within the subcommittee's allocation. However, the budget resolution anticipated a higher appropriation to the FHA fund than is included in this bill.
The difference, amounting to $0.4 billion in budget authority and outlays, will, as a result of the approach taken in this bill, now turn up as backdoor borrowing attributable to the Banking Committee in the budget scorekeeping system. Accounting for this transfer of spending authority to the Banking Committee leaves $9.5 billion in budget authority and $2.2 billion in outlays remaining out of the HUD subcommittee's allocation, as we read it.
Possible supplementals for the Veterans' Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency programs could reduce these remaining balances to as low as $2.3 billion in budget authority and zero in outlays. These possible supplementals would result from cost-of-living increases of as much as $1.5 billion in budget authority and outlays for veterans' benefits which are almost certain to be enacted, a possible $0.7 billion in budget authority and outlays for other pending veterans entitlement legislation, and $5 billion in budget authority and $50 million in outlays for EPA construction grants. Those are the possibles we see coming down the pike. Thus, there are claims already on much of the budget authority and almost all of the outlays on what at first glance might appear to be ample room in this part of the Federal budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the RECORD showing the effect of these supplementals on the subcommittee allocation balances.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I also wish to remind my colleagues that the first budget resolution set spending targets by functional category, and we will be converting those targets into functional ceilings in the second budget resolution this September. Although the bill appears to be in agreement with the target levels for 11 of the 12 functions affected by this bill, the funding levels in the bill before us today may well result in upward pressure on the budget authority target set for veterans' benefits and services.
This appropriations bill provides $280 million more in budget authority and $57 million more in outlays for the non-entitlement veterans' programs than contemplated when the functional targets in the first budget resolution were adopted. This funding increase results mainly from the President's budget amendment for VA hospital construction. Since cost-of-living increases and other pending legislation for entitlement programs may well take up the remaining slack in the veterans' function, it will be difficult to offset the $280 million increase in budget authority in this bill for the President's increased budget request with savings elsewhere in veterans' programs.
Mr. President, I hope that these comments will be of help to my colleagues in placing this bill within the context of the congressional budget, and I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee for staying within their own allocation for this bill.
Mr. President, I hope these comments may be helpful to Members. I know that Senator PROXMIRE is well aware of the points.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think his comments are extremely helpful because when you look at this bill we brought in superficially, it seems to be far under the budget with lots of room for increases.
The fact is, as the Senator from Maine pointed out, when the supplementals, which inevitably will come down, are acted upon we will be pressing right against the ceiling.
We are going to be hard put to stay within the ceiling. So I think this explanation is most helpful. It is exactly the kind of information which, without the Budget Reform Act and without the Budget Committee, the Senate would not have been provided. The lack of this sort of information has caused us to go way, way beyond our intentions in the past. So I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may turn briefly, I would like to turn to the EPA concerns that I have.
Mr. President, previously I commented on the HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill in terms of its consistency with the budget program of the Congress. I would now like to discuss the substantive environmental programs in this bill. I want to commend the committee and, particularly, the subcommittee chairman, Senator PROXMIRE and the ranking Republican, Senator MATHIAS, for their diligent work with regard to the Environmental Protection Agency's programs.
As chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee of the Senate Public Works Committee, I have for many years urged increases in EPA's appropriations. The environmental laws passed in the last few years have greatly increased that Agency's responsibilities and the responsibilities of State and local governments. The Senator from Wisconsin has always expressed support for efforts to protect the environment and has continued to display that support in the appropriations bill before us.
I want to commend the Senator for the action of this subcommittee in eliminating the legislative rider which was placed in this legislation by the House Appropriations Committee. The language would have limited the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to require the regulation of parking activities as part of air pollution control programs. That was section 406 of the House bill.
The legislative committees in the House and Senate have each resolved this issue in legislation which has been reported out of the authorizing committees in both Houses and awaits action by each chamber. There is no justification for this kind of legislative language in an appropriations bill, and I compliment the Senate subcommittee for eliminating it. I urge the committee to resist any efforts to place this language in the conference report
The same holds true for section 407 of the House bill, which was eliminated by the Senate subcommittee, and which would have placed inappropriate restrictions on the interrelationship between noise control programs and housing mortgage insurance programs.
