April 22, 1977
Page 11867
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the conference agreement on H.R. 4877, the regular spring supplemental for fiscal 1977, provides for appropriations of $28.9 billion, which would result in an estimated $7.4 billion in outlays during fiscal1977. These levels are $3.8 billion in budget authority and $0.1 billion in outlays lower that the Senate-passed version of this bill.
Mr. President, the conference agreement on this bill is below the levels passed by the Senate primarily for two reasons. First, the conferees reduced budget authority for Environmental Protection Agency construction grants from $4.5 billion as passed by the Senate to a level of $1 billion. Second, the conferees removed $275 million in budget authority and $100 million in outlays for Economic Development Administration and Small Business Administration disaster assistance.
However, I am disappointed that the conference did not sustain the full $4.5 billion for EPA construction grants. The water pollution program must be fully funded. Deadlines for water cleanup depend on an even flow of financial resources to meet community waste treatment needs. These funds were assumed in the congressional budget and the President requested full funding. But the Appropriations Committee has bowed to the House; and thereby to the intimidation of the House Committee on Public Works. By only making available $1 billion and then limiting these funds to the present formula for allocation among the States, only $223 million of at least $900 million in demonstrated needs are provided in this conference agreement.
Lack of new authorizing legislation was an ostensible objection to allowing the full $4.5 billion, but that may be remedied during the remaining 51/2 months of the fiscal year. The issue of full funding for fiscal year 1977 for this important environmental program thus remains open and, assumedly, the additional funding can be included in a future supplemental appropriation. But that is not a sufficient reason for denying these critical funds.
Mr. President, when the bill was before the Senate, I pleaded for the conferees to uphold the Senate's position on full funding. I even went so far as to provide an option to the conferees. I said:
I believe that a strong case can be made for appropriation of the full $4.5 billion. In that case, full allotment to all 50 states can be justified on the basis that adequate funds can be made available to all states. However, if an amount less than $4.5 billion is agreed upon in conference, I would urge that it be made available only to those states which need the funds — and only on a first come-first serve basis. This procedure would assure that funds are directed to the areas where they can be used, and would avoid tying up needed funds in states unable to use them.
This failure on the part of the conferees not only threatens the integrity of the water pollution construction grant program but it provides an opportunity for the House Committee on Public Works to continue to hold the program hostage to a series of unjustified and unwise amendments to the clean water law.
Mr. President, the water pollution program means clean water and economic activity. An appropriation of $4.5 billion represents an opportunity to reduce our backlog of needed waste treatment facilities by 10 percent and to provide 200,000 jobs. All of these facts were apparently ignored by the Senate conferees. I cannot understate my distress with the result with which the Senate is presented.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times editorial be included in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MUDDYING THE CLEAN WATER LAW
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 was a major turning point in the long struggle to clean up the nation's rivers and protect its water resources. For the first time, Congress adequately responded to two grim facts: Every major river system in America is seriously polluted, and the nation's ponds, marshes and other wetlands have been systematically diminished to a dangerous extent. As a result of recent actions by the House of Representatives, the act is now in jeopardy.
The law set the bold goal of "zero discharge"of pollutants into the nation's rivers by 1985. It created a licensing system for the Army Corps of Engineers to control dumping into any stream, river or wetland. Previously, under an 1899 law, the Army Engineers regulated only streams and rivers used in interstate commerce.
The extension of Federal protection to small streams and to wetlands was of critical importance. Wetlands are nature's breeding grounds and also its backup system where water from storms and floods is absorbed, fish are spawned, and birds pass part of their life cycle. Dumping, particularly of materials containing heavy metals or toxic pesticides, has had a disastrous effect.
Last year, the House passed legislation that would have virtually repealed the law as far as regulating wetlands and small streams was concerned. That attempt died in a House-Senate conference, but this year the House has again passed a bill that would substantially weaken the licensing authority.
The bill as passed by the House contains other dubious amendments; they pose complex questions that the Senate Public Works Committee wants to restudy in hearings later this spring. This cautious approach is also favored by the Carter Administration. Unfortunately, in an effort to preempt the contest, the House attached its amendments to the President's $4 billion emergency public works bill, which must be dealt with promptly.
The Senate and the Administration may yet conclude that clarifying language is necessary to exempt normal activities in farming, ranching and forestry that have only minor environmental impact on rivers and wetlands. But the House amendments go well beyond any such necessary clarification. The nation's water resources are too scarce and precious to allow a return to the reckless practices of the past.
Mr. MUSKIE. Turning to other matters in the bill, the EDA and SBA disaster assistance funds were removed by the conferees pending passage of authorizing legislation which may yet be forthcoming during the remaining months of this fiscal year. Therefore, we should regard these two items, totaling $275 million, as possible later requirements for supplemental appropriations in fiscal year 1977.
From the viewpoint of human needs, we are an important step closer to enactment of funding for one program which sorely needs to get under way. I refer to the $200 million for emergency fuel bill assistance to low income people, including the elderly, who are unable to pay the enormous fuel bills caused by the severe cold of this past winter. Many families who were able to survive the winter without fuel cutoffs now face the prospect of having their utility service cut off, because they have not been able to pay their fuel bills. This appropriation,therefore, is coming not a moment too soon.
Mr. President, this bill as approved by the conferees and the possible later requirements for EPA construction grants and EDA and SBA disaster assistance are, together, no higher than the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4877. They can be accommodated within the third budget resolution.