THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
S3S
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
\
Ul
55
\
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
US. tnv; '-:•'.
,
230 South ;.);- , , ^ v,-
Chicago, liiinois GU604
-------
J,3. r.r-.,;-:,. • ••• .«i;oa Agency
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $22.20 per 6-vol. set. Sold in sets only
Stock Number 5500-0063
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that
once the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can
generate. Environmentally, the fire has been lit.
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public con-
cern over the environment, we are experiencing a new American
Revolution, a revolution in our way of life. The era which began
with the industrial revolution is over and things will never be
quite the same again. We are moving slowly, perhaps even grudg-
ingly at times, but inexorably into an age when social, spiritual
and aesthetic values will be prized more than production and con-
sumption. We have reached a point where we must balance civili-
zation and nature through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reorg-
anization Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this new
ethic. It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that due
regard is given to the environmental consequences of actions by
public and private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encompas-
ses basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing
standards; monitoring; and making delicate risk-benefit deci-
sions aimed at creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a
shield behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The great-
est disservice the Environmental Protection Agency could do to
American industry is to be a poor regulator. The environment
would suffer, public trust would diminish, and instead of free en-
terprise, environmental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise
and well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent
to regulatory activities, accepted agency actions as being for the
"public convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism
make it essential not only that today's decisions be wise and well-
founded but that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not
faith, is de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings,
the citizen should have access to the information available to the
iii
-------
agency. EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of
information, without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any inter-
ested party. With this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal
Authority was produced not only for internal operations of EPA,
but as a service to the public, as we strive together to lead the
way, through the law, to preserving the earth as a place both
habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IV
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws
were cited in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus,
requested that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched
and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a work-
ing document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as
a research tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has been estab-
lished to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome
task of developing a better environment.
LANE WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The idea of producing a compilation of the legal authority of
EPA was conceived and commissioned by William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator of EPA. The production of this compilation in-
volved the cooperation and effort of numerous sources, both within
and outside the Agency. The departmental libraries at Justice and
Interior were used extensively; therefore we express our appre-
ciation to Marvin P. Hogan, Librarian, Department of Justice;
Arley E. Long, Land & Natural Resources Division Librarian,
Department of Justice; Frederic E. Murray, Assistant Director,
Library Services, Department of the Interior.
For exceptional assistance and cooperation, my gratitude to:
Gary Baise, formerly Assistant to the Administrator, currently
Director, Office of Legislation, who first began with me on this
project; A. James Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator; K.
Kirke Harper, Jr., Special Assistant for Executive Communica-
tions ; John Dezzutti, Administrative Assistant, Office of Executive
Communications; Roland 0. Sorensen, Chief, Printing Manage-
ment Branch, and Jacqueline Gouge and Thomas Green, Printing
Management Staff; Ruth Simpkins, Janis Collier, Wm. Lee Rawls,
Peter J. McKenna, James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light, Randy
Mott, Thomas H. Rawls, John D. Whittaker, John M. Himmelberg,
and Richard A. Yarmey, a beautiful staff who gave unlimited
effort; and to many others behind the scenes who rendered varied
assistance.
LANE WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are for the general use of per-
sonnel of the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set
out by the President in creating the Agency. This work is not
intended and should not be used for legal citations or any use
other than as reference of a general nature. The author disclaims
all responsibility for liabilities growing out of the use of these
materials contrary to their intended purpose. Moreover, it should
be noted that portions of the Congressional Record from the 92nd
Congress were extracted from the "unofficial" daily version and
are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legis-
lative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Re-
ports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal
Compilation is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
GENERAL
The chapter labeled "General" and color coded red contains the
legal authority of the Agency that applies to more than one area
of pollution, such as the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, E.O.
11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,
Regulation on Certification of Facilities, Interim Guidelines by
CEQ, and Selected Reports. Acts that appear in General are found
in full text with their legislative history. When the same Act
appears under a particular area of pollution, a cross reference is
made back to General for the text.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compi-
lation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative
vii
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
History begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Thusly, any l.la, l.lb, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws compris-
ing the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legisla-
tive history. The legislative history in each case consists of the
House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report (where applica-
ble), the Congressional Record beginning with the time the bill
was reported from committee.
Example:
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26U.S.C. §169 (1969).
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Decem-
ber 30, 1969, P.L. 91-172, §704, 83 Stat. 667.
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969).
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969).
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
91-782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) :
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House, pp.
22746, 22774-22775;
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and passed
Senate, pp. 35486, 38321-37322, 37631-
37633, 37884-37888;
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 40718;*
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees to con-
ference report, pp. 40820, 40900.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for legis-
lative history, but indicates the procedure where only one section
of a P.L. appears. You will note that the Congressional Record
cited pages are only those pages dealing with the discussion
and/or action taken pertinent to the section of law applicable to
EPA. In the event there is no discussion of the pertinent section,
only action or passage, then the asterisk (*) is used to so indicate,
and no text is reprinted in the Compilation. In regard to the
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
IX
situation where only one section of a public law is applicable, then
only the parts of the report dealing with same are printed in the
Compilation.
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than
have this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary
statutes have been included where practical. These secondary stat-
utes are indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by a
bracketed cite to the particular section of the major Act which
made the reference.
Citations
The United States Codi, being the official citation, is used
throughout the Statute section of the compilation. In four Stat-
utes, a parallel table to the
Statutes at Large is provided for your
convenience.
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
Statutes
Source
1.1
1.2
Reorganization Plan No,
1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 15263.
The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, 42
§§4332(2)(c), 4344(5).
3 of EPA's originating act.
1.3
1.4
Environmental Quality Iriiprove-
ment Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.
§4371 et seq. (1970).
Amortization of Pollution Con-
trol Facilities, as amended, 26
U.S.C. §169(d). (1969).
In §4332(2) (c) a mandate was made
U.S.C. to all Federal agencies as to environ-
mental impact statements. EPA func-
tioning as appropriate agency, and
§4344 cited in Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970 as a direct transfer to
EPA.
CEQ's originating act.
1.5 Department of Transportation
Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§1653(f) (1968). I
Direct reference in sections cited to
Clean Air Act, Fed. Water Pollution
Control Act which were transferred
to EPA by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Also the certifying authority was
transferred to EPA through the Re-
org. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred
Clean Air Act and the functions of the
Secty of Interior pertaining to same
to EPA and its Administrator. The
Clean Air Act at §1857f—10 (b) ref-
erences 1.5 and requires consultation
from the Administrator.
-------
X
INSTRUCTIONS
Statutes
Source
1.6 Federal Aid Highway Act, as a- Direct reference made to EPA in
mended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h), (i), sections cited.
(j) (1970).
Airport and Airway Develop- Direct references made to appropriate
ment Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), agency for air, water and noise pollu-
1716(c)(4), (e) (1970). tion which is EPA under Reorg. Plan
No. 3 of 1970.
Disaster Relief Act of 1970, 42 The Water Quality Administration
U.S.C. §4401 et seq. (1970). was transferred to EPA by Reorg.
Plan No. 3 of 1970 and together with
E.G. 11490, §§703(3), 11102(1),
11103(2) EPA assumes responsibility.
Interest on Certain Government §103(c) (4) (E) & (F) of the Act pro-
Obligations, as amended, 26 vides tax relief on industrial develop-
U.S.C. §103 (1969). ment bonds for sewage or solid waste
disposal facilities and air or water
pollution control facilities.
1.10 Uniform Relocation Assistance Act requires Federal and federally
and Real Property Acquisition assisted projects and programs to deal
Polices Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. uniformly and equitably with persons
§4601 et seq. (1970). whose property was taken. EPA pro-
mulgated regulation at 40 C.F.R.
§§4.1—4.263.
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.11 Departmental Regulations, as
revised, 5 U.S.C. §301 (1966).
1.12 Public Health Service Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§203, 215,
242, 242b, c, d, f, i, j, 243, 244,
244a, 245, 246, 247, 264 (1970).
1.13 Davis-Bacon Act, as amended,
40 U.S. C. §276a-276a-5 (1964).
Bases of EPA regulat'on 40 C.F.R.
§§3.735—1|)1 —3.735—107.
Referred to in Clean Air Act., basis
for authority in Water, Pesticides,
and Radiation functions transferred
in Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Referenced from Clean Air Act, Fed.
Water Pollution Control Act, Solid
Waste Disposal Act—all of which
were transferred to EPA in Reorg.
Plan No. 3 of 1970.
1.14 Public Contracts, Advertisements Referred to in Clean Air Act, Federal
for Proposals for Purchases and Water Pollution Control Act, and
Contracts for Supplies or Ser- Public Health Service Act—all of
vices for Government Depart- which transferred to EPA in Reorg.
ments; Application to Govern- Plan No. 3 of 1970.
ment Sales and Contracts to sell
and to Government Corporations,
as amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958).
1.15 Per Diem, Travel and Transpor- Referred to in Clean Air Act, Federal
tation Expenses; Experts and Water Pollution Control Act—all of
Consultants; Individuals Serving which were transferred to EPA in
Without Pay, as amended,
U.S.C. §5703 (1969).
5 Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS xi
Statutes Source
1.16 Disclosure of Confidential Infor- Referred to in Clean Air Act, and
mation Generally, as amended, FWPCA which were transferred to
18 U.S.C. §1905. EPA both being transferred by the
Reorp;. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
1.17 Appropriation Bills Beginning with the Agricultural-En-
vironmental and Consumer Protection
Appropriation Act of 1971 each ap-
propriation bill for EPA will appear.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying to
more than one area of the pollution chapters.
REGULATIONS
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2,
etc.). Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which
the Agency has direct contact.
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.).
In this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of
EPA, published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than
EPA's and inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency distri-
bution and made available through the U.S. Government Printing
Office in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA Legal
Compilation.
-------
CONTENTS
A. GENERAL
Volume I
Page
1. Statutes and Legislative History.
1.1 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 5 U.S.C. Reorg. Plan of
1970 No. 3, Appendix (1970) 3
l.la Message of the President Relative to Reorganization
Plan No. 3, July 9, 1970, Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 28, p. 908 (July
13, 1970) 8
l.lb Message of the President Transmitting Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3, July 9, 1970, Weekly Compilation
of Presidential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 28, p. 917
(July 13, 1970) 15
l.lc Hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
Before the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganiza-
tion and Government Research of the Senate Com-
mittee on Government Operations, 91st Cong., 2d
Sess. (1970) 16
l.ld Hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
Before the Subcommittee on Government Operations
of the House Committee on Government Operations,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 112
l.le House Committee on Government Operations, H.R.
REP. No. 91-1464, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) — 367
l.lf Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) 378
(1) July 9: House discussion, pp. 23532-23533 378
(2) Sept. 28: House approving Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970 to Establish Environmental Pro-
tection Agency as an independent entity of
Government, pp. 33871-33876; 33879-33884;
34015 380
1.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
§§4332(2) (c), 4344(5) (1970) 407
1.2a National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Jan-
uary 1, 1970, P.L. 91-190, §§102(2) (c), 204(5), 83
Stat. 853, 855 414
xiii
-------
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
(1) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 91-296, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 420
(2) House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 91-378 (Part 2), 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) .... 458
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
765, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 467
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) 482
(a) July 10: Considered and passed Senate,
pp. 19008-19009, 19013 482
(b) Sept. 23: Amended and passed House, pp.
26569-26591 486
(c) Oct. 8: Senate disagrees to House amend-
ments, agreed to conference, pp. 29066-
29074, 29076-29089 538
(d) Dec. 20: Senate agreed to conference re-
port, pp. 40415-40417, 40421-40427 580
(e) Dec. 22: House agreed to conference report,
pp. 40923-40928 597
Volume II
1.3 Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.
§4371 et seq. (1970) 611
1.3a Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970,
April 3, 1970, P.L. 91-224, Title II, 84 Stat. 114 __ 614
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-127, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 617
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 91-351, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 617
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
940, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 645
(4) Congressional Record 652
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), April 16: Passed p. 9259 652
(b) Vol. 115 (1969), Oct. 7: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 28952-28954, 28956-
28957, 28962, 28967, 28969, 28972 652
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), March 24: Senate agreed
to conference report, pp. 9004-9005, 9009. 661
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), March 25: House agreed
to conference report, pp. 9333-9334 662
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §169 (1969) 663
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Decem-
ber 30, 1969, 91-172, §704, 83 Stat. 667 665
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 670
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969) 675
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 679
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 684
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) 690
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House pp.
22746, 22774-22775 690
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and passed
Senate, pp. 35486, 37321-37322, 37631-
37633, 37884-37888 691
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 40718* 705
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees to con-
ference report, pp. 40820, 40900* 705
1.5 Department of Transportation Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§§1651, 1653(f), 1655(g), 1656 (1968) 706
1.5a Department of Transportation Act, October 15,
1966, P.L. 89-670, 332, 4(f), (g), 6, 7, 80 Stat. 931_ 733
(1) House Committee on Government Operations
H.R. REP. No. 1701, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 736
(2) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 1659, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 737
(3) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 1660, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 745
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2236,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 755
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966) 769
(a) Aug. 24: Debated, amended and passed
House, pp. 21236-21237; 21275 769
(b) Sept. 29: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
24374-24375, 24402-24403; 771
(c) Oct. 13: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 26651-26652; 773
(d) Oct. 13: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. 26563, 26568. 774
1.5b Federal Highway Act of 1968, August 23, 1968, P.L.
90-495, §18(b), 82 Stat. 824. 776
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 1340, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 777
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 1584, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 778
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1799,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 780
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968): 783
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Page
(a) July 1: Debated, amended and passed
Senate, pp. 19529, 19530, 19552; 783
(b) July 3: Amended and passed House, pp.
19937, 19947, 19950;* 786
(c) July 26: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 23712, 23713; 786
(d) July 29: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, pp. 24036, 24037, 24038. 786
1.6 Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, as amended, 23 U.S.C.
§109 (h), (i), (j) (1970). 788
1.6a Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, December 31,
1970, P.L. 91-605, §136(b), 84 Stat. 1734. 791
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1554, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 792
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 91-1254, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 793
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1780, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 798
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970): 800
(a) Nov. 25: Debated and passed House, pp.
38936-38937, 38961-38962, 38974-38976,
38997; 800
(b) Nov. 25: Proceedings vacated, laid on the
table, pp. 39007-39014; 812
(c) Dec. 7: Passed Senate, Senate insists on its
amendments and asks for conference, p.
40095; 813
(d) Dec. 8: Action of House rescinded, passed
House, House disagrees to Senate amend-
ments and agrees to conference, p. 40265; 813
(e) Dec. 17-18: House agrees to conference re-
port, pp. 42512-42518; 814
(f) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. 42717, 42723. 816
1.7 Airport and Airway Development Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f),
1716(c)(4), (e) (1970). 818
1.7a Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, P.L.
91-258, §§12(f), 16(c)(4), (e), 84 Stat. 221, 226. — 821
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-601, 91st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1969). 824
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
91-565, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 831
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1074, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 834
(4) Congressional Record: 837
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), Nov. 6: Considered and
passed House, pp. 33293, 33307-33308,
33342; 837
-------
CONTENTS xvii
Page
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 25-26: Considered
and passed Senate, amended, pp. 4842,
5069-5072, 5082-5083; 842
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), May 12: Senate agreed to
conference report p. 15136; 852
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), May 13: House agreed to
conference report, pp. 15294, 15295, 15297._ 852
1.8 Disaster Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C, §4401 et seq. (1970).^ 854
1.8a The Administration of Disaster Assistance, Decem-
ber 31, 1970, P.L. 91-606, Title II, 84 Stat. 1746 874
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 91-1157, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 891
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1524, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 925
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1752, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970): 951
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) : 975
(a) Sept. 9: Debated, amended, and passed
Senate, pp. 31040-31042, 31044, 31048-
31051, 31058-31060, 31062-31063; 975
(b) Oct. 5: Debated, amended, and passed
House, pp. 34795-34798; 993
(c) Dec. 15, 17: House debated and agrees to
conference report, pp. 42212-42214; 1000
(d) Dec. 18: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 42369.* 1005
(5) Statement by the President Upon Signing the
Bill into Law December 31, 1970, Weekly Com-
pilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 7, No.
1, January 4, 1971 (p. 12). 1005
1.9 Interest on Certain Government Obligations, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §103(c)(4) (1971). 1006
1.9a Amendments to Interest on Certain Government Ob-
ligations, Int. Rev. Code, June 28, 1968, P.L. 90-364,
Title I, §107(a), 82 Stat. 266. 1008
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 1104, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). __ 1009
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No. 1014,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1010
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1533,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1010
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968) :
(a) Feb. 29: Debated and passed House, p.
4704;* 1010
(b) March 26, 28, April 2: Debated in Senate
pp. 8159-8162; 1010
(c) June 20: House considers and passes con-
ference report, p. 18006;* 1017
(d) June 21: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 18179 1017
-------
xviii CONTENTS
Page
1.9b Revenue Act of 1971, December 10, 1971, P.L. 92-
178, Title III, §315(a), 85 Stat. 529. 1017
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 92-533, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971).* 1018
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
92-437, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971).* 1018
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
708, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 1018
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971): 1019
(a) Oct. 5, 6: Considered and passed House,
pp. H9155-H9178, H9229;* 1019
(b) Nov. 15, 22: Considered and passed Sen-
ate, amended, pp. S18564-S18579; 1019
(c) Dec. 9: Senate agreed to conference re-
port, pp. S21095-S21109;* 1056
(d) Dec. 9: House agreed to conference report,
pp. H12114-H12134.* 1056
1.10 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac-
quisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Pro-
grams, 42 U.S.C. §4633 (1971). 1057
l.lOa Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, January 2, 1970,
P.L. 91-646, §213, 84 Stat. 1900. 1075
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 91-488, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 1076
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1656, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1084
(3) Congressional Record: 1089
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), Oct. 27: Passed Senate,
pp. 31533-31535; 1089
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Dec. 7: amended and
passed House, pp. 40169-40172; 1095
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), Dec. 17: Senate agrees to
House amendment, with an amendment,
pp. 42137-42140; 1102
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), Dec. 18: House concurs
in Senate amendment, pp. 42506-42507. __ 1109
1.11 Departmental Regulations, as revised, 5 U.S.C. §301
(1966). 1112
l.lla Codification of 5 U.S.C. §301, September 6, 1966,
P.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 379. 1112
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1113
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966): 1117
(a) July 25: Amended and passed Senate, p.
17010;* 1117
(b) Aug. 11: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 19077.* 1117
-------
CONTENTS xix
Page
1.12 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§203,
215, 241, 242, 242b, c, d, f, i, j, 243, 244, 244a, 245, 246,
247, 264 (1970). 1118
1.12a The Public Health Service Act, July 1, 1944, P.L.
78-410, Title II, §§202, 214, Title III, §§301, 304,
305, 306, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 361, 58 Stat.
683, 690, 693, 695, 703. 1151
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1364, 78th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1944). 1158
(2) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No. 1027, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. (1944) 1170
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 90 (1944): 1172
(a) May 22: Amended and passed House, pp.
4794-4797, 4811; 1172
(b) June 22: Debated, amended, and passed
Senate, pp. 6486-6487, 6498-6500; 1179
(c) June 23: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 6663-6664.* 1186
1.12b National Mental Health Act, July 3, 1946, P.L.
79-487, §§6, 7, (a, b), 9, 60 Stat. 423, 424. 1186
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1445, 79th Cong.,
1st Sess. (1945). 1189
(2) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No. 1353, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946).__ 1191
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2350,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 1196
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946) : 1198
(a) March 14, 15: Amended and passed House,
pp. 2283, 2284, 2285-2286, 2291, 2992,
2293, 2294, 2295; 1198
(b) June 15: Amended and passed Senate, p.
6995; 1204
(c) June 26: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 7584; 1205
(d) June 28: House agrees to conference re-
port, p. 7926. 1206
1.12c National Heart Act, June 16, 1948, P.L. 80-655,
§§4(e, f), 5, 6, 62 Stat. 467. _- 1206
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 1298, 80th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1948). 1210
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2144, 80th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1948). 1212
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 94 (1948): 1217
(a) May 24: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
6297, 6298; 1217
-------
CONTENTS
Page
(b) June 8: Amended and passed House, pp.
7405-7406; 1219
(c) June 9: Senate concurs in House amend-
ment, p. 7555.* 1222
1.12d National Dental Research Act, June 24, 1948, P.L.
80-755, §4(e)(f), 62. Stat. 601. 1222
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 436, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1947). 1223
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2158, 80th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1948). 1224
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 94 (1948) : 1225
(a) June 8: Amended and passed House, p.
7417; 1225
(b) June 12: Amended and passed Senate, p.
7934;* 1226
(c) June 14: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 8175. 1226
1.12e Public Health Service Act Amendments, June 25,
1948, P.L. 80-781, §1, 62 Stat. 1017. 1227
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1927, 80th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1948). 1227
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Works,
S. REP. No. 1578, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). 1230
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 94 (1948) : 1232
(a) May 18: Amended and passed House, p.
6008;* 1232
(b) June 12: Passed Senate p. 7933 1232
1.12f Career Compensation Act of 1949, October 12, 1949,
P.L. 81-351, Title V, §521 (e), 63 Stat. 835. 1232
Volume III
(1) House Committee on Armed Services, H.R.
REP. No. 779, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949). — 1233
(2) Senate Committee on Armed Services, S. REP.
No. 733, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949). — 1234
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 95 (1949) : 1235
(a) June 14: Debated in House, pp. 7656, 7676; 1235
(b) June 15: Passed House, p. 7775;* 1235
(c) Sept. 26: Amended and passed Senate, p.
13261;* 1235
(d) Sept. 27: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 13358.* 1236
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
1.12g 1953 Reorganization Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, 67 Stat.
631. 1236
(1) Message from the President Accompanying
Reorganization Plan No. 1, H.R. Doc. No. 102,
83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). 1237
1.12h Amendment to Title 13 U.S. Code, August 31, 1954,
P.L. 83-740, §2, 68 Stat. 1025. 1239
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP.
No. 1980, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). 1240
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 2497, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954) 1242
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 100 (1954): 1243
(a) July 6: Passed House, p. 9806;* 1243
(b) Aug. 19: Amended and passed Senate, p.
15123;* 1243
(c) Aug. 19: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, p. 15269.* 1243
1.12i National Health Survey Act, July 3, 1956, P.L. 84-
652, §4, 70 Stat. 490. 1244
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 1718, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1956). 1244
(2) House Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2108, 84th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1956). 1249
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 102 (1956): 1250
(a) March 29: Amended and passed Senate,
p. 5816;* 1250
(b) May 21: Objected to in House, p. 8562;*— 1250
(c) June 18: Amended and passed House, p.
10521.* 1250
1.12J An Act of Implementing §25 (b) of the Organic
Act of Guam, August 1, 1956, P.L. 84-896, §18, 70
Stat. 910. 1251
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, H.R. REP. No. 2259, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1956). 1251
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 2662, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1956). 1259
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 102 (1954): 1260
(a) June 18: Passed House, p. 10510;* 1260
(b) July 23: Amended and passed Senate, p.
13909;* 1260
(c) July 25: House concurs in Senate, amend-
ments, p. 14450.* 1261
1.12k Amendments to §314 (c) of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act, July 22, 1958, P.L. 85-544, §1, 72 Stat. 400. 1261
-------
xxii CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1593, 85th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1958). 1262
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 1797, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1958). _._ 1270
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958) : 1280
(a) April 21: Debated in House, pp. 6836-
6838; 1280
(b) May 5: Passed House, pp. 8004-8011; 1284
(c) July 10: Passed Senate, p. 13329. 1300
1.121 Health Amendments of 1959, July 23, 1959, P.L.
86-105, §1, 73 Stat. 239. 1301
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 590, 86th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1959). 1301
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 400, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959). 1309
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959): 1311
(a) July 6: Passed House, pp. 12735-12740;__ 1311
(b) July 8: Passed Senate, p. 12979. 1315
1.12m International Health Research Act of 1960, July
12, 1960, P.L. 86-610, §3, 74 Stat. 364. 1315
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare, S. REP. No. 243, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959). 1317
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1915, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1960). 1321
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960) : 1338
(a) June 24: Committee discharged, amended
and passed House, p. 14293;* 1338
(b) June 30: Passed Senate, pp. 15132-15133. 1338
1.12n Hawaii Omnibus Act, July 12, 1960, P.L. 86-624,
§29(c), 74 Stat. 419. 1340
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, H.R. REP. No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1960). 1340
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1960). 1341
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960): 1341
(a) May 16: Passed House, pp. 10355, 10357;* 1341
(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
14684.* 1341
1.12o Amendments to §301 (d) of the Public Health Serv-
ice Act, September 15, 1960, P.L. 86-798, 74 Stat.
1053. 1342
-------
CONTENTS xxiii
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2174, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1960). 1342
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960) : 1351
(a) Aug. 30: Passed House, p. 18394; 1351
(b) Aug. 31: Senate Committee discharged,
passed Senate, p. 18593. 1352
1.12p 1960 Amendments to Title III of the Public Health
Service Act, September 8, I960, P.L. 86-720, §l(b),
2, 74 Stat. 820. 1352
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1780, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1960). 1353
(2) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
2062, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 1353
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960): 1353
(a) June 24: Amended and passed House, pp.
14294-14301;* 1353
(b) July 1: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
15383-15384;* 1353
(c) Aug. 26: Senate concurs in conference re-
port, pp. 17788-17789;* 1354
(d) Aug. 29: House concurs in conference re-
port, p. 18172.* 1354
1.12q Community Health Services and Facilities Act of
1961, October 5, 1961, P.L. 87-395, §2(a)-(d), 75
Stat. 824 1354
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 599, 87th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1961) 1355
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 845, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961).. 1361
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R REP. No. 1209,
87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 1370
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 107 (1961) : 1375
(a) July 25: Amended and passed House, pp.
13402, 13414, 13415; 1375
(b) Sept. 1: Amended and passed Senate, p.
17947; 1377
(c) Sept. 18: Conference report agreed to in
Senate, p. 19913;* 1378
(d) Sept. 20: Conference report agreed to in
House, p. 20484.* 1378
1.12r Extension of Application of Certain Laws to Ameri-
can Samoa, September 25, 1962, P.L. 87-688, §4 (a)
(1), 76 Stat. 587. 1378
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, H.R. REP. No. 1536, 87th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1962) 1379
-------
xxiv CONTENTS
Page
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 1478, 87th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1962). 1382
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2264,
87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962). 1384
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 108 (1962): 1385
(a) April 2: Amended and passed House, p.
5576; 1385
(b) May 17: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
8698, 8699; 1387
(c) Aug. 28: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 17881-17882; 1387
(d) Aug. 30: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 18253. 1388
1.12s Amendments to Title IV of the Public Health Service
Act, October 17, 1962, P.L. 87-838, §2, 76 Stat. 1073. 1388
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1969, 87th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1962). 1389
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 2174, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962). 1390
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 108 (1962) : 1392
(a) Aug. 27: Passed House, p. 17690; 1392
(b) Sept. 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
21247;* 1 1393
(c) Oct. 3: House concurs in Senate amend-
ment, p. 21833.* 1393
1.12t Graduate Public Health Training Amendments of
1964, August 27, 1964, P.L. 88-497, §2, 78 Stat. 613.. 1393
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1553, 88th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1964). 1394
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1379, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964) _ 1403
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964): 1411
(a) July 21: Passed House, pp. 16445, 16447; 1411
(b) Aug. 12: Passed Senate, pp. 19144-19145.* 1412
1.12u Community Health Services Extension Amendments,
August 5, 1965, P.L. 89-109, §4, 79 Stat. 436. 1412
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 117, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1413
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 249, 89th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1965). 1420
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 676,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1426
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965): 1427
(a) March 11: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
4843, 4844; 1427
-------
CONTENTS xxv
Page
(b) May 3: House Committee discharged,
amended and passed House, p. 9141; 1428
(c) July 26: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 18216; 1428
(d) July 27: House agrees to conference report,
p. 18425.* 1429
1.12v Amendments to Public Health Service Act, August
9, 1965, P.L. 89-115, §3, 79 Stat. 448. 1429
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 247, 89th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1965) 1430
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 367, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) __ 1438
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 677,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1445
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965) : 1446
(a) May 10: Debated, amended and passed
House, pp. 9958, 9960-9962; 1446
(b) June 28: Debated, amended and passed
Senate, pp. 14952, 14953, 14954; 1458
(c) July 26: Conference report agreed to in
Senate, p. 18215; 1460
(d) July 27: Conference report agreed to in
House p. 18428. 1460
1.12w 1966 Reorganization Plan No. 3, §§1, 3, 80 Stat.
1610. 1461
(1) Message from the President Transmitting Re-
organization Plan No. 3, 1966, H. Doc. No. 428,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1462
1.12x Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health
Services Amendments of 1966, November 3, 1966,
P.L. 89-749, §§3, 5, 80 Stat. 1181. 1466
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1665, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1479
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 2271, 89th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1966). 1483
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966) : 1490
(a) Oct. 3: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
24764-24766, 24768; 1490
(b) Oct. 17: Amended and passed House, pp.
27081,27085-27086,27088-27092; 1496
(c) Oct. 18: Senate concurs in House amend-
ments pp. 27381-27385. 1509
1.12y Partnership for Health Amendments of 1967, De-
cember 5, 1967, P.L. 90-174, §§2(a)-(f), 3(b) (2), 4,
8(a), (b), 9, 12(d), 81 Stat. 533. 1518
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 538, 90th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1967). 1522
-------
xxvi CONTENTS
Page
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 724, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)._ 1536
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 974,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 1546
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967): 1550
(a) Sept. 20: Debated, amended, and passed
House, pp. 26120-2G132;* 1550
(b) Nov. 6: Debated, amended and passed,
Senate, pp. 31236-31238; 1550
(c) Nov. 21: House agrees to conference report,
p. 33338;* 1553
(d) Nov. 21: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 33436.* 1553
1.12z Health Manpower Act of 1968, August 16, 1968,
P.L. 90-490, Title III, §302(b), 82 Stat. 789. 1553
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1307, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1554
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1634, 90th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1968) 1558
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968): 1561
(a) June 24: Amended and passed Senate, p.