The present administration has never been sensitive to the needs of environmental protection programs. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the handling of appropriations matters. The administration has consistently requested reductions in the funding of environmental programs.
This year the President requested a drastic cutback in these programs. He recommended the reduction of $53.4 million in basic EPA programs from an appropriations levels of $771.5 million for fiscal year 1976. This reduction is even more drastic when compared to the fact that a $46 million increase is needed merely to offset the effects of inflation over the past year. The Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of the subcommittee chairman, has restored most of those cuts, though the amount is the bill before us remains $3.1 million below the appropriations for fiscal year1976. The House has provided considerably more funds in this area, and I hope the Senate committee will listen sympathetically to the possibility of accepting some of these increases.
I will not elaborate in detail the many areas of EPA's programs that need additional funds and manpower. That is expressed in the March 15 report from the Senate Public Works Committee to the Senate Budget Committee. In the 1975 report to the Budget Committee, the Public Works Committee identified $450 million in justifiable increases in environmental protection programs.
These were not the maximum increases that could be justified; they were the amounts the Agency could absorb in 1 year in areas where increases were needed. In the 1976 report to the Budget Committee, the Public Works Committee attempted to identify a more restricted list and identified programs which needed funding increases totaling $180 million.
The President's cuts must be compared against this analysis. In that light, the restorations proposed by the Appropriations Committee are certainly modest. I would like to place in the RECORD the analysis and recommendations of the Public Works Committee from the last 2 years so that the Senate might know the magnitude of the needs of the Agency and understand why the President's cuts must be rejected, as they have been by the Appropriations Committee. I ask unanimous consent that those portions of the March 15 reports be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the portions of the reports were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET — 1975
(Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy — 304)
The period from 1965 to 1975 was a period of growing environmental awareness, expanding environmental programs, and increasing commitments to the protection of the environment. Yet, as a percentage of the Federal budget, the funding of environmental programs has been constant: In 1965 natural resources and environment received 2.5 percent of the Federal budget. That percentage is unchanged for 1975. And yet major new programs, demanding significant increases in personnel and funding have beenapproved by the Congress.
One of the critical needs of the Environmental Protection Agency is increased personnel. Enforcement and research require people. The failure to make available necessary personnel to implement authorized programs is as effective in hampering a program's effectiveness as impounding appropriated funds.
The Senate Report accompanying the 1970 Clean Air Amendments pointed out that money and manpower for clean air programs were running at half the authorized levels. It went on to say the following:
"This pattern cannot continue if the Congress and the Federal Government are to retain credibility with the American people. The authorization figures contained in the bill represent the best estimate of the Committee in consultation with the Administration, of what will be required to implement its provisions.
"The availability of manpower, with adequate funding, can provide effective implementation of these amendments. The committee expects that past trends will he reversed and that required manpower will be made available to implement the programs."
The Committee has received a statement, from the National Air Pollution Manpower Development Advisory Committee, which was established under section 117 of the Clean Air Act, emphasizing the fact that manpower problems are becoming a very significant restraint on environmental progress.
During Senate consideration of the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Committee and the Administration spent considerable time establishing accurate figures regarding the personnel levels necessary to implement the Act. That estimate, contained in the Senate report accompanying the legislation, was that 2,930 people would be required to implement fully the Clean Air Act in fiscal year 1973. Yet at present fiscal year 1975 levels, the Agency has only 1,590 assigned to the air program.
Today, the Clean Air Act remains less than fully implemented in many ways. State implementation plans were not developed with detailed compliance schedules for each source of pollution to achieve fixed emission limitations; transportation control and land use programs did not include adequate consultation and planning processes; new source performance standards for 19 categories were to be published in less than a year after enactment of the Clean Air Act, yet only 8 have been promulgated; the air quality data base needed for effective regulation has been inadequate; monitoring of auto industry efforts to meet emission standards has been inadequate, and implementation plan violations have not been fully pursued.
The Committee believes that the restrictions on manpower by the Administration have been an important factor in these delays. Congress has authorized many new positions in the appropriations for the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. Most of these have never been released to the Agency by the Office of Management and Budget.
Another example of the need for additional manpower (or effective utilization of manpower from other Federal agencies) relates to implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. That Act made $18 billion available for waste treatment construction grants. With the recent Supreme Court decision, this money has now been allotted to the States.
