September 26, 1978
Page 31547
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 11302. This conference agreement represents a fair compromise between the Senate and House bills and will, in my estimation, provide adequate support and guidance for the research and development program of the Environmental Protection Agency during the next fiscal year.
I have followed the progress of the research, development, and demonstration program at EPA since its beginning. It has provided the scientific underpinning for EPA regulations over the last decade. In addition, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has provided leadership in promoting new environmental control technologies. This authorization should maintain that forward-looking approach.
This year's authorization bill has special significance. The Office of Management and Budget, in a memorandum of January 11, 1978 signed by Director James McIntyre, directed a major shift in emphasis of the EPA research program focus. That memorandum proposed to transfer the responsibility for energy-related pollution control technology from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Energy (DOE). In response, an equivalent budget for health and ecological effects research in DOE was to be transferred to EPA. The language of H.R. 11302 and its accompanying report unequivocally and completely rejects the January 11 proposal as it applies to the pollution control technology transfer.
This proposal would have had far-ranging consequences. It would have realigned EPA's priorities such that necessary functions would have been stripped from EPA. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act established a dynamic relationship between EPA's research and regulation efforts. These acts contemplated the upgrading of standards in concert with the development, under EPA leadership, of technologies not yet achieved. The R. & D. program in EPA which has supported many of the achievements in this area reflects the Congress commitment to the process of improving technology and establishing sound, attainable, and defensible standards. This transfer would have weakened the EPA program and threatened that good working relationship. The conference bill language reflects the conferees' intent to expressly forbid the transfer of resources as well as programs from EPA to the Energy Department for research, development, and demonstration of environmental control technologies.
In this agreement, the conferees have reiterated their understanding of the proper division of labor between environmental and energy-mission agencies. The conferees took notice of, and endorsed without reservation, the legislative and report language of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, which carefully defined agency responsibility for those agencies having to work with energy-related environmental control technologies. In the 1974 act, Congress reaffirmed its position that the Environmental Protection Agency should continue to have a strong program in the pollution control research field. The conference report noted that EPA's mandate is not to wait for development of appropriate and workable control technologies, but to press for breakthroughs. Senator JACKSON indicated the following in a letter to me in 1974 concerning the transfer proposed in that year:
I agree with your objective to insure that EPA will continue to have the confirmatory research capability to back up its regulatory responsibilities regarding the Clean Air Act. I also appreciate the need for EPA to have "in-house" technical competence in the pollution control technologies which are associated with automotive and stationary power plant emissions.
Divorcing pollution control research from the related regulatory agency does not make sense. Research and regulation must go hand-in-hand. Each Member of Congress has, at one time or another, heard constituents and interest groups complain about regulations and enforcement policies. They fear that legal requirements may be based on inadequately tested technology. These concerns should not be answered by removing testing and demonstration programs from the Environmental Protection Agency. The answer, rather, should be an expansion of EPA's efforts. Therefore, the conferees have directed EPA to pursue regulatory research at bench, pilot and demonstration levels in furtherance of their regulatory mission.
Some of my colleagues will no doubt comment that the Environmental Protection Agency should not be the sole Federal receptacle of environmental knowledge. It is essential to provide environmental information to most agencies of Government so that actions of the agreement can be taken in the environmentally sensible fashion. I agree.
As was agreed in 1974, the Energy Research and Development Administration, now the Energy Department; should also be cognizant of environmental values and constraints in its development of new energy sources and technologies. The legislative history of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act is also clear that the Department of Energy environmental programs should not be developed at the expense of the Environmental Protection Agency. The statistics showing the environmental research and development efforts of the major Federal agencies are instructive. I ask that attachments A and B be inserted in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Tables omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, these figures indicate that EPA is not even the major spender on environmental research. The Department of Energy is. Compare EPA's role in either budget authority or outlays and it becomes clear that EPA is not dominating the field. In fact, EPA has only 15 percent of the environmental research budget of the Federal Government. That should be expanded, not reduced.