18422;* 1561
(b) Aug. 1: Amended and passed House, p.
24801;* j_ 1561
1.12aa Public Health Training Grants Act, March 12, 1970,
P.L. 91-208, §3, 84 Stat. 52. 1562
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-586, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969), 1563
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-712, 91st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1969) 1570
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
855, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1570
(4) Congressional Record: 1572
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), Dec. 11: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 37457, 38460; 1572
(b) Vol. 115 (1969), Dec. 16: Amended and
passed House, pp. 3918-3942;* 1572
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 26: Senate agrees to
conference report, p. 5084; 1573
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 26: House agrees to
conference report, pp. 5094-5095. 1574
1.12ab Medical Facilities Construction and Modernization
Amendments of 1970, June 30, 1970, P.L. 91-296,
Title I, §lll(b), Title IV, §401 (b) (A) (1), (C),
(D), 84 Stat. 340, 352. 1576
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-262, 91st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1969) 1577
-------
CONTENTS xxvii
Page
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-657, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1579
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1167, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1582
(4) Congressional Record: 1583
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), June 4: Amended and
passed House, pp. 14654, 14659, 14664;* __ 1583
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), April 7: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 10542, 10546;* 1583
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), June 8: Senate agreed to
conference report, pp. 18757, 18758, 18761;* 1584
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), June 10: House agreed to
conference report, p. 19199.* 1584
1.12ac Public Health Service Drug Abuse Research, October
27, 1970, P.L. 91-513, Title I, §3(b), 84 Stat. 1241.. 1584
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 91-613, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 1585
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1444, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970). 1585
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1603, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1587
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970): 1588
(a) Jan. 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
1647;* 1588
(b) Sept. 24: Amended and passed House, p.
33667;* 1588
(c) Oct. 14: House agreed to conference report,
pp. 36585, 36651;* 1588
(d) Oct. 14: Senate agreed to conference report,
p. 36885.* 1588
1.12ad Heart Disease, Cancer, Stroke and Kidney Disease
Amendments of 1970, October 30, 1970, P.L. 91-515,
Title II, §§201-203, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, (a),
(b), (c)(l), 270, 280, 282, 292, Title VI, §601(b)
(2), 84 Stat. 1301, 1303-1308, 1311. 1589
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1297, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970). 1599
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-1090, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970) 1600
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1590, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1638
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) : 1647
(a) Aug. 12: Amended and passed House, p.
28532; 1647
(b) Sept. 9: Amended and passed Senate, p.
31013; 1647
-------
xxviii CONTENTS
Page
(c) Oct. 13: House agreed to conference report,
pp. 36589-36591; 1648
(d) Oct. 14 : Senate agreed to conference report,
pp. 36888-36892. ___ 1651
1.12ae Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Pre-
vention, Treatmsnt, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970,
December 31, 1970, P.L. 91-616, Title III, §331, 84
Stat. 1853. __. _ 1651
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-1069, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970) 1651
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1663, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970).-—! 1653
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970): 1654
(a) Aug. 10: Passed Senate, pp. 27857-27871;* 1654
(b) Dec. 18: Amended and passed House, pp.
42531, 42536;* 1654
(c) Dec. 19: Senate concurs in House amend-
ments, p. 42751.* 1654
1.13 The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a—
276a-5 (1964). 1655
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3, 33 U.S.C. §1158 (g),
42 U.S.C. §3256]
1.13a The Davis-Bacon Act, March 3, 1931, P.L. 71-798,
46 Stat. 1494. 1659
(1) Senate Committee on Manufacturers, S. REP.
No. 1445, 71st Cong., 83d Sess. (1931). 1660
(2) House Committee on Labor, H.R. REP. No.
2453, 71st Cong., 83d Sess. (1931). 1662
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 74 (1930-1931):— 1664
(a) Feb. 4: Passed Senate, pp. 3918-3919; 1664
(b) Feb. 28: Debated and passed House, pp.
6504-6521. 1667
1.13b Amendment to the Act of March 3, 1931, August 30,
1935, P.L. 74-403, 49 Stat. 1011. ._ 1705
(1) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No 1155, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935). _.. 1708
(2) House Committee on Labor, H.R. REP. No.
1756, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935), 1713
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 79 (1935): 1720
(a) July 30: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
12072-12074; 1720
(b) Aug. 23: Debated and passed House, pp.
14384-14385. 1723
1.13c An Act to Require the Payment of Prevailing Rates
of Wages on Federal Public Works in Alaska and
Hawaii, June 15, 1940, P.L. 76-633, §1, 54 Stat. 399. 1726
(1) Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.
REP. No. 1550, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. (1940). __ 1727
-------
CONTENTS xxix
Page
(2) House Committee on Labor, H.R. REP. No.
2264, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. (1940). 1728
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 86 (1940-1941): _ 1728
(a) May 28: Passed Senate, p. 6997; 1731
(b) June 3: Passed House, p. 7401. 1732
1.13d Hawaii Omnibus Act, July 12, 1960, P.L. 86-624,
§26, 74 Stat. 418. 1733
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, H.R. REP. No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1960) 1734
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, S. REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1960) 1735
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960) : 1736
(a) May 16: Passed House, p. 10353;* 1736
(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p.
14683;* 1736
(c) June 29: House concurs in Senate amend-
ment, p. 15009.* 1736
1.13e Amendments to Davis-Bacon Act, July 2, 1964, P.L.
88-349, §1, 78 Stat. 238. 1736
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R.
REP. No. 308, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 1738
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 963, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964).__ 1774
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964): 1788
(a) Jan. 28; Debated and passed House, pp.
1203-1233; 1788
(b) June 23: Passed Senate, pp. 14768-14770. 1858
1.13f Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267,
5 U.S.C. §1332-15. 1863
1.13g Suspension of Provisions of Davis-Bacon Act of
March 3, 1931, Proclamation No. 4031, February 25,
1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 3457. 1864
1.13h Revocation of Proclamation of Suspension of Provi-
visions of Davis-Bacon Act, Proclamation No. 4040,
April 3, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 6335. 1866
Volume IV
1.14 Public Contracts, Advertisements for Proposals for Pur-
chases and Contracts for Supplies or Services for Govern-
ment Departments; Application to Government Sales and
Contracts to Sell and to Government Corporations, as
amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958). 1869
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-l(a) (2) (D), 33 U.S.C.
§1155(g) (3) (A), 42 U.S.C. §242c(e)]
-------
xxx CONTENTS
Page
1.14a To Authorize Certain Administrative Expenses in
the Government Service, August 2, 1946, P.L. 79-600,
§9(a), (c), 60 Stat. 809. 1870
(1) House Committee on Expenditures in the Exec-
utive Departments, H.R. REP. No. 2186, 79th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 1871
(2) Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Ex-
ecutive Departments, S. REP. No. 1636, 79th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 1875
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946): 1878
(a) June 3: Amended and passed House, pp.
6165-6166;* 1878
(b) July 17: Amended and passed House, pp.
9189-9190; 1878
(c) July 26: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 10185-10186. 1879
1.14b To Amend the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, September 5, 1950, P.L. 81-744,
§§ 6(a), (b), 8(c), 64 Stat. 583, 591. 1880
(1) Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Ex-
ecutive Departments S. REP. No. 2140, 81st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). 1881
(2) House Committee on Expenditures in the Execu-
tive Departments, H.R. REP. No. 2747, 81st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). 1883
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 3001,
81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). 1884
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 96 (1950-1951): __ 1887
(a) July 26: Passed Senate, pp. 11092, 11094,
11096;* 1887
(b) Aug. 7: Amended and passed House, pp.
11919, 11921, 11922, 11927;* 1887
(c) Aug. 31: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 13940;* 1887
(d) Aug. 31: House agrees to conference re-
port, p. 13993.* 1887
1.14c Small Business Opportunities Act, August 28, 1958,
85-800, §7, 72 Stat. 967 1888
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 2201, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958).. 1888
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958): 1891
(a) Aug. 14: Amended and passed Senate, p.
17539;* 1891
(b) Aug. 15: Committee discharged and passed
House, pp. 17908-17909.* 1891
1.15 Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Expenses; Experts
and Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. §5703 (1969) 1892
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857d(i), 1857e(e), 1857f-6e
(b)(2), 33 U.S.C. §§1159(a)(2)(B), 1160(c) (4),(i), 15
U.S.C. §1475(b), 42 U.S.C. §242f (b) (5), (6)]
-------
CONTENTS xxxi
Page
1.15a Administrative Expenses Act, August 2, 1946, P.L.
79-600, §5, 60 Stat. 808. 1893
(1) House Committee on Expenditures in Executive
Departments, H.R. REP. No. 2186, 79th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1946). 1894
(2) Senate Committee on Expenditures in Executive
Departments, S. REP. No. 1636, 79th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1946) 1895
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946): 1895
(a) June 3: Amended and passed House, p.
6164;* 1895
(b) July 17: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
9189-9190; 1895
(c) July 26: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 10185-10186.* 1896
1.15b Amendments to the 1946 Travel Expense Act, July
28, 1955, P.L. 84-189, §2, 69 Stat. 394. 1896
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 353, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955).,_ 1897
(2) House Committee on Government Operations,
H.R. REP. No. 604, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1955). 1903
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1088,
84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) : 1907
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 101 (1955) : 1909
(a) June 20: Amended and passed House, pp.
8752, 8755;* 1909
(b) June 22: Amended and passed Senate, p.
8928;* 1909
(c) July 12: House agrees to conference report,
p. 10300;* 1909
(d) July 13: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 10387.* 1909
1.15c Enactment of Title 5, United States Code, "Govern-
ment Organization and Employees," September 6,
1966, P.L. 89-554, §5703, 80 Stat. 499. 1909
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP.
No. 901, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 1911
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1916
(3) Congressional Record: 1917
(a) Vol. Ill (1965), Sept. 7: Passed House, p.
25954;* 1917
(b) Vol. 112 (1966), July 25: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 17006, 17010-17011;* _ 1917
(c) Vol. 112 (1966), Aug. 11: House concurs
in Senate amendments, p. 19077.* 1917
1.15d Increase Maximum Rates Per Diem Allowance for
Government Employees, November 10, 1969, P.L.
91-114, §2, 83 Stat. 190. 1918
-------
xxxii CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Government Operations,
H.R. REP. No. 91-111, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) ______________________________________ 1918
(2) Senate Committee on Government Operations,
S. REP. No. 91-450, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) _____________________________________ 1930
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969): ______ 1941
(a) March 26: Considered and passed House,
pp. 7748-7752; _________________________ 1941
(b) Oct. 8 : Amended and passed Senate, p.
29042; ________________________________ 1951
(c) Oct. 30: House concurs in Senate amend-
ments, pp. 32423-32425. _________________ 1952
1.16 Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, as
amended, 18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948). ______________________ 1958
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857c-9(c), 1857d(j)(l),
1857f-6(b), 1857h-5(a)(l), 33 U.S.C. §§1160(f) (2), (k)
1.16a Disclosure of Information, June 25, 1948, P.L. 80-
772, §1905, 62 Stat. 791. ________________________ 1958
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP.
No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). ________ 1959
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP.
No. 1620, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). ________ I960
(3) Congressional Record: ______________________ 1960
(a) Vol. 93 (1947), May 12: Amended and
passed House, p. 5049;* ________________ 1960
(b) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 8721-8722; __________ 1961
(c) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: House concurs in
Senate amendments, p. 8865. _____________ 1961
1.17 Appropriation Bills
1.17a Agricultural-Environmental and Consumer Protec-
tion Appropriation Act of 1971, Title III, 85 Stat.
183. ___________________________________________ 1962
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP.
No. 92-289, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). ______ 1963
(2) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP.
No. 92-253, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). ______ 1981
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
376, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). ____________ 1991
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971) : ______ 1994
(a) June 23: Amended and passed House, pp.
H5739-H5742, H5746-H5748, H5765, H-
5767, H5778-H5779, H5810-H5811; _______ 1964
(b) July 15: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
S11161, S11162, S11163, S11164, S11165,
S11207, S11208, S11226-S11228; _________ 2005
(c) July 27: House agrees to conference report,
pp. H7170, H7171, H7172, H7173; ________ 2015
-------
CONTENTS xxxiii
Page
(d) July 28: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. S12334-S12337.* 2016
1.17b Agricultural Environmental and Consumer Protec-
tion Programs Appropriation, August 22, 1972, P.L.
92-399, Title III, 86 Stat. 604 2017
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP.
No. 92-1175, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2019
(2) Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. Rep.
No. 92-983, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2058
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
1283, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2067
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972): 2074
(a) June 29: Considered and passed House, pp.
H6286-H6288, H6290, H6291, H6292, H-
6336; 2074
(b) July 27: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. S12051-S12056, S12139-S-
12141; 2081
(c) Aug. 9: House and Senate agreed to confer-
ence report, pp. H7387-H7389, H3795,
H3796-H3797, S13161-S13162 2093
2. Executive Orders
2.1 E.O. 11472, Establishing the Environmental Quality Coun-
cil and the Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental
Quality, February 29, 1969, 34 Fed. Reg. 8693 (1969). ___ 2107
2.2 E.O. 11490, Emergency Preparedness Functions of Federal
Departments and Agencies, October 30, 1969, as amended,
35 Fed. Reg. 5659 (1970). 2111
2.3 E.O. 11507, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 4, 1970, 35
Fed Reg. 2573 (1970). 2163
2.4 E.O. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality, March 5, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 4247 (1970). 2169
2.5 E.O. 11575, Administration of the Disaster Relief Act of
1970, as amended by E.O. 11662, March 29, 1972, 37 Fed.
Reg. 6563 (1972) _ 2173
2.6 E.O. 11587, Placing Certain Positions in Levels IV and V
of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule, March 15, 1971,
36 Fed. Reg. 475 (1971). 2175
2.7 E.O. 11628, Establishing a Seal for the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, October 18, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 20285
(1971). 2176
2.8 E.O. 11222, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Government
Officers and Employees, May 8, 1965, 30 Fed. Reg. 6469
(1965) 2177
2.9 E.O. 11667, Establishing the President's Advisory Commit-
tee on the Environmental Merit Awards Program, April
20, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 7763 (1972). 2185
-------
xxxiv CONTENTS
Page
3. Regulations.
3.1 Reorganization and Republication, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 36 Fed. Reg. 22369 (1971). 2187
3.2 Statement of Organization and General Information, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§1.1-1.43
(1972).
3.3 Public Information, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.P.R. §§2.100-2.111 (1972).
3.4 Employee Responsibilities and Conduct, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§3.735-101—3.735-107
(1971)
3.5 Interim Regulations and Procedures for Implementing the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqui-
sition Policies Act of 1970, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§4.1-4.263 (1971).
3.6 Tuition Fees for Direct Training, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§5.1-5.7 (1972).
3.7 Certification of Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§20.1-20.10 (1971).
3.8 General Grants Regulations and Procedures, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§30.100-30.1001-3
(1972).
3.9 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.400-35.420 (1972).
3.10 Security Classification Regulation, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§11.1-11.6 (1972).
3.11 General, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R.
§§15-1.000—15-1.5301 (1972).
3.12 Procurement by Formal Advertising, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§15-2.406-3-15—2.407-8
(1972)
3.13 Procurement by Negotiations, Environmental Protection
Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§15-3.51, 15-3.103, 15-3.405,
15-405-3, 15-3.600—15-3.606, 15-3.805, 15-3.808 (1972)..
3.14 Special Types and Methods of Procurement, Environmental
Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§15-4.5300—15-4.5303
(1972).
3.15 Procurement Forms, Environmental Protection Agency,
41 C.F.R. §15-16.553-1 (1972).
3.16 Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, 41
C.F.R. §§15-19.302—15-19.305 (1972).
3.17 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Internal Rev-
enue Service, 26 C.F.R. §1.169 (1972).
3.18 Temporary Income Tax Regulations Under the Tax Reform
Act of 1969, Internal Revenue Service, 26 C.F.R. §§1.179-1,
1.642(f), 1.642(f)-l (1971).
3.19 Introduction, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R.
§§115-1.100—115-1.110 (1971).
-------
CONTENTS xxxv
Page
4. Guidelines and Reports
4.1 The President's Environmental Program 2193
4.1a The President's 1971 Environmental Program com-
piled by the Council on Environmental Quality,
March 1971, pp. 1-205 2193
4.1b The President's 1972 Environmental Program, com-
piled by the Council on Environmental Quality,
March 1972, pp. 1-75, 223. 2353
Volume V
4.2 Council on Environmental Quality, Annual Reports, as re-
quired by National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 34341. 2419
4.2a The First Annual Report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, August 1970, pp. 1-241. 2419
4.2b The Second Annual Report of the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, August 1971, pp. 3-265. 2660
Volume VI
4.2c The Third Annual Report of the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, August 1972, pp. 3-348. 2923
4.3 Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality
Reports to the President and the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, as required by E.O. 11472, 3102 (c). 3269
4.3a Report to the President and the President's Council
on Environmental Quality, Citizens' Advisory Com-
mittee on Environmental Quality, August 1969. 3269
4.3b Report to the President and the President's Council
on Environmental Quality, Citizens' Advisory Com-
mittee on Environmental Quality, April 1971. 3292
4.4 Selected Reports: 3317
4.4a "Ocean Dumping: A National Policy." Report to the
President by the Council on Environmental Quality,
October 1970. 3317
4.4b "Toxic Substances", Report by the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, April 1971. 3377
4.5 Interim Guidelines, Executive Office of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality, 36 Fed. Reg. 7724
(1970). 3416
4.6 The Report of HEW and EPA on the Health Effects of
Environmental Pollution, Pursuant to Title V of P.L. 91-
515, H.R. Doc. No. 92-241, 92d Congress, 2d Sess. (1972).^ 3428
-------
xxxvi CONTENTS
Page
4.7 Interagency Agreements: 3461
4.7a Economic Dislocation Early Warning System Memoran-
dum of Understanding Between the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary
of Labor (1971). 3461
4.7b Establishing and Maintaining an Industrial Security
Program, Interagency Agreement Between the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Department of De-
fense (1972). 3463
4.7c Cooperative Efforts Regarding Air and Water Quality
in Implementing the Everglades Jetport Pact, Memo-
randum of Understanding Between the Environmental
Protection Agency and National Park Service (1972). 3466
4.7d General Policy and Procedures for Providing Economic
and Technical Assistance to Developing Nations, Agree-
ment Between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Agency for International Development (1972). — 3468
4.7e Cooperative Program Entitled Modular-Size Integrated
Utility Systems, Memoradum of Understanding Be-
tween the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (1972). ___ 3473
-------
Statutes
and
Legislative
History
-------
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 3
1.1 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970
5 U.S.C. Reorg. Plan of 1970 No. 3, Appendix (1970)
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the
House of Representatives in Congress assembled, July 9, 1970,
pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9 of title 5 of the United
States Code
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Section 1. Establishment of Agency, (a) There is hereby estab-
lished the Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred
to as the "Agency."
(b) There shall be at the head of the Agency the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to
as the "Administrator." The Administrator shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
and shall be compensated at the rate now or hereafter provided
for Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313).
(c) There shall be in the Agency a Deputy Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and
shall be compensated at the rate now or hereafter provided for
Level III of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5314).
The Deputy Administrator shall perform such functions as the
Administrator shall from time to time assign or delegate, and
shall act as Administrator during the absence or disability of the
Administrator or in the event of a vacancy in the office of Admin-
istrator.
(d) There shall be in the Agency not to exceed five Assistant
Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, and shall be compensated at the rate now or
hereafter provided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay
Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315). Each Assistant Administrator shall per-
form such functions as the Administrator shall from time to time
assign or delegate.
Sec. 2. Transfers to Environmental Protection Agency, (a)
There are hereby transferred to the Administrator:
(1) All functions vested by law in the Secretary of the Interior
and the Department of the Interior which are administered
through the Federal Water Quality Administration, all functions
which were transferred to the Secretary of the Interior by Reorg-
anization Plan No. 2 of 1966 (80 Stat. 1608), and all functions
vested in the Secretary of the Interior or the Department of the
-------
4 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Interior by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or by provi-
sions of law amendatory or supplementary thereof.
(2) (i) The functions vested in the Secretary of the Interior by
the Act of August 1, 1958, 72 Stat. 479, 16 U.S.C. 742d-l (being
an Act relating to studies on the effects of insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and pesticides upon the fish and wildlife resources of
the United States), and (ii) the functions vested by law in the
Secretary of the Interior and the Department of the Interior
which are administered by the Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory
of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries at Gulf Breeze, Florida.
(3) The functions vested by law in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare or in the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare which are administered through the Environ-
mental Health Service, including the functions exercised by the
following components thereof:
(i) The National Air Pollution Control Administration,
(ii) The Environmental Control Administration:
(A) Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
(B) Bureau of Water Hygiene,
(C) Bureau of Radiological Health,
except that functions carried out by the following components of
the Environmental Control Administration of the Environmental
Health Service are not transferred: (i) Bureau of Community
Environmental Management, (ii) Bureau of Occupational Safety
and Health, and (iii) Bureau of Radiological Health, insofar as
the functions carried out by the latter Bureau pertain to (A)
regulation of radiation from consumer products, including elec-
tronic product radiation, (B) radiation as used in the healing arts,
(C) occupational exposures to radiation, and (D) research, tech-
nical assistance, and training related to clauses (A), (B), and
(C).
(4) The functions vested in the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare of establishing tolerances for pesticide chemicals
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, 21
U.S.C. 346, 346a, and 348, together with authority, in connection
with the functions transferred, (i) to monitor compliance with the
tolerances and the effectiveness of surveillance and enforcement,
and (ii) to provide technical assistance to the States and conduct
research under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as
amended, and the Public Health Service Act, as amended.
(5) So much of the functions of the Council on Environmental
Quality under section 204(5) of the National Environmental Pol-
icy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, approved January 1,1970, 83
Stat. 855), as pertains to ecological systems.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 5
(6) The functions of the Atomic Energy Commission under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, administered through its
Division of Radiation Protection Standards, to the extent that
such functions of the Commission consist of establishing generally
applicable environmental standards for the protection of the gen-
eral environment from radioactive material. As used herein,
standards mean limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concen-
trations or quantities of radioactive material, in the general envi-
ronment outside the boundaries of locations under the control of
persons possessing or using radioactive material.
(7) All functions of the Federal Radiation Council (42 U.S.C.
2021(h)).
(8) (i) The functions of the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Department of Agriculture under the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 135-135k), (ii)
the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Department
of Agriculture under section 408 (Z) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 346a(Z)), and (iii) the
functions vested by law in the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Department of Agriculture which are administered through the
Environmental Quality Branch of the Plant Protection Division of
the Agricultural Research Service.
(9) So much of the functions of the transferor officers and
agencies referred to in or affected by the foregoing provisions of
this section as is incidental to or necessary for the performance by
or under the Administrator of the functions transferred by those
provisions or relates primarily to those functions. The transfers to
the Administrator made by this section shall be deemed to include
the transfer of (1) authority, provided by law, to prescribe regu-
lations relating primarily to the transferred functions, and (2)
the functions vested in the Secretary of the Interior and the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 169 (d) (1) (B)
and (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (as enacted by
section 704 of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 668) ; but
shall be deemed to exclude the transfer of the functions of the
Bureau of Reclamation under section 3(b) (1) of the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466a(b) (1)).
(b) There are hereby transferred to the Agency:
(1) From the Department of the Interior, (i) the Water Pollu-
tion Control Advisory Board (33 U.S.C. 466f), together with its
functions, and (ii) the hearing boards provided for in sections
10 (c) (4) and 10 (f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 466g(c) (4) ; 466g(f)). The functions of
the Secretary of the Interior with respect to being or designating
-------
6 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the Chairman of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board are
hereby transferred to the Administrator.
(2) From the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the Air Quality Advisory Board (42 U.S.C. 1857e), together with
its functions. The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare with respect to being a member and the Chairman of
that Board are hereby transferred to the Administrator.
Sec. 3. Performance of Transferred functions. The Administra-
tor may from time to time make such provisions as he shall deem
appropriate authorizing the performance of any of the functions
transferred to him by the provisions of this reorganization plan
by any other officer, or by any organizational entity or employee,
of the Agency.
Sec. 4. Incidental transfers, (a) So much of the personnel,
property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, al-
locations, and other funds employed, used, held, available, or to be
made available in connection with the functions transferred to the
Administrator or the Agency by this reorganization plan as the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall determine
shall he transferred to the Agency at such time or times as the
Director shall direct.
(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the Director of
Office of Management and Budget shall deem to be necessary in
order to effectuate the transfers referred to in subsection (a) of
this section shall be carried out in such manner as he shall direct
and by such agencies as he shall designate.
Sec. 5. Interim officers, (a) The President may authorize any
person who immediately prior to the effective date of this reorgan-
ization plan held a position in the executive branch of the Govern-
ment to act as Administrator until the office of Administrator is
for the first time filled pursuant to the provisions of this reorgani-
zation plan or by recess appointment, as the case may be.
(b) The President may similarly authorize any such person to
act as Deputy Administrator, authorize any such person to act as
Assistant Administrator, and authorize any such person to act as
the head of any principal constituent organizational entity of the
Administration.
(c) The President may authorize any person who serves in an
acting capacity under the foregoing provisions of this section to
receive the compensation attached to the office in respect of which
he so serves. Such compensation, if authorized, shall be in lieu of,
but not in addition to, other compensation from the United States
to which such person may be entitled.
Sec. 6. Abolitions, (a) Subject to the provisions of this reorgani-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 7
zation plan, the following, exclusive of any function, are hereby
abolished:
(1) The Federal Water Quality Administration in the Depart-
ment of the Interior (33 U.S.C. 466-1).
(2) The Federal Radiation Council (73 Stat. 690; 42 U.S.C.
2021(h)).
(b) Such provisions as may be necessary with respect to termi-
nating any outstanding affairs shall be made by the Secretary of
the Interior in the case of the Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion and by the Administrator of General Services in the case of
the Federal Radiation Council.
Sec. 7. Effective date. The provisions of this reorganization plan
shall take effect sixty days after the date they would take effect
under 5 U.S.C. 906 (a) in the absence of this section.
-------
l.la MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT RELATIVE TO RE-
ORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3
July 9, 1970, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 28,
p. 908 (July 13, 1970)
MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT RELATIVE To REORGANIZATION
PLANS No. 3 OF 1970, JULY 9,1970
To the Congress of the United States:
As concern with the condition of our physical environment has
intensified, it has become increasingly clear that we need to know
more about the total environment—land, water and air. It also has
become increasingly clear that only by reorganizing our Federal
efforts can we develop that knowledge, and effectively ensure the
protection, development and enhancement of the total environment
itself.
The Government's environmentally-related activities have
grown up piecemeal over the years. The time has come to organize
them rationally and systematically. As a major step in this direc-
tion, I am transmitting today two reorganization plans: one to
establish an Environmental Protection Agency, and one to estab-
lish, within the Department of Commerce, a National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Our national government today is not structured to make a
coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we
breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food.
Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with envi-
ronmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action.
Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the envi-
ronment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Pres-
ent assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this
interrelatedness.
Many agency missions, for example, are designed primarily
along media lines—air, water, and land. Yet the sources of air,
water, and land pollution are interrelated and often interchangea-
8
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 9
ble. A single source may pollute the air with smoke and chemicals,
the land with solid wastes, and a river or lake with chemical and
other wastes. Control of the air pollution may produce more solid
wastes, which then pollute the land or water. Control of the wa-
ter-polluting effluent may convert it into solid wastes, which must
be disposed of on land.
Similarly, some pollutants—chemicals, radiation, pesticides—
appear in all media. Successful control of them at present requires
the coordinated efforts of a variety of separate agencies and de-
partments. The results are not always successful.
A far more effective approach to pollution control would:
—Identify pollutants.
—Trace them through the entire ecological chain, observing and
recording changes in form as they occur.
—Determine the total exposure of man and his environment.
—Examine interactions among forms of pollution.
-—Identify where in the ecological chain interdiction would be
most appropriate.
In organizational terms, this requires pulling together into one
agency a variety of research, monitoring, standard-setting and
enforcement activities now scattered through several departments
and agencies. It also requires that the new agency include suffi-
cient support elements—in research and in aids to State and local
anti-pollution programs, for example—to give it the needed
strength and potential for carrying out its mission. The new
agency would also, of course, draw upon the results of research
conducted by other agencies.
Components of the EPA
Under the terms of Reorganization Plan No. 3, the following
would be moved to the new Environmental Protection Agency:
—The functions carried out by the Federal Water Quality Ad-
ministration (from the Department of the Interior).
—Functions with respect to pesticides studies now vested in the
Department of the Interior.
—The functions carried out by the National Air Pollution Con-
trol Administration (from the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare).
—The functions carried out by the Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement and the Bureau of Water Hygiene, and portions of
the functions carried out by the Bureau of Radiological
Health of the Environmental Control Administration (from
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare).
-------
10 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
—Certain functions with respect to pesticides carried out by the
Food and Drug Administration (from the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare).
—Authority to perform studies relating to ecological systems
now vested in the Council on Environmental Quality.
—Certain functions respecting radiation criteria and standards
now vested in the Atomic Energy Commission and the Fed-
eral Radiation Council.
—Functions respecting pesticides registration and related activ-
ities now carried out by the Agricultural Research Service
(from the Department of Agriculture).
With its broad mandate, EPA would also develop competence in
areas of environmental protection that have not previously been
given enough attention, such, for example, as the problem of noise,
and it would provide an organization to which new programs in
these areas could be added.
In brief, these are the principal functions to be transferred:
Federal Water Quality Administration.—Charged with the con-
trol of pollutants which impair water quality, it is broadly con-
cerned with the impact of degraded water quality. It performs a
wide variety of functions, including research, standard-setting
and enforcement, and provides construclion grants and technical
assistance.
Certain pesticides research authority from, the Department of
the Interior.—Authority for research on the effects of pesticides
on fish and wildlife would be provided to the EPA through trans-
fer of the specialized research authority of the pesticides act en-
acted in 1958. Interior would retain its responsibility to do re-
search on all factors affecting fish and wildlife. Under this provi-
sion, only one laboratory would be transferred to the EPA—the
Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries. The EPA would work closely with the fish and wildlife
laboratories remaining with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife.