Failure to audit the use of water pollution construction grant funds, inspect sewage treatment plants constructed with those grant dollars, provide adequate training for personnel to operate those plants, and monitor the quality of effluent discharged from them can result in an inadequate protection of the Federal investment.
The Committee recommends a reduction for the noise control program. The fiscal year 1975 appropriation is $5.2 million. The budget request for fiscal year 1976 is $10.2 million. The Committee recommends retaining funding at the $5.2 million level. This is allocation of scarce resources in light of the Administrator's March 5 decision to delay auto emission standards, the Committee believes that scarce resources can be better spent on increased regulation of emissions from heavy duty vehicles, transportation control plan assistance, gasoline evaporative loss control, and State inspection and maintenance programs.
SUMMARY
As to the Committee evaluation of the proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, we are concerned that the Agency's budget does not lend itself to the establishment of the spending priorities by the Congress. The failure of the Agency to identify either the authority for specific budget requests or the specific programs for which there will be expenditure makes impossible a congressional determination of the adequacy or the appropriateness of the request.
In light of this problem, the Committee will request that the Appropriations Committee insist that the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency be prepared in such a way as to identify specifically both the authority for and the purpose of budgetary requests. In the absence of that information this year, the Committee has agreed to identify for the Budget Committee three alternative levels of budgetary authority for EPA:
1. In the first category, the Committee identifies a need for a budgetary increase over the request of $450 million. This level of increase appears to be necessary to achieve implementation of mandatory functions under environmental statutes;
2. In the second category, the Committee has identified a need for $165 million increase as necessary to provide the implementation of those Agency responsibilities for which priorities can be identified and which if not provided will result in failure to achieve statutory deadlines and otherwise minimally carry out the purposes of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and
3. Category three suggests no increase in budgetary authority for the Environmental Protection Agency, but rather suggests the need to reallocate proposed expenditures by the Agency to reflect those increases in appropriate categories identified in the minimum increase suggested in paragraph 2 above. This would mean that the Agency would have to curtail discretionary functions and otherwise restrict activities in order to assure implementation of mandatory statutory functions.
Important goals can be met by increasing funding of environmental programs. Jobs and employment can be stimulated directly and rapidly because many programs are labor intensive.
Environmental programs offer two useful approaches to help stimulate the economy:
(1) enforcement, research and monitoring programs are manpower intensive and can provide immediate employment opportunities. At the same time, they will bring the enforcement of environmental laws up to levels anticipated by Congress when initially enacted;
(2) The wastewater treatment construction grant program offers 43,000 direct jobs for every billion dollars expended, with the potential of substantial economic impact through indirect employment created by the stimulus of the initial construction expenditures.
Under the recently passed title X of the Public Works and Economic Development Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has identified grants to State pollution control programs as the program within their Agency that is most likely to stimulate jobs and have immediate impact.
Providing increases for these programs will bring them in line with the duties placed on the Environmental Protection Agency by the Clean Air Amendment of 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. In addition to the economic impact, support of these programs at the levels recommended by the Committee on Public Works is essential to implement the Nation's environmental laws in the manner intended by the Congress.
The following table is used by the Agency and by the Appropriations Committee in analyzing the Environmental Protection Agency's budget request. The Public Works Committee recommendations are listed in an additional column.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET — 1976
(Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy — 304)
Vast new environmental programs have increased the responsibilities of the Federal Government for environmental protection over recent years. The lack of adequate funding and personnel has greatly hampered the implementation of pollution control laws.
This report identifies five budget alternatives for EPA's activities: (1) the President's proposed reduction of $53 million (approximately 7 percent) in EPA’s basic budget for fiscal year 1977; (2) restoration of the 1976 fiscal year appropriations level and 6 percent additional funds added to cover the costs of inflation in the last year’s increase over fiscal year 1976; (3) increases added to bring funding levels up to the point where program responsibilities could be carried out at the minimum acceptable level; (4) EPA’s own judgment of the optimum level of funds it could absorb in a fiscal year; and (5) the level recommended by the Senate Public Works Committee as the optimum program in last year’s report, adjusted for inflation.
The Committee recommends the third alternative, which restores the cuts proposed by the President and adds funds necessary to move forward in a positive fashion to meet environmental commitments. These increases are necessary to meet the increased responsibilities that accompany these regulatory programs. This total is almost $300 million less than Committee recommended to the Budget Committee last year.