I agree with the stated desire of OMB to eliminate overlap of unneeded research programs. Too few demonstration project are being undertaken in this critical area to create duplication problems. Even if the two agencies were undertaking similar projects, the very different orientations of the two sponsoring agencies practically guarantee different research products. Research done for EPA is geared to reducing harmful pollutants in our environment; research in DOE is aimed at developing new and more reliable sources of energy. Both goals are desirable, both research efforts deserve support, and both must proceed in a cooperative framework.
Clearly, such cooperation between agencies is desirable. Yet, under the proposal that has now been rejected, the Office of Management and Budget would require that the Environmental Protection Agency "buy" cooperation from DOE with the transfer of these important pollution control programs to the Department of Energy. This is not only unsound policy, but also contradictory to clear legislative intent. In the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, Congress specified a good model for interagency cooperation. In that act, the Congress specified that the Energy Research and Development Administration could contract with other Federal agencies to accomplish needed research ends. The idea of transferring this Program from EPA to the Department of Energy has been rejected. I would suggest that the administration follow the legally authorized course provided by the contracting-coordinating alternative. This option would leave the Environmental Protection Agency mission intact, while at the same time providing for better coordination between agencies.
Mr. President, if the responsibility for the development of technology were to be shifted to an agency whose primary mission is to develop new sources of energy, pollution control would likely take a back seat to other considerations. Rather than being based on environmental results, pollution control achievements would tend to be based solely on energy priorities. Energy self-sufficiency and environmental protection must go hand-in-hand. One cannot dominate the other. The proposed transfer would have left the fox guarding the chicken coop. That is unacceptable. For these reasons, the Congress should accept this conference bill which rejects the ill-advised proposal of the January 11, 1978 memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that copies of the January 11 memorandum, as well as the correspondence I have exchanged with the administration, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
January 11, 1978.
Memorandum for James R. Schlesinger and Douglas M. Costle.
From James T. McIntyre.
Subject DOE-EPA Environmental Researchand Development Programs.
As you are aware the President's FY 1979 Budget will provide for a change in program emphasis, under existing agency authorizations, in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). The intent of this action is to improve the overall Federal effort in environmental protection and energy technology development. OMB staff has discussed the specific nature of this funding change with your staffs. In summary, $14 million of environmental control technology projects previously conducted in EPA will be administered by DOE and $14 million of environmental and health effects research previously conducted in DOE will be incorporated into the ongoing EPA research program. Attached is a detailed description of this budgetary action.
It has been agreed that the specific management details of this action will be negotiated between OMB, DOE and EPA over the next 120 days. In addition, the following guidelines and language have been drafted to describe the basic nature of the change and the subsequent agency responsibilities. These will also serve to guide the more detailed discussions over the next 120 days.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
DOE will assume responsibility for $14 M of EPA environmental control technology development programs. DOE will be the lead Agency responsible for development of energy environmental control technology. EPA will continue to do bench-scale research on environmental control technology and may proceed to conclusion with its existing NOx program. Future environmental control technology development programs are the responsibility of DOE, including future NOx initiatives. EPA may not initiate any new pilot or demonstration plant projects in environmental control technology development without consulting with DOE but will be provided resources for continued bench-scale investigations into the state-of-the-art developments in control technologies.
DOE guarantees EPA access to all facilities, data, and methodology employed in the energy technology program provided that DOE is notified in advance.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH
EPA will assume responsibility for $14 M of DOE environmental research projects. EPA will support these research projects at the National Laboratories for two years unless a project is concluded as determined in consultation with DOE and OMB. EPA will be the lead Agency responsible for research in support of long range environmental goals and regulatory standards. The particular management details and guidelines for future program responsibility will be formulated during the 120 day period of negotiation. However, with the exception of site-specific or effluent-specific research in support of energy technology development, DOE may take no new initiatives in health and environmental effects research without consulting with EPA.
The results of all EPA research projects will be entered into the Federal Environment and Safety Research Inventory developed by DOE.
Please designate two individuals to represent your agency in the discussions addressing the specific management details of this budgetary action.
Attachment.
JANUARY 23, 1978.
Mr. JAMES T. MCINTYRE, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MCINTYRE: We are writing to express our concern over the proposal in the President's FY 79 Budget to shift some of the pollution control research and development responsibilities from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Energy. Such a shift is contrary to the intent of Congress that these responsibilities belong with the Environmental Protection Agency. It is also contrary to the intent in the legislation that established the Energy Research and Development Administration.
