March 10, 1977
Page 7164
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, title III of S. 427 — the Public Works Employment Act of 1977 — contains funds for authorizations for the water pollution program. The purpose is simple, but important: To replenish the construction grant program to keep existing jobs going, to create new jobs, and to continue to clean up rivers and lakes. The Senate was frustrated in this effort in the last Congress when we were unable to reach an agreement with the House in conference.
These funds are an integral part of the public works jobs program in S. 427. This program is ongoing; its projects are ready; municipalities want to hire people; employment benefits will be immediate. Conversely, if we do not fund this program quickly, the program will stall in many States and workers will be laid off.
Construction grant funds for fiscal year 1977 are necessary now because at least 34 States have nearly exhausted their funds. The authorization for fiscal 1978 is necessary to meet deadlines required by the Budget Act.
In coming before you now, with the pending legislation, we are fulfilling our responsibility to the Senate. More importantly, in replenishing the funds, we are fulfilling our responsibility to the American people.
In one major western city, these funds will mean the employment of 2,000 new people to protect a vital national and natural resource. This city, San Francisco, has done on the local level what we are trying to do on the national level. It has integrated existing environmental needs with the existing public works programs and with existing Labor Department programs to create one comprehensive environment and employment package. Only adequate Federal water pollution funding is lacking.
Those of us in the Congress who have stated our concern about unemployment and environment so often, cannot afford to let San Francisco and similar communities down. We must act now.
I know that there are other important issues with the Clean Water Act; I know that they are important to Members in both Houses. I repeat the pledge I made last year and in committee this year. The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution will begin a thorough review of the Clean Water Act — including all relevant issues — later this spring. We will make every effort to report appropriate amendments to the Senate this fall.
Mr. President, this bill does include authorizations for both fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 1978. The committee had no alternative but to provide both authorizations in the same bill. We are mindful of the deadlines for new authorizations required by the budget process. And we knew that the committee had too much pressing business to take the risk of missing those deadlines for authorizing 1978 funds.
The Clean Air Act is before the Committee on Public Works. We are trying to ready the bill for Senate action in the next few weeks. If we are to do that job we cannot complete the kind of comprehensive review of the water pollution program which will be necessary until later this year. So we have adopted an approach which will keep the waste treatment construction grant and allied programs in motion — which will permit States and localities to continue to plan for the future — and which will give the Senate time to deliberately review the clean water law.
Let me briefly describe title III of the pending bill. It authorizes $4.54 billion for each of fiscal years 1977 and 1978 for the construction grant program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table which reflects how these funds would be allocated among the States be included at the end of my remarks.
The bill also authorizes funds for other water pollution control programs totalling almost $900 million, including clean lakes, grants to States, research and development, and the section 208 waste treatment management program.
It is not enough to authorize for the grants programs to communities. Ongoing support of other activities is also necessary for the clean water effort to continue its present pace. States need resources to manage the permit program and review waste treatment project applications; EPA needs resources to improve the regulatory effort and fulfill its other statutory responsibilities; and additional research and development is needed to avoid repeating previous mistakes.
Authorization for these and other corollary purposes are an integral partof water pollution programs and, therefore, included in this legislation.
The last program, section 208, is out of funds. Many communities have done the preliminary work, but have been unable to move forward and are waiting for startup grants. Others — in my State, for example — need additional grants to complete the work they have begun. In authorizing funds for section 208, the committee expects to supplement, not to replace, the $137.5 million in grants that were illegally impounded by the previous administration. Sixty-eight Members of the Senate signed a letter to the Attorney General urging withdrawal of the appeal and the release of these funds.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be included in the RECORD at the end of my statement.
In replenishing the construction grants program, it is our intention to meet only the backlog of serious needs for sewage treatment. The Committee is concerned that the funds not be used to finance future growth, or to finance low priority projects.
To preclude this, the committee unanimously agreed to extend the date for reallotment of existing funds for 1 year. This removes pressure to make unwise commitments from those States that have had difficulty expending their funds. We now expect the administration to act to disapprove any projects which are poorly planned or unwise waste treatment investments.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full explanation of this provision in the committee report appear in the RECORD at this point:
The Committee unanimously adopted an amendment to extend the date on which the construction grant funds originally authorized in P. L. 92-500 and made available for fiscal year 1976 would be reallotted, from September 30, 1977 to September 30, 1978.This provision was part of the Senate bill which passed in the previous Congress. The purpose of the amendment is to continue the current direction of the program and to ensure that the pressure to obligate all funds does not force States to make commitments to projects which are poorly planned or unwise waste treatment investments. While most States will have no difficulty in obligating their total allotments, as many as eight States could lose funds on September 30, 1977.