AIR
In air pollution, additional funds would be used to increase grants to State air pollution control agencies. Such funds have remained at a static level for many years, even though the Federal Government has placed increased reliance on State programs to fulfill the Clean Air Act goals.
Funds would be used to support inspection and maintenance grants for vehicle inspection programs. The actual record of emissions from cars on the road shows very substantial deterioration from demonstration prototype cars tested. Inspection and maintenance programs were contemplated in the 1970 Act and should be implemented rapidly.
Increases in health effects research, particularly to investigate sulfates, cancer causing pollutants, and long term transport of complex pollutants is badly needed. Funds from the proposed increase would be used to implement an assembly line test to insure that the cars coming off the production line actually meet standards. A portion of these funds would be used to develop regulations for a certification program for aftermarket parts.
The increase would be used to establish additional new source performance standards for stationary sources of air pollution. The 1970 Amendments contemplated rapid implementation of new source performance standards, but the record has been extremely slow. Many major industrial categories still do not have such standards applicable to new construction. This has greatly hampered an effective air pollution program.
Funds would be available to continue training grants, and enhance stationary source enforcement activities. In addition, increased fiscal year 1977 funds would be used to cover the following activities which are contemplated in the Clean Air Amendments of 1976 which have been reported from the Committee: (1) transportation planning grants, (2) stratospheric ozone research, and (3) National Commission on Air Quality.
WATER QUALITY
The fiscal year 1977 budget request for the water quality program shows a major decrease from last year's level. The request for fiscal year 1977 is $178.2 million, down $60.1 million from the fiscal year 1976 level, and yet the water pollution control program is approaching a milestone year for enforcement and municipal construction activities. The overall success of the water pollution control effort depends to a large extent on the success of the activities pursued during fiscal year 1977.
The largest cut in the water program is borne by the section 208 planning effort. This year's budget requests only $15 million for funding of 208 planning areas and Statewide planning as well. This section provides grants to local and State planning agencies to plan for and manage their water resources on a long term area wide basis.
Last year's budget included $53 million for 208 grants; the law anticipated an annual authorization of $150 million. In the option recommended, increased funds are made available for 208 planning grants, especially in response to last year's court decision requiring a 208 planning effort in all areas of all States. These funds would be used to fund 208 agencies designated in the last year, new designations in fiscal year 1977, areas to be covered by state planning, and continuation of funding for existing 208 agencies running out of money.
Another area of budgetary concern is section 106 State control agency grants. This year's budget requests $40 million, $4.5 million less than last year, and $35 million less than congressionally intended authorization levels. The Administration has stated publicly that it expects to give greater management and control responsibilities to the States in the coming fiscal year, and yet the program which provides funds to the State agencies for such purposes is reduced. The option recommended provides additional funds to State control agencies.
Funds for the development of effluent guidelines which serve as the basis for discharge permits should be increased as EPA begins to prepare to reissue all discharge permits.
Also, funds for the management and audit of the construction grant program should be increased to insure the "fiscal integrity" of the municipal construction grant program.
The research and development effort, especially health effects, would receive additional funding under the recommended increase.
The Committee intends to authorize for fiscal year 1977 the expiring authorities in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Reauthorization for fiscal year 1976 is currently pending before the Congress at the same levels authorized for fiscal year 1975. Appropriation Acts for fiscal year 1976 and the transition quarter have carried authorizations for this program as well as all other Environmental Protection Agency programs. The Committee expects that authorization for fiscal year 1977 would continue at this same level, $903 million.
The Committee has pending before it a bill which authorizes $7 billion for waste treatment construction grants for fiscal year 1977, and an Administration bill to change the Federal share and eligibilities for such grants. We expect to consider these in the near future.
This would allow continuation of this program at approximately current levels for spending authority and outlays. Funds made available in fiscal year 1976 totaled $9 billion. Without these fiscal year 1977 funds, approximately one-half of the States run out of funds before the end of fiscal year 1977. Approximately $1.4 billion of these fiscal year 1977 authorizations will be obligated during the fiscal year.
SOLID WASTE
In solid waste, increased funds would be used for technical assistance and for expanding some of the research and demonstration activities of the Agency. State and local governments have increasingly requested the assistance of the Federal Government in assessing systems to be used to reduce solid waste and conserve resources. The Committee may consider legislation expanding the authorization in this area. New programs would include increased planning funds, implementation grants, small community grants, and loan guarantees.