In 1974, the Nixon Administration proposed shifting these and other research programs from EPA to the Energy Research and Development Administration. The proposed transfer was stricken from the Senate bill and only a small portion of that transfer was retained in the House bill. The conference agreement excluded transfer of EPA programs except for the Alternative Automotive Power Systems Program. The Congressional intent to preclude the transfer of pollution control technology is quite specific. There was no reversal or modification of that intent when the Department of Energy was created in 1977.
The arguments against such a shift are stated in the Senate report accompanying the Energy Research and Development Administration legislation. In brief, they are (1) the Environmental Protection Agency has a record of aggressively pursuing the development of pollution control technology, while the Department of Energy would be more likely to emphasize energy production; (2) in developing regulations, the Agency needs to retain a strong technical basis that can come only with the kind of responsibility associated with such research programs; and (3) it is not enough for EPA to have the ability to assess such developments — the Agency must be able to stimulate such developments.
In our view, the proposed transfer of funds from EPA to the Department of Energy for pollution control and research development would result in the Department of Energy performing unauthorized research. We would be happy to discuss this matter further with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE. U.S.S.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution.
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.,
March 14, 1978.
Hon. JAMES T. MCINTYRE, Director-Designate,
The Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JIM: I understand that the Committee on Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing on your nomination as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for Thursday, March 16. It would be useful in connection with this hearing to clarify your views on three subjects where OMB has responsibility and which affect the Committees on which I serve.
First, I would like to have your views regarding the proper interpretation of Section 201(d) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That section relates to the authority of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to secure budget information from the Executive Branch and other agencies which she determines necessary to the performance of her duties and functions.
We put this provision in the Budget Act to eliminate any question about the obligation of OMB and other departments and agencies to respond promptly and completely to requests by the Director of CBO for information, data, estimates and statistics.
The only exception to the obligation of the Executive Branch to provide such material promptly upon its request is where disclosure of the material would be a violation of another specific statute.
I understand a question arose in January as to whether OMB was required pursuant to Section 201(d) to provide CBO the so-called "Budget Tape" as soon as it is completed. I understand that various representatives of OMB maintained that that statute did not require the release of such information at all or at least did not require its release immediately.
I understand OMB was concerned that other agencies of Congress were also interested in obtaining the tape and was concerned that a broad distribution of the tape prior to the release of the budget itself might result in a breach of the tape's confidentiality. While I am sympathetic to such concerns, I am hopeful that OMB is not misreading the Budget Act and accepts its proper interpretation: that OMB must produce promptly whatever information, data, estimates and statistics the CBO Director determines to be necessary in performance of her duties. I am also hopeful you agree with the clear statement of Section 201(d) so that further inquiry into this question may be dispensed with.
Second I continue to be concerned with the impoundment issue. While Congress addressed and resolved the problem of impoundment of funds in the Budget Act, no similar procedure has been developed to deal with impoundments which results from limits on personnel made available to implement programs. I would like to know what your views are on this problem. What methods are available which would assure that authorized programs are implemented as intended?
Third I am concerned about the proposed transfer of pollution control demonstration projects from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Energy, as recommended in the President's fiscal 1979 budget submission. I wrote to you about this on January 24 and urged you to reconsider. Since that time both Senate Committees with jurisdiction over the agencies involved (Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural Resources) have sent recommendations to the Senate Budget Committee objecting to this transfer.
Authorization for the Department of Energy to conduct the research which would be funded by the transfer was expressly rejected in the legislation which created the Department of Energy. An amendment to the Department of Energy Act would be required to permit these funds to be used for the purposes intended. I would like to know what your plans are with regard to submittal of such a proposal. Can we expect a proposed amendment from the Administration or do you intend to pursue another course of action, and if so, under what authority?
While I realize there is only a short period of time prior to the hearing on your nomination, I would appreciate your response to these issues in advance of committee consideration.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
March 16, 1978.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Committee on Government Affairs,
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I am pleased to beable to respond to your letter of March 14, asking for a clarification of my views on three subjects in advance of consideration of my nomination as Director of OMB by the Committee on Government Affairs. My responses to your questions are as follows:
We agree with your interpretation of Section 201(d) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Specifically, OMB and all other agencies must furnish information upon request by the Congressional Budget Office.
