August 4, 1978
Page 24356
Mr. MOYNIHAN. These immediate measures do not offer a long-range solution, however; a permanent disposal site must be found for the wastes, and the homes may have to be repaired or entirely relocated.
Thus we must recognize a Federal interest in further resolution of this problem. The alleviation of environmental emergencies is recognized as an appropriate activity of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 504(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to "provide assistance in emergencies caused by the release into the environment of any pollutant or other contaminant * * * which present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare." Beyond this statutory authority, however, the Federal Government has a certain responsibility noted by the New York Times at the end of their article published on August 2; it is possible that the Department of Defense deposited chemical warfare material into the canal.
The vehicle for Federal involvement is at hand. The March 15, 1978, budget recommendation of the Environment and Public Works Committee requested a $5 million appropriation for section 504 of the Water Pollution Control Act. I would request that $4 million of that amount be allocated for alleviation of the situation on the Love Canal. This seems the least we can do to mitigate the further suffering of those unwitting-ly subject to these horrible consequences.
Mr. President,. I want to congratulate my colleagues, the senior Senator from New York, and Representative JOHN LAFALCE for their tireless efforts on behalf of Niagara Falls.
This incident might be preserved as an example of a peculiarly primitive poisoning of the atmosphere by a firm. There is no way to avoid the origins of this situation nor yet to minimize its gravity.
I regret, Mr. President, that the Bureau of the Budget has not as yet found it possible to approve the request made by the Governor for assistance in this case, and in the circumstances I must accept and say that I can fully understand the position of the Senator from Wisconsin.
The Senator from Wisconsin has proven more than forthcoming to matters of sufficient magnitude to be on the floor of the U.S. Senate with respect to my State, with respect to the whole range of urban policies in this country.
This is a situation which needs to be attended to. If the Federal Government cannot provide funds, the State must. We are a State, of 18 million people. We have a gross national product equivalent to that of Canada. We will clear up the muck in our own canals if we have to. But we are not, I hope, to be faulted with seeking Federal assistance and we will persist.
I believe the Senator from Wisconsin has accurately described the situation which confronts him. I am sure I speak for my senior colleague when I say that we accept this explanation.
My revered senior colleague and I have made our case. At this point the administration has not yet accepted it.
In those circumstances, the Senator from Wisconsin has done what he felt he had to do. I would like to express my appreciation for his courtesy and attention. I see the Senator from Maine is on his feet.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. My attention was drawn to this problem this morning as I was watching the Today Show which carried, I believe, a very useful and moving account of this disaster which has stricken this community.
There is no doubt that these toxic materials were deposited 25 or 30 years ago. I suspect that in our present industrial and other practices we may be putting in place without knowing — and we may not know it for decades — toxic materials which may have similarly unanticipated results.
It is for that reason that the Environmental Subcommittee last year included section 504 in the law.
As I understand the Senator's amendment, it does not mandate that these sums be spent on this project; it merely provides that the 504 fund be funded to the extent of $4 million leaving discretion to the Administrator to determine, by rule and regulation or standards that he may set, whether or not this particular situation, which on its face would appear to qualify for assistance, should in fact qualify for that assistance.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. All we are being asked to do here today is to fund, to the extent of 40 percent of the amount authorized, this emergency provision designed to protect people against environmental emergencies.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator is correct. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget has declined and that, I believe, is the controlling situation with the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator from Wisconsin has some points which ought to be taken into account. I have no judgment on whether or not the State of New York has moved as expeditiously as it should have moved; whether the community has; whether a plan for relief has been devised; whether a plan for solution has been devised.
I support the amendment, because I see it as a way of making resources available from the Federal Government to be of assistance if in the judgment of the Administrator such assistance is warranted, given the nature of the disaster, given the participation by the State, given participation by the community, and given the development of a plan that makes some sense relevant to the disaster.
In supporting the amendment I do not by any means want to suggest that I am mandating that this particular disaster be funded. I think the Administrator has to make that determination.
I think that section 504 having been put in the law and this disaster having occurred, which suggests the relevance of that provision of the law, we ought to provide some funds that the Administrator could use, for which the members of this community could apply, and which the Administrator could grant if he is satisfied on the point that Senator PROXMIRE has raised and on some of the points that I have raised. I think there ought to be money available for assistance following the proper exercise of administrative discretion.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator from New York yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from New York that the time of the proponents has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I shall take time from the opponents of the bill, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9 minutes remaining to the chairman of the committee in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, first I want to express my real gratitude and to say how deeply impressed I am by the statesmanlike position taken by the distinguished Senator from New York
(Mr. MOYNIHAN). It is a very painful position for him to take. This is red hot politically, no question about it. We all know how our people would feel if they were in the same position.