National Air Pollution Control Administration.—As the princi-
pal Federal agency concerned with air pollution, it conducts re-
search on the effects of air pollution, operates a monitoring net-
work, and promulgates criteria which serve as the basis for set-
ting air quality standards. Its regulatory functions are similar to
those of the Federal Water Quality Administration. NAPCA is
responsible for administering the Clean Air Act, which involves
designating air quality regions, approving State standards, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 11
providing financial and technical assistance to State Control agen-
cies to enable them to comply with the Act's provisions. It also
sets and enforces Federal automotive emission standards.
Elements of the Environmental Control Administration.—EGA
is the focal point within HEW for evaluation and control of a
broad range of environmental health problems, including water
quality, solid wastes, and radiation. Programs in the EGA involve
research, development of criteria and standards, and the adminis-
tration of planning and demonstration grants. From the EGA, the
activities of the Bureaus of Water Hygiene and Solid Waste Man-
agement and portions of the activities of the Bureau of Radiologi-
cal Health would be transferred. Other functions of the EGA
including those related to the regulation of radiation from con-
sumer products and occupational safety and health would remain
in HEW.
Pesticides research and standard-setting programs of the Food
and Drug Administration.-—FDA's pesticides program consists of
setting and enforcing standards which limit pesticide residues in
food. EPA would have the authority to set pesticide standards and
to monitor compliance with them, as well as to conduct related
research. However, as an integral part of its food protection activ-
ities, FDA would retain its authority to remove from the market
food with excess pesticide residues.
General ecological research from the Council on Environmental
Quality.—This authority to perform studies and research relating
to ecological systems would be in addition to EPA's other specific
research authorities, and it would help EPA to measure the im-
pact of pollutants. The Council on Environmental Quality would
retain its authority to conduct studies and research relating to
environmental quality.
Environmental radiation standards programs.—The Atomic
Energy Commission is now responsible for establishing environ-
mental radiation standards and emission limits for radioactivity.
Those standards have been based largely on broad guidelines rec-
ommended by the Federal Radiation Council. The Atomic Energy
Commission's authority to set standards for the protection of the
general environment from radioactive material would be trans-
ferred to the Environmental Protection Agency. The functions of
the Federal Radiation Council would also be transferred. AEG
would retain responsibility for the implementation and enforce-
ment of radiation standards through its licensing authority.
-------
12 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Pesticides registration program of the Agricultural Research
Service.—The Department of Agriculture is currently responsible
for several distinct functions related to pesticides use. It conducts
research on the efficacy of various pesticides as related to other
pest control methods and on the effects of pesticides on non-target
plants, livestock, and poultry. It registers pesticides, monitors
their persistence and carries out an educational program on pesti-
cide use through the extension service. It conducts extensive pest
control programs which utilize pesticides.
By transferring the Department of Agriculture's pesticides reg-
istration and monitoring function to the EPA and merging it with
the pesticides programs being transferred from HEW and Inte-
rior, the new agency would be given a broad capability for control
over the introduction of pesticides into the environment.
The Department of Agriculture would continue to conduct re-
search on the effectiveness of pesticides. The Department would
furnish this information to the EPA, which would have the re-
sponsibility for actually licensing pesticides for use after consider-
ing environmental and health effects. Thus the new agency would
be able to make use of the expertise of the Department.
Advantages of Reorganization
This reorganization would permit response to environmental
problems in a manner beyond the previous capability of our pollu-
tion control programs. The EPA would have the capacity to do
research on important pollutants irrespective of the media in
which they appear, and on the impact of these pollutants on the
total environment. Both by itself and together with other agencies,
the EPA would monitor the condition of the environment—biolog-
ical as well as physical. With these data, the EPA would be able to
establish quantitative "environmental baselines"—critical if we
are to measure adequately the success or failure of our pollution
abatement efforts.
As no disjointed array of separate programs can, the EPA
would be able—in concert with the States—to set and enforce
standards for air and water quality and for individual pollutants.
This consolidation of pollution control authorities would help as-
sure that we do not create new environmental problems in the
process of controlling existing ones. Industries seeking to mini-
mize the adverse impact of their activities on the environment
would be assured of consistent standards covering the full range
of their waste disposal problems. As the States develop and ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 13
pand their own pollution control programs, they would be able to
look to one agency to support their efforts with financial and
technical assistance and training.
In proposing that the Environmental Protection Agency be set
up as a separate new agency, I am making an exception to one of
my own principles: that, as a matter of effective and orderly
administration, additional new independent agencies normally
should not be created. In this case, however, the arguments
against placing environmental protection activities under the ju-
risdiction of one or another of the existing departments and agen-
cies are compelling.
In the first place, almost every part of government is concerned
with the environment in some way, and affects it in some way. Yet
each department also has its own primary mission—such as re-
source development, transportation, health, defense, urban growth
or agriculture—which necessarily affects its own view of environ-
mental questions.
In the second place, if the critical standard-setting functions
were centralized within any one existing department, it would
require that department constantly to make decisions affecting
other departments—in which, whether fairly or unfairly, its own
objectivity as an impartial arbiter could be called into question.
Because environmental protection cuts across so many jurisdic-
tions, and because arresting environmental deterioration is of
great importance to the quality of life in our country and the
world, I believe that in this case a strong, independent agency is
needed. That agency would, of course, work closely with and draw
upon the expertise and assistance of other agencies having experi-
ence in the environmental area.
Roles and Functions of EPA
The principal roles and functions of the EPA would include:
—The establishment and enforcement of environmental protec-
tion standards consistent with national environmental goals.
—The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution
and on methods and equipment for controlling it, the gather-
ing of information on pollution, and the use of this informa-
tion in strengthening environmental protection programs and
recommending policy changes.
—Assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and
other means in arresting pollution of the environment.
-------
14 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
—Assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing
and recommending to the President new policies for the pro-
tection of the environment.
One natural question concerns the relationship between the
EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality, recently estab-
lished by Act of Congress.
It is my intention and expectation that the two will work in
close harmony, reinforcing each other's mission. Essentially, the
Council is a top-level advisory group (which might be compared
with the Council of Economic Advisers), while the EPA would be
an operating, "line" organization. The Council will continue to be
a part of the Executive Office of the President and will perform its
overall coordinating and advisory roles with respect to all Federal
programs related to environmental quality.
The Council, then, is concerned with all aspects of environmen-
tal quality—wildlife preservation, parklands, land use, and popu-
lation growth, as well as pollution. The EPA would be charged
with protecting the environment by abating pollution. In short,
the Council focuses on what our broad policies in the environmen-
tal field should be; the EPA would focus on setting and enforcing
pollution control standards. The two are not competing, but com-
plementary—and taken together, they should give us, for the first
time, the means to mount an effectively coordinated campaign
against environmental degradation in all of its many forms.
AN ON-GOING PROCESS
The reorganizations which I am here proposing afford both the
Congress and the Executive Branch an opportunity to re-evaluate
the adequacy of existing program authorities involved in these
consolidations. As these two new organizations come into being,
we may well find that supplementary legislation to perfect their
authorities will be necessary. I look forward to working with the
Congress in this task.
In formulating these reorganization plans, I have been greatly
aided by the work of the President's Advisory Council on Execu-
tive Organization (the Ash Council), the Commission on Marine
Science, Engineering and Resources (the Stratton Commission,
appointed by President Johnson), my special task force on ocean-
ography headed by Dr. James Wakelin, and by the information
developed during both House and Senate hearings on proposed
NOAA legislation.
Many of those who have advised me have proposed additional
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 15
reorganizations, and it may well be that in the future I shall
recommend further changes. For the present, however, I think the
two reorganizations transmitted today represent a sound and sig-
nificant beginning. I also think that in practical terms, in this
sensitive and rapidly developing area, it is better to proceed a step
at a time—and thus to be sure that we are not caught up in a form
of organizational indigestion from trying to rearrange too much
at once. As we see how these changes work out, we will gain a
better understanding of what further changes—in addition to
these—might be desirable.
Ultimately, our objective should be to insure that the nation's
environmental and resource protection activities are so organized
as to maximize both the effective coordination of all and the effec-
tive functioning of each.
The Congress, the Administration and the public all share a
profound commitment to the rescue of our natural environment,
and the preservation of the Earth as a place both habitable by and
hospitable to man. With its acceptance of these reorganization
plans, the Congress will help us fulfill that commitment.
RICHARD NIXON.
THE WHITE HOUSE.
Lib MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTING RE-
ORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3
July 9, 1970, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 28,
p. 917 (July 13, 1970)
MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTING REORGANIZATION
PLAN No. 3 OF 1970, JULY 9,1970
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, pre-
pared in accordance with chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States
Code and providing for an Environmental Protection Agency. My
reasons for transmitting this plan are stated in a more extended
accompanying message.
After investigation, I have found and hereby declare that each
reorganization included in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 is
necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in
section 901 (a) of title 5 of the United States Code. In particular,
the plan is responsive to section 901 (a) (1), "to promote the better
execution of the laws, the more effective management of the execu-
-------
16 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tive branch and of its agencies and functions, and the expeditious
administration of the public business;" and section 901 (a) (3), "to
increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government to the
fullest extent practicable."
The reorganizations provided for in the plan make necessary
the appointment and compensation of new officers as specified in
section 1 of the plan. The rates of compensation fixed for these
officers are comparable to those fixed for other officers in the
executive branch who have similar responsibilities.
Section 907 of title 5 of the United States Code will operate to
preserve administrative proceedings, including any public hearing
proceedings, related to the transferred functions, which are pend-
ing immediately prior to the taking effect of the reorganization
plan.
The reorganization plan should result in more efficient operation
of the Government. It is not practical, however, to itemize or
aggregate the exact expenditure reductions which will result from
this action.
RICHARD NIXON.
THE WHITE HOUSE.
Lie HEARINGS ON REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF
1970 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE RE-
ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT RESEARCH OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERA-
TIONS, 91st CONG., 2d SESS. (1970)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JULY 23,1970.
Staff Memorandum No. 91-2-23
Subject: Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970—Environmental Protection
Agency
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 was transmitted by the President to the
Congress on July 9, 1970, and referred to the Subcommittee on Executive Re-
organization on July 15, 1970. Unless it is disapproved by a majority vote of
either House of the Congress, prior thereto, the last day for floor action on a
resolution of disapproval will be September 7, 1970. A reorganization plan
becomes effective on the 61st day following its transmittal to the Congress,
unless the plan, as in the case of Reorganization Plan No. 3, provides for a
later effective date. Under the provisions of section 7 of this plan, it will be-
come effective on November 7,1970.
Hearings on Plans 3 and 4 have been scheduled by the Executive Reorgani-
zation Subcommittee for July 28 and 29,1970.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 17
PURPOSE
Plan No. 3 of 1970 is part of an effort to organize rationally and system-
atically the activities of the Federal Government which relate to the environ-
ment, by centralizing in one new agency the responsibility for the major Fed-
eral pollution control programs, now located in three Cabinet departments,
one independent agency and two interagency councils.
The plan would (1) establish as a new independent agency, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, headed by an Administrator and a Deputy Admin-
istrator who would be appointed by the President, subject to Senate confirma-
tion, at Levels II ($42,500) and III($40,000), respectively, of the Executive
Schedule Pay Rates; (2) authorize the President to appoint, subject to Senate
confirmation, no more than five Assistant Administrators at Level IV
($38,000); (3) transfer to the Administrator the major statutory functions
and responsibilities, relative to water and air pollution control from (a) the
respective Secretaries and Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and of
Health, Education and Welfare; (b) the Atomic Energy Commission and (c)
the Federal Radiation Council; (4) transfer to the Agency from the Depart-
ment of the Interior the Water Pollution Advisory Board, together with its
functions, and certain hearing boards provided for in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and transfer to the Administrator the functions of the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to being or designating the Chairman
of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board; (5) transfer to the Agency
from the Department of HEW the Air Quality Advisory Board, together
with its functions, and the functions of the Secretary of HEW with respect
to being a member and Chairman of that Board; and (6) abolish, exclusive
of any functions, the Federal Water Quality Administration in the Depart-
ment of the Interior and the Federal Radiation Council.
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
In his message accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 3, the President
stated that it had become increasingly clear that more knowledge was re-
quired concerning our environment—land, air and water—that the develop-
ment of such knowledge and the effective protection and enhancement of our
environment required a reorganization of Federal efforts, and that the
Government's environmentally-related activities have grown up piecemeal
over the years.
Addressing himself to the need for an Environmental Protection Agency,
the President concluded that "our national government today is not struc-
tured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we
breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food" and that
"the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution
often defies effective and concerted action. Despite its complexity, for pollu-
tion control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, inter-
related system * * *" but "present assignments of departmental responsibil-
ities do not reflect this interrelatedness."
Elaborating further, the President said:
"Many agency missions, for example, are designed primarily along media
lines—air, water, and land. Yet the sources of air, water and land pollution
are interrelated and often interchangeable. A single source may pollute the
[p. 24]
-------
18 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
air with smoke and chemicals, the land with solid wastes, and a river or lake
with chemical and other wastes. Control of the air pollution mav produce
more solid wastes, which then pollute the land or water. Control of the water-
polluting effluent may convert it into solid wastes, which must be disposed of
on land.
"Similarly, some pollutants—chemicals, radiation, and pesticides—appear
in all media. Successful control of them at present requires the coordinated
efforts of a variety of separate agencies and departments. The results are not
always successful."
The President suggested that a far more effective approach to pollution
control would be to (a) identify pollutants, (b) trace them through the entire
ecological chain, observing and recording changes in form as they occur, (c)
determine the total exposure of man and his environment, (d) determine in-
teractions among forms of pollution, and (e) identify where in the ecological
chain interdiction would be most appropriate.
Referring to the organizational structure required to achieve this approach,
the President said:
"* * * this requires pulling together into one agency a variety of research,
monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities now scattered through
several departments and agencies. It also requires that the new agency in-
clude sufficient elements—in research and in aids to State and local anti-
pollution programs. For example—to give it the needed strength and poten-
tial for carrying out its mission. The new agency would also, of course, draw
upon the results of research conducted by other agencies."
Following a review of the components which comprise the Environmental
Protection Agency, the President concluded that:
"With its broad mandate, EPA would also develop competence in areas of
environmental protection that have not previously been given enough atten-
tion, such, for example, as the problem of noise and it would provide an or-
ganization to which new programs in these areas can be added."
MAJOR FUNCTIONS TO BE TRANSFERRED
The principal pollution control functions, agencies and components to be
transferred to the Administrator, or the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the agency now having responsibility for them, are summarized below:
1. From the Department of the Interior
(a) the functions carried on by the Federal Water Quality Administration,
including control of pollutants which impair water quality, research, estab-
lishment and enforcement of standards, and construction grants and techni-
cal assistance;
(a) the functions relative to pesticides, which include research on the
effects of pesticides upon fish and wildlife at the Gulf Breeze Biological Lab-
oratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, which laboratory would be
transferred to the new Agency. However, the Department of the Interior
would retain its present responsibility for research on all factors affecting
fish and wildlife;
(c) the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, and its functions (ad-
vising, consulting with and making recommendations to the Secretary rela-
tive to water pollution control policy);
(d) the functions of the Secretary relative to being or designating the
Chairman of the Board;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 19
(e) the hearings boards provided for in the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act to hear disputed cases involving the enforcement of water quality
standards and to make recommendations to the Secretary with respect thereto;
and
(f) the functions relative to certifying amortization of pollution control
facilities under section 169 (d)(l) (B) and (3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954, as amended.
2. From the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(a) the functions carried on by the National Air Pollution Control Admin-
istration, including research relative to air pollution, operating a monitoring
network, promulgating criteria which serve as the basis for setting air quality
standards, administering the Clean Air Act, which involves designating air
quality regions, approving State standards and providing financial and tech-
nical assistance to State Control agencies to enable them to comply with the
Act's provisions, and enforcing Federal automotive emission standards;
[p. 25]
(b) the functions carried out by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
and Water Hygiene, and some of the functions carried out by the Bureau of
Radiological Health, all of which are now administered through the Environ-
mental Health Service, including research, demonstrations and experiments
and the establishment of criteria and standards relative to the reduction of
solid wastes, improvement of water quality and safe limits of radiation
exposure. Specifically exempted from the transfer are those functions of the
Environmental Control Administration of the Environmental Health Service
which are carried out by its Bureau of Community Environmental Manage-
ment (general well being in the living environment of the community), the
Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health (health and safety of the work-
ing population), and those functions of the Bureau of Radiological Health
relating to the regulation of radiation from consumer products, its use in
the healing arts or occupational exposures to radiation, all of which will
remain in the Department of HEW;
(c) those functions of the Secretary of HEW, administered through the
Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act, which relate to the establishment of tolerances for pesticide chemicals,
together with authority to set standards which limit pesticide residues in
food, monitor compliance, provide technical assistance to the States and
conduct related research under the Food and Drug Act and the Public
Health Service Act. However, the Food and Drug Administration would retain
its authority to remove from the market food with excess pesticide residues;
(d) the functions relative to certifying amortization of pollution control
facilities under section 169 (d) (1) (B) and (3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954, as amended;
(e) the Air Quality Advisory Board, and its functions (advising the Secre-
tary relative to air pollution control) ; and
(f) the functions of the Secretary of HEW with respect to being a member
and the Chairman of the Air Quality Board.
3. From the Department of Agriculture
(a) the functions of the Secretary and the Department under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (registering, licensing
and monitoring pesticides);
-------
20 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(b) the functions of the Secretary and the Department under section 408
of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended (certifying the safe
use of certain pesticides); and
(c) the functions vested by applicable law in the Secretary and the Depart-
ment which are administered through the Environmental Quality Branch of
the Plant Protection Division of the Agricultural Research Service (conduct-
ing an educational program on pesticide use through the extension service
and conducting pest control programs which utilize pesticides).
4. From the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radiation Council
(a) the functions of the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, administered through its Division of Radia-
tion Protection Standards, which consist of the establishment of standards
for the protection of the general environment from radioactive material
(limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations of radioactive
material in the general environment outside of locations under control of
persons possessing or using such materials). The Commission would retain
its responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of radiation stand-
ards through its licensing authority; and
(b) all functions of the Federal Radiation Council (advising the President
relative to radiation matters directly or indirectly affecting health, guidance
to Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and estab-
lishment and execution of programs in cooperation with the States).
5. From the Council on Environmental Quality
Those functions of the Council under section 204(5) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which require it to conduct studies, investi-
gations and analyses relating to ecological systems. The council would retain
its authority to conduct studies and research relative to environmental quality.
SUMMARY OF THE ROLE AND PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS OP THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
According to the President's message, accompanying Plan 3, the principal
functions of EPA would include (a) the establishment and enforcement of
[p. 26]
environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental
goals; (b) the conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on
methods and equipment for controlling it; (c) the gathering of information
on pollution and the use of this information in strengthening environmental
protection programs and recommending policy changes; (d) assisting others,
through grants, technical assistance and other means in arresting pollution
of the environment; and (e) assisting the Council on Environmental Quality
in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protec-
tion of the environment, with particular reference to abating pollution by
the establishment and enforcement of pollution control standards.
BENEFITS EXPECTED TO BE DERIVED FROM PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970
The President, in his message accompanying Plan 3 of 1970, discussed
the advantages of the proposed reorganization. They are summarized, as
follows:
1. It would permit response to environmental problems in a manner beyond
the previous capability of our pollution control programs. The EPA would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 21
have the capacity to do research on important pollutants irrespective of the
media in which they appear, and on the impact of these pollutants on the total
environment. Both by itself and together with other agencies. The EPA would
monitor the conditions of the environment—biological as well as physical—
and the resulting data would enable it to establish quantitative environmental
baselines" which are critical if we are to measure adequately the success or
failure of our pollution abatement efforts.
2. It would enable the establishment and enforcement of standards for air
and water quality and for individual pollutants, in concert with the States,
which cannot be accomplished with a disjointed array of separate programs.
The proposed consolidation of pollution control authorities would help assure
that we do not create new environmental problems in the process of control-
ling existing ones. Industries seeking to minimize the adverse impact of their
activities on the environment would be assured of consistent standards cover-
ing the full range of their waste disposal problems: and as the States develop
and expand their own pollution control programs, they would also be able
to look to one agency to support their efforts with financial and technical
assistance and training.
3. It would centralize in one independent agency the responsibility for en-
vironmental protection and pollution abatement and control. Noting that the
proposal for the establishment of a new agency was contrary to one of his
principles—that as a matter of effective and orderly administration, new
independent agencies should not be created, the President stated that the
arguments against placing environmental protection activities under the juris-
diction of an existing department or agency were compelling.
First, almost every part of the government is concerned with the environ-
ment in some way. However, each department has its own primary mission,
such as resource development, transportation, health, defense, urban growth
or agriculture, and this mission necessarily affects its own view of environ-
mental questions.
Second, if the critical standard-setting functions were centralized within
any one existing department, it would require that department constantly to
make decisions affecting other departments, in which its own objectivity as an
impartial arbiter could be called into question. Because environmental pro-
tection cuts across so many jurisdictions, and because arresting environmental
deterioration is of great importance to the quality of life in our country and
the world, the President concluded that a strong, independent agency is needed
which would work closely with and draw upon the expertise and assistance of
other agencies having experience in the environmental area.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGETARY DATA
It is estimated that for fiscal year 1971, the Environmental Protection
Agency will have approximately 5,791 authorized positions and an estimated
budget of $1.4 billion. According to information furnished by the Office of
Management and Budget, these figures may be compared with 5,322 authorized
positions and a budget of $768,331,000 for these activities in fiscal year 1970;
the additional sum of approximately $631,000,000, for fiscal year 1971,
represents congressional action increasing the amount of funds available for
water quality grants.
The major portion of both funds and authorized positions do not represent
new resources, but rather a transfer of existing resources, in terms of both
-------
22 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
personnel and funds, from those departments and agencies which are now
performing the functions which would be transferred to the new Agency.
[p. 27]
Thus, in terms of positions of the 5,791 requested for fiscal year 1971, 2,625
would be transferred from the Department of HEW; 2,998 from the Depart-
ment of the Interior; 461 from the Department of Agriculture; 3 from the
Atomic Energy Commission; and 4 from the Federal Radiation Council. In
terms of funds, $157,602,000 would be transferred from the Department of
HEW; $1,234,067,000 from the Department of the Interior; $7,482,000 from
the Department of Agriculture; $75,000 from the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion; and $144,000 from the Federal Radiation Council.
Based upon total 1970 fiscal year funding obligations of $758,331,000 and
5,322 authorized positions, approximately 19.1 percent of the funding and
48.1 percent, of the authorized personnel are derived from the Department of
HEW; 80.2 percent of the funding and 46.0 percent of the personnel from the
Department of the Interior; and 0.6 percent of the funding and 6.0 percent
of the personnel from the Department of Agriculture. (Percentage relation-
ships of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radiation Council
have not been included, since they constitute less than one tenth of one per-
cent of the total).
ELI E. NOBELMAN,
Professional Staff Member,
Approved:
JAMES R. GALLOWAY,
Chief Counsel and Staff Director.
[p. 28]
STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today in favor of the President's Reorganization Plan No.
3 creating the Environmental Protection Agency.
The President has proposed to do by reorganization what I had
proposed to do by legislation. Last December I proposed the crea-
tion of an independent watchdog agency to protect the environ-
ment, and on April 6 of this year I introduced a bill, S. 3677, to
create the environmental quality administration.
I might ask. Mr. Chairman, whether that might be included?
Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, it will be included.
(See exhibit 4, p. 117.)
Senator MUSKIE. Removing environmental regulatory authority
from promotional agencies was the goal of my proposal, and it is
the primary importance of the President's reorganization plan. At
the same time, concentrating environmental protection programs
in one independent agency should give our environmental quality
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 23
efforts a measure of stability and coordination they have never
known.
Few Federal programs and executive agencies have undergone
the constant change in a relatively short period of time that has
marked our environmental efforts. Few Federal "wars" are being
fought with as much room for administrative improvement. With-
out a thorough reorganization—of the kind that the President and
I have proposed—the pursuit of environmental quality will never
achieve preeminence in the Federal Government.
[p. 39]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Even more important than the question of preeminence and
organizational stability is the narrow focus of environmental pro-
tection without which no program will ever be successful. If the
control of pollution is assigned to those responsible for the promo-
tion of polluting activities at the same time, we compromise our
goal of environmental protection. This is what happens now in the
Department of the Interior, in the Department of Transportation,
in the Atomic Energy Commission, and in several other agencies.
To meet these two criteria, organizational stability and autono-
mous environmental regulation, some have suggested the creation
of a Department of Natural Resources or a Department of Conser-
vation.
Whatever the merits of such a department to serve other pur-
poses, such a move for these purposes would be a mistake for
several important reasons.
First, it would ignore the fact that our environmental protec-
tion problem involves competition in the use of resources—a com-
petition which exists in any department which must develop re-
sources for public uses.
The agency which sets environmental quality standards must
have only one goal—protection of this and future generations
against changes in the natural environment which adversely affect
the quality of life.
Second, we must recognize that environmental protection is not
the same as conservation, although sound conservation practices
should enhance the environment.
Finally, the traditional concerns of conservation activities have
been too closely identified with the protection of natural resources
separated from the population centers. Our primary concern must
be man, where he lives and the interrelationship between the natu-
ral environment and his manmade environments.
-------
24 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
TO AVOID ECOLOGICAL DISASTER
An independent agency, charged with responsibility for develop-
ing and implementing Federal environmental quality standards,
supporting basic research on problems of environmental quality
and providing technical and construction assistance to State, in-
terstate, and local agencies would reflect the national commitment
we need if we are to avoid ecological disaster.
The President's reorganization plan meets these criteria. It
transfers to the new agency the research, standards-setting, and
grantmaking authorities of the Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration and the National Air Pollution Control Administration. It
includes in the new agency many of the other important environ-
mental regulatory functions now scattered among the Atomic En-
ergy Commission and other Federal agencies. At the same time, it
excludes from the EPA any responsibilities for resource develop-
ment or promotion. The single mission of the EPA will be the
protection of the environment.
At the same time, there are several aspects of the President's
plan which concern me. I hope that administration witnesses will
discuss these questions in detail.
[p. 40]
QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES
First, there are important environmental protection programs
that are not included in this reorganization.
Noise pollution control does not belong in the Department of
Transportation. It should have been transferred to EPA in the
plan.
The fragmentation of sewer construction grant programs con-
fuses many communities and impedes effective coordination of
water pollution control programs. Although the grant program
administered by the Federal Water Quality Administration has
been placed in this new agency, the programs of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agri-
culture have not. Further transfers might be appropriate in this
area.
NAPCA and FWQA have been criticized for their failure to
monitor air and water quality adequately. These capabilities pres-
ently exist in the U.S. Geological Survey and the Environmental
Science Service Administration, and we should consider transfer-
ring them to the new agency.
The second focus of my concern with the reorganization plan is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 25
the ability of the new agency to evaluate health matters quickly
and to act on those evaluations. The National Institute for Envi-
ronmental Health Services was not transferred to the new agency.
There needs to be assurance that the new agency will have the
capacity to identify potential environmental health problems. Had
earlier identification of the present mercury crisis might have
the FWQA used the capacity of the Bureau of Water Hygiene,
resulted. The committee should be assured that the EPA will have
the environmental health personnel to set the adequate standards
for radiation and pesticides which are needed immediately.
My final concern with the President's plan is reflected in the
message that accompanied transmission of the plan to Congress.
The message states that the EPA should result in more efficient
operation of the Government. It goes on to say: "It is not practi-
cal, however, to itemize or aggregate the exact expenditure reduc-
tions which will result in this action."
We should not expect expenditures for these already under-
funded, undermanned programs to decrease.
MANPOWER SHORTAGE
The manpower shortage is especially serious at the National Air
Pollution Control Administration. At the time of enactment of the
Air Quality Act of 1967, the projected need of NAPCA manpower
was for 1,900 in fiscal year 1970. Instead, they are staffed about
half that strength. The current employment is 961. The budget
request for only 117 additional positions for NAPCA in the next
fiscal year is clearly not adequate.
To demonstrate the effects of this shortage, one need only look
at the progress on the first vital procedural step under the Air
Quality Act. Of the 57 air quality regions which should have been
designated in 1969, only 28 were designated. The agency has only
eight workers doing this essential work. A report prepared by
NAPCA, but not released, shows that an additional 2,000 workers
will be required by 1974 to implement the provisions of the act.
[p. 41]
A look at the funding history of NAPCA gives a good idea why
there are manpower problems. In fiscal 1968, $109 million was
authorized, but only $64 million was appropriated. In 1969, the
authorization was $185 million, but the appropriation was only
$89 million. And in fiscal 1970, $179 million was authorized but
only $109 million appropriated.
The picture in water pollution control is not a great deal bright-
-------
26 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
er. In fiscal years 1966 through 1969, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration—now known as the Federal Water Qual-
ity Administration—remained from 1,000 to 600 positions below
its authorized manpower, partly as a result of ceiling levels set by
the Bureau of the Budget. The agency now is within about 125 of
its authorized level, but that is because the authorization has been
cut back from 2,800 to 2,400. A 1969 study by the General Ac-
counting Office showed that as a result of manpower shortages,
there was insufficient technical assistance to the States and in
some cases a hindering of the research effort and insufficient su-
pervision of construction grants. Some additional positions have
been added to the construction grant program as a result of addi-
tional appropriations for that program for fiscal 1970, but much
improvement still is needed. We should not be cutting back author-
ized manpower when we should be greatly strengthening our
water pollution control efforts.
The committee should request from the administration accurate
estimates of projected funding and manpower for the new agency
over the next 3 years. The Congress should make clear its commit-
ment to fund and staff the EPA. Without that commitment, EPA
will be merely another example of unfilled promises.
I hope that the administration witnesses who appear in the next
2 days will respond to the questions that I have raised.
