December 15, 1977
Page 39221
CORRECTIONS IN THE ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 3199
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on House Concurrent Resolution 444, directing the Clerk to correct the enrollment of H.R. 3199.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the concurrent resolution?
There being no objection, the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 444) the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, briefly, the purpose of this resolution is to correct by interpretation, I suppose, an implication in the clean water bill that was not intended.
The House Parliamentarian is of the opinion that in connection with the cost sharing program that deals with agricultural pollution the conferees wrote in some contract authority. That was not our intention. It is not our intention to bypass the appropriations process.
The House of Representatives, because of the opinion of its Parliamentarian, introduced this concurrent resolution for the purpose of correcting the record in that respect.
So, since that reflects what the conferees actually intended, I urge that the Senate agree to this resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. NELSON. I wonder if the Senator from Maine would yield for a brief question on the conference report we just adopted.
As the Senator knows, in 1963 the Senate passed, with the support of the Senator from Maine, an amendment in the water bill at that time — I think it was1963 — to eliminate the use of phosphates in cleaning agents or reduce their amounts, and then again this year I offered an amendment to the water bill to eliminate the use of phosphates because of the deleterious effect they had on the Great Lakes as a body of water, they being the most serious agent in terms of causing eutrophication, and the Senator from Maine did support that.
It was adopted by an overwhelming margin, but the House would not agree in conference to accept that amendment, although we have passed it twice, if not three times — twice that I recall.
I had understood, although I was not there, that there was some discussion in the conference with respect to holding hearings in both houses on the proposal to prohibit the use of phosphates in the watershed of the Great Lakes. I do not recall whether the chairman was present at that time or not.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was not, but the staff has briefed me on what took place.
May I say the basic problem in conference was that there was disagreement as to the data that bore on the magnitude of this problem in the Great Lakes basin and the contributing causes, so I would like to assure the Senator for myself on the Senate side that we will take another look at the basic data, and I know the Senator will cooperate in undertaking to develop it, and see where we go from there.
I think unless we can establish basic underlying data in a way that is pretty convincing, it would be difficult to persuade the House in another conference. I think we ought to begin at the beginning to look at the underlying data, and when we are ready, if the data indicate it, go to hearings possibly. We will certainly not drop the issue. It is a question of how we pick it up again in order to resolve it.
The Senator from Idaho was in attendance at the conference, and maybe he could add to what I have said.
Mr. McCLURE. I would underscore what the Senator from Maine said. I was one of the conferees and did take part in those conversations, and I think the Senator from Maine is correct.
It is going to take some persuasion of House Members as to the basic facts, and I think the Senate committee will be very interested in looking at that basic data to determine what then should be our next move in terms of dealing with this issue.
I would say to the Senator, too, that the act to which these amendments are directed, and these amendments themselves as they are implemented, have an effect upon the problem itself, and the data base, as a result, changes because of the application of the Clean Water Act and the role the activities in pollution abatement play under that act, irrespective of any other mandate with respect to phosphates particularly or separately.
So I think there will be a need for us to look at the basic data, a need for the committee to develop a better information base of what kind of impact current activities are having on the existing law and under these amendments upon the whole question of phosphate pollution. It
is not only in the Great Lakes area but in the remainder of the United States. I am sure the committee will do that. I would cerainly add my own assurances to the Senator that insofar as I am concerned, as far as this one Senator is concerned, we will be undertaking a review of that information.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say additionally that we will undertake immediately to ask the EPA to give us a report for the purpose of gathering and collating the data bearing upon this issue and this problem so we can have the benefit as early in the year as possible of EPA's input as we consider what steps we ought to take to go from where we are.
Mr. NELSON. May I say to the Senator, when I first introduced that amendment in the past, in 1963, I was satisfied, based upon conversations with scientists who had not done the studies but were extrapolating from their, knowledge of how much phosphate was going into the Great Lakes, that certainly there was serious damage and acceleration of eutrophication going on as a consequence, without having a very carefully studied data base to measure the amount or measure the effect.
Since 1972, the statistics I have looked at, based upon the studies made, at least to me, are compellingly persuasive, and I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Idaho and the chairman of the committee, Senator MUSKIE.
I would hope we could have a chance, at the convenience of the committee, to have the EPA and those who did the Great Lakes studies present their data so that we have it in the hearing record because if, in fact, the studies are correct, it is a very, very serious matter involving the largest collection of fresh water in a chain of lakes anywhere on the face of the Earth.
It has been persuasive enough, the data that have been accumulated over the years, so that the city of Chicago has banned the use of phosphates except for certain measured amounts for industrial and commercial use; the State of Minnesota has done the same, as has the State of New York. So you now have a huge city and two States, all bordering the lakes, which have viewed it as serious enough to ban its use there.
Of course, they are using alternative detergents that work very well. I personally would have hoped the soap and detergent industry would have enough feeling of corporate responsibility toward the welfare of the country and the protection of this great body of water to voluntarily stop selling detergents with phosphates in them in the watershed of the Great Lakes. But obviously they do not or have not thus far, even though they are the same companies that are selling the substitute detergents that are being used very effectively in Minnesota, Chicago, and New York anyway.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate that comment. I assure the Senator we will pursue it.
We are interested not only in the overall impact of phosphates on the Great Lakes, but the sources. I take it agricultural runoff is one of the sources, and how effectively we can deal with that source is a question.
I take it that most, if not all, of the waste treatment plants operating in the Great Lakes basin are taking phosphates out. I do not know how effectively or to what extent that has reduced the problem. Maybe in some cases poor operation is subverting that benign influence on the problem. But in any case let us get all the parameters of the problem and all the data base as refined as we can, and maybe we can find a base that can give us House as well as Senate support.
Mr. NELSON. I might say to the Senator from Maine that many of the same scientists who had thought in 1970 and 1971 that treatment of the wastes and extraction of the phosphate in the plant would be effective have concluded that the answer is to keep it from getting into the plant in the first place. They consider in these studies, which they would be prepared to present, that the factor of the phosphates in detergents is critical to stopping the deterioration of the lakes.
Mr. MUSKIE. It may well be, may I say to the Senator. All we really need is to have the same kind of examination of the problem on the House side as we give it on the Senate side so that when we get into conference again on this issue, if we ever do, at least as to the basic data they will be in agreement so that we will not have to face arguments about whether or not there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending business.