At the same time, as I understand what the Senator is telling me, he agrees that, in view of the position taken by the administration — and I do not try, rightly or wrongly, to speak for the administration — I think the Senator from Maine concurs in that. Although the Senator from Maine concurs with the Senator from New York that this is a sound amendment, in the circumstances, in view of the fact that they feel they cannot afford it, I have to continue with the position that I took.
I will say that, in the event that we can get a request from the OMB or for reprogramming in EPA, we would be delighted to act on that most expeditiously. We shall do our best to encourage them to do exactly that, reprogram the money so it can be made available. We shall be happy to do it.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That seems to be a most generous and feasible proposition. We can go to the OMB, and go to EPA, ask for either redress funds or reprogramming, because the Senator from Maine is surely right that this provision of the bill should be funded. In the precise situation of this moment before the Senate, the Senator from Wisconsin clearly has difficulties that are not of his making.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the proponents of the amendment has been used. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes remaining on the amendment in opposition.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I shall yield my time if anybody wants any more time.
Mr. YOUNG. I yield myself time from the bill, about 3 minutes.
I would like to ask the Senator from Maine, could this money be taken out of existing funds? I understand EPA has about a billion dollars of unobligated money. Do we actually need a new appropriation for this purpose?
Mr. MUSKIE. The reason we provided for emergencies in this specific way; I say to the Senator, is so that the larger fund available for funding waste treatment would not become a grab bag for supposed emergencies. In other words, we want emergencies to be very carefully and precisely evaluated so that any funds provided would not become a grab bag. That is why we tried to spell out very specifically and narrowly the eligibility requirements. If we make the big waste treatment fund available for emergencies, I can foresee a flood of requests for supposed emergencies that would be very difficult to say no to. But if we limit emergencies of this kind to this fund, then it must meet a very specific legislative standard. That is why we did it this way.
I have not examined the language of the general statute to be able to guarantee that my answer is correct. But I think it is correct.
Mr. YOUNG. Are the funds exhausted from the emergency funds that the Senator mentioned?
Mr. MUSKIE. It has never been funded. The Environmental Committee asked for funding and that funding was not provided.
Mr. YOUNG. In the next bill to be taken up today, the HUD bill, we will be considering funds for this very purpose.
Mr. MUSKIE. We do not need an additional authorization bill. We sent our request in our March 15 report to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee, of course, does not specifically line-item a fund of this size, so we left that to the Appropriations Committee. I can understand that it was overlooked. I do not know whether it was specifically rejected.
It does seem to me that, since this disaster occurred, this might be a good reason not to grant funds directly to this problem, but simply to provide $4 million as available if the Administrator finds that an emergency, under the standards of the act, actually exists. He has to set standards; he ought to set regulations; he ought to set limitations; he ought to require a plan; and he ought to require participation by State and local authorities. I think all of that ought to be provided as a safeguard. But I think that these funds ought to be made available to the Federal Administrator so that if the Administrator is satisfied that the statutory conditions are met, then the money is available to him up to the amount suggested.
Mr. YOUNG. I can understand the necessity for funds in this amendment and I am not opposing it, but it is a little difficult for the Senator from North Dakota to understand why when the EPA has unobligated a billion dollars, that $4 million is not available for the purpose. We will be considering the HUD appropriations bill this afternoon. It would be more appropriate to add funds to the HUD bill under EPA.
Mr. MUSKIE. That may be so. This is supplemental to EPA, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. This particular fund has never been funded. It cannot be funded in this appropriation bill. I do not know of a more appropriate appropriations bill.
Mr. YOUNG. One of my problems is that I tried to talk Members of the Senate out of offering another 2-percent cut. We thought we knew what money was in the bill or what would be offered. But here we are adding additional funds and we spoil our arguments of not making motions to cut 2 percent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 3 minutes which the Senator yielded to himself from the bill has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I have a minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes available to the chairman of the committee in opposition to the amendment that is still available. All time for the proponents has been used.
Who yields time?
Mr. YOUNG. I have time on the bill. How much?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 4 minutes remaining on the bill.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes remaining on the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG. I do not need any more time. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not need 4 minutes. I simply say that last year, we exhibited generosity for disasters of one kind or another in this country that is without precedent in the history of the country. We provided low-interest loans of $5.8 billion to the farm sector of our economy, and we have provided for disasters through my 20 years in the Senate.
You cannot anticipate disasters. How do you anticipate them? So we provided this modest $10 million fund to meet a very specific kind of disaster. Now we are told that that is excessive. I mean, what is our standard of values?
Mr. YOUNG. I should like to make it plain that I am not opposed to the motion. I am not opposed to making the funds available. My only question is the method.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to hear that, and I apologize to the Senator for misunderstanding the motives of his question.
I am not selling this particular project for relief, because I do not know enough about it, but I think that this is a disaster and if there is a role for the Federal Government to play, I think it is a modest request to make $4 million available in such event. That is the sum total of my position this afternoon.