On balance, the President's plan is a good one. If it is aug-
mented by the additional transfers I have suggested and if it is
administered and funded properly, the EPA would mark an im-
portant commitment to environmental quality.
REORGANIZATION PLAN APPROVAL URGED
These are big "ifs," but they represent the opportunity EPA
would create. We could translate our concern into effective action,
our financial commitments into results and our determination into
strong enforcement. EPA will give us this chance, and I urge the
Congress to approve the reorganization plan.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that I have gone into
the final aspects of this problem and this program because I fear
that this reorganization may be regarded as a sufficient commit-
ment to the problem of environmental quality. The reorganization
of our efforts is important, but I hope what we are doing is simply
taking the first step, which must include additional transfer of
programs and sufficient funding if we are truly to do this job. And
it is on that basis, and on the assumption that Mr. Train, at least,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 27
is committed to this kind of an objective that I look with favor
upon this reorganization plan.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much for your most valuable
statement. I am just curious, Senator Muskie. Right today, in the
past few days, the entire Nation has been plagued with smog and
devastating air pollution which is wrecking havoc in every big city
[P. 42]
and small city in America. Could any of this problem have been
obviated by more funding or better programs that we have ne-
glected to achieve during the past few years ?
Senator MUSKIE. I think clearly that the underplanning of the
air quality program is directly related to our failure to put the
machinery that we have created in 1967 into gear and moving.
AIR POLLUTION LEGISLATION
In the air pollution legislation that we are considering—and we
will be in a committee markup session again this afternoon on
it—we are going to propose drastic new policies to deal with this
problem, because its dangers are escalating so rapidly, as the
chairman knows. He actually was concerned with air pollution
problems long before I was, when he was Governor of Connecticut.
We have seen the problem escalate from that of Los Angeles alone
to the point where it concerns every city of 50,000 or more people
in this country, and we need manpower.
In the air pollution legislation we are considering if we are
going to ask the Congress to approve the removal of the air qual-
ity programs from the manpower ceilings that apply to the Gov-
ernment generally. We think it is a disserve to the people of this
country to suggest new stiff legislation when we know that with-
out the manpower the job cannot be done. The job that was spelled
out in the 1967 Air Quality Act cannot be done and has not been
done in large part because of manpower shortages, why? Because
of underfunding. And if we make the decision as a Congress that
our financial budgetary problems are so pressing that we cannot
afford to begin this job now, well, then, let us say so.
I do not believe in writing new legislation in the record and
making new promises when we know that manpower and money
limitations will not permit us to follow through, and I emphasize
it in this hearing on the reorganization plans because I think it is
fundamental. This reorganization is not that fundamental. It is
-------
28 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
important. It needs to be done, but consideration of it ought not to
divert our attention from the really tough problem of providing
manpower and money.
A COMMITMENT BACKED UP WITH FUNDS
Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, you are saying that the time
has come, though long-past due, when we should stop kidding the
American people with a lot of oratory and good intention, and that
we have to have a commitment and back it up with funds and
personnel if we are ever to achieve the results we expect?
Senator MUSKIE. This is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you, Senator Muskie.
Do you have questions, Senator Metcalf ?
Senator METCALF. No, I do not think so.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Senator Muskie.
Mr. Train, please.
[p. 43]
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr TRAIN. Mr. Chairman, I think what I would suggest is that I
proceed with my statement and then address some of the specific
questions which the chairman and others have raised and have
requested that I address myself to.
I would like to comment, if I might, just before I begin, on a
point made by Senator Muskie, since he just made it. I am sorry
that Senator Muskie has left.
He referred, in his statement, to the statement in the Presi-
dent's message of transmittal to the effect that it was not practical
to spell out the reductions and expenditures which would result
from the planned reorganization. Senator Muskie referred to that
and expressed the hope that the purpose of the reorganization was
not to bring about budget reductions but rather to strengthen
these programs. I think this committee knows that the statement
made by the President was in furtherance of the requirement of
the reorganization legislation that if there are savings resulting
from the organization that these be spelled out. The President was
simply being responsive to that requirement of the statute.
I think I can assure this committee that the commitment of the
administration to the strengthening of these programs, both in
terms of levels of expenditure and of personnel, manpower, is very
real, very strong, and I would assume that the creation of a new
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 29
agency of this sort, as has happened historically with the estab-
lishment of such agencies as the AEG and NASA, can only result
in a higher public commitment in terms of budgets and budget
priorities. I assure this committee that no other course is intended
as a result of this reorganization.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed with my statement ?
Senator RIBICOFF. Yes.
Mr. TRAIN. It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to discuss
with you the President's proposal for the creation of an Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) set out in Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970. I know that many of you have had extensive experi-
ence dealing with environmental protection problems which will
be valuable background for the consideration of this proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS A PRIORITY OBJECTIVE
President Nixon has established environmental quality as a
priority objective of this administration. In his state of the Union
message of last January, he declared the goal of the seventies to be
"a new quality of life in America." On February 10, he sent the
Congress a message on environment which proposed a comprehen-
sive, 37-point program for environmental improvement, including
some 23 specific proposals for legislation. Most of these dealt with
urgently needed improvements in our air and water pollution con-
trol programs, including strengthened enforcement procedures.
During the 6 months that have followed, the President has sent
a series of environmental messages to the Congress proposing:
[p. 44]
ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
A 10-point program dealing with oil spills in marine transporta-
tion;
A program to bring to an end the dumping of dredge spoils in
the Great Lakes and announcing a study of the problem of ocean
disposal of wastes;
A $4.25 per pound tax on lead in gasoline; and
The reacquisition of 20 oil leases off Santa Barbara, Calif.,
leading to the establishment of a marine sanctuary in that area.
In his message on environment, the President stated that he was
directing his Advisory Council on Executive Organization to study
and report on the organization of environmental programs. The
proposals now before Congress are the result of this Presidential
initiative.
-------
30 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The United States is now committed—by statute, by policy, and
by the awakened insistence of our citizens—to the goal of a high
quality environment for human life. Such a goal calls for the
dedication of major resources of personnel, time, and money. If
these resources are not to be frittered away in scattered, piece-
meal programs—if we are truly to mount a coordinated attack on
the problems of the environment—then we must create an effec-
tive institutional base for sound environmental management.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I personally am convinced that the proposed Environmental
Protection Agency is of crucial importance to the effectiveness of
our pollution abatement efforts. The current dispersion of Federal
programs involved in attacking pollution problems has developed
piecemeal over the years, and we are not at present organized to
mount the kind of sustained, coordinated, high-priority effort
which we know is needed. Pollution has become everybody's prob-
lem but the responsibility for control is still divided. The Presi-
dent's proposal makes it the basic responsibility of a single
agency. This will allow the President, the Congress, and the Amer-
ican people to expect and require unified management of our pollu-
tion control programs.
Legislation has been introduced in the Senate, with broad bipar-
tisan support, based on the same concept as this reorganization
plan. Although the bills differ from this plan in the details of what
functions are included or excluded, they are based upon the same
central concept of a unified independent agency to control pollu-
tion. Senator Muskie described in some detail some of the provi-
sions of his bill and, as he requested, I will be glad to comment on
some of the items which he has included in his legislation and
which are not included in the President's proposal, and vice versa.
Senator Scott also has introduced legislation similarly establishing
a new, independent agency to manage our pollution and other
environmental protection programs, and I believe both of these
bills have a number of senators who have cosponsored them.
Reorganization inevitably produces its own stresses and strains
and the current plan will doubtless prove no exception. However,
careful attention is being given to minimizing such effects, and
there is no reason for delaying now a reorganization which is long
overdue. Indeed, continuation of the present fragmentation of
[p. 45]
Federal antipollution responsibilities will only aggravate existing
problems. The time to make corrections is now, not later.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 31
DESCRIPTION OF REORGANIZATION
Reorganization Plan No. 3 would create the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency which will be independent of any Cabinet agency,
similar to NASA or the Atomic Energy Commission. EPA would
be headed by an administrator who would be compensated at a
level comparable to the heads of NASA and AEC. It would take
over certain pollution control responsibilities now located in six
different departments and agencies and would have primary re-
sponsibility for control of air and water pollution and solid wastes
and for controlling the environmental effects of pesticides and
radiation. EPA would have an estimated fiscal year 1971 budget of
$1.4 billion and approximately 5,800 personnel.
The following authorities and programs would be transferred to
the new agency:
For air pollution control—the authorities contained in the Clean
Air Act, as amended, and the National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration now in HEW;
For water pollution control—the authorities contained in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; the Federal
Water Quality Administration now in the Department of the Inte-
rior; and the water hygiene program of the Environmental Con-
trol Administration, HEW;
For solid wastes disposal—the authority given to HEW in the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, and the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, HEW;
For pesticides—the authorities (mostly related to registering
pesticides) contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, now administered by the Department of Agricul-
ture ; part of the authority of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife to conduct research on the effect of pesticides on fish and
wildlife; the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to
set pesticide tolerance levels on food; and the Gulf Breeze Biologi-
cal Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries;
For radiation—the authorities and functions of the Federal Ra-
diation Council; the authority under the Atomic Energy Act to set
standards for the emission of radiation to the general environ-
ment ; and portions of the Bureau of Radiological Health in HEW;
and, finally,
For general research purposes—the authority given to the
Council on Environmental Quality by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 to conduct research on ecological systems.
The reasons for such a major reorganization are compelling.
-------
32 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
REASONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION
The current organization of the Federal Government to deal
with pollution suffers from two obvious problems. First, for many
particular kinds of pollution a number of different Federal agen-
cies have overlapping or closely related responsibilities. Three
Federal departments—Agriculture, HEW, and Interior—are di-
[p. 46]
rectly involved in regulating pesticides; and similarly a number of
agencies have some responsibility for radiation problems. Second,
the organizational basis for controlling pollution is not consistent
or adequate. The two largest agencies, the Federal Water Quality
Administration and the National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration are organized on the basis of the media—air or water—
through which pollutants travel. The other pollution control pro-
grams, on the other hand, generally are organized on the basis of
particular pollutants—pesticides, radioactive materials, and solid
wastes. Confusion results today, for example, about the extent to
which air and water pollution control agencies are responsible for
radioactive materials and pesticides when these materials appear
in air or water.
The programs to deal with pesticides and radiation were devel-
oped in part because these two kinds of pollutants did not fit
neatly into the categories of air and water pollution. Pesticides
and radiation are found in both air and water and on the land. We
expect pollution control problems of the future will increasingly be
of this kind. They will involve toxic chemicals and metals which
are found in all media and which run counter to the air and water
pollution organization of the Government. The current problems
with mercury and polychlorinated biphenols are an indication of
what lies ahead.
Some pollution problems remain unrecognized because of gaps
in agency jurisdiction or because no one agency has clear lead
responsibility. With its broad responsibility for environmental pol-
lution control, the Environmental Protection Agency would
greatly improve our ability to recognize and to take action on
newly recognized problems, such as noise. Pollution problems of
the future will increasingly cut across the jurisdiction of existing
departments, making the need for a unified pollution control
agency ever more imperative.
Another problem of present Federal organization should be
noted. Agencies which have responsibility for promoting a partic-
ular resource or activity also have responsibility for regulating
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 33
the environmental effects of this activity. The two clear examples
of this potential conflict of interest are the Department of Agri-
culture's regulation of pesticides and the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion's regulation of radiation levels. Regardless of how good a job
these agencies do, the public is increasingly questioning the vest-
ing of promotional and regulatory powers in the same agency. The
Environmental Protection Agency, by assuming these regulatory
functions, should help restore public confidence in our ability to
control pollution from these sources.
The existence of a unified pollution control agency should also
greatly clarify the Federal Government's relations with State and
local governments and with private industry. More than half the
States and many localities already have a single agency responsi-
ble for all forms of pollution. A number of others are considering
establishing such an agency. In the cases where a unified agency
exists, the differing Federal requirements are a significant source
of irritation and inefficiency.
Industry pollution control efforts will also benefit from the crea-
tion of EPA. A manager responsible for controlling pollution from
his firm must now go to several agencies to find out what action
his firm must take. The standards and enforcement actions to
which he is subject are uncoordinated and sometimes conflicting.
The air pollution agency tells him how to control air pollution, and
[p. 47]
the water pollution agency how to control water pollution. But
nobody is in a position to consider the entire range of environmen-
tal standards that will affect a firm's operations. Since many types
of plants can dispose of the same wastes in the air, the water, or
as solid waste, this lack of coordination can result in significantly
higher costs to the firm and to society as a whole.
FUNCTIONS OF THE NEW AGENCY
As you well know, a reorganization plan cannot create any new
legal authorities or functions. Therefore, the functions of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, when it comes into being, will be
the same as those of its constituent parts. However, the new
agency will be able to perform existing functions better, and will
also be able to undertake new activities which are not easily done
under the existing structure.
The key functions in pollution control are standard-setting and
enforcement. Standards provide the goals of the control program,
the basis for enforcement actions, and the measure of the pro-
gram's progress.
-------
34 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Standards should be based on the total amount of a given pollu-
tant to which humans or some element of the environment are
exposed, even though the standards apply to a particular medium.
Lead, for example, may reach humans through the air or the
water, but the key question is how much comes from all sources
together? It is very difficult to deal with this problem under the
current fragmented organization. As the pollutants of primary
concern to the Government increasingly cut across media lines,
this problem of setting standards will become more acute.
Even in those areas where the Government is not organized on
the basis of air or water pollution, as for example in the case of
pesticides and radiation control, the need to regulate the total
allowable exposure from different sources is becoming apparent.
This can only be done by a consolidated agency.
The enforcement function will also be improved in several re-
spects. Perhaps most important, the way will be cleared for for-
mulating and applying the best overall strategy for controlling
particular pollution problems. The new agency will be able to
examine the path of a pollutant through the total environment and
determine at what point control measures can be most effectively
and efficiently applied. For example, it may be that in some cases a
pollutant can best be controlled by exercising control before it
enters the environment, as is now done with pesticides.
Enforcement will also benefit from the more efficient relations
with State and local governments and with the private sector.
Monitoring and surveillance will be improved and made more
effective, for example, by simultaneously monitoring a river for
pesticides, radiation, and other water pollutants. New hazards will
be recognized more rapidly by a coordinated monitoring system.
Research will be similarly strengthened. Research on the health
effects of pollution will be able to take into account the exposure to
a given pollutant from all sources. Research on ecological effects
must, almost by definition, consider the interrelated parts of the
environment, since ecology is to a great extent the study of such
[p. 48]
interrelationships. It will be far easier to conduct ecological stud-
ies in an agency which is not limited to one particular medium or
pollutant.
ORGANIZATION OP EPA
The internal organization of the Environmental Protection
Agency has not been finally determined and should not be until the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 35
head of the agency is named and has had an opportunity to weigh
the various alternatives. An important part of the responsibilities
of the Administrator of EPA will be to develop the most effective
organization of his resources.
One factor which will weigh heavily on the new administrator is
the necessity of avoiding any delay or disruption of ongoing pollu-
tion abatement programs. We are taking every step possible to
assure that such disruption does not occur. The new agency will be
acquiring a large number of experienced personnel, which will
ease the problems of transition. As Mr. Dwight Ink will describe
in greater detail as a later witness, the administration has sent to
the Congress legislation designed to facilitate the transfer of
members of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to the
new agency.
One other fact relevant to the problems of transition is worth
noting. The major agencies which would be transferred to EPA
are enthusiastic about the reorganization plan. Their personnel
know that the plan represents recognition of the critical impor-
tance of the pollution control functions. I am confident that the
reorganization will result in a substantial boost in morale. The
independent Environmental Protection Agency will have a sense
of purpose, of thrust, and of public commitment that is impossible
to achieve under present circumstances.
NOISE POLLUTION
It should not be assumed that the proposed plan represents the
final word on reorganization. In a field as rapidly evolving as
pollution control, additional changes very likely will be needed.
Noise pollution is a case in point. The President, in his message
transmitting the reorganization proposal, noted that:
With its broad mandate, EPA would also develop competence in areas of
environmental protection that have not previously been given enough atten-
tion, such, for example, as the problem of noise, and it would provide an
organization to which new programs in these areas could be added.
The Council on Environmental Quality is currently examining
new approaches and concepts of standards to deal with the noise
problem, and at this early stage, it seems more appropriate to deal
with such innovations through legislation than to try to anticipate
them in a reorganization plan.
RELATION OP EPA TO CEQ
Our Council strongly supports the plan of reorganization. There
is no conflict between the missions of EPA and the Council on
-------
36 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Environmental Quality. Indeed, the two organizations will be mu-
tually reinforcing.
The Council is essentially a staff organization. It is not intended
to have operating responsibilities and its functions are to advise
the President with respect to environmental policies and to coordi-
[p. 49]
nate all activities of Federal agencies related to environmental
quality. EPA, on the other hand, will be responsible for executing
antipollution policies and for carrying out the many functions
involved in controlling pollution. It will assist the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality in developing and recommending to the Presi-
dent new policies for the protection of the environment.
There is also a difference in the scope of concern of the two
agencies. The Council is responsible for the environment, broadly
denned. This includes such subjects as population, land use, and
conservation. The new agency will focus specifically on pollution
control, which is only one part of the Council's responsibilities.
However, the creation of EPA will be a significant building block
in achieving the comprehensive view of environmental matters
which the Council has tried to encourage.
As the President has said, "We are determined that the decade
of the seventies will be known as the time when this country
regained a productive harmony between man and nature." Issues
of great priority and lasting significance tend to take institutional
form, and the Environmental Protection Agency is the institu-
tional manifestation of the priority and significance which this
Nation attaches to controlling environmental pollution.
This is a proposal whose time has come. Until just a few years
ago we considered pollution control as subordinate to other goals
of the Government. It was part of our health efforts or our water
resources policies or our aid to agriculture. This is no longer true.
While pollution control must integrally relate to these other goals
and policies, it also transcends them. It is part of our overall effort
to restore to the American people the environmental quality which
they deserve and are demanding. The Environmental Protection
Agency is responsive to this demand and to the vision of clean air
and water which lies behind the demand. It will provide us with
the unity and the leadership necessary to protect the environment.
I urge your support of this bold and far-sighted proposal.
Mr. Chairman, you raised several very good points in your
opening statement, and if I might comment at this point, as you
have requested we do?
Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, sir.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 37
IS CONCERN FOE THE ENVIRONMENT ONLY A FAD?
Mr. TRAIN. First, you have asked whether the present concern
for the environment is essentially a fad that will go away, and
this, of course, is the question that is asked very frequently
around the country. I have found that almost everywhere I go
people ask me that, and my view is that very definitely this is not
a fad. I suspect that the public interest will have its ups and
downs, as is true in almost every area of public interest, but the
problems which have given rise to this concern are not superficial:
they are very basic to our society and very real, and they stem
from problems of crowding, due to population to a great extent, to
poor planning, to health concern about pollutants. These are very
real, and I suspect that the kind of factors which are giving rise to
these concerns will doubtless continue for many years in the fu-
ture, and, in some cases I am sure, will get worse before they get
better.
[p. 50]
So, I think the short answer is that it is not a fad, the concern
for environment is a very high, very real priority on the part of
the American people, as it is with the administration.
TECHNOLOGY AND SPENDING PROGRAMS ARE NOT ENOUGH
Secondly, you point, I think quite properly, to the question of
whether we can simply rely upon technology or spending pro-
grams to solve the problems of the environment, and I think quite
plainly the answer to that is: "No." Many Americans, I think,
tend to feel that given any problem, no matter how complex, if you
can just find the right technological handle and then put enough
money behind it, the problem will be solved, somewhat akin to
landing a man on the moon, as we have done so successfully in our
space program.
But, I feel that the problems of the environment are far more
complex. They are not purely technological in nature. They are
social, attitudinal. They relate to values, to political institutions, to
a whole range of factors that are interwoven throughout our so-
ciety and our culture.
So, technology is important, technological breakthroughs are
important, and research to those ends will continue to be impor-
tant. Investment of public funds and private funds at an increas-
ing rate are also exceedingly important, but I would agree that we
must look to other factors, changes in attitudes and social behav-
-------
38 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ior, if you will, before we will produce a truly high quality envi-
ronment. And I would also comment, in relation to that point, that
the absence of pollution is not the sole criterion for a high quality
environment. Pollution is certainly the kind of problem which is
most upon the public mind at the present time, and it is the most
evident of our problems, but I suspect that pollution, whether air,
water, or any of the others really is but a symptom of deeper
problems and that once we cure pollution problems, as I am confi-
dent we will, we still will not necessarily have achieved this thing
we call a high quality environment. This goes to problems of
land-use planning which I think are very important, and that is a
very essential element of the whole equation of a better environ-
ment.
POPULATION IS OF CRITICAL RELEVANCE
You have also raised the question of population and my personal
view is, and, of course, this is shared by a great many—that the
question of population, including both growth numbers and distri-
bution, is of critical relevance to environmental quality. This has
been recognized by the President, and he has recently named, as
you know, the members of a Commission on Population Growth
and the American Future—if I have the name correct. I believe I
testified before this committee a year or more ago on the proposed
legislation. That has since become law, and the Commission has
been established under Mr. John Rockefeller. I know that the
President looks with great interest, great attention, upon the work
of that Commission and, in particular, the recommendations and
policies which it will be suggesting in terms of the relation of
population to environmental quality.
I believe those were most of the points, Mr. Chairman, that you
mentioned.
Senator Javits raised two or three points that he also requested
that witnesses address themselves to. Most of his, I believe, re-
[P. 51]
ferred to Reorganization plan No. 4. Perhaps Secretary Stans
would be the more appropriate respondent to those. He did raise
the question about the coastal zone management legislation sub-
mitted by the administration, and, as he mentioned and Senator
Nelson also mentioned, that legislation would vest the authority
for managing that program in the Department of the Interior and
the current reorganization makes no recommendation for change
in that respect.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 39
At the same time, I think it should be noted that that legislation
is still pending before the Congress, and has not been enacted into
law. So, actually, there are no coastal zone statutory authorities
that would properly be the subject of reorganization at this time.
Senator RIBICOFF. I think what concerns Senator Nelson is
whether EPA will be concerned with the ocean environment.
The point Senator Nelson was making was there was a large
gap here and was concerned that it was one thing to develop the
ocean, but who was going to protect the environmental policy
beyond the coastal and ocean zones. I think this is what concerned
Senator Nelson this morning, whether you were going to have or
were not going to have a role in this, or what is your responsibil-
ity ; was it your responsibility or was it not your responsibility?
ROLE OF EPA IN OFFSHORE WATER POLLUTION
Mr. TRAIN. Well, the Environmental Protection Agency will
have a very strong role insofar as the protection of the offshore
waters from pollution is concerned. It will be exactly the same role
which is performed at the present time by the Federal Water
Quality Administration. As pointed out in my statement, the re-
organization makes no change in the nature of any authorities. It
simply, as any reorganization plan can do, can transfer those
authorities; so, the total authority of the Federal Water Quality
Administration with respect to pollution in marine areas is trans-
ferred to the new agency. That responsibility is exercised at the
present time by the Coast Guard. It is primarily a cleanup respon-
sibility, and will remain in the Coast Guard. The President has
recently written an Executive order spelling out with great care
and detail the allocation of responsibility between the various
agencies in this very critical area of oil spills.
Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question right
there?
Senator RIBICOFF. Certainly.
ROLE OF COAST GUARD IN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Senator STEVENS. Mr. Train, what is the Coast Guard role in
the water pollution control activities ?
Particularly, I understand they want to set up a laboratory and
a few other activities related to oil spills in marine areas, and I do
not see it covered in this EPA reorganization.
Are they to continue to have their authority over both control
and mediation to try to eliminate the effects of accidental oil
spills?
-------
40 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. TRAIN. There is no change made of any authorities, what-
soever, in the functions of the Coast Guard insofar as they relate
to oil spills and pollution problems. There is, in Reorganization
Plan No. 4, I believe, the transfer of a small function, the data
buoy program of the Coast Guard, but this is not essentially a
pollution matter.
[p. 52]
Senator STEVENS. What about the water pollution laboratory,
the one marine laboratory envisioned by the administration's bill
out of the 12 that are supposed to pertain to research concerning
pollution of the seas ?
Mr. TRAIN. So far as I know, the proposed plan would not affect
that legislation at all.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RIBICOFF. You may proceed, Mr. Train.
Mr. TRAIN. I believe I have covered all the points that I wanted
to make.
Senator RIBICOFF. Two weeks ago, this committee held some
hearings concerning pollution on Long Island Sound as it touches
Connecticut and New York, and during the hearing it was recom-
mended by one of the witnesses that the Federal Government
establish an environmental advocate, an agency which would rep-
resent and support environmental protection proceedings before
other agencies, and I thought it was a pretty good idea. How are
you going to press your position with other agencies, whether it is
the Department of Defense, or Agriculture, or Interior concerning
pollution—or the Atomic Energy Commission or the Federal
Power Commission, the many agencies which themselves are great
polluters ?
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A POLLUTER
You take the Navy. We have a problem in the State of Connecti-
cut with the Navy ships coming into the New London harbor, and
this is endemic, I understand, to the whole country, and they
really pollute the harbors and the waters with waste material.
Now, how are you going to bring the force of your agency, the
influence of your agency, against other governmental polluters?
And the Federal Government is one of the biggest polluters in the
country.
Mr. TRAIN. No question about that, Mr. Chairman.
This was recognized by the President when he issued an Execu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 41
tive order on the 4th of February of this year directed to just this
problem, and he, at that time, directed all Federal agencies to not
only comply with State water and air quality standards but to
actually establish and exercise leadership in the matter of cleanup
of pollution. At that time the President allocated $359 million,
largely I think from the Defense Department budget, to do this
job. I think, necessarily, some of our Defense installations, be-
cause of their very nature, do make substantial contributions lo-
cally to pollution problems. I do think that this matter is well
underway to being brought under much more effective control
than in the past.
Senator RiBicoFF. What role do you see for your agency inter-
governmentally ?
Mr. TRAIN. Well, on that specific point of Federal pollution, the
President has directed the Council on Environmental Quality to
review, monitor and report periodically to him on the performance
of the Federal agencies in the cleanup of their own pollution. In a
broader sense, the National Environmental Policy Act establishes
as a national policy, from now on, that all Federal agencies, in all
of their activities—decisionmaking, planning, legislative proposals
—must take environmental factors fully into account.
[p. 53]
A MATTER OF NATIONAL POLICY
Of course, the act spells this out in considerably more detail
than I have now just done. And this has been spelled out in
considerably more detail again by an Executive order on the part
of the President. The review of agency compliance with that na-
tional policy is possibly the key responsibility of the Council on
Environmental Quality, and we work very closely with all Federal
agencies whose programs impinge in any significant way on envi-
ronment. This includes the Department of Agriculture, HUD, In-
terior, ABC, Federal Power Commission, and so forth, just to
name a few. Also, the Corps of Engineers and, very importantly,
the Department of Defense. Each agency files with the Council
under the statutes and under our guidelines a statement concern-
ing the environmental impact of any action which they contem-
plate which could have any significant environmental effect.
Senator RIBICOFF. I am just curious. What happens with these
statements once they are filed with the Council ?
What has happened with any of them during the last few
months?
-------
42 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. TRAIN. Each statement we receive is reviewed by the Coun-
cil staff. Now, you will understand that our staff has been rela-
tively small and involved with a great many activities. Our review,
our detailed review, of these statements is becoming, I would say
at the present time, far more effective than it was during the
earlier months of the Council's existence. We review each state-
ment. If we have any question about the adequacy of the statement
or any question about the substantive nature of the proposed ac-
tion insofar as it has effects on environment, we normally would
take that up directly with the agency itself, usually, in the first
instance, at the staff level. That is why it is important—or we
consider it important—that our guidelines specify that these state-
ments be prepared at the earliest possible stage in the decision-
making process and be made available to the Council sufficiently in
advance of the final decision to enable us to make a meaningful
review.
In a number of instances when the Council has raised questions
about a given program, the modifications have been made by the
agencies, themselves.
Senator RiBicOFF. What if you reach a difference of opinion
between yourselves on the Council and another Federal agency?
Then, who makes the basic decision ?
Mr. TRAIN. I think it is important to recognize that our Council
does not have, under its statute, any veto power over the programs
of any Federal agency. The responsibility is vested by statute in
the heads of the various agencies and remains there. At the same
time, to address myself specifically to your question. Mr. Chair-
man, if there is a difference of opinion between our Council and an
agency about the substantive content of some program as it affects
the environment and we cannot resolve that on an interagency
basis, our recourse would be to the President if it is a matter of
that substantial a nature, and it would be resolved by the Presi-
dent.
Senator RIBICOFF. Would this be something that would come
within the jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget?
[p. 54]
Is this the kind of problem that they would be addressing? Or
would you be addressing yourselves to it?
Mr. TRAIN. I do not believe so, normally; no.
I believe that the statutory responsibilities of the Council are
set out clearly by legislation, and it is contemplated that we repre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 43
sent the President directly on matters where we feel such advice is
called for. Naturally, we work very close with the Office of Man-
agement and Budget.
WHO SHOULD PAY FOE CLEANING UP THE ENVIRONMENT?
Senator RIBICOFF. To be frank, we all recognize that the clean-
ing up of the environment will be a long, costly process. How
should the cost be allocated?
In the past, industry has transferred the social costs of pollution
to the Nation at large in the form of environmental deterioration.
Is it fair for industry to pass the costs on the public ?
Mr. TRAIN. I do not think that you can generalize, Mr. Chair-
man, about how costs should be allocated. The equities will tend to
vary in different situations. In the case of regulated industries, for
example, I think in most cases you would have a clear situation
where substantially increased costs, as a result of higher public
standards requirements, would probably be considered an appro-
priate part of the rate base and the increase passed on to the
consuming public. That is a clear case. In other cases, I think that
competition, where you have a good competitive system, will prob-
ably result in the manufacturer absorbing as much of the in-
creased cost as he can and still make a fair profit. I think that is
the nature of the competitive system.