While precise authorization levels have yet to be established, additional budget authority of $15 million for these combined programs should be sufficient to begin these efforts in fiscal year 1977.
ENERGY
The increased money available for energy activities would allow EPA to conduct further study of the health effects of energy-related pollutants, stimulate control technology to reduce such pollutants, and allow increased activities to assess the environmental problems associated with growth of various energy-related facilities. It is important that as the energy portion of the Federal budget increases and new forms of alternative energy are examined, the Environmental Protection Agency be given the resources needed to assess the impact of such projects. This will also insure that regulatory programs and control technology keep pace with such development.
NOISE
Under the noise program, no increased funds are proposed under the $127 million increase. This is principally due to the fact that the mandatory regulatory activities required by the Noise Act will have been completed in most phases by fiscal year 1977. Until the Agency fulfills these functions in a way that indicates the public health and welfare will be protected by such activities, there is little reason to increase program funds in this area.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do want to mention two specific programs that are discussed in the report of the Appropriations Committee.
This bill provides for continued funding of the long range area wide waste treatment planning program under section 208 of Public Law 92500. The $15 million provided here, when combined with $137 million of impounded funds ordered released by the courts, should be an adequate level for the 208 program for fiscal year 1977. I am pleased to note, however, that the committee report states that this funding level would be reappraised should release of the $137 million be delayed by appeals.
I strongly support the decision of the Senate Appropriations Committee to reject the language in the House bill which would restrict the 208 money, as well as funds that were provided for fiscal year 1976, to 75 percent Federal share. Both the House and Senate have approved authorizing legislation which would continue the 100 percent startup grants for 208 agencies until such time as all designated agencies receive an initial grant. Thereafter, grants would be provided at a "maintenance" level of 75 percent. The action of the House in this appropriations bill would disrupt the legislative process currently underway and would also interfere with the proper implementation of the 208 program.
I commend the action of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee in resisting this effort of the House, and I urge them to maintain this position in conference.
Although more than $8 billion of the $18 billion allotted to the individual States has not been obligated, at least 22 of the States will have obligated their full allotment of funds and will run completely out of funds before the end of fiscal year 1977.
The House and Senate Public Works Committees have recognized this, and each has reported legislation authorizing $5 billion to be allotted to the States and obligated for specific projects. The first concurrent resolution also recognized this need and targeted $6 billion for this program.
Because work has not been completed on authorizing legislation, there are no appropriations provided in this bill for construction grants. The need is clearly there, and an appropriation will be required.
I should point out that a full appropriation of the authorization will be required to enable allotment to the States to take place; however, no one anticipates obligation of all the funds. EPA's estimate of actual obligation pursuant to a $5 billion authorization and appropriation is $1.5 billion.
I would like to say briefly, in connection with that item, that I would like to focus particularly on the need which has now been approved in the budget resolution and in both Houses for additional budget authority of $5 billion to continue the ongoing waste treatment construction program. The authorization bill has not finally been acted upon, and it is for that reason, as I understand it, that this bill does not provide anything for that program.
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. This general statement indicates the need to do so. I would like to compliment the Senator for his continuing interest in these environmental programs. The administration, this administration, has never been very generous to these programs, has never really been enthusiastic about them, but this bill before us reflects increases above the administration's request, for which I am appreciative.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I compliment the Senator from Maine on the very difficult decisions he has had to make as both chairman of the Budget Committee and a great champion of various environmental programs. I know it is not easy for him to have to reconcile these painful priorities. I think he has done it well, and I am sure he will fight for everything he can get for the environmental programs, while at the same time recognizing the necessity of budget restraint. What I am trying to say is that the Senator from Maine is being very consistent.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have to accept this discipline for the program in which I am interested if I am to be credible when programs in which other Senators are interested are subjected to that discipline.
I would like to mention specifically one in which I was tempted to offer an amendment. That had to do with a program for grants to State air and water pollution control agencies. I was tempted to offer an amendment, but I am not going to, for the reasons we have just discussed.
This bill should add $20 million to the program for grants to State air and water pollution control agencies to be equally divided between air and water. The President's request for water pollution control agency grants for fiscal year 1977 was $40 million, down from congressional appropriations for fiscal year 1976.