During the last two years we have furnished the budget tape to the Congressional Budget Office several days in advance of the President's budget submission. We are happy to cooperate with the CBO and provide the tape as soon as feasible. We believe that the CBO is satisfied with the way this matter has been handled. You will recognize that since the tape reflects the data in the President's budget the timing of its transmittal must depend upon the President's final determinations on the budget. I am sure that we will be able to furnish the tape at least a few days prior to the transmittal of each budget.
You also expressed concern about our intentions with regard to assuring that authorized programs are implemented as intended. There are several mechanisms in existence to assure that programs are carried out as intended by the Congress. These mechanisms are designed to achieve the most effective use of authorized funds, while permitting some latitude to program managers to assure that program objectives are accomplished in the most efficient way possible. The Department of the Treasury certifies the availability of funds provided by Congress through a warranting process. Funds warranted by Treasury are further allotted through an apportionment process managed by the Office of Management and Budget to assure that resources are allocated efficiently.
Executive agencies and the President are required by the Impoundment Control Act to report to the Congress any actions that would delay or halt use of funds provided by the Congress. The General Accounting Office establishes the rules for accounting for funds, for determining the validity of expenditures and monitors Executive Branch reporting under the Impoundment Control Act. All of these individual mechanisms are important to assure implementation of authorized programs.
Limits on Federal employment are intended not to restrain programs below authorized levels but to help assure that programs are implemented in the most efficient manner.
These institutional mechanisms together form a means for making effective use of the financial and staff resources available to the government in executing authorized programs. I assure you that we will not use personnel ceilings to stop or delay carrying out any program established by the Congress.
I will now address your questions concerning certain environmental control technology programs currently undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency and certain health effects research programs currently undertaken by the Department of Energy.
First, let me clarify what is proposed in the President's budget. No programs or authorities are proposed to be transferred from one agency to another. Rather, the funding for EPA's energy- related control technology development activities would be reduced from $52M in FY 78 to $38M in FY 79, while EPA's energy-related health effects research funds would be increased from $40M to $54M. As far as DOE's budget is concerned, its control technology development activities would be increased from $55M to $69M, and its fossil fuels health effects research funds cut from $49M to $39M. Both agencies would continue to be active in both program areas, pursuant to the authority of the Clean Air Act and other EPA statutes and the Department of Energy Organization Act and other DOE statutes.
The intended results of these changes in funding levels would be an increased capacity in the EPA to undertake the health effects research that provides the critically needed basis for its regulatory programs, and an increased capacity in the Department of Energy to undertake the development of fuel and combustion cycles that will be necessary to meet strict environmental standards. At the same time, EPA will maintain a significant research capability in the control technology development area, so that it can help force the development of new technology and confirm what is or ought to be available. Similarly, DOE will maintain a significant capability in the health effects research area, so that it can understand and take into account the environmental and public health consequences of energy technologies that it is helping to develop.
To be more specific, EPA will continue to conduct bench scale research and retain its current engineering expertise. In addition, EPA will retain in full its important program in the control of oxides of nitrogen. Further, EPA will have guaranteed and protected access to all of DOE's data and research methodologies in these areas. Finally, through a new interagency working group — which OMB will oversee — and through new cross-agency zero-based budgeting procedures, EPA will be given more ability to influence the program planning and implementation at DOE.
Why did we propose this shift in budget emphasis between agencies in these areas?
Without reservation, it is the policy of this Administration — and of genuine personal concern to President Carter — that our energy production objectives must be met in a manner consistent with our environmental goals and standards. To do this, we must develop energy technologies that make the most environmentally and economically advantageous use of clean fuels, clean combustion processes, and clean emissions controls. We are convinced that these components must be researched and demonstrated together — in combination with each other — so that the best available control technologies will be developed; so that ambient, new source performance, and prevention of significant deterioration standards can be met; and so that growth, economic development, and energy production needs can be met.
At the same time, we must also be sure — surer than we are now — that the health of the American people will be protected in the use of these new energy technologies. For that reason, we felt it necessary to provide for EPA the primary responsibility and increased resources to conduct energy-related health effects research.