By and large, I would assume that, if I could generalize, the
costs, insofar as they are represented by increased costs of doing
business, would generally be passed on, like all costs, to the con-
suming public. Some costs, of course, will be represented by in-
creased taxes, and there you have a different kind of instance; so,
I would say that I do not think it is easy to generalize about such
matters. One thing is certain: the costs of a cleaner environment
are going to be borne by our society as a whole, and just exactly
how these are to be allocated will vary from place to place and
situation to situation. There are also, of course—and I think some-
times the public tends to overlook this, because of the emphasis on
cost—enormous offsetting benefits. In the cost of air-pollution con-
trol, there is going to be, I am confident, more in counter-balance
by reduced medical bills, reduced cleaning bills, and so forth. The
public stands to benefit economically enormously from a cleaner
environment.
Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Train, there are a number of other ques-
tions I have. Senator Muskie and Senator Mathias have left with
me a series of questions. I do want to give the other members of
-------
44 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the committee a chance to ask their questions, and we will submit
to you Senator Muskie's and Senator Mathias' questions and some
other questions that remain with me for your reply in writing as a
part of the record.
Mr. TRAIN. I will be happy to do so, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RlBlCOFF. Senator Metcalf ?
Senator METCALF. No.
Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Percy?
[P. 55]
ADMINISTRATION COMMENDED
Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to commend
the administration for its dedication to this problem. I think the
administration has come up with imaginative legislation, a difficult
task when the reorganization of Government agencies is involved.
There always seems a built-in resistance to change, but I think
that the program presented is dramatic and bold and very neces-
sary. One of the things these reorganization plans establish are
some very tough standards and tough penalties, up to $10,000 a
day for infraction, and I have not heard any criticism about that
from the industrial community. I think everyone feels that this is
the time to act. I hope that the Congress will act rapidly to imple-
ment this recommended reorganization program and I hope we
will also take other steps that are not as easy for politicians to
take, such as raising taxes.
For instance, I think the leaded-gasoline tax is highly necessary
and desirable, and have been pleased at the enlightened attitude of
the gasoline and oil companies in this area. They feel this will help
them by putting pricing differentials on a product that, in essence,
ought to be priced out of the market. I hope we will have the
courage to put that tax on, and do it this year. He is expected to
bring in more than a billion dollars in revenue and also assist
industry in converting nonleaded type fuels.
EXAMPLES OP POLLUTION
I would like to ask a few questions. We have had, of course, in
recent days, a number of cities that have been in particular stress
because of highly concentrated air pollution. I understand there
has been a little discussion by other witnesses on this problem. In
Tokyo, for instance, in the last few days, people have been told to
stay indoors. We have not reached that stage in cities in America
yet, but this morning, on television, I saw ambulances in New
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 45
York taking people away, because of the desperate pollution situa-
tion there. Los Angeles has always had the problem, Baltimore
has, and Chicago has. What can we look forward to with the
implementation of this reorganization plan and on the basis of
legislation we have already enacted ?
Are we fighting a losing battle unless we find even more dra-
matic ways to break through ?
Mr. TRAIN. Senator Percy, these are very dramatic examples, I
think, to the public and to the Government, and we must get
moving on our environmental programs to insure environmental
protection. Obviously, no reorganization is going to insure a better
environment by itself. I think we all recognize that reorganization
will make for better efficiency, for better performance, but it will
not substitute for substantive efforts of various kinds. I do believe
that this reorganization plan will insure in many ways more effec-
tive environmental protection programs on the part of the Federal
Government, for example in research. At the present time, we
have an air research program, a water research program, and a
solid waste research program being carried out by essentially dif-
ferent agencies with a very real danger that new kinds of prob-
lems such as mercury, will fall between the cracks of these differ-
ent programs. The new agency proposed by the President will
very clearly provide the potential of an integrated research pro-
[P. 56]
gram so that we will, from now on, be looking at environmental
pollution research needs rather than air pollution needs as sepa-
rate from others. I think this will be a very high priority for the
new administrator to establish. And I think, in terms of enforce-
ment, also, and standard-setting, the kinds of integration that this
new agency will make possible, will, in fact, produce more effec-
tive programs on the part of the Federal Government, of course,
these must be coupled with legislative and administrative attacks
on the various problems themselves.
I think you have referred to some of the other proposals made
by the President by way of legislation and which I touched on in
my prepared statement—the stronger enforcement provisions, the
authority to establish national emission standards in the field of
air pollution, authority for the Secretary of HEW to regulate
additives in gasoline. These are all very important—and things of
this sort coupled with the reorganization, will permit us to go
forward. I do believe that we will deal with these problems effec-
-------
46 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tively, including the problems of air pollution which are so very
serious in the big cities.
TREND OF THE YEARS AHEAD
Senator PERCY. Would you look on it as the responsibility of this
new agency to look broadly ahead for years in advance to deter-
mine where our cities are going with respect to the quality of life
which the President has mentioned as a keynote of his administra-
tion ? Can we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to help
discover what the trends are so far as concentration of pollution is
concerned, and, if we find it is just air and water alone with which
we must be concerned in the pollution area, would you see your
responsibility to be one of devising means and incentives to move
industry out of cities or stop the growth of industrialization in
areas like New York and decentralize it, moving it into the rural
communities possibly? I am concerned that I do not see anyone
looking ahead far enough. We are always dealing with some crisis
without any long-range planning. Will this be one of the responsi-
bilities of the new agency ?
Mr. TRAIN. I do not think specifically, in the case you have
mentioned, Senator Percy, that the new Environmental Protection
Agency would have the responsibility for the kind of land-use to
which you have referred. Certainly, the kind of data on pollution,
which the new agency would develop, would have a critical rele-
vance to the determination of wise land-use plans. As I mentioned
earlier—I think just before you came in—land-use is one of the
critical determinants of environmental quality, particularly one
which I think we must be giving increasing attention to in the
years ahead.
Our Council on Environmental Quality has been spending con-
siderable time in the last few months since it has been created on
this subject of land-use and its relations to environmental quality.
Our annual report, which I mentioned—and I mention with some
hesitancy—was due on the first of July, but the committees have
been understanding in our situation, and I think it will be sent to
Congress very shortly. The report gives a great deal of attention
to the problems of land-use, and to the relation of land-use and to
population to pollution. I would hesitate to predict whether we are
going to have to start moving industries away from where they
[P. 57]
are. But I certainly do believe that much more effective State and
regional controls, perhaps in some cases with Federal guidelines
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 47
for siting of particularly critical kinds of installations such as
nuclear powerplants and jet ports, things of this sort, are very
definitely ahead, and not very far off either.
SOME CRITICISMS OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN
Senator PERCY. I would like to give you an opportunity to com-
ment on two aspects of some criticism of the reorganization plan.
One was that there is too much being put into the agency and the
other is, obviously, that there are some things being left out that
should be put in it.
From the standpoint of too much going in, do you feel that
there is so much going into the agency that other governmental
agencies will feel that now it is their problem to protect the envi-
ronment, rationalizing their inactivity along the lines of "we have
no responsibility?" I think the chairman is absolutely right, that
Government is the biggest polluter around. Who is going to police
the Government ?
You may recall at the environmental meeting that the President
had in Chicago—and I think it shocked him when I said, "So far
as the Great Lakes are concerned, the Federal Government is the
biggest polluter we have got." The Corps of Engineers has
dumped the equivalent of 14 merchandise markets of refuse, and
they have been polluting Lake Michigan for years. He has now
acted to get $200 million for military installations and took it out
of the best program he could take it out of, the ABM, but will this
agency be able to crack down on the other Federal operations ?
What authority do you have ?
How far can you go in saying to the Federal agencies: "You
have got to clean up the environment and do your share?"
AGENCY WILL BE ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES
Mr. TRAIN. The new agency will be establishing guidelines for
the guidance of other Federal agencies. I do not believe that the
new Environmental Protection Agency would have actual crack-
down authority over any Federal agency.
The Government simply is not organized that way. That is one
of the major reasons for the existence of our Council on Environ-
mental Quality, which can assist the President in seeing to it that
all Federal agencies do, in fact, comply with environmental protec-
tion standards, and that, as a major function of ours, is one that
we are pursuing actively with respect to pollution by Federal
agencies.
-------
48 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
If you will recall, in Chicago the President said "The environ-
ment is our first priority," and I think we have been able to move
ahead in those cases like the Great Lakes which are very real and
which you discussed with our Council in Chicago. In the case of
Fort Sheridan and the Great Lakes Training Station, I think that
we are moving ahead very well to clean up those bad situations.
Senator PERCY. Would you care to comment on some of the
criticisms that there are certain functions affecting the environ-
ment that are not transferred into the agency?
[P. 58]
How did you draw the line and say "Well, this is enough to do
the job?"
Mr. TKAIN. We are, in fact, bringing together in the new
agency, by all odds the major, most significant Federal antipollu-
tion programs. When you bring together air pollution, water pollu-
tion, solid waste, radiation, and pesticides, you really have bitten
off a very substantial portion of the Federal environmental protec-
tion effort. I do think it is a mistake to try to belittle the extent of
the reorganization. It is very major.
SOME THINGS HAD TO BE LEFT OUT
Now, it is true that there are a number of things that could
have been put in that are not transferred at this time. There are
activities with environmental significance within almost every
agency in the Federal Government, stretching throughout the
whole executive branch, and if we really tried to bring all of them
under one roof we would end up with one department, and we
would have to reorganize that.
So, obviously, it is a matter of bringing the most important
things together. Where a program relates more to the substantive
operating responsibilities of the other agencies than it does to
pollution, then it has to be left where it is.
AN EXAMPLE
For example, the water and sewer grant and loan programs of
HUD, the Department of Agriculture, and EDA in Commerce
have been left where they are. They are important to our effort to
minimize and control pollution, but they are not essentially or only
pollution programs. They are so closely related to the Urban De-
velopment and Planning of HUD, to the Small Rural Community
Development and Planning of Agriculture, and to the economic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 49
development activities of the Department of Commerce that the
decision was made to leave them where they are. These programs
do not, as you know, involve the setting of standards at all. They
are largely grant and loan programs, and the criteria for those
grants and loans vary as between each of those different agencies.
It was basically considered not necessary to the effectiveness of
EPA to move them, and moving them might create complications
in the performance of EPA's mission.
To take another example, a good case perhaps could be made for
moving ESSA, the Environmental Sciences Services Administra-
tion, into the Environmental Protection Agency. As you know, it
has substantial monitoring and data-gathering activities. These, of
course, are important to EPA. The data developed by ESSA is
presently used by the Federal Water Quality Administration and
by the United Air Pollution Control Administration. We fully
expect that these services will continue to be employed by EPA.
ESSA is basically a service organization. It serves other Govern-
ment agencies and the public. This will continue to be employed by
EPA. ESSA is basically a service importance to the conduct of our
marine resource management programs, and this is one reason
why it has been recommended that ESSA be made a part of
NOAA and be left in the Department of Commerce. But this will
not in any way interfere with the effective use of data developed
by ESSA in the new agency.
Senator PERCY. Mr. Train, may I interrupt and ask you this
question ?
[p. 59]
PESTICIDE CONTROL
When a function is transferred from, say, the Agriculture De-
partment in pesticide control, and plan No. 3 calls for the EPA to
assume responsibility for pesticide regulation, it is pretty hard to
separate pest control from Agriculture; they are closely interre-
lated. By creating the EPA should Agriculture give up completely
their interests in this problem, or is it anticipated that EPA will
be sharing the responsibility in this area with the Department of
Agriculture, the former retaining overall responsibility for pro-
tecting the environmental interests ?
Mr. TRAIN. No. Very clearly there is a very important and
continuing role for the Department of Agriculture in the field of
pests. In one case, I think this can be made very clear. There is an
increasing interest in the use of nonchemical controls for pests,
-------
50 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
biological controls. While these are really environmental contami-
nants, they do not properly belong in EPA. I would assume that
the Department of Agriculture would continue—in fact, I know it
will continue, and I hope it will increase its efforts in the field of
biological control of pests.
The whole relationship of pests to agricultural production would
be a matter for research and data development by the Department
of Agriculture, so I think there is a very important role for the
Department to continue to play.
Naturally, EPA would remain in very close communication and
contact with the Department of Agriculture in this field.
Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question,
but because I have had an unusually long time, I would just as
soon you or Senator Stevens go ahead, and then come back.
Senator RIBICOFF. We might proceed with Senator Stevens. I
have submitted my questions in writing, and I have no further
questions.
Senator STEVENS. I have just one question, and I would like to
get it in, if I may, Mr. Chairman, for the record, and that is:
How does this new proposal relate to a small, little project like
the proposed 800-mile, billion-and-a-half-dollar pipeline in Alaska?
What is it going to mean to the people who want to build it?
WILL IT CHANGE THE RULES OP THE GAME?
Does it increase the clearances they will have to receive; will it
increase the authority of the Government over lands that belong to
the State of Alaska: will it change the rules of the game, you
might say, as to the procedure of trying to clear that project?
Mr. TRAIN. Certainly, it will not change any rules of the game
that I can see. And, of course, as we have pointed out, reorganiza-
tion by itself does not change any statutory authority. I think, if
anything, the bringing together in one agency of these various
environmental protection functions should simplify the relation-
ship of the Federal Government to that project and simplify the
process of communication on the part of the State of Alaska and
private industry with the Federal Government on the project.
Senator STEVENS. Just one further question.
What is the relationship of this agency to potential pollution
problems where you have people who have expressed fear of what
might happen in the event of an earthquake or flood or an act of
God in relation to this pipeline ?
[P. 60]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 51
A HYPOTHETICAL INQUIRY
Now, that is not a present pollution problem: it is a problem of
hypothetical inquiry, as far as EPA is concerned. Where will they
fit into that problem in relation to a project like the pipeline?
Mr. TRAIN. Well, specifically, in the pipeline case, where the
authority for the granting of a right-of-way and the construction
permit is vested in the Secretary of the Interior, I would assume
that the Secretary of the Interior would consult closely with the
administrator of the new agency on the potential pollution risk
from possible breaks such as you have mentioned, and I would
assume that the new agency, as does the present Federal Water
Quality Administration, would provide its particular expertise on
those questions to the Secretary of the Interior.
Senator STEVENS. It would be in an advisory role rather than an
action agency from which you would acquire a permit; is that the
function it would perform ?
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LOOKING FOR THE POLLUTION CULPRIT
Senator PERCY. Mr. Train, in looking around for the culprit in
this whole pollution problem, you have centered on two major
polluters, the internal combustion engine and, in a sense, I sup-
pose, public service companies. Certainly, in Illinois they have
been singled out as large polluters, and I think in New York, as
well. With respect to the internal combustion engine, I think these
figures are correct that Detroit spends about $14 per car on pollu-
tion prevention; in research and development today, they spend
about $700 per car on styling changes. It would like to suggest to
my friends in the automotive field that they freeze designs for a
few years and take a couple of the billion dollars they would save
and put the money into an accelerated program for the develop-
ment of a power source that will not pollute.
I am delighted that several of them have announced they intend
to freeze certain limited numbers of design, but what is the rela-
tionship between whether the Federal Government is going to
develop an engine or whether this should be done by a powerful
industry in this country that has the resources, the desire, the
capability to do it?
What role is the Federal Government supposed to play?
Are we going to go in and build SST's, building the actual
engines because we have a terrible social problem, or is there some
way to have an adequate incentive in the private sector ?
-------
52 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. TRAIN. I believe, with respect to the development of alterna-
tive automotive power systems, particularly what we call uncon-
ventional power systems, the role of the Federal Government is
hopefully to create the incentive whereby private industry, both
the large companies and the small entrepreneurs, will make the
necessary breakthroughs. It is not being suggested that the Fed-
eral Government directly take on the job of actually developing
these new engines. We are developing a program primarily being
[P. 61]
carried out through the National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, and presumably this will move over to the new EPA, to
encourage through contract the development of a variety of new
technologies, some of which seem fairly promising. None of these
now are going to the larger companies. It is our very definite hope
that the major automobile companies will make, continue to make,
and, hopefully, increase substantially their own research and de-
velopment activities in this area, and we have been having a num-
ber of conversations with them.
PUBLIC UTILITY PROBLEM
Senator PERCY. Would you care to comment on the public utility
problem? The public utility heads have been kicked around a lot
recently, and some of them should have been long before this. But
if you are a public utility head you are presented with quite a
dilemma. I have talked to some of them. In Illinois, the Common-
wealth-Edison Co. used coal in the past, and it has been required
by the State legislature to buy their coal from Illinois coal mines.
Oddly enough, they are trying to convert to oil, but because there
is a limitation on imports, you have to apply for Government
licenses, which are delayed if they are granted at all; sometimes
they are and sometimes they are not. The gas companies are peti-
tioning to cut down, not increase, the amount of gas that the
Commonwealth-Edison Co. uses, and the only other source that I
know of for power is nuclear power. But even this present prob-
lem is because we have regulations being issued whereby the tem-
perature of the water emitted into the lake cannot be increased
more than 1 percent, which is, of course, impossible. So, in Illinois,
Commonwealth-Edison has got a half a billion dollars for the
construction; they are under pressure from the public to have no
blackouts or brownouts, but the public has an insatiable appetite
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 53
to run everything in the home from toothbrushes to knives to
carve food, air conditioning, and everything else, by electrical
power. They must meet this tremendous desire, the expanding
demand for power, yet are under equally strong pressure not to
pollute the air or increase the price.
As the head of a public utility, what do you do in a dilemma like
that?
They are between conflicting regulations every way they turn,
and yet they have to fulfill a public service.
Mr. TRAIN. Well, Senator—
Senator PERCY. What would you tell them ?
Mr. TRAIN. I would say you put your finger on a very important
problem.
Senator PERCY. Do you want to rest on that?
Mr. TRAIN. Clearly, the energy production industries of this
country are very large sources of air pollution and also increas-
ingly a major source of water pollution through thermal emis-
sions. We have projections of enormously increasing demands for
electrical power in the years ahead, and there seems to be no
alternative but the provision of a large number of new generating
facilities throughout the Nation in the years ahead.
As you have pointed out, there are pollution problems that stem
inescapably from all of the presently feasible modes of energy
production. There are problems of fuel supply, oil imports, and
[p. 62]
also problems related to the availability of low-sulphur fuels.
These are indeed highly complex problems, and I do not know
what, certainly, the short-term solutions are.
A LOOK AT LONG-TERM ENERGY SOURCES
For the long-term we can perhaps look to alternative energy
sources, but this is looking a good many years down the road.
Nuclear fusion, solar energy, and things of that sort promise to be
relatively pollution-free, but in the short-term we have an exceed-
ingly difficult problem. At the same time as these difficulties exist,
the industry, the electric industry as a whole, seems to be trying to
generate more public demand through advertising of all kinds,
which I find somewhat troubling.
I suspect we do need a national energy policy which should be
coupled with a national fuel policy, which must be coupled with a
national minerals policy, and these things all relate to one another.
The siting of power plants is of growing public concern, as we are
-------
54 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
all aware. The demand for power is increasing, and yet the public
at the same time is creating major roadblocks, often properly so,
in the siting of new facilities. There must be an accommodation
between these conflicting forces. I think the public, and Federal,
State, and local governments must play an increasing role in
trying to resolve these conflicts. It has been left far too long, I
think, to local initiative. If we can try to sort out these highly
complex problems they are going to have to be approached at least
on a regional basis, and I would say that I think this is something
we ought to be getting at, and I think we are.
"PLY BEFORE THEY BUY"
Senator PERCY. Having resolved that problem, can I throw you
just one other. It faces the chairman and myself and 98 of our
colleagues now. I noticed with great interest Secretary Laird's
statement that they intended to "fly before they buy." I think that
is a very good thing. I hope we will apply that to the ABM and try
it out before we go ahead too deeply with it. But I just wonder
how we would apply that to the SST as we develop this? Do you
feel we know enough about that plane to commit ourselves to it
now, with respect to its effect to the environment?
Are you concerned with the environmental effects of the SST at
this time, and do you think we need to learn more about it before
we get too deeply committed to its implementation?
Mr. TRAIN. Of course, as you know, Senator Percy, the adminis-
tration's proposal for appropriation for fiscal 1971 in connection
with the SST does not represent a commitment to the commercial
development of supersonic transports, but rather simply the devel-
opment of two prototype aircraft which can then be the basis for
flight-testing, and so forth. And as I have testified before the Joint
Economics Committee, while we do not feel that those prototypes
in and of themselves represent any significant environmental con-
cern, our Council does have concern over the commercial operation
of a large SST fleet, and I have spelled out publicly some of the
questions which we feel should be resolved before that decision is
[p. 63]
finally made. These relate primarily to sideline noise at the airport
and upper atmospheric conditions, primarily from the introduc-
tion of water vapor.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 55
INCREASED RESEARCH TO SUPPLY ANSWERS
The stepped-up research program which has recently been made
public by the Department of Transportation, I think, is really very
responsive to those needs for more information on long-range
effects, and when I did testify before the Joint Committee I spoke
of the need for increased research to produce the answers we need
before we go ahead on commercial development and operation. The
Department of Transportation research package, which is being
recommended to the Congress, as I say, is responsive quite fully to
that need.
I did, also, in my statement say that the administration is com-
mitted to the view that no decision will be made to go ahead with
commercial production of the SST unless and until the major
significant environmental questions are satisfactorily resolved.
TRAIN IS COMMENDED
Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the
witness this morning. I think everything that Mr. Train has said
is an indication that we need this agency. Though the President
has the power of appointment, and I am sure would wisely select
who should head this agency, the Senate has the responsibility to
advise and consent. I cannot think of a name that would meet with
more widespread approval than that of Mr. Russell Train, if this
is his inclination and interest to head such an agency.
I would like, also, just to mention my admiration for the fast
thinking of the President. When Mr. Train and I were in Chicago
and standing alongside the President in a sewage disposal plant,
they reached down to fill a cup and offered it to the President
indicating that the water was pure enough to drink. The President
said very quickly—I wondered how he was going to get out of this
one—"I never drink in the morning."
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Train, for your
cooperation, and these questions will be submitted to you by the
staff, and we would appreciate receiving the answers as fast as
possible so that we can have the record complete.
Mr. TRAIN. I will certainly do that.
(See exhibit 5, p. 121.)
Senator RIBICOFF. Secretary Russell.
You may proceed, Mr. Russell.
STATEMENT OF FRED J. RUSSELL, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPART-
MENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY CARL L. KLEIN, As-
-------
56 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
SISTANT SECRETARY OF WATER QUALITY AND RESEARCH; AND
DAVID D. DOMINICK, COMMISSIONER OF FEDERAL WATER QUAL-
ITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. RUSSELL. I understand that it might be helpful to your
schedule if I would submit my statement for the record rather
than to read it.
[p. 64]
Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, I have read your statement and there is
not much philosophy in it. It outlines what the plan does, which
the committee is familiar with, and also it is sort of similar to the
staff analysis. So, your entire statement will go in the record as
though read.
(See exhibit 6, p. 124.)
Senator RIBICOFF. There will be a number of questions that
various members will have, and they will submit them to you, and
we would appreciate your returning them as fast as possible.
I just have a few brief questions.
WHAT WILL BE THE ROLE OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT?
Mr. Train told us how the reorganization is going to boost the
morale of the employees transferred. How about the morale of the
employees left behind ? In other words, Interior has been chopped
in half on budget and personnel bases. What will be the remaining
role of the Interior Department in this Government after we es-
tablish this agency?
Mr. RUSSELL. Well, first, of course, the budget is not cut in half,
but there is a reduction, or I should say a transfer in the number
of people and the budget which relates to it. But, I wou'd say that
the morale of the people in Interior would continue to be related to
their missions, their responsibilities, so that it would not be influ-
enced by the transfer of these people to the EPA.
Senator RIBICOFF. What would be the central mission of Interior
once this agency goes, becomes a going concern, what will be the
basic mission of Interior now?
Mr. RUSSELL. The Department of Interior still would have all of
its mineral resources programs, public land management, Indian
Affairs, trust territory activities, sports fish and wildlife, parks
and recreation, reclamation and power, and others that I have not
named.
Senator RIBICOFF. Recently, Secretary Hickel said that eventu-
ally there will be a Department of Natural Resources and Envi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 57
ronment. Do you see these current plans as simply interim steps,
though, which should be followed by the merger of the agency into
Interior ?
Mr. RUSSELL. I do not see it appropriate to predict further
changes which may or may not take place at some future time.
HOW DO YOU DIVIDE EPA AND INTERIOR RESPONSIBILITY?
Senator PERCY. Mr. Russell, on page 3 of the President's mes-
sage, it contains the following language: "Authority for research
on the effects of pesticides, on fish and wildlife would be provided
to the EPA on transfer of specialized research authority of the
Pesticides Act enacted in 1958. Interior would retain its responsi-
bility to do research on all factors affecting fish and wildlife."
This sounds like something of a contradiction or a duplication
of effort. I wonder if you would clarify how you divide the respon-
sibility?
Mr. RUSSELL. Well, the Department of Interior still would con-
tinue its responsibility in connection with sports fish and wildlife.
This research would not be specifically environmentally oriented,
but rather, as in the case of sports fish, for example, would be
concerned with the productivity of these fish and their other char-
acteristics.
[p. 65]
Senator PERCY. It says the Interior retains its responsibility to
do research on all factors affecting fish and wildlife. Does it really
mean all factors except the effect of pesticides ?
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes.
Senator PERCY. Okay. So it really does not mean all factors.
Does Interior support the creation of NOAA in Commerce or
would it prefer the function of that new administration in Inte-
rior. Senator Nelson said he would support the creation of NOAA
in Interior rather than transferring it to Commerce as the pend-
ing legislation provides. Do you feel that NOAA should be in
Commerce or in Interior?
Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I think the first, most important considera-
tion is that the NOAA be one organization that includes all of the
activities that will now be going into NOAA under the plan. It
could, of course, be in the Department of Interior, but I believe it
has been pointed out, and of course it should be, that the Depart-l
ment of Commerce already has some 80 percent of the personnel
in its present operation, ESSA, so it is a matter of moving the
lesser number of people to Commerce in order to get it all together
in one place.
-------
58 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
EFFECT OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ON BODIES OF WATER
Senator PERCY. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to welcome my colleague and fellow citizen of Illinois and
sympathize with the hot seat he has been sitting- on. I wonder, Mr.
Klein, if you would care to comment on how this 1° figure was
arrived at for nuclear power plants and the effect upon bodies of
water. You have heard, and I have heard, of the difficulty this
imposes on a half a billion dollars worth of construction in Chi-
cago for new powerplants now.
I think the emission rate is substantially higher than that. But,
of course, it disperses over a wider area and probably does not
affect the overall lake. How can they possibly adhere to this stand-
ard and continue to provide the sources of energy that they are
required to furnish?
Mr. KLEIN. There are 20 of these generating plants planned on
Lake Michigan, and the present proposals call for a 20° to 28° rise
in temperature from each plant proposed on Lake Michigan. This
means 60 billion gallons of water a day at a 20° or greater rise.
The problem that arises here is what are to be the cooling facili-
ties : do you make Lake Michigan the cooling facility, or do you
ask the utilities to put in either cooling ponds or cooling towers?
I might point out to the Senator that the States of Oregon and
Washington on their own interior waters and their estuaries now
have a policy of no rise in temperature, and the last one that was
proposed there worked out to that, no rise in temperature.
LAKE MICHIGAN
Senator PERCY. Having swam in Lake Michigan, I think we
could afford a 20° increase in some spots. Taking into account the
total number of plans that you have and were forecasting, what
overall effect would it have on the lake's temperature ?
Mr. KLEIN. Well, I think that these—
Senator PERCY. For whatever the amount, the 60 billion gallons
being emitted ?
[p. 66]
Mr. KLEIN. If I may, Senator, the plan now is to hold a series of
hearings after Labor Day. The States will be coming forward with
their own recommendations and they will submit a list of all
heat-producing agencies—all that are putting waste heat into
Lake Michigan. I understand that is quite a long list, much more
than we expected when we were considering only the public utili-
ties. This has caused some delay in moving expeditiously forward.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 59
Because nobody has ever made a complete inventory, I think
the States will sit down at the hearings and will, from all available
sources, be able to find out how much heat is actually going in the
lake. We can then determine the ability of the lake to handle this
pollution. I think at that time we will come out with some disturb-
ing answers. I would hate to predict those answers.
Senator PERCY. Do you know what effect it would have on the
marine life, such as it is in Lake Michigan for a slight increase in
temperature ?
Mr. KLEIN. I think any increase in temperature will change the
entire ecology. As a matter of fact, Senator, we have come to the
proposition that the critical item in setting all water quality
standards is temperature, and when you change any temperature
you have to change all of the water quality standards to match
that.
Senator PERCY. Thank you very much indeed.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.
The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at
10:30 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee adjourned, to recon-
vene at 10:30 a.m., on Wednesday, July 29, 1970.)
[p. 67]
STATEMENT OF DWIGHT INK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY DOUGLAS COSTLE,
HOWARD SCHNOOR, AND CLIFFORD BERG
Mr. INK. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
I have a prepared statement. If you prefer, I will be happy to
have that introduced in the record.
Senator RIBICOFF. The entire statement will go in the record as
if read; and why don't you just make whatever remarks you
would like, and we will have a few questions.
(See exhibit 11, p. 136.)
Mr. INK. Mr. Chairman, we were not able to be here yesterday,
because I was appearing before the House. I would like to make
one comment on each of the plans.
MANY PROGRAMS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENT
First, with respect to the Environmental Protection Agency,
there have been some comments as to why more functions were
not included. I would like to build on the comments which I under-
-------
60 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
stand Senator Muskie made yesterday, that there are many differ-
ent programs related to the environment.
If you look at the various departments of the Federal Govern-
ment—in Agriculture, for example, programs dealing with soil
conservation, forestry, the farming practices; these all affect the
environment.
Interior has conservation work, and wildlife work, and the fos-
sil fuels, which also concern the environment.