The House added $4 million to restore State grants for air quality to the 1976 level of $55 million. The House added $10 million to restore water State agency grants to the 1976 level of $50 million. That $14 million increase was agreed to by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
My amendment was to be offered in the belief that grants to State air and water pollution control agencies should be top priority among resource needs in environmental protection programs.
Grants to State air control agencies have remained at $51.5 million since fiscal year 1972. It was only in fiscal year 1976, as a result of the new Budget Act which made it possible to override the President's impoundment of congressional appropriations, that the level was increased to $55 million.
That modest increase was not enough to counter the effects of inflation over the last 4 years. Nor was it enough to provide the resources needed for States to assume the increased responsibilities we have placed upon them through environmental protection laws passed in the last few years.
We want the States to be the principal agencies implementing the Clean Mr Act of 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Unless we provide adequate resources, implementation will not occur as effectively as it should. Enforcement action against polluters will not occur in cases where they are justifiable and needed. Permits for new sources and monitoring of existing permits will not occur as rapidly as needed. Local governments will have greater difficulty in submitting proper applications for water pollution control grants because of the lack of State personnel to provide technical assistance in formulating such applications.
The list of pollution control activities that are restricted because of inadequate funding of State agencies could go on and on. But perhaps the most useful fact is that the Environmental Protection Agency requested much more for this program from the President than I am requesting in the amendment I have proposed. In the EPA request for fiscal year 1977 funds, the agency asked for an increase of $58 million for air and water State control agency grants combined. My request is for approximately one-third that increase. The Appropriations Committee has added some funds, and I want to exercise restraint in the amount of the increase I am proposing.
I think Senators should be aware that without substantial resources for State programs, more and more pollution control activities will have to be shouldered by the Federal Government. This does not correspond with the views I have heard from other Senators regarding the direction these programs should take. But State and local agencies will resist accepting a greater share of these programs unless they have adequate resources to implement the activities necessary.
Before offering this amendment, I made a careful examination of the budget totals to assure myself that my own action would in no way jeopardize the targets contained in the first concurrent resolution or the targets assigned by the Appropriations Committee to its various subcommittees. After examining this, I have become assured that the very modest amendment I am proposing can be added to this appropriations and still leave the total far below the targets assigned in the resolution or to the Appropriations Subcommittee.
There are a number of programs within this appropriations bill which will need to be covered by supplemental appropriations due to the fact that authorizations have not yet been passed. Even if all of these programs are funded at the highest reasonable estimate of their potential costs, there will be more than adequate room under the targets to absorb the $20 million amendment I am proposing. Even if EPA water construction grants are funded at the highest level now under consideration by the Public Works Committee$5 billion and the veterans' cost-of-living increases are assumed at the highest end of the estimates — $1.5 billion, and the VA pension and reform and medical legislation is funded at the highest estimate — $0.7 billion, there will still be $2.3 billion remaining in budget authority under this subcommittee's allocation before that allocation is exceeded. Though outlays are somewhat tighter, the statement holds true there as well.
There are many other areas where EPA programs ought to be increased. I have not chosen to offer amendments in those areas because I believe we must be restrained in the increases we propose on these appropriations bills. I have resisted increases on other appropriations bills where I thought increases would jeopardize the targets assigned to the Appropriations subcommittees by the full committee.
I would oppose any such amendments on the bill before us, and it was only after being assured that this amendment would not create such a problem that I decided to offer it to the Senate. As chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, I bear the responsibility of insuring that the programs we have authorized by law receive adequate resources to implement those programs. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I have the responsibility, shared by other members of the committee and by the Congress as a whole, to be sure that the actions I take while wearing one hat do not conflict with the actions taken while wearing another hat.
There is pressure in Congress, as the Senator knows, to turn more and more of the responsibility in these environmental programs over to State and local agencies. At the same time, if we want them to be able to assume those responsibilities we have got to help them find the resources to administer and implement the program. Because of the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the administration, we have not really done the job that we should do, and I hope that the Senator from Wisconsin, the floor manager of this bill, and the chairman of the subcommittee, will bear in mind the points that I have made in the statement so that maybe in a supplemental appropriation or somewhere down the line he can find the resources to put into this program. I appreciate his sympathy and his support toward that objective.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator very much.