Not to extend the reallotment date would mean that these States would attempt to spend funds on projects such as collector and lateral sewers, which were not intended to receive a high priority under the 1972 Act. The Committee hopes and expects that the Administrator, with this additional time, will act to ensure that these funds, as well as the newly authorized funds, are not obligated for projects which are not required to meet the enforceable requirements of the Act, or are otherwise inconsistent with Section 201 or 211 of that Act.
The funds provided for fiscal 1977 are within the target established in the congressional budget resolution. The funds for construction grants are part of the supplemental budget authority requested by the President's Budget.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
There being no objection, the letter and table were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C.,
February 28, 1977.
Hon. GRIFFIN BELL,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ATTORNEY GENERAL BELL: The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention the matter of the Nixon Administration's impoundment of approximately $137 million in previously unobligated funds for area wide management planning under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
On 1 June 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order in the case of National Association of Regional Councils v. Train, Civil Action No. 75-1706, directing the Environmental Protection Agency to make available the previously unobligated funds.
In response to this order, President Ford's Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Justice sought a stay of the District Court's order, arguing that the court may not order an executive agency to expend funds after the expiration of the time during which such funds were made available by Congress. The agency claimed this was an issue of government wide application and took precedence over concerns related to a particular program. The District Court denied the motion on 27 October 1978.
The OMB and the Justice Department then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to appeal the denial (No. 76-1970).
On 18 January 1977, the appeal was granted and now we are faced with another delay of approximately six to nine months while an issue is litigated which would not even have arisen had the original law (P. L. 92-500) been implemented.
The effect of these delays is to postpone the much needed planning that must take place if rational solutions of the water pollution problems of a great many small communities and municipalities throughout the country are ever to be implemented. Although a full-scale review of the Water Pollution Control Act is proposed for the 95th Congress, and although many of us may support changes in the planning procedures, we nevertheless feel that these funds should be released.
The need for this planning will become even more important as the Congress moves to provide jobs through the expansion of public works programs.
Therefore, we strongly urge you to withdraw the appeal, let the decision of the lower court stand, and thus clear the way for the EPA to dispense the funds.
It is our understanding that, should you agree with this procedure, the EPA would begin the obligation of the $137 million within a week. Thus, planning could be underway in many communities within a short time and in accordance with the intent of the law.
Your quick and affirmative response to our urging will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Lee Metcalf, Jennings Randoloh, Robert C. Byrd, Robert T. Stafford, Edmund S. Muskie, Howard H. Baker, Jr.,John L. McClellan, Ted Stevens.
James O. Eastland, Robert P. Griffin, Herman E. Talmadge, Henry M. Jackson, Howard W. Cannon, Hubert H. Humphrey, Robert Morgan, Thomas J.McIntyre, Mike Gravel, Dick Clark.
Alan Cranston, Harrison A. Williams, Jr., Warren G. Magnuson, John C. Stennis, Carl T. Curtis, James B. Allen, Mark O. Hatfield, S. I. Hayakawa, Lloyd Bentsen, H. John Heinz, III.
Russell B. Long, George McGovern, Thomas F. Eagleton, Wendell H. Ford, Birch Bayh, John G. Culver, Frank Church, Daniel K. Inouye, Gary Hart, Gaylord Nelson.
Howard M. Metzenbaum, Dennis DeConcini, John A. Durkin, Ernest F. Hollings, Patrick J.Leahy, William D. Hathaway, James Abourezk, Quentin N. Burdick, Sam Nunn, Richard Stone.
John Melcher, Walter Huddleston, William Proxmire, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Clifford P. Case, James R. Sasser, Edward Zorinsky, Edward M. Kennedy, Abraham Ribicoff, Bob Packwood.
Daniel Moynihan, Pete V. Domenici, Harrison Schmitt, Dale Bumpers, Donald W. Riegle, Wendell R. Anderson, Adlai E. Stevenson, J.Bennett Johnston, John C. Danforth, Edward W. Brooke.