HEW, the Department of Transportation, the Corps of Engi-
neers, and the AEC all have a tremendous number of programs
and activities related to the environment. To go far along this
road and deal with pollution control by trying to draw all of these
together in one spot, would result in another large department
which, for the first few years, would be, probably, preoccupied
with getting itself organized and functioning. We think this is
inconsistent with the critical need for an attack on the problems of
pollution in this country.
And, secondly, it seems to us that we do have to exercise care
that we not strip these departments of the kinds of resources
needed, and the feeling of a sense of responsibility for enhancing
the environment. The resources that are in the Federal Govern-
ment to deal with environmental problems are manifold, and we
think it is important that we not go to the point of leaving the
impression that these departments are no longer concerned with
the environment. They do have very important continuing roles, as
we see it, for enhancing the environment.
DEALING WITH POLLUTION
So, instead of pulling everything related to the environment
together, the President, on the advice of the Ash Council, decided
to meet a very high, urgent priority problem, that of dealing with
pollution, and he has proposed the drawing together of the stand-
ard-setting activities which are of critical importance. Standard
setting is the point of leverage for dealing with pollution control,
and we believe these functions relate in a manageable package of
functions and activities which, if provided the proper leadership
[p. 85]
and supported by the funding and other resources, can move for-
ward with a coordinated effort to control pollution. This is a prob-
lem that the people of this country are rightly very much con-
cerned about. It is a problem which we have waited too long in
many respects to deal with effectively. We are also looking to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 61
Council on Environmental Quality, which is established by statute,
to provide the staff resources to the President, to see that these
varied departmental activities are coordinated, and to flag the
gaps which undoubtedly do exist among our present programs,
dealing not only with pollution control but other environmental
related areas.
OCEANOGRAPHY AND ATMOSPHERIC PROBLEMS
With respect to NOAA, I would like to underscore the comment
that was made earlier this morning, that there has been extensive
study of the desirability of drawing together functions dealing
with oceanic and atmospheric problems.
The Stratton Commission did, I think, a most exhaustive study.
It extended over several years. It got the views of over a thousand
people. There were two Members of the Senate and two Members
of the House who sat in with this group, and we believe they did a
first-rate job. We have looked at it—it has been looked at exten-
sively by others—and now is the time for action. Therefore, we
propose to move forward in both of these areas, recognizing that
there will undoubtedly be other steps which are going to prove to
be desirable and necessary and that probably both the President
and the Congress will determine additional actions needed in these
important areas.
Senator RIBICOFF. I am pleased that your statement focuses on
the pesticides and the radiation aspects of plan No. 3. There has
been very little said about it so far.
In your statement, you say:
The EPA will look to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the
Interior and the Department of HEW for research and advice on the efficacy
of these pesticides, and for basic research on the effects of these pesticides on
health and on the general environment.
The research is basic to standard setting on improved pest con-
trol. Would not EPA lack essentially the scientific capability on
pesticide changes in environmental aspects?
SCIENTIFIC AND RESEARCH ABILITY
Are you going to have any scientific and research ability?
Mr. INK. Yes; and it is vital. Let me illustrate.
Agriculture is one of the areas that is mentioned. The kind of
research we are talking about for Agriculture is the work they are
now doing with respect to the effectiveness of pesticides to accom-
plish a departmental objective. EPA needs access to the scientific
-------
62 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
underpinning necessary to develop general environmental stand-
ards, but we do not think it wise to draw out of the Department of
Agriculture the capability and the sense of responsibility for
trying to develop better pesticides and see whether there are sub-
stitutes. They will be looking at various alternatives for meeting
the pest problem that they are confronted with, and we feel that
they should have an incentive for undertaking the research to
[P. 86]
determine which pesticides will do the most effective job from the
standpoint of Agriculture but which also meet the standards that
are set by EPA.
The scientific capabilities in EPA relate, of course, to the stand-
ard-setting function.
Senator RIBICOFF. What bothers me: Suppose you are unhappy
with the work being done in either Agriculture or in Interior, or
in HEW. What do you do about it?
We had hearings, extensive hearings in 1963, on pesticides, and
I believe we were one of the first committees to delve into it, and it
was testimony that pointed out some of the damages that were
being done throughout the country because of various pesticides,
and it was very, very slow going.
We did not find much cooperation from Agriculture.
What do you do, because it will depend so much on these other
agencies.
Where are you going to have the authority over a Secretary ?
EPA WILL HAVE STANDARD-SETTING AUTHORITY
Mr. INK. Let me answer that in two pieces. First of all, with
respect to the technical capability, the EPA will have the author-
ity to do whatever research it needs to do with respect to the
standard setting.
Senator RIBICOFF. Well, will you farm this out or do it yourself?
Will you have consultants, or have different universities doing
your research?
Certainly, you cannot build up a research capability all of your
own?
Mr. INK. We would expect EPA to use both. In the radiation
area, for example, they will be drawing upon, among other things,
the National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements,
which reaches out to a large number of different sources, and,
certainly, they will be looking to universities. But we would expect
them to also have some in-house research capability.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 63
Secondly, of course, the standards will be set or approved by
EPA, not by the other agencies.
Thirdly, we have the Council on Environmental Quality, which
is the staff arm to advise the President with respect to how these
things are working and to help EPA with respect to drawing the
other agencies together.
And, finally, of course, the Office of Management and Budget,
has a role contemplated under the reorganization that is very
much concerned with the effective operation of governmental
machinery.
Senator STEVENS. May I ask a question right there?
Senator RIBICOPF. Yes.
Senator STEVENS. You say "standards." Taking into account the
role of Agriculture, you mean standards for pesticides in the sense
of their tolerable effect on the environment, or standards in terms
of their effectiveness as an agricultural pest control ?
Which standards are you talking about and which are they
going to be speaking of?
Mr. INK. There is only one set of standard setting, and that is in
EPA. In setting the standards, they are to draw upon the recom-
[p. 87]
mendations of Agriculture with respect to the efficacy of the pesti-
cides. They are to consider the views of Agriculture with respect
to efficacy in their determination.
Senator STEVENS. Is this going to have the same impact on the
Forestry Service also ?
Are they going to take over the pesticide function of the For-
estry Service and the research as to the effects of the various
insects and movements and whatnot, as to what they do in the
national forests ?
Mr. INK. No, they will not be taking over that research.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you.
A POSSIBLE CONFLICT
Senator RIBICOFF. One of the guiding principles in the establish-
ment of EPA was to define standard setting and enforcement in
one agency and yet in the radiation field you are going to set the
standards and AEC will enforce them. Now, is that not going to
produce a conflict ?
If it does, how are you going to settle the differences between
EPA and AEC?
Mr. INK. First, functions respecting the guidelines set by the
-------
64 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Federal Radiation Control and the general environmental stand-
ards are being shifted to the new agency. It will be the job of the
Atomic Energy Commission to implement those standards through
its licensing activity. We would expect the EPA to look to them
for advice and their thinking, but the general environmental
standard-setting function will be shifted to the new agency, not
split between AEC and the new agency.
Senator RiBicOFF. Four years ago, the Bureau of Budget recom-
mended to this subcommittee the transfer of the water pollution
control program from HEW to Interior.
Was this reorganization successful ?
What do you think they accomplished and what is their
capability?
WATER POLLUTION EFFORT HAS INCREASED
Mr. INK. I believe that .during this period of time the water
pollution control effort has increased. I think the program has
accomplished some important things, but we believe now that it is
not desirable to consider the water area in isolation from air, solid
waste and the rest of the environment which is affected by pollu-
tion. Therefore, we believe that it ought to be drawn together as
part of a new agency where the pollution problems can be looked
at in their entirety.
One of the problems which concerns us with our present frag-
mentation is that if a program is successful in one area—and I
think we have begun to achieve some successes in the water area
—we, in some instances, may be achieving more of an illusion of
success if it results in shifting the problem to another part of the
environment. By having these programs drawn together in one
spot we can attack a source of pollution regardless of whether it
affects the air, the water, or land.
Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Stevens ?
Senator STEVENS. I have been more involved in the natural
resources area, but I can remember every Secretary of the Inte-
[p. 88]
rior that I have ever known, Chapman, McKay, and Seaton, and
now Secretary Hickel, all have dreamed of a Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Environment. Now, do you foresee, if we are
successful in forming such a large collection in a superdepartment
such as the Department of Defense, that NO A A and EPA could fit
into that department, or are we setting a course now that would
forever prevent us from achieving that goal of one department, of
natural resources and environment?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 65
Mr. INK. No, I do not think this precludes that possibility.
However, I would like to add to that comment a note of caution
with respect to the placing of pollution control and standard set-
ting within any such framework, because I think it is important
that pollution control activities be independent of departments and
agencies that are concerned with particular mission-oriented pro-
grams and activities.
Senator STEVENS. Well, I think that the function has been mis-
interpreted. As far as I can see, everyone that foresaw such an
organization wanted to get the developmental and promotional
aspects out of that department and have that department be the
superprotection agency for resources and the environment, and it
seems that we are going the other way.
It seems that we are leaving in Interior the promotional aspects.
For instance leaving aspects for tourist promotion in the Depart-
ment, such as the national forest and park areas which involves
both tourism and protection. I just do not see that this will be
susceptible of being reversed too easily if we want to get the
protection aspect back into one superdepartment.
THE BULK OF ACTIVITIES ARE LEFT IN INTERIOR
Mr. INK. Well, out of over 60,000 people in the Department of
the Interior, I believe that these two plans will move out about
4,500 employees; so, the bulk of the activities, of course, are left in
Interior.
Senator STEVENS. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
of 1958 we established procedures whereby the Corps of Engi-
neers and the Bureau of Reclamation could not proceed with any
construction of any dams until they had a report on the effects of
the dam, or any structure utilizing water from our rivers, on the
fish and wildlife, both sports and commercial. Now, we are taking,
under this one reorganization, the commercial aspects out of Inte-
rior. Have you examined what is going to happen where we no
longer have coordination between sports fishing and commercial
fishing so far as these reports are concerned under the Coordina-
tion Act of 1958 ?
Mr. INK. I believe the responsibility for looking at the impact of
these projects from the standpoint of fish and wildlife all remains
in the Interior.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
-------
66 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
We may have some other questions for you, and we would ap-
preciate your response as rapidly as you can get it to the commit-
tee.
The committee will stand adjourned until further call.
(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, sub-
ject to the call of the Chair.)
[P. 89]
Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Rouse, please ?
Mr. Rouse, you are here because Senator Nelson has some deep
concerns and would like some answers to various questions, and I
might have some questions for you later.
Senator Nelson, at your convenience, you may proceed.
This is Mr. Rouse. You had some questions you wanted to ask
him.
Senator NELSON. It is my understanding that you did recom-
mend that the President create the Environmental Protection
Agency as proposed in plan 3; is that not correct ?
STATEMENT OF ANDREW M. ROUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRESI-
DENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION
Mr. ROUSE. That is correct, Senator Nelson.
Senator NELSON. And what was your rationale for the establish-
ment of EPA?
Mr. ROUSE. I think, in your opening remarks, you stated the
gist of it, but I think it would be useful to go over how the Council
arrived at an independent Agency for Environmental Protection,
because it touches on matters that concern you.
The Council started out with a predilection to place in one
agency all of those activities which would enable the head of that
agency to make all the necessary policy trade offs that apply to the
area of cognizance of the agency. And they leaned in their deliber-
[p. 93]
ations toward doing that with the whole area of natural resources
and their development.
They found, however, that it was not feasible to do that, in this
case for two fairly important reasons.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
The first was that pollution abatement, the problem with which
they were concerned, is a problem which permeates all of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 67
activities of government and the instrumentalities that use re-
sources in one way or another.
The second reason was that these concerns were universal to
many of the agencies of Government. It would seem totally inap-
propriate to place the pollution control function in any one agency
which would give that agency control over certain activities of
other agencies involved in resource use or promotion the area and
would probably induce a bias towards the interests of the manag-
ing agency.
The Council concluded that they would make an exception to the
general rule they had set for themselves and to recommend to the
President that a separate agency be created for environmental
protection.
The gravamen of that reasoning was that you should not place
an activity which was universal to the activities of all other agen-
cies, most of them resource promoting, or resource using, or re-
source exploiting agencies, in an existing agency, and that you
should create a new one for it in order to deal specifically with the
standard-setting enforcement problem.
Now, the question that they were then faced with, Senator, was
how much could they put into an environmental protection agency
without seriously damaging the missions of existing agencies that
had primary interests in certain areas which were at the same
time resource using, and, on the other side of the coin, pollution
creating activities.
"WHERE YOU BREAK THE JOINTS PROBLEM"
And that problem, which we called the "Where you break the
joints problem," is the one that we had to wrestle with in putting
together Reorganization Plan 3.
The general rule is to put in as much as was necessary to insure
the central standard-setting function would have teeth.
Senator NELSON. Do I understand it was the fundamental posi-
tion of the Council that you favored separating the environment
aspects from the development aspects as a matter of principle?
Mr. ROUSE. That is exactly right, sir; that is, the pollution
abatement and control aspects.
OCEAN WATERS DETERIORATING
Senator NELSON. As I know you are well aware, many of the
marine scientists are alarmed about the rapidly deteriorating
quality of ocean waters, particularly in those critical places of our
-------
68 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
marine estuaries, breeding ground for much of the life of the
entire sea. They are concerned that at the presently accelerating
pace we will rather dramatically pollute this limited, especially
[p. 94]
fragile area of the marine environment in the next 25 to 50 years
with serious threats to the continued productivity of the oceans.
Thus, what concerns me about it is where the responsibility for
coastal zone management would go, the responsibility respecting
control of pollutants going into the oceans, the responsibility in
the whole marine environmental effort, and that issue remains
unresolved at the moment.
Do you have any view about where that aspect of environmental
responsibility should be put?
Mr. ROUSE. Our view is that any authority created by Congress
that deals with setting pollution control standards should not be
placed in a resource using or promoting agency; so that, if Con-
gress creates authority to set standards with regard to ocean
pollution control, that authority should be placed in the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and not in a resource using agency.
Senator RIBICOFP. Will the Senator yield?
Do you conceive then that this Environmental Protection
Agency would take precedence over NOAA when it came to mat-
ters of pollution-setting standards ?
Mr. ROUSE. I guess the short answer to your question, Senator,
is "Yes." The question of precedence bothers me a little, but our
belief is that the standard-setting activity ought not to be in a
resource using, promoting or exploiting agency.
OCEAN AND SHORELINE MUST BE PROTECTED
Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, you agree with the position
that Senator Nelson takes, that we must do everything possible to
protect the ocean and the shoreline, and that if we do create
NOAA which has development aspects we must make sure that the
overdevelopment in NOAA does not do to the environment what
overdevelopment in this Nation has done to the entire
environment?
Mr. ROUSE. I agree, entirely.
Senator RIBICOFF. So, when Senator Nelson makes a statement
that he would hope that the report would make this very clear,
irrespective of if we decide to vote favorably on the report, you
would feel that it would certainly be appropriate for the report to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 69
have very strong language as to the intention of the Senate as to
the role of the environment in NOAA?
Mr. ROUSE. I agree with you. I think it should.
Senator NELSON. Just so I am clear on this, you think the
Environmental Protection Agency would be a more appropriate
place than any other Federal agency for this responsibility,
coastal zone management, and so forth; is that correct ?
Mr. ROUSE. Let me say, first, that we did not study the coastal
zone bill or the authorities created in it simply because it was
pending legislation and our mandate related primarily to existing
legislation.
But my view on that, Senator Nelson, is that those activities
associated with grants to States proposed in the coastal zone bill,
both to establish organizations for coastal management and then
the operating grants subsequent to that probably need not be in
EPA. But if there is authority in that bill which establishes stand-
ard setting and enforcement functions, those functions should be
[p. 95]
in EPA. That is, it is possible to separate a grant-giving activity
from a standard-setting activity.
Senator NELSON. But so far as the environmental aspect of the
oceans are concerned then, standard setting and enforcement re-
specting the environment, you believe this ought to go in the
Environmental Protection Agency ?
Mr. ROUSE. Yes, sir.
Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.
[p. 96]
EXHIBIT 4
S. 3677
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled. That Congress finds and declares
that—
(a) the deterioration of the environment threatens the health and welfare
of man and degrades the quality of life;
(b) air, water and land pollution disrupts production, jeopardizes the
economy and impedes the growth of the Nation;
(c) our technology has made it possible to increase agriculture and indus-
trial production, meet consumer demands, and explore outer space, but we
have not used our technology adequately to protect the resources of our en-
vironment;
(d1) the wrotection and enhancement of the environment requires effective
coordination and management of existing and future programs providing for
-------
70 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the control and prevention of air and water pollution, the disposal of solid
wastes and the conservation of natural resources; and
[p. 117]
(e) it is therefore the purpose of this Act to protect present and future
generations of Americans against the adverse effects of environmental
changes through the establishment of an independent Agency—
(1) to develop and promote policies for the protection and enhance-
ment of the environment;
(2) to develop criteria which identify the effects of pollutants and
other environmental changes on the public health and welfare;
(3) to develop and enforce standards to protect the public health
and welfare from the short- and long-term adverse effects of environ-
mental changes; and,
(4) to develop the technical capacity to implement such policies and
standards responsible for the development, administration, and enforce-
ment of comprehensive national policies, programs, and activities author-
ized by Act of Congress to improve the quality of the American environ-
ment and to maintain that improved quality.
SEC. 2. (a) The Administration shall be headed by an Administrator who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. In addition to the Administrator there shall be five deputy
administrators, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate, and designated at the time of appointment as follows:
the Deputy Administrator for Research and Development; the Deputy Ad-
ministrator for Enforcement; the Deputy Administrator for Standards De-
velopment and Intergovernmental Coordination Program Planning; the
Deputy Administrator for Operations and Grants; and the Deputy Adminis-
trator for Public Information. Each deputy administrator (according to such
order as the Administrator shall prescribe) shall act for, and exercise the
powers of, the Administrator during his absence or disability. The Adminis-
trator shall prescribe the functions and duties of each deputy administrator
consistent with his designation and such additional functions as the Adminis-
trator may from time to time prescribe. The Administrator and the deputy
administrators may delegate any of their funcions to, or otherwise authorize
their performance by, an officer or employee of, or assigned or detailed to,
the Administration.
(b) The Administrator is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation
of such officers and employees, and prescribe their functions and duties, as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(c) The Administrator may obtain the services of experts and consultants
in accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code.
(d) Subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code (relating to
Executive Schedule pay rates), is amended as follows:
(1) Section 5313 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(20) Administrator, Environmental Quality Administration."
(2) Section 5314 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(55) Deputy Administrators, Environment Control Administration
(5)."
SEC. 3. (a) There are hereby transferred to the Administrator all func-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 71
tions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to, and
being administered by him through—
(1) the National Air Pollution Control Administration;
(2) the Bureau of Radiological Health;
(3) the Bureau of Solid Waste Management; and
(4) the Bureau of Water Hygiene.
(b) There are hereby transferred to the Administrator all the functions of
the Secretary of Commerce with respect to, and being administered by him
through, the Environmental Science Services Administration.
(c) There are hereby transferred to the Administrator all functions of the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to, and being administered by him
through—
(1) the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration; and
(2) the Water Resources Division of the Geological Survey.
(d) There are hereby transferred to the Administrator all functions of the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to, and being administered by him
through—
(1) the Pesticide Control Board pursuant to the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (7 U.S.C. 135);
(2) the Farmers House Administration, insofar as such functions
relate to the water and sewer facilities assistance program.
[p. 118]
(e) There are hereby transferred to the Administrator all functions from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (with respect to, and
being administered by him through) the Community Resource Development
Administration, insofar as such functions relate to the water and sewer grant
program authorized by section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954.
(f) There are hereby transferred to the Administrator all functions of the
Department of Transportation with respect to, and being administered by him
through the Office of Noise Abatement;
(g) Within 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the President may
transfer to the Administrator or any function of any other agency or office,
or part of any agency or office, in the executive branch of the United States
Government if the President determines that such function relates primarily
to functions transferred to the Administrator by subsection (a) through (f)
of this section.
SEC. 4. (a) All personnel, assets, liabilities, contracts, property, and rec-
ords, as are determined by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to be
employed, held, or used primarily in connection with any function transferred
under the provisions of section 4 of this Act, are hereby transferred to the
Administrator. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, personnel
engaged in functions transferred under this title shall be transferred in ac-
cordance with applicable laws and regulations relating to transfer of func-
tions and personnel.
(b) Personnel not under section 5337 of title 5, United States Code, shall
be transferred without reduction in classification or compensation for 1 year
after such transfer.
(c) In any case where all of the functions of any agency or office are trans-
ferred pursuant to this Act, such agency or office shall lapse.
SEC. 5. (a) The Administrator is authorized to appoint, without regard to
the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
-------
72 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
competitive service, such advisory committees as may be appropriate for the
purpose of consultation with, and advice to, the administration in the perform-
ance of its functions. Members of such committees, other than those regularly
employed by the United States Government, while attending meetings of such
committees or otherwise serving at the request of the Administrator, may be
paid compensation at rates not exceeding those authorized to be paid experts
and consultants under section 3109 of such title, and while so serving away
from their homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel ex-
penses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703
of such title, for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
(b) In order to carry out the provisions of this Act, the Administration is
authorized—
(1) to adopt, alter, and use a seal;
(2) to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations governing the
manner of its operations, organization, and personnel, and the perform-
ance of the powers and duties granted to or imposed upon it by law;
(3) to acquire by purchase, lease, condemnation, or in any other
lawful manner, any real or personal property, tangible or intangible, or
any interest therein; to hold, maintain, use, and operate the same; to
provide services in connection therewith, and to charge therefor; and to
sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the same at such time, in such manner,
and to the extent deemed necessary or appropriate;
(4) to construct, operate, lease, and maintain buildings, facilities,
and other improvements as may be necessary;
(5) to accept gifts or donations of services, money, or property, real,
personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible;
(6) to enter into contracts or other arrangements or modifications
thereof, with any government, any agency or department of the United
States, or with any person, firm, association, or corporation, and such
contracts or other arrangements, or modifications thereof, may be entered
into without legal consideration, without performance or other bonds, and
without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statues, as amended. (41
U.S.C. 5);
(7) to make advance, progress, and other payments which the Ad-
ministrator deems necessary under this Act without regard to the pro-
visions of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C.
529) ; and
(8) to take such action as may be necessary to carry out the pro-
visions of this Act.
SEC. 6. The Administrator shall, as soon as practicable after the end of
each fiscal year, make a report in writing to the President and Congress on
the activities of the Administration during the preceding fiscal year.
[p. 119]
SEC. 7. (a) All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, permits, con-
tracts, certificates, licenses, and privileges—
(1) which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to become
effective in the exercise of functions which are transferred under this
Act, by (A) any agency or office, or part thereof, any functions of which
are transferred by this Act, or (B) any court of competent jurisdiction;
and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 73
(2) which are in effect at the time this Act takes effect; shall con-
tinue in effect according to their terms until modified, terminated, super-
seded, set aside, or repealed by the Administrator, by any court of com-
petent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(b) The provisions of this Act shall not affect any proceedings pending at
the time this section takes effect before any agency or office, or part thereof,
functions of which are transferred by this Act, except that such proceedings,
to the extent that they relate to functions so transferred, shall be continued
before the Administration. Such proceedings, to the extent they do not relate
to functions so transferred, shall be continued before the agency or office, or
part thereof, before which they were pending at the time of such transfer.
In either case orders shall be issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be
taken therefrom, and payments shall be made pursuant to such orders, as
if this Act had not been enacted, and orders issued in any such proceedings
shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or repealed by
the Administrator, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of
law.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) —
(A) the provisions of this Act shall not affect suits commenced
prior to the date this section takes effect; and
(B) in all such suits proceedings shall be had, appeals taken,
and judgments rendered, in the same manner and effect as if this
Act had not been enacted.
No suit, action, or other proceeding commenced by or against any
officer in his official capacity as an officer of any agency or office, or
part thereof, functions of which are transferred by this Act, shall
abate by reason of the enactment of this Act. No cause of action by
or against any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which
are transferred by this Act, or by or against any officer thereof in
his official capacity shall abate by reason of the enactment of this
Act. Causes of actions, suits, or other proceedings may be asserted
by or against the United States or such official of the Administration
as may be appropriate and, in any litigation pending when this sec-
tion takes effect, the court may at any time, on its own motion or
that of any party, enter an order which will give effect to the pro-
visions of this pub?ection.
(2) If before the date on which this Act takes effect, any agency or
office, or officer thereof in his official capacity, is a party to a suit and
under this Act—
(A) such agency or office, or any part thereof, is transferred to
the Administrator; or
(B) any function of such agency, office, or part thereof, or
officer is transferred to the Administrator;
then such suit shall be continued by the Administrator (except in the
case of a suit not involving functions transferred to the Administra-
tor, in which case the suit shall be continued by the agency, office,
or part thereof, or officer which was a party to the suit prior to the
effective date of this Act).
(d) With respect to any function transferred by this Act and exercised
after the effective date of this Act, reference in any other Federal law to the
agency, office, or part thereof, or officer so transferred or functions of which
are so transferred shall be deemed to mean the Administration or Administra-
-------
74 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tor, as appropriate, in which such function is vested pursuant to this Act
and such other Federal law shall hereafter be administered by such Admin-
istration or Administrator to the same extent as such law was administered
by such former agency, office, or part thereof, or officer.
(e) This Act shall not have the effect of releasing or extinguishing any
criminal prosecution penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred as a result of
any function transferred under this Act.
(f) Orders and actions of the Administrator in the exercise of functions
transferred under this Act shall be subject to judicial review to the same
extent and in the same manner as if such orders and action had been by the
agency or office, or part thereof, or officer exercising such functions immedi-
[p. 120]
ately preceding their transfer. Any statutory requirements relating to notice
hearings, action upon the record, or administrative review that apply to any
function transferred by this Act shall apply to the exercise of such function
by the Administration.
(g) In the exercise of the functions transferred under this Act, the Admin-
istrator shall have the same authority as that vested in the agency or office,
or part thereof, exercising such functions immediately preceding their trans-
fer, and his actions in exercising such functions shall have the same force
and effect as when exercised by such agency or office, or part thereof.
SEC. 8. (a) This Act, other than this section, shall take effect 90 days
after the enactment of this Act, or on such prior date after enactment of this
Act as the President shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), any of the officers provided for in
subsection (a) or (b) of section 3 of this Act may be appointed in the manner
provided for in this Act, at any time after the date of enactment of this
Act. Such officers shall be compensated from the date they first take office at
the rates provided for in this Act. Such compensation and related expenses
of their offices shall be paid from funds available for the functions to be
transferred to the Administrator pursuant to this Act.
EXHIBIT 5
ANSWERS OF RUSSELL TRAIN TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR EDMUND MUSKIE ON
REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3
1. Does the Administration plan to seek legislation to provide EPA with
authority to deal with environmental noise? Why weren't these functions
transferred from, D.O.T. as a part of this plan?
A. The Council on Environmental Quality is now engaged in a study of
existing noise control programs and of alternative approaches for the con-
trol of all major sources of noise. The outcome of this study probably will
result in new legislation being submitted to the Congress.
In light of the Council study and the very embryonic stage of Federal
programs dealing with noise, it was declared that it would be preferable to
delay any transfer of noise control programs at this time. If a new, more
comprehensive approach to noise control is to be taken, such an approach
should be submitted to Congress in the form of legislation, rather than trying
to anticipate it in the reorganization plan.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 75
The President's message transmitting1 Reorganization Plans No. 3 and 4
makes quite clear that the Environmental Protection Agency would be a
logical location for future noise control programs.
2. Criticism has been directed to the capability of FWQA and NAPCA to
monitor water and air quality. These capabilities presently exist in the Geo-
logical Survey and Environmental Science Service Administration. Why
weren't these functions transferred to the new agency?
A. No effort was made in the reorganization plan to concentrate all moni-
toring activities in the new agency. The data from monitoring performed by
other agencies will be readily available to EPA, and EPA will have sufficient
authority to conduct its own monitoring activities where gaps exist.
Both ESSA and the Geological Survey monitor for a wide range of activ-
ities other than pollution control. Less than 10% of ESSA's work is related
directly to pollution, and the work of the Geological Survey is more directly
related to the water resource development programs than to pollution control.
Both agencies perform a wide range of services for a number of different
agencies, and EPA will be able to use their services when it considers such
use desirable.
3. States and communities have repeatedly charged that Federal pollution
grant programs are so fragmented that effective coordination of grant appli-
cations, especially water, sewer and waste treatment, is not possible. Why
didn't the Administration take this opportunity to consolidate the Farmers
Home Administration-HUD-FWQA grant programs in these areas?
A. There are two primary reasons why the Agriculture and HUD water
and sewer grants were not included in the new agency. First, these grant pro-
grams are quite closely related to the mission of the agencies in which they
are currently located. Sewers are just as much a tool for controlling urban
development as for controlling water pollution. Agriculture's grants are a
vital part of the general support provided to smaller communities.
[p. 121]
Second, the administrative difficulties involved in combining the grants are
immense. The grant programs are difficult, and in the case of Agriculture,
almost impossible to separate from the water and sewer loan programs. The
cost-sharing and administrative provisions differ for each of the grant pro-
grams, and agreement on common provisions would be very difficult. The
Agriculture grants are processed by county committees, and thus Agriculture
would probably have to continue to administer the applications process, even
if the grants were given by another agency. Agreement on a common Federal
share of costs would probably result in more Federal money per grant than
is now the case.
The coordination of the water or sewer programs through a common appli-
cation form is beginning to work well, and the problems referred to in the
question are becoming less acute.
4. When water pollution control was transferred to the Department of the
Interior from HEW, concern was expressed about the need to maintain a
focus upon protection of the public health. I am informed that little if any
coordination has existed, in the past four years, between the Bureau of Water
Hygiene in the Public Health Service and the Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration. Effective coordination might have resulted in earlier identification
of the critical problem of mercury contamination.
-------
76 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Who will be providing the health data to EPA? Why wasn't the National
Institute for Environmental Health Sciences transferred to provide the new
administration with an adequate health research base? How do you expect the
new administration to anticipate and deal with the health related problems
posed by radiation and pesticides which will require immediate attention?