The FY 79 budget was prepared consistent with these objectives, and we believe that the changes in budget emphasis will move us closer to the goals that I know we share with you.
I will be happy to discuss these questions with you at the hearings.
Sincerely,
JAMES T. MCINTYRE, Jr., Acting Director.
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
March 21, 1978.
Mr. JAMES T. MCINTYRE,
Director-Designate,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JIM: Thank you for your reply to my letter of March 14. I have read your response,yet I remain concerned about two issues raised in connection with your nomination to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
First, I am strongly opposed to the proposed transfer of responsibility for development and demonstration of large scale conventional pollution control technologies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Energy. The transfer neither recommends itself on sound public policy grounds, nor is it statutorily authorized.
You stated in your March 16 letter to me that "no programs or authorities are proposed to be transferred from one agency to another." This interpretation seems strained. The rationale stated in your memorandum of January 11, 1978 to Douglas Costle and James Schlesinger seems to clearly identify a transfer:
"14 million of environmental control technology projects previously conducted in EPA will be administered by DOE and $14 million of environmental health effects research previously conducted in DOE will be incorporated into the ongoing EPA research program."
At the minimum, it appears that ownership of the facilities involved will be transferred from EPA to DOE.
You also indicated in your March 16 letter that:
"Both agencies would continue to be active in both areas, pursuant to the authority of the Clean Air Act and other EPA statutes and the Department of Energy Organization Act and other DOE statutes."
Yet in your January 11 memorandum, you actually prohibited EPA involvement in some of these important areas:
"Future environmental control technology development programs are the responsibility of DOE, including future NOx. EPA may not initiate any new pilot or demorstration plant projects in environmental control technology without consulting with DOE but will be provided resources for continued bench scale investigations into the state-of-the-art developments in control technologies."
Your decision fails to consider the Muskie-Javits Amendment to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (PL. 93-438) which stated specifically that the creation of ERDA (now DOE) should not remove energy-related environmental research and development responsibilities from EPA.
While you indicated that EPA will retain in full its important program in the control of oxides of nitrogen, EPA will immediately lose equally important SO2, particulates, and any other large scale demonstration projects in the future. For example, it is essential that EPA begin research in combustion modification and post-combustion clean-up of diesel particulates. It is also important that EPA begin developing bench studies relating to the control of heavy organics associated with fly ash. Under the OMB guidelines as stated in your January 11 memorandum, EPA will be unable to pursue either of these projects through the demonstration level.
Pollution control research must be approached holistically. That is, an idea must be explored in the lab, developed at the bench and pilot levels, and then applied to an operating facility to demonstrate feasibility. If EPA is restricted to bench studies in these critical areas, the agency will not gain "hands on" experience with technologies such as scrubbers, and therefore will be in no position to independently evaluate the reliability and effectiveness of proposed technologies let alone accelerate their improvement. In effect, the transfer will leave EPA in the "ivory tower", unable to "force technology".
At the heart of the issue for both agencies is the question of access to data and facilities. Your January 11 memorandum indicated that in exchange for the projects in question, EPA would be guaranteed access to all DOE facilities, data, and methodologies related to energy technology. It is contrary to the legislative language and intent of the 1974 Act, however, to force EPA to purchase this type of cooperation with the transfer of essential research and development projects.
These projects should not be used as a bargaining chip. The better solution would be to encourage a "multiple use" concept of all Federal facilities, as embodied in the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Section 140(1) of that Act affords the Department of Energy access through contracting mechanisms of any other Federal agencies, including those of EPA, whose personnel have special expertise or whose labs are particularly appropriate to a given investigation. This provision could be used to force joint agency problem definition, project planning, design, management and budgeting. Information-sharing and cooperation agreements are essential to the use of research and development dollars; however, this transfer seems unnecessary to guarantee that end.
I recognize OMB's problem in evaluating demands for increasingly scarce Federal resources, but severing the research effort to EPA's standards-setting functions from the EPA is neither wise, authorized, nor acceptable. It seems to me that the best option is to mandate cooperative efforts through provisions such as section 140(i) of the 1974 Act.