A. The reorganization plan gives EPA its own capability to deal with the
health aspects of pollution. The inclusion of such a capability in the new
agency was considered essential for its standard-setting function.
The ability of EPA to do health-related research will be provided by the
transfer of several units from HEW—the National Air Pollution Control
Administration, portions of the Bureau of Radiological Health, the Bureau of
Water Hygiene, and those parts of the Food and Drug Administration
involved in research and standard-setting for pesticides. In the field of radia-
tion, the new agency will also draw heavily on such expert bodies as the
National Commission on Radiation Protection Standards.
The National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences was not trans-
ferred because the research conducted by it is quite basic in nature. It
generally does not do the type of applied research necessary for setting
standards or for taking action on immediate critical problems. Since the
NIEHS research is basic, the results will be readily available to EPA. Also,
the work of NIEHS is so closely related to that done by the other National
Institutes of Health (particularly the Cancer Institute) that it is likely that
HEW would have to create a new NIEHS if the existing one were transferred.
5. There has been some concern about portions of existing agencies and
their programs not being transferred to the Environmental Protection Admin-
istration. What can you tell us, for example, about the environmental health
programs and agencies, or portions thereof, which will not be transferred
from HEW to the new independent agency?
A. The following environmentally related programs were not transferred
from HEW: NIEHS, the Bureau of Occupational Health, the Bureau of
Community Environmental Management, and portions of the Bureau of
Radiological Health.
We have explained above the reasons for not including NIEHS. Occupa-
tional health was not considered to be one of the functions of the new agency,
which will focus on the general environment, and therefore the Bureau of
Occupational Health was not transferred. The programs of the Bureau of
Community Environmental Management relates primarily to particular
disease problems, such as coal miners' "black lung" (pneumoconiosis) and
diseases of Alaska natives, and these were not considered part of EPA's
mission. The portions of the Bureau of Radiological Health not transferred
relate to occupational health, consumer protection, and control of radiation
from medical uses, all of which were considered to be outside the focus of
the new agency.
6. The President's message accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 3 says
it should result in more efficient operation of the Government. It goes on to
say: "It is not practical, however, to itemize or aggregate the exact expendi-
ture reductions which will result from this action." Do you expect expendi-
tures for these already under-funded, under-manned programs to decrease?
The Committee on Public Works Staff Study shows 4,926 employees and $1.5
[p. 122]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 77
billion are being used in these programs. What are your estimates of funding
and manpower for the new agency during the next three years?
A. The President's statement with respect to expenditure reductions was
made only to comply with the requirement of the statute governing reorgani-
zations (P.L. 89-554) which states that the President in his message trans-
mitting a reorganization plan "shall specify . . . the reduction of expenditures
(itemized so far as practicable) that it is probable will be brought about by
the taking effect of the reorganizations included in the plan."
Funding and manpower for the EPA programs will almost certainly
increase over the next few years. It is impossible to tell how large such
increases will be, since such decisions cannot be made apart from the total
budgetary process and will depend on factors such as international relations
and the state of the economy which are not totally predictable at this time.
ANSWERS OF RUSSELL TRAIN TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CHARLES MATHIAS ON
REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3
1. The concentration of environmental efforts into one agency would seem
to facilitate the United States' ability to enter into international pollution con-
trol agreements. Has consideration been given to make more international ini-
tiatives in this area?
A. The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency should facilitate
efforts by the U.S. to enter into international pollution control agreements.
Agreements now exist with Canada and Mexico concerning water pollution,
and the Council on Environmental Quality is exploring further avenues for
international cooperation.
2, Could you tell us to what extent probable growth in the new agency's
operations was taken into account in determining the estimated budget of $1.4
billion for FY 1971? Having viewed the enormous oil spill in Baltimore harbor
recently, I wonder if enforcement of the Interior Department's new regula-
tions on oil spills, for example, would require substantial additional funding.
A. The Reorganization Plan itself cannot deal with the question of addi-
tional funding. The estimated $1.4 billion represents the budgets already
submitted to the Congress for those agencies which will be transferred to
EPA. In the future, insofar as additional functions are not included in the
annual budget request, they can be included in requests for supplemental ap-
propriations.
3. I understand that new environmental problems have sometimes been cre-
ated in the process of controlling existing ones. Could you perhaps illustrate
this and indicate hoiv the proposed tiew agency would reduce the likelihood of
producing self-defeating remedies?
A. There are numerous examples of new pollution problems being created
through the control of existing ones. The burning of sewage sludge in munic-
ipal water pollution treatment plants often is a significant source of air pol-
lution. Solid waste disposal practices often create problems of air or water
pollution. The new agency would reduce the likelihood of producing self-de-
feating remedies because it would be responsible for all forms of pollution,
and therefore would be able to consider all aspects of proposed pollution con-
trol methods.
4. With respect to the proposed transfer of the registration of agricultural
chemicals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Environmental
-------
78 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Protection Agency, serious concern has been expressed that the new agency,
in regarding pesticides as pollutants, may show insufficient appreciation of
their value as aids to agricultural production. How do you answer these
doubts?
A. The new agency will be responsible for weighing all relevant factors in
making regulatory decisions, and the Department of Agriculture will be re-
sponsible for advising EPA on the value of particular pesticides for agricul-
tural production. Furthermore, EPA will be bound by the same requirements
of due process and the other protections contained in the law regulating regis-
tration of pesticides. If the new agency is to maintain its credibility with the
Congress and the public it cannot afford to make decisions based solely on
environmental considerations.
5. The -new agency w>ll be responsible for dispensing financial and techni-
cal assistance from the Federal Government to States in developing their own
pollution control programs. Is there any provisions such as in the pending
consumer protection legislation, or are there any plans for extending the
[p. 123]
availability of this type asistance to municipal governments and private
non-profit organizations?
A. Some of the agencies included in EPA now give financial assistance to
local government pollution control agencies. The air pollution program gives
both project and support grants to local agencies, and the solid waste pro-
gram gives demonstration grants to local agencies. Financial support to non-
profit organizations in the form of research and development grants and con-
tracts is given by almost all the major programs. Technical assistance takes
many forms and is available to both municipal governments and, under some
circumstances, to private non-profit organizations.
6. I understand that the reorganization of pollution control would have the
advantage for industry that industry would be assured of consistent stand-
ards covering the full range of their waste disposal probems. Could you
elaborate on this?
A. Standards for industry will continue to set by media (air pollution,
water pollution) but the fact that one agency will be responsible for setting
these standards will allow for consistency and coordination. An industry
could obtain guidance on the best mix of control methods for its full range
of waste disposal problems from one agency at one time. The situation where
an industry creates a new form of pollution in the process of controlling
existing pollution (for example, creating water pollution by using wet scrub-
bers to control air pollution) would be much less likely to occur because a
single agency would be responsible for considering all aspects of pollution
control methods, not just their effect on one particular medium.
7. I wonder if you might give some indication of what additional environ-
mentally-related reorganizations you may later propose, provided the present
proposals prove successful?
A. The President in his message transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 3
specifically cited the example of future noise control programs being placed
under the new agency. No other reorganizations in the environmental area
are under consideration at this time.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 79
EXHIBIT 6
STATEMENT OP FRED J. RUSSELL, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OP THE
INTERIOR, WITH REGARD TO REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3, To CREATE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear before
you today to testify in support of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which
the President transmitted to the Congress on July 9, 1970. This reorganiza-
tion plan, prepared in accordance with chapter 9 of title 5 of the United
States Code, provides for establishment of an Envionmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
The President, in his landmark message of February 10, 1970, on the
environment, pledged to recommend new and improved administrative meas-
ures to meet the environmental crisis. The establishment of EPA will carry
out that pledge by consolidating the major Federal pollution control pro-
grams. Since you have reviewed the reorganization plan and the accompany-
ing message of the President and have heard the witnesses who have preceded
me, I will summarize the content of the reorganization plan briefly at this
time, but will not go into great detail.
EPA will bring together Federal pollution control programs which are
now administered separately by the Department of the Interior and a number
of other Federal agencies and councils. It will be able to conduct a compre-
hensive campaign to advance environmental quality and to combat pollution
in a manner which takes into account the interrelationship among what we
have tended to consider as independent environmental problems (air, water,
solid waste, radiation, pesticides).
We expect that EPA will make the Federal Government's major pollution
control programs fully effective—that it will expedite the elimination of pol-
lution in its many forms from Federal activities and activities under Federal
licenses or permits—that it will increase the status and consideration
accorded to environmental problems and pollution abatement activities within
the Federal Government—that it will facilitate more prompt compliance by
industrial and other polluters by providing clear and consistent standards
and unified enforcement—that it will encourage state and local governments
[p. 124]
to increase their emphasis upon environmental protection and pollution abate-
ment by providing a focal point for financial support, technical assistance,
and program guidance—that it will separate and thus avoid, any real or
apparent conflicts between—(1) pollution abatement standards-setting and
enforcement activities, and (2) the continuing responsibility of various de-
partments to promote activities which may cause pollution if proper safe-
guards are not provided.
EPA will have an estimated 5,605 personnel and a budget of $1.4 billion
for fiscal year 1971. Of this total, the functions to be transferred from the
Department of the Interior presently have 3,005 personnel and $1,098,576,000
budgeted for fiscal year 1971.
EPA will be comprised of the following components:
The Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA), now in the
Department of the Interior;
The National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA), now in
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;
-------
80 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Parts of the Environmental Control Administration (Bureaus of Solid
Waste Management, Water Hygiene and part of the Bureau of Radiolog-
ical Health), also from HEW;
The pesticides research and standard-setting program of the Food and
Drug Administration, also from HEW;
The pesticides registration authority of the Department of Agriculture;
Authority to perform general ecological research, from the Council on
Environmental Quality;
Certain pesticide research authorities of the Department of the In-
terior;
Functions regarding radiation criteria and standards now vested in
the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radiation Council.
Specifically, there will be transferred from the Department of the Interior:
the functions of the Secretary and the Department which the Federal Water
Quality Administration administers—the functions which Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1966 transferred to the Interior from the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare—the functions which the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act vested in the Interior—the functions with regard to studies of
effects of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides on fish and wild-
life resources vested in the Interior by the Act of August 1, 1958—and the
Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries at
Gulf Breeze, Florida, which performs research on the effects of pesticides
on fish and wildlife resources as its chief function.
In addition, the plan specifically transfers from the Department the Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board and enforcement hearing boards provided
for in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and the Secre-
tary's functions as the Chairman of the Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board under the Act.
The Department consistently has endorsed the concept of consolidating'
activities related to environmental protection and pollution abatement in a
single agency.
We are cooperating fully in making the necessary changes and adjust-
ments which Reorganization Plan No. 3 requires.
I have with me other officials of the Department. We shall be happy to
answer any questions which you may have.
[p. 125]
EXHIBIT 17
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
(Prepared by Eric W. Mood, Associate Professor of Public Health, Depart-
ment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of
Medicine, New Haven, Conn., July 17, 1970)
INTRODUCTION
Reorganization Plan No. 3 which President Nixon has sent to Congress for
approval has considerable merit, but it is also very deficient and inconsistent
in scope and content. This Plan would establish an Environmental Protection
Agency as a separate agency of government. It emphasizes the control of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 81
the environment by man in a less than comprehensive manner, although many
of salient programs of federal government control of the environment will be
located within this Agency. However, it fails to consider the role of the fed-
eral government in determining in a coordinated and comprehensive manner
the effects of environmental pollution upon the health and well-being of man.
It may be said that the mission of the proposed Environmental Protection
Agency is to protect the environment from some of the ravaging actions of
man and his society, but fails to consider the impacts of pollutants on the
totality of the health and well-being of man.
THE LIMITED SCOPE OF THE PLAN
Reorganization Plan No. 3 suggests that an effective approach to pollution
control involves five elements, namely:
"Identify pollutants.
"Trace them through the entire ecological chain, observing and record-
ing changes in form as they occur.
"Determine the total exposure of man and his environment.
"Examine interactions among forms of pollution.
"Identify where in the ecological chain interdiction would be most
appropriate."
However, these five elements do not include in a succinct form the very vital
and necessary activity of defining the pollution problem in terms of its
immediate and long-range effects, including the potential carcinogenic and
mutagenic effects, upon the physical and mental health and social well-being
of mankind. The Plan suggests that this may be a responsibility vested in
other governmental agencies upon whom the new Environmental Protection
Agency may draw for such expertise. However, since this is such a vital
activity, it should have been identified very clearly in the Plan and not left
to allusion.
THE LACK OF COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE PLAN
Reorganization Plan No. 3 lacks the comprehensiveness needed to achieve
effective environmental control, even within the limited scope discussed previ-
ously. Some important environment control activities of the federal govern-
ment are not listed among the functions to be transferred to the proposed
Environmental Protection Agency. Other activities will be the joint responsi-
bility of more than one agency.
One of the more pressing environmental pollution problems that will be
outside the realm of activities of the proposed Environmental Protection
Agency is that of community noise abatement. This activity remains in the
Department of Transportation. It should not be so located. Transportation
vehicles are major sources of noise, but are not exclusive sources. Further,
an agency which has the responsibility to develop transportation facilities,
mechanisms, systems, etc., hardly can be expected to give the necessary em-
phasis to noise control activities, particularly if a primary source of com-
munity noise is a transportation facility or device.
Split or joint responsibility that can lead only to confusion and inaction
involves, among others, the control of radiation sources and the contamina-
tion of foodstuffs with pesticide residues. There is absolutely no rationale to
vesting the control of some ionizing radiation sources in the new agency and
-------
82 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of other sources in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The
effect upon man and nature of a particular type of radiation at a given
level of energy will be the same, regardless of the source.
[p. 168]
WHO REPRESENTS THE CITIZEN?
A major deficiency of Reorganization Plan No. 3, is a failure to acknowledge
the need to establish an agency to whom the citizen may appeal in matters
of environmental pollution. As never before, there is an urgency to provide
this service for the people of this great nation. While the proposed Environ-
mental Protection Agency will amalgamate some of the environmental control
agencies into a single unified organization, there will still be many federal
agencies having1 legal and moral responsibilities for environmental pollution
control. If and when one of these agencies fails to fulfill all of their responsi-
bilities to the citizenry, to whom may a citizen or civic organization turn for
information and assistance? A multitude of governmental agencies have pro-
grams that may result in a degree of defilement or debasement of the environ-
ment. To whom may a citizen appeal for help?
I believe that it is time that the federal government and state governments
create an agency to serve as an environmental ombudsman. The various
offices of consumer protection that may be found in the federal government
and in some state and municipal governments indicate a recognition of the
need for providing the consumer with a resource to whom he may turn if a
product is involved. What is missing—and is needed urgently—is a resource
to whom the citizen may turn if services are involved. I suggest as a part of
a comprehensive effort of environmental pollution control and protection by
the federal government that an agency be created to provide to the citizenry
the services of an environmental ombundsman and that the activities of such
an agency include those normally associated with programs of consumer pro-
tection (products) and those of environmental protection and control (serv-
ices). To be effective, such an environmental ombundsman agency should not
be a part of the proposed Environmental Protection Agency.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEALTH CRITERIA
Reorganization Plan No. 3 is not consistent in the implementation of a
philosophy of responsibility for the development of health criteria of the
effects of environmental pollution. The federal government has at this time
an opportunity to follow one of two basic patterns of responsibility to formu-
late health criteria of the effects of environmental pollution. One option is to
vest the responsibility for the development of these criteria in the same
agency that is responsible for the enforcement of standards that are pro-
mulgated from the criteria. The second option is to place the responsibility
in a separate agency. This is the preferable method for many reasons. Some
of the principal reasons are as follows:
(1) a separate agency can be oriented toward the scientific goals that
are necessary for the promulgation of such criteria;—an enforcing
agency normally does not have this scientific goal as one of its primary
objectives.
(2) a separate agency permits a separation of activities and mini-
mizes undesirable compromises.
(3) a separate agency allows for the concentration of specialists in a
manner that provides greater efficiency and more effectiveness.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 83
Reorganization Plan No. 3 transfers to the Environmental Protection
Agency some of the federal government's responsibility to formulate health
criteria of environmental pollution, but leaves the responsibility for formula-
tion of other health criteria in agencies other than the proposed EPA. For
example, in transferring the National Air Pollution Control Administration
from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the proposed
Environmental Protection Agency, the responsibility at the federal level for
the promulgation of criteria of the health effects of air pollution has been
vested in the proposed EPA. However, the Bureau of Water Hygiene, which
has the principal responsibility of determining the health effects of water
pollution, remains as a unit in DHEW. Other similar, and equally confusing,
examples may be cited.
WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ACT IN EMERGENCY HEALTH SITUATIONS?
In transferring the National Air Pollution Control Administration to the
proposed Environmental Protection Agency, the authority of the Secretary
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to act in a health
emergency due to air pollution, as he is authorized to do under the provisions
of Sec. 108.(k), Public Law 90-148 (The Air Quality Act of 1967) is unclear.
If the authority remains with the Secretary of HEW, provisions must be
[p. 169]
made to give him the necessary staff and resources to be advised of a health
emergency and to initiate the appropriate action. If the intent is to transfer
the authority to the Administrator of the proposed E.P.A., then some special
provisions must be made to insure that he will have the necessary health
expertise available to initiate the appropriate request to the Attorney Gen-
eral for necessary action.
PROPOSED REDEFINED ROLE OF HEW
Inasmuch as Congress can not amend the Reorganization Plan, considera-
tion should be given to the restructuring of the residual environmental health
programs that will remain in the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, assuming that Congress accepts Reorganization Plan No. 3, inade-
quate as it may be. The several programs of environmental health that will
remain in DHEW must be welded into an integrated and coordinated unit
if these programs are to be effective. It is unfortunate that another reorgani-
zation of environmental health activities within DHEW must be made—as
this will be the sixth reorganization in five years—but it is vital that this
be done now and with much deliberation, wisdom and forethought. It is
unfortunate that many of the reorganizational activities of environmental
health programs of DHEW during the past five years were motivated by
selfish gains and without adequate input from environmental health spe-
cialists outside of the federal government.
It is suggested that a new entity be created within the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare to be called the Human Ecology Administra-
tion or the Health Protection Administration or some similar appropriate
title. The purpose for creating such an Administration is multi-fold, but one
of the primary objectives to be achieved is to form within DHEW a strong
focal point of environmental health activities in dealing with the proposed
-------
84 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
EPA. The new Human Ecology Administration should be established at an
organizational level equivalent to Food and Drug Administration, Health
Services and Mental Health Administration, and National Institutes of
Health and with a staff officer of flag- rank in the Office of the Assistant Sec-
retary for Health and Scientific Affairs.
The proposed Human Ecology Administration should have as a primary
responsibility the provision of services and activities that will provide an
effective health/environment interface to complement some of the services and
activities of the proposed Environmental Protection Administration. Another
primary responsibility would pertain to the concern of the federal govern-
ment for the promotion and enhancement of physical and mental health and
to the prevention of disease, injury and mental ill-health that are or may be
caused or aggravated by environmental factors.
An effective Human Ecology Administration could be created by amalga-
mating the following programs and activities of DHEW into a single entity:
(1) the residuum of the former Environmental Health Service to
include:
(a) Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health;
(b) Bureau of Community Environmental Management;
(c) medical and electronic protection program of the former
Bureau of Radiological Health; and
(d) Bureau of Water Hygiene.
(2) Center for Disease Control (from Health Services and Mental
Health Administration);
(3) National Institute of Environmental Health Science;
(4) Community Health Services, except for those programs that deal
with the delivering of health care services (from Health Services and
Mental Health Administration);
(5) Laboratory of Socio-environmental Studies (from National Insti-
tute of Mental Health); and
(6) Programs dealing with the study of metropolitan problems pres-
ently in the National Institute of Mental Health.
In addition to creating a strong focus for environmental health activities
within DHEW, the proposed reorganization would materially strengthen the
Health Services and Mental Health Administration since it would permit
HSMHA to predominately orient its programs and activities to the concern
for health care and the delivery of personal health services.
CONCLUSION
It is imperative at this point in time when man's very existence is threat-
ened by environmental pollution that a strong element in the federal govern-
ment be formed to assess and advise on all matters of environmental pollution
[p. 170]
that may affect man's health. Since the proposed Environmental Protection
Administration is oriented primarily toward control of man's ravaging effects
on the environment, a new major division of DHEW should be created to
provide the necessary resources to study and evaluate the effect of environ-
mental pollution on the phvsical and mental health and social well-being of
man and to provide the proposed EPA with the npcp°snrv scientific a"'1 tocV
nological support for their programs. Also, there is need to create immedi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 85
ately within the federal government system an agency which could function
as an "environmental ombudsman". The time to make these changes is now!
[p. 171]
EXHIBIT 24
STATEMENT OF PARKE C. BRINKLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION, ON REORGANIZATION PLANS Nos. 3 AND 4 OF
1970, AUGUST 4, 1970
My name is Parke C. Brinkley. I am President of the National Agricultural
Chemicals Association, a non-profit trade association which represents the
agricultural pesticide industry in the United States.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee this morn-
ing to discuss the implications of Reorganization Plan No. 3. This plan, which
establishes the Environmental Protection Agency, has as its principal goal
the control of pollution in our environment. A number of existing programs
related to environmental protection will be transferred to the new agency.
The only complete regulatory and enforcement program for a particular class
of commodity transferred to the new agency is the registration of pesticides
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the estab-
[p. 176]
lishment of permissible residues of pesticides on raw agricultural commodities
under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Enforcement of these residue limits
remains with the Food and Drug Administration. Enforcement of pesticide
registration moves to the new agency.
When this plan was first brought to our attention, our reaction was nega-
tive. After careful reflection, however, we accept the Plan because we think
it can bring benefits to the American public. We hope it will create a less
emotionally charged atmosphere within which Government scientists can
more objectively appraise the benefits and attendant risks in the use of pesti-
cides.
I suppose we all mean by the word pollution, the despoiling and befouling of
our environment—air, water, and soil—with resulting harm to human health
and our wildlife resources. With this defiinition in mind, we say that though
there have been instances where pesticides have contributed to environmental
problems, pesticides have done far more to clean the environment than to
despoil it.
To recite the accomplishment of pesticide use is no longer exciting and com-
mands no space in the press because we accept these benefits as if they were
a part of our life charter. The emotion stems from the discovery of pesticide
residues in non-target species but without regard to the benefits achieved
when these calculated risks are taken. We are no longer concerned with ma-
laria, yellow fever, and a host of insect-borne diseases because they are not a
health factor in this country. They do remain a major health factor in other
areas of the world, however. Dr. M. A. Farid, Director of Program Planning
for the Malaria Eradication Section of the World Health Organization, ad-
vises that in 1936 there were 200,000,000 cases of malaria in India alone re-
sulting in 2,000,000 deaths. In 1968, only 156,000 cases were reported in India
with approximately 750 cases resulting in death.
-------
86 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Last month in New Mexico several cases of bubonic plague were reported.
This is worthy of little attention as the disease is now readily controllable
with penicillin. Yet these disease vectors are controlled only by pesticides.
Plies, mosquitoes, rats, roaches, body lice—perhaps we can live with these
environmental contaminants but we must not forget that they continue to
spread a host of diseases including- encephalitis, of which there have been
three or four outbreaks in the last 15 years.
We will not make an effort this morning to review the pesticide record. We
are aware of the criticism that has been leveled at the Federal agencies and
their enforcement of pesticide programs. We feel that a careful objective re-
view of the record will bear out the fact that these agencies have done an
outstanding job with the few failures or inadequacies that have been reported
testifying more to the dimension of the problem than to the failures of the
dedicated personnel in these agencies. Transferring these programs may ap-
pear to reflect a lack of confidence in the ability of these agencies to do their
job. We trust this is not so and that the record will be clear that transferring
these functions to EPA is to bring together the variety of disciplines neces-
sary to regulate the sale and use of pesticides and to render more efficient
this continuing effort.
We view optimistically the bringing together of all relevant scientific disci-
plines into one agency to improve interdisciplinary communication, evalua-
tion of data and measurement of the significance of the information that is
collected by Government and industry. Prior to sale a pesticide must be reg-
istered by the Department of Agriculture. The burden is upon the applicant
to establish safety and efficacy. No agricultural use is permitted until a toler-
ance for any residue of the pesticide on raw foods is established. Pre-registra-
tion review includes the Departments of the Interior and Health, Education,
and Welfare. After registration each pesticide is subjected to a comprehensive
monitoring program designed to point out unanticipated effects. As you know,
the fish and wildlife resources of this country, including shellfish and our
water and air resources are subject to careful monitoring, the results of
which are reported regularly in the Federal Pesticide Monitoring Journal.
USDI laboratories at Patuxent, Maryland, Gulf Breeze, Florida, Denver,
Colorado, and Columbia, Missouri, report on studies of invertebrates, fish and
wildlife. Other agencies make important contributions—the community health
profiles of the Public Health Service, the market basket surveys of the Food
and Drug Administration—every phase of our environment is studied under
the coordination of the Working Party, Subcommittee on pesticides of the
President's Cabinet Committee on the Environment. These programs provide
a continuous source of data to measure the input of pesticides into our en-
vironment.
As more agencies became more involved in recent years with the regulation
of pesticides, we faced a proliferation of regulators which ultimately required
[p. 177]
the development of the Interagency Review Agreement of January 29, 1970.
This is perhaps the most elaborate interagency review program in the Execu-
tive Branch of the Government. One result, at least, was to add an indefinite
amount of time to the evaluation of new products and new uses for old pro-
ducts. We found ourselves dealing with second and third hand information
and experienced great frustration in attempting to locate the source of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 87
information as problems arose. Thus we were extremely hampered in bringing
to bear the implication of the scientific data relevant to the problem area.
We then look forward to the opportunity to deal principally with one
agency where there will be an opportunity for communication between the
regulators and the regulated. We anticipate that this increased efficiency will
result in more prompt and relevant responses, and a more effective and effi-
cient handling and resolution of problem areas.
From the testimony already presented to this Committee, we anticipate
that there will be a unified division of pesticides in EPA, hopefully headed
by a Deputy Director of the Agency. In this manner the Agency can function
most efficiently and, we believe, the benefits of this reorganization can be
more fully realized.
The Agency must accept a premise that is not particularly popular at the
moment and that is, that there is a desperate need to continue pesticide use
for the protection of food, the protection of the public health, and for im-
provement in the quality of the environment.
Pesticides, like drugs, present a host of benefits but there are risks which
can be calculated and measured, and accepted to achieve the benefits. The
validity of the benefit-risk equation was soundly endorsed by Senator Ribicoff
in Senate Report No. 1379, 89th Congress, 2d Session, following a three-year
review of pesticides by the Subcommittee on Reorganization of the Committee
on Government Operations.
Senator Ribicoff underscored the need to mitigate confusion and anxiety
in the public mind and the need to evaluate pesticides in an objective atmos-
phere. The Report points out:
"The reservoir of apprehension in the public mind evolves from three signs
of our time: (1) The lack of undsrstanding of science leading to distrust and
actual dislike; (2) nostalgia for a simpler life, the good old days, and the
"peaceable kingdom"; and (3) a feeling of individual incompetence to avoid
the threats of technological side effects (e.g., helplessness against community
aerial spraying, unknown source of food stuffs, and total reliance on govern-
mental control and regulation). This anxiety (amounting to fear) is a barrier
to facts and presents a bad climate for decisionmaking." [Ibid., page 50]
The results of the emotional approach to pesticides have been significant.
The pesticide industry historically committed a relatively high percentage
of gross sales to research. Recently, several chemical companies have com-
pletely abandoned their research and development programs on pesticides.
Others have sharply reduced their efforts in insecticides while continuing to
go forward with other types such as herbicides. The mounting cost of re-
search and development, the unreceptive mood of state and Federal regula-
tors, and extremely poor image of the industry in the public mind, were
major contributing factors. Corporate executives find little comfort in out-
standing achievements in the pesticide field when they are constantly ha-
rangued and barraged by stockholders and others as despoilers of our environ-
ment through the development of effective insect control techniques.
We look forward then to the formation of the Environmental Protection
Agency. We look forward to cooperating and working with this Agency to
bring to the public the maximum benefits pesticides offer with the minimum
risks attendant upon pest control programs. We look forward to a continua-
tion of the elaborate Federal monitoring systems of pesticide residues in our
environment, to the opportunity to work cooperatively to improve pesticide
-------
88 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
effectiveness and minimize the exposure of non-target organisms to these
materials.
We are not completely persuaded that establishing a new agency will re-
sult in better regulatory programs, except to the extent that they will be
more efficient and thus more effective. This alone may be of sufficient value
to justify the creation of the new Agency.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 does not deal with the structure of the Agency
though the indications are that a Pesticide Division will be designed to put
all pesticide activities in the new Agency under one top level executive who
will have the ultimate authority and the concurrent responsibility for these
programs.
An integrated pesticide program in one division of the Agency could be
the key to an effective regulatory program.
[p. 178]
EXHIBIT 27
THE AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE,
New York, N.Y., August 6,1970.
Hon. JOHN L. McCLELLAN,
Chairman, Senate Government Operations Committee,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: The American Paper Institute, which
represents some 200 member companies, comprising 90 percent of the pulp,
paper and paperboard industry, fully supports Government Reorganization
Plan #3 to create an Environmental Protection Agency.
The country has long needed a fully coordinated attack on environmental
problems. The fragmentation of executive powers in this field, on both federal
and state levels, is today a serious obstacle to the vigorous progress that our
national situation requires. As a case in point, industrial enterprises must
deal with a number of agencies, depending upon the nature of their pollution
problems, and commonly find themselves up against conflicting, inconsistent
or uncoordinated decisions. Pollution in one media can often be cured at the
expense of causing pollution in another, and yet the vital interests of society
call for the improvement of the total environment. Only through the con-
sistent and coordinated development and enforcement of quality standards
can we expect to achieve the results required.
Many of the States are in a comparable position to that of the Federal
Government, with a multiplicity of departments working piecemeal on envi-
[p. 182]
ronmental problems. We believe that the establishment of the new Environ-
mental Protection Agency will encourage those States which have not yet
done so to emulate the Federal Government in creating a single organization
where all key aspects of waste disposal and pollution will be handled.
Although President Nixon's message of July 9 to the Congress states the
overall case for the new agency with great clarity and effectiveness, we stand
ready, if your Committee so desires, to testify in favor of Plan #3 from the
point of view of the benefits we believe it will bring to the paper industry's
long and steadily growing efforts to improve the environment.
Most sincerely,
EDWIN A. LOCKE, Jr., President.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 89
EXHIBIT 28
STATEMENT REGARDING REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3 OF 1970 ESTABLISHING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(By Edgar M. Cleaver, M.D., Director, Weld County Health Department, and
Andrew Gurtner, Chairman, Weld County Board of Health, Colorado
Health and Environmental Council, August 7, 1970)
We would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity of having a
statement placed in the records of the hearings regarding Reorganization
Plan Number 3.
We represent a local government agency and a state-wide health and
environmental organization. We are vitally concerned about the implementa-
tion of health and environmental control measures at the State and local
level. While it is with trepidation that we go on record as opposing policies
recommended by both the President of the United States and his advisors
and policies recommended by a leading political figure of the Senate major-
ity, namely, Senator Muskie of Maine, we nevertheless feel that our position
of strategic importance in implementing environmental health measures at
the local level allows us to reasonably proceed with critical remarks and
alternative suggestions.
Frankly, we feel that Reorganization Plan Number 3, while it does pull
together a number of environmental concerns into a more coordinated agency,
nevertheless does not pull all concerns together and does fragment what we
conceive to be the vital health aspects of the environment even further. This
occurs in that the largest reorganizational change perhaps comes in the
removal of a number of important functions from the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. We feel that the President was more nearly right
in his first inclination of not forming additional administrative agencies, but
of consolidating programs under existing agencies. Many of us here in Colo-
rado feel that the only answer to both the pressing personal health problems
with their economic implications and our environmental health crisis (and
it is a health crisis as well as an environmental crisis) is the development
of a comprehensive department of health at the Cabinet level. Conversely, we
feel that it would have been more appropriate to have placed the environ-
mental functions of other agencies in the Department of HEW, if a new
department of health were not to be formed. We feel that much of the
concern about the environment today is entirely justified. However, there is
an element of radicalism, extremism and political exploitation involved. We
hate to see members of Congress from either party or the President respond-
ing to these extremist elements, rather than to the attitudes of experienced
men from schools of public health and state and local health deparments.
I would refer you to two additional sources as representing attitudes which
should not be overlooked by those considering health and environmental
reorganization or legislation. One source is that of the article "The rise of
anti-ecology", noted on page 42 of the August 3, 1970, issue of Time Maga-
zine. The second source is that of Issue Paper No. 4 on ecology and admin-
istration published by Community Health, Inc. of New York.
Our interpretation of Reorganization Plan Number 3 is that while attempt-
ing to provide better standard setting and control of the entire environmental
problem, there is indeed a definite possibility that health aspects of the
environment per se will be given less attention. If there is truly an environ-
-------
90 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
mental crisis this cannot be allowed to happen. We from Colorado would
strongly recommend that a resolution be introduced in the Congress to post-
[p. 183]
pone the adoption of Reorganization Plan Number 3 until alternative possi-
bilities of environmental coordination and reorganization can be considered.
We would suggest that among these alternate possibilities is the development
of a Cabinet level department of health, with a division of environmental
protection. We would recommend the retention of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality as an advisory and coordinating body. We would also suggest
the formation of a joint legislative council to coordinate legislative action
on environmental programming.
We feel that these measures would give the environmental health crisis the
attention that it needs at this time without fragmenting and disorganizing
federal, state and local relationships necessary for cooperative action in en-
forcing laws, rules and regulations for environmental control and improve-
ment. We greatly fear that we on the local level will have too many agencies
and commissions to relate to, and that we ourselves will be eventually frag-
mented and will be unable to coordinate our own efforts because of the need
to communicate with and receive directives and information from a myriad
of agencies and commissions above us. In short increasing the number of
administrative agencies and personnel at higher levels of government is not
the answer to more effective elimination of environmental hazards at the
local level.
We appreciate the attention of Congressional Committees to the point of
view of local people working in the field of environmental health as we
attempt to protect the American people at the vital local level.
HEALTH PLANNING ISSUE PAPER FROM COMMUNITY HEALTH, INC., ISSUE
PAPER No. 4, ECOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATION, MAY 1970
The ecological perspective toward man and his world has taught us that
there are literally thousands of finely articulated subsystems in an all-
encompassing ecosystem. Men's actions as a manipulative species cause
changes in this environment whose effects may be proximate or distant,
anticipated or unanticipated. In the current environmental crisis, we are
harvesting the fruits of centuries of lack of concern or lack of appreciation
of the ecological consequences of human activity. The cumulative insult to
the environment has risen continuously, while the response in society has
been highly incremental and oriented toward single problems.
One result of this incremental, uncoordinated approach to social program-
ming for the environment has been the development of a multitude of
administrative subdivisions in government that deal with one subsystem or
another without efforts to achieve integration. Environmental control pro-
grams have grown out of concerns as diverse as preservation of wildlife,
management of natural resources, protection against communicable disease
and increasing agricultural production. In addition, there are many other
governmental programs that are related to environmental problems, either
as part of the cause or part of the solution. As a result, we find programs
of considerable environmental impact distributed widely within government
—in departments of commerce, health, housing, conservation, urban affairs,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 91
agriculture, and transportation to cite a few. Such subdivisions seldom share
goals or information and many operate in direct competition. There is
obvious need for better coordinating the programs dealing with the environ-
ment, the causes of its deterioration, and the means for its enhancement.
As government at every level strives to respond to the ecological crisis, the
solution emerging tends—more frequently than not—to be an attempt to
create some type of "ecological superagency". Such agencies—according to
their proponents—will unite the fragmented environmental programs that
have grown in number in recent years, and create combinations which will
be what the Governor of New York calls "an ecological whole". In our view,
creation of such agencies represents an approach that is neither logical nor
ecological. There is a real danger that—while appearing to "do something"
to improve environmental programming—such agencies will merely perpetuate
fragmentation at a time when a coordinated response is essential.
In exploring the ecological aspect of our concern, it is necessary to distin-
guish between environment and ecology. Environment has traditionally been
used to designate the physical world—outside of man and his social systems—
in which man operates as an autonomous manipulator. Ecology refers to the
study of the totality of patterns of relations between organisms and their
environment. The environment's response and adaptation to man sets up new
[p. 184]
relationships which in turn operate to influence new adjustments in man.
Heretofore to a large degree we have considered man's relationship to the
environment in a very simplistic fashion: Man as the actor and some element
of the environment—air, water, land, wildlife—the material to be acted upon.
The real significance of the emergency of ecology—both as a label and as
an approach—is the attention it draws to the reciprocal nature of the rela-
tionship of man and environment. Drawing from this, we can hypothesize
that an "ecological" approach to administering government programs must
focus on a mechanism capable of integrating not only those programs deal-
ing with control of pollutants of the natural environment—air, land, and
water—but also those governmental programs that contribute to the environ-
mental problem and those programs that deal broadly with the effects of
the environment on man and other living organisms.
If the logic behind proposals for recombining environmentally-related pro-
grams into superagencies is presented as ecological, there are some very real
problems. First, where should the line be drawn for inclusion and exclusion
of programs? To do less than pulling all environmentally related programs
together destroys the logic of recombination. This appears a practical and
political impossibility, and none of the realignments proposed or accomplished
even begins to approach this magnitude of change. It is more common to take
conservation programs, water quality, air pollution and solid waste under
the "ecology" banner and ignore ecologically-equal activities in other fields.
In reality, the problems of the environment are so pervasive that virtually
every agency of government has some responsibility. Would it not be more
efficacious to concentrate on seeing that everyone fulfills their respective
responsibilities?
Administratively recombination itself is not a panacea for environmental
problems. Organizational proximity does not necessarily enhance coordination
of cooperation. Administrative reshuffling does not approach the root problem
of equally fragmented legislative authorities, nor does it change the estab-
-------
92 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
lished attitudes and approaches of the career employees within the admin-
istrative units. In any event, many decisions pertaining to environmental
improvement and protection will involve major reallocation of resources,
shifting of priorities and new government-wide policies. These are essentially
political choices.
An example from the recent past may clarify the existing situation. The
Army Corps of Engineers has for many years conducted a continuous pro-
gram for removing debris from the waters of New York Harbor. This
includes a heavy volume of wood from decaying piers, sunken vessels, and so
forth. The method of disposal of this bulky but combustible material has
been to fill barges with the waste, and when it is sufficiently dry, to burn it.
These barges were anchored off the New Jersey shore near the Statue of
Liberty. The burning was clearly in violation of local and State legislation,
and in conflict with Federal air quality guidelines. The Corps' response to
complaints over the burning was quite simple—they had a Congressional
mandate to keep the harbor open to navigation, and the open burning was
the only feasible way to dispose of the material until such time as the
Congress made funds available for a planned incinerator. Here were a num-
ber of agencies with environmental missions acting to carry out their legis-
lative mandates. Two matters of public interest—clear navigation and air
quality—were in conflict. "Combination therapy" would not have changed the
mandates or mitigated the conflict.
We have raised some questions about a currently popular political response
to the "ecological crisis". Is there a means of approaching the problem of
ecological programming that can begin to give us the advantages of common
goals and less competition, and also leave room for important interest groups
to be heard? The analytical framework of ecology suggests a possible solu-
tion. In dealing with the ecosystem, we recognize that there are many sub-
systems that interact continuously. In the present administrative situation,
there are also many subsystems, but they do not interact in any coordinated
fashion. Recognizing the limited ability of executive councils to effectively
channel the efforts of administrative agencies which have a high degree of
independence, we suggest consideration be given to creation of a Legislative
Council on the Environment.
This Council would be established by and be responsible to the legislative
body, and would be staffed with technical personnel from the various disci-
plines involved in governmental environmental programming. Its functions
would include:
(1) Analysis of legislative proposals in clearly environmental areas and
in other fields where legislation might have environmental consequences,
and preparation of reports for use by legislative committees, administrative
agencies, and the public.
[p. 185]
(2) Consultation with, and assistance to, legislators who are preparing
environmental legislation, to clarify any deficiencies or potential conflicts
with an overall ecologic plan.
(3) Research on environmental questions for legislators and legislative
committees.
(4) Continuous review and evaluation of operating programs in the en-
vironmental field in the several agencies to identify actual or potential con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 93
flicts, both among such activities, and with a general ecologic perspective,
and to suggest legislation to remedy such situations.
(5) Institution and monitoring of a government-wide, legislatively-directed
program planning and budgeting system for all environmentally-directed
program activities.
This approach—perhaps without precedent—is suggested because the situa-
tion we face is also unprecedented. Fragmented response has helped bring
the nation to the brink of a major eeologic crisis. Only the chief executive
and the legislature have a sufficiently broad viewpoint and authority to pro-
vide the needed unity of purpose. Since effective coordination of a suffi-
ciently broad scope seems an impossibility on the administrative side, the
legislature—theoretically more responsible to the electorate and with its
pre-eminent fiscal role—seems more likely to be able to provide the leader-
ship and coordination essential to success, and survival.
EXHIBIT 29
STATEMENT OP CHARLES H. DOWDING, JR., M.D., CHAIRMAN, COLORADO HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, ON REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3 OF 1970,
AUGUST 1970
Immediate modification of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 91st Con-
gress, 2d session, is strongly recommended by Colorado, and many other
State and Local Health and Environmental officials.
On August 4, 1970 a Colorado delegation presented this modification to all
Colorado Congressmen, which consists of the establishment of a separate
Federal Department of Health with Presidential Cabinet rank encompassing
a strong environmental component.
The delegation consisted of: Glen E. Keller, Jr., of Lakewood, president
of the Colorado Board of Health; Andrew Gurtner, of Greeley, president of
the Weld County Board of Health; and Dr. Edgar M. Cleaver, Director of the
Weld County Health Department and myself as Chairman of the Colorado
Health and Environmental Council.
Health of the nation is facing two major crisis: (1) pollution of air and
water, as well as radiation and noise pollution; (2) soaring cost of health
care leading to bankruptcy, because of lack of any overall health policy and
bureaucratic fragmentation of health programs.
We applaud the recent statement of the American Medical Association that
a Federal Health Department should be established. Other organizations
supporting a Separate Federal Department of Health are as follows: Ameri-
can Public Health Association, Community Health Inc., State and Territorial
Health Officers Association, American Association of Public Health Physi-
cians, and many others.
The Colorado's 5x5 Plan towards Comprehensive Health has been adopted
by the Governor's appointed 40 member Comprehensive Health Planning
Council according to Public Law 89-749. The Denver Areawide Health Plan-
ning Organization has also adopted the 5x5 Plan with task forces for each
of the components—Prevention, Environment, Education, Chronic Care, and
Acute Care. All five components are closely interrelated and should not be
separated.
A telegram sent to President Nixon from Colorado Health and Environ-
mental Council states: "Man's physical, mental and social health is directly
related to his environment in the following aspects: air that he breathes;
-------
94 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
water that he drinks; food that he eats; alcehol and drugs that he uses or
abuses; medical, hospital and home health care he receives; recreation facil-
ities that he uses; housing conditions that he lives in; working conditions
he is exposed to; and to social, psychological and economic influences of
neighborhood, community and school activities."
American Public Health Association conducted a statewide study of State
and Local Health Services in Colorado during 1969 and 1970. The study
was conducted by Malcolm H. Merrill, M.D., M.P.H.
[p. 186]
The study recommends the following scope of local community public
health services:
Objectives of study.—(1) Delivery of local community health service
statewide in a more effective and efficient manner, at a lower cost; (2)
Coordinating local community health services statewide; (3) Developing local
comparable health services statewide; (4) Eliminating duplication of health
services; (5) Full utilization of health manpower; (6) Uniform enforcement
of health laws, standards, rules and regulations statewide.
I. PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES
These services embrace those directed toward promotion of positive good
health, prevention of contagious and chronic debilitating diseases, early
detection of diseases; home health care of acute and chronic illnesses; as well
as physical, mental and social rehabilitation. Program encompass: Com-
municable Disease Control; Tuberculosis Control; Venereal Disease Control;
Alcohol and Drug Dependence Control; Chronic Disease Control; Nutritional
Services; Dental Health Services; Multi-phasic Screening Program; and
other services as Medical Care, Mental Health, Mental Retardation and
Rehabilitation as may be assigned to the Department.
The public health nurse is a key member of the community health team
providing services in the above programs as well as in the following fields:
Bedside Home Nursing Care; Maternal and Child Health Services; Handi-
capped and Crippled Children's Program; Prevention of Congenital Defects;
Evaluation Services for Delayed Development; Family Planning; School
Health; Cooperative Aftercare Services for Mental Health; Migratory Labor
Health Services; Vision and Hearing Conservation Program; Well Oldster
Clinic Service.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Optimum health can be fostered by prospective planning and management
of comprehensive environmental health services. Man's physical, mental and
social health is directly related to the air that he breathes; water that he
drinks; trash and garbage he accumulates; food that he eats; recreational
facilities that he uses; housing conditions that he lives in; and working con-
ditions he is exposed to. The 125 registered environmentalists, sanitarians
in the 13 organized Local Health Departments, as key members of the com-
munity health team encompass the following programs: Water Pollution
Control; Air Pollution Control; Solid Waste Disposal; Drinking Water Qual-
ity Surveillance; Restaurant Inspection; Food Sanitation and Consumer
Protection; Milk Sanitation; Rabies Control; Occupational Health; Radiolog-
ical Health; Noise Control; Accident Prevention; Housing1 Sanitation; Vector
Control; Swimming Pool Sanitation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 95
III. SUPPORTIVE HEALTH SERVICE
A. Public health laboratory.
B. Health education.
C. Vital statistics.
D. Business administration.
At present the above services through 13 organized local health depart-
ments serving 85% of the state population; utilizing 10 local health depart-
ment's laboratories; physicians, 150 registered environmentalist, sanitarians,
engineers, chemists, microbiologists and 450 community nurses in the field
of public health, school health, home health care and clinic services.
Local community providers and consumers of health care feel that Govern-
ment should preserve and strengthen the voluntary aspect of our health care
provider system while placing top priority on developing neighborhood clinics
for the poor, group practice and home health care services as a substitute for
some hospital care.
Over two thirds of the 2,300 home health care agencies in the United
States are either in local health departments or a combination of Visiting
Nurse Association and Local Health Department services. Most home health
care services report less than 1 % of hospital admission are referred for home
health care, while recent studies reveal that between 3% and 5% of hospital
admission can benefit from early hospital discharge to home health care. Also
home health care prevents hospital and nursing home admission and readmis-
sions, as well as providing a continuity of health care from hospital to home
[p. 187]
which greatly enhances recovery. The average referral to home health care
results in the saving of 10-20 hospital days.
Local health departments have the trained personnel and capability of pro-
viding neighborhood health clinic services for the purpose of preventing
disease and disability, as well as providing personal health care for the poor.
Home visitation by the community public health nurse represents the liaison
personal contact between the home and the neighborhood health clinic serv-
ices. This represents family health care to the poor.
Three Colorado health officials on July 7, 1970 sent to all 535 Congressmen
a signed letter of appeal under the auspices of the Colorado Health and
Environmental Council (CHEC), asking the support of the creation of a
separate Federal Department of Health with Presidential cabinet rank
encompassing a strong Environmental component. The letter states: "More
than 50 federal agencies presently are delegated the authority for community
and personal health programs. This has resulted in the duplication and over-
lapping of health services, a lack of coordination of health programs, con-
tinued soaring costs in health care, failure to meet the health needs of the
medically indigent, and rivalry for personnel and programs. The only solu-
tion to these problems is the creation of a separate Federal Department of
Health with Presidential cabinet rank.
Separating the control of the environment from its traditional relationship
to health cannot be done except at the cost of man's physical, mental, and
social well being and at the risk of continuing the administratively costly
overlapping that presently exists.
If Health is extricated from Education and Welfare and all programs of
health significance are consolidated in a Federal Department of Health, the
-------
96 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
result should be a viable, manageable agency capable of providing for all
Americans the concerned sort of attention their personal and environmental
health demands."
A separate Federal Department of Health committed to medical care; pre-
vention and early detection of disease and handicapping conditions; environ-
mental health; home health care; outpatient care; community health educa-
tion; full utilization of all community health service; medical group
practice; health insurance; community health centers would provide the
most effective method of delivery of health service at a lower cost through
a partnership between private practice and public health.
EXHIBIT 30
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1970.
HON. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF,
Chairman, Siibcommittce on Executive Reorganization, Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: The American Farm Bureau Federation is very
much interested in Reorganization Plan Number 3 submitted to Congress by
President Nixon under date of July 9, 1970, a plan which proposes to
establish an Environmental Protection Agency.
While we are interested in all aspects of this proposed new agency, our
particular concern relates to the transfer of functions relating to the United
States Department of Agriculture. Ths Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act was established by law June 25, 1917, to regulate the mar-
keting of these products and related devices. This Act was amended in
1959 and in 1964. Congress placed this Act under the administration of the
Secretary of Agriculture and it has effectively been administered by that
office since enactment.
The elected voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus to the
51st annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Fedsration in Washing-
ton, D.C. in December 1969, adopted the following policy concerning agri-
cultural chemicals.
"Agricultural chemicals: The continued use of agricultural chemicals is
important to both farmers and consumers. Any curtailment of the safe and
proper use of there products would result in higher food prices to consumers.
"Modern agriculture cannot provide adequate quantities of high quality
food and fiber without the continued safe use of agricultural chemicals.
"However, consumers do have a vital interest in being certain that their
health and welfare are protected by the safe use of these products. A con-
tinuing educational program among all users, with emphasis on the reading
of labels and proper usage of chemicals is essential.
[p. 188]
"In recent months there has been a stepped-up campaign against the use of
many agricultural chemicals. We believe that e\ery effort must be made to in-
form the general public that usage of agricultural chemicals is subject to
stringent federal and state regulation and that farmers are using these chem-
icals in accordance with federal and state laws.
"We strongly recommend that the total responsibility for registration of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 97
agricultural chemicals be retained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We urge the Secretary of Agriculture to emphasize to the general Public the
importance of the continued use of these products to farmers and consumers
in providing adequate high quality food and fiber.
"We oppose a complete ban on the use of any agricultural chemical and
recommend that continued use be determined on a product-by-product and
use-by-use basis. The continued use of these products should be based on re-
search and scientific data. The fact that some of these products may be per-
sistent is not in itself sufficient reason for rejecting their continued use.
"We recognize that there may be problems in the use of agricultural chemi-
cals as they relate to our environment. However, we strongly urge that
their importance to food production and human nutrition be given proper
recognition and consideration.
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative Extension Service,
and the state departments of agriculture should assist farmers and the
public in obtaining a better understanding of the role of agricultural chemi-
cals and the laws and regulations covering their usage.
"Farm Bureau should increase its leadership in this area so that the
interests of farmers and the general public are adequately protected.
"We recommend that imported agricultural products be subject to the same
restrictions on the use of agricultural chemicals and other standards as those
which apply to domestically produced commodities.
"We support expanded biological pest control research to determine where
biological pest control measures can be used as a practical and feasible
substitute for chemical controls."
I call your attention particularly to the following paragraph in this policy
statement:
"We strongly recommend that the total responsibility for registration of
agricultural chemicals be retained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
Reorganization Plan No. 3 proposed to transfer registration responsibility
to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of
products which are not registered or are adulterated or misbranded. Under
the Act, no pesticide chemical may be legally shipped in interstate commerce
for general use until it is shown to be safe when used as directed and effec-
tive for the purpose claimed on the label. All labeling must be approved and
any residues that may remain on food or feed must not exceed the safe
tolerance level established by the Food and Drug Administration.
During the period that Reorganization Plan No. 3 was under study and
development by the Executive Staff at the White House, the policy position
of Farm Bureau was presented to them in conferences and by written
communication.
Farm Bureau members and farmers generally have a long and commendable
record in soil and water conservation, wildlife and other practices that pro-
tect the environment. The question in the proposed reorganization plan, par-
ticularly as it relates to farm chemicals, is not one of who favors the pro-
tection of the environment but how federal agencies can best be related one
to the other for administering existing law in the best interest of all con-
cerned, including a knowledgeable relationship with a modern productive
agriculture increasingly important as the food and fiber demands are equated
to the 21st century both at home and abroad.
The Secretaries of Agriculture; Health, Education and Welfare; and
-------
98 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Interior each have responsibilities under law that relate to the use of
materials used to control insects, fungi, rodents, plant and animal diseases
and for vegetative control and each has extensive and competent research
for scientific guidance in making decisions. The encumbent Secretaries have
established an interagency agreement to effect cooperative decisions developed
by close coordination of information from competent scientists including- the
National Academy of Science. We believe that this has been a sound approach
to constructive decisions avoiding unilateral action as experienced in the
past. In regard to farm chemical registration the interagency agreement
[p. 189]
will be eliminated under Reorganization Plan Number 3 and we have sincere
reservations that a more constructive procedure will take its place.
We are concerned also relative to the viewpoint that will be taken under
the reorganization as to the importance of agricultural chemicals as a vital
productive tool in modern agriculture. Farmers and ranchers have long had
relationship with scientists, extension educators and others in USDA. This
experience has led both to have confidence in each other and a mutual under-
standing1 of the essential need of pest, fungus, weed and disease control and
the need for care in use of the materials. There is also an understanding of
the importance of the manufacturer of these materials and a realization
that the American consumer cannot be served unless effective materials are
available.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 proposes to bring together numerous existing
agencies. We have serious concern that agricultural chemicals will be viewed
by those responsible for decisions in the new Environmental Protection
Agency as pollutants with a low concern for these materials as tools in a
productive agriculture. Unwise decisions can greatly restrict the ability of
farmers and ranchers to continue a safe, abundant supply of high quality
food and fiber.
In consideration of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 we trust you will
give careful study to the interest and concern of farmers and ranchers in
removing the authority of the Department of Agriculture to administer the
registration of agricultural chemicals and place this authority into hands
that have far less knowledge and interest in a productive agriculture.
We would appreciate your making this letter a part of the hearing record
of your Committee.
Sincerely,
MARVIN L. MCLAIN,
Legislative Director.
[p. 190]
EXHIBIT 37
NATIONAL GRANGE,
Washington, D.C., August 26, 1970.
Hon. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: The National Grange is quite concerned over the
Reorganization Act, which would establish an Environmental Protection
Administration. It is our understanding that the Act would include a trans-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 99
fer to this new agency of the pesticide registration and regulation activities
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the pesticide standard-setting
programs from the Food and Drug Administration.
It is also our understanding that Congress has 60 days either to accept
or reject the President's recommendations on establishing the new Environ-
mental Protection Administration, which is our primary concern. We under-
stand that you cannot amend the President's recommendations, but we would
like to offer the following suggstion: that your Committee send the plan
back to the Excutive branch along with its recommendation.
[p. 195]
The main function of the "Environmental Protection Administration" is,
as the name implies, the protection of the environment. We therefore recom-
mend that only that portion of the pesticide program that protects the
environment be transferred to the new agency. At the present time this
portion of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act is admin-
istered by the Food and Drug Administration, under the agency that admin-
isters the pesticide research and setting of standards program. It is this
portion of the pesticide program that protects the environment and therefore
we can see the logic in transferring this agency's functions.
However, the pesticide registration and licensing of pesticides should
remain in the Department of Agriculture, for it is only here that the
importance of pesticide chemicals as essential tools of production can be
judged. This must be high on the list of priority in determining what
chemical can be used on what crops and in what dilution.
We believe that the Department of Agriculture has managed its responsi-
bilities in the pesticide chemical field well. Leaving the pesticide registration
program in the Department would permit producers, formulators and manu-
facturers to maintain their relationship with U.S.D.A. and the U.S.D.A. then,
in turn, would deal directly with E.P.A., the same as they now do with F.D.A.
Our primary concern can best be summed up by this question: Who will
have control over agricultural production—a high-level, integrated super-
agency, easily influenced by public opinion through the various news media,
or the Department of Agriculture that has a mandate from Congress to see
the efficient production of food and fiber and control over the inputs to bring
about such production?
It was because we feel so strongly that pesticides, their use and control are
so important to the economic production of the food and fiber for our great
nation that the National Grange, at its 103rd Annual Session, held in Day-
tona Beach, Florida, adopted the following resolution:
"AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS"
"Because of the vital importance of insecticides, pesticides, herbicides and
other similar chemicals to the efficient production of agricultural products,
the regulation and control of these substances for the protection of the public
should be continued in the Department of Agriculture and the Department
should be provided with any additional Authority and funds required to carry
on the necessary research for the safe and effective use of these substances."
Pesticides are often considered as entirely unnecessary, pollutants, food
toxicants, or an economic crutch for farmers. It should be obvious to all that
by the nature of statements expressed in opposition that they are too often
-------
100 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
based on happenstance or conjecture, not on existing scientific information,
and all too often arise in emotional concern (by scientists and lay groups
alike) for special interests.
The new "Interdepartmental Agreement for Protection of the Public
Health and the Quality of the Environment in Relation to Pesticides" pro-
vides for a sound, scientific review of pesticide registration and regulation,
assuring that none of the three Departments can ignore the needs and
responsibilities of the others.
The National Grange cannot, after serious consideration of the proposal,
see any benefit in changing the triple responsibility of the Department of
Agriculture, Health, Education and Welfare and Interior for the monolithic
administration of a single agency. In fact, in our judgment, the single
agency will be subject to so much pressure from public opinion that it will
be unable to function properly, either in the interest of the public or the
producers.
However, we could support such an agency if the interest of pesticides as
a tool of production is protected by having the pesticide registration remain
in the Department of Agriculture as we have suggested.
We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the hearings
on the proposed Environmental Protection Administration.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. SCOTT,
Master.
[p. 196]
EXHIBIT 38
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY,
Washington, D.C., August 31, 1970.
HON. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: We welcome the invitation to submit to the Senate
Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization for the hearing record under
date of September 1, 1970 our views on Reorganization Plans No. 3 (Environ-
mental Protection Agency) and No. 4 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration).
Concerning Plan No. 3, we recognize the desirability of bringing together
in a single unified agency the several governmental units concerned with
the administration and enforcement of laws and regulations designed to pro-
tect the environment from pollution and other abuse. Given clear authority
and adequate funding, such an agency should be able to make a most valuable
contribution to assuring a clean, healthful and pleasing environment for life
on this planet. We do question the wisdom of placing within the regulatory
agency the function of carrying on the research with respect to the effects
of chemical agents on plant and animal life as provided in Section 2(2) of
Plan No. 3; it is too easy for the resesrch to be subordinated to inade-
quate regulation.
Concerning Plan No. 4, we take strong exception to this plan because of
its proposed transfer from the Department of the Interior to the Depart-
ment of Commerce of the commercial and the marine sport fishing programs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 101
These programs are primarily concerned with the life habits of fish, that is,
with research into the biology, physiology, nutrition, reproduction, habitat
and other factors directly related to the preservation and the continuance
of the fishery, plus the preservation and/or establishment of suitable environ-
ment. Such research, biological, and natural habitat programs are entirely
foreign to the traditional thought and practice of the Department of Com-
merce; indeed that is the basis for their transfer from the Department of
Commerce many years ago. Conversely, these programs are precisely the sort
of activities which the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries were established for and are equipped to skillfully carry on.
Further, to presume to separate the biological programs for what are com-
monly thought of as ocean fish from the biological programs for freshwater
fish is exceedingly illogical. In fact, both classes of fish intermingle to an
important degree, and particularly so during the critical spawning and early
life periods. A closely coordinated program, under a single administrator
(presently the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the De-
partment of the Interior) is essential for successful government programs.
Because of the importance of maintaining an effective government fish-
eries program, in our opinion Reorganization Plan No. 4 as presently drafted
should be rejected. Resubmission to the Congress after deletion of the
provisions pertaining to fisheries programs and