My second concern relates to what amounts to "impoundment of positions" in Federal agencies by the Office of Management and Budget through the imposition of personnel ceilings. The Carter Administration has taken the position that it will not impound funds appropriated by Congress. How does the refusal by OMB to release appropriated positions differ from an impoundment of funds?
The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, is falling far short of its water quality effort simply due to under-staffing. The FY 1978 supplemental was intended to correct this deficiency; however, because the positions have not been "released", important goals cannot be accomplished. To exacerbate the situation, additional legislative burdens have been added to that agency's mandate due to the 1977 Clean Water Amendments, which the Carter Administration supported. This is only one of many examples which highlights the importance of clarifying your views and those of the President on the impoundment question.
I wanted to raise these issues with you in person during the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on your nomination to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget, but was unable to do so. I want to emphasize, though, that these are problems of deep personal concern. I would appreciate your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S.S.,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C.,
May 4, 1978.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have received your thoughtful letter regarding the shift of responsibility for demonstration of large scale pollution control technologies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Energy.
You state in your letter that at the heart of the issue for both agencies is the question of access to data and facilities. I agree that this is indeed critical and have insisted on guaranteed EPA access to all DOE facilities, data and methodologies. As you point out, such access is essential in order to ensure EPA the "hands on" experience with energy control technologies necessary to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of the technologies. In the past, this access has not been assured. In fact, the proposal goes even further, giving EPA a joint role in determining which facilities will be built by the Department of Energy. This is the key to developing the "multiple use" facilities which you suggest. EPA will be expected to utilize any facility that demonstrates energy control technology.
EPA has been given a great deal more ability to influence program planning and implementation at DOE. We have established an interagency working group which OMB oversees. The working group will be given the responsibility to develop an energy/environment joint budget request utilizing cross-agency zero based budgeting procedures. Thus, EPA will be helping to determine the entire Federal energy control technology development program, as well as the environmental research program.
If EPA proposed to demonstrate technology in any of the key areas you mentioned, I am sure that such a project would be judged on its merits. Any problems would be brought to OMB's attention. Additionally, we will be establishing a joint oversight committee of outside scientific and technical experts to insure the joint approach produces an environmentally sound energy development research program. We do not intend that EPA have an ivory tower position; on the contrary, our proposal will give EPA more than adequate leverage to force technology — in some respects, perhaps, even more leverage than it has now.
Let me restate the demonstrated policy of this Administration: Energy production objectives must be met in a manner consistent with our environmental goals and standards. Energy technologies must make the most environmentally and economically advantageous use of clean fuels, clean combustion processes, and emissions controls.
This is exactly the holistic approach you feel must be made to energy pollution control. This is why we feel that all components must be researched and demonstrated together, with a joint planning and budgeting process for all components which includes both EPA and DOE.
I believe this proposal will lead to a more environmentally sound energy research program, and to the attainment of our national environmental goals.
You also expressed concern over the relationship of employment ceilings to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Limits on Federal employment are not used to restrain programs below authorized levels but to help assure that programs are affected in the most efficient and economical manner in relation to the use and productivity of Federal employees. The presence of an employment ceiling does not preclude the use of funds for the legitimate purposes provided in law.
It is not our intention to use employment ceilings to stop or delay authorized programs. However, cases may arise when it is possible to carry out the full objectives and scope of a program with fewer Federal employees than originally intended by the Congress. In such cases, when dollar savings result after considering other legitimate uses of the funds within the intent of Congress, then it is our responsibility to realize these savings and report the action to the Congress pursuant to the Act.
In specific reference to the water quality program which you mention, I can assure you that the Administration's support for an effective implementation of the Clean Water Act is firm. We have requested anc received appropriations to substantially increase our efforts in the development of toxic effluent guidelines. We are currently completing a review of EPA's budget amendment request for FY 1979 for both personnel anc resources to improve implementation of the recently enacted amendments to the Clean Water Act. In addition, EPA has specific plans to reprogram resources to meet other requirements of the Clean Water Act. I believe we can achieve an effective balance between personnel and overall resources to implement the Clean Water Act in a manner consistent with the statute and efficient management practices.
Sincerely.
JAMES T. MCINTYRE, Jr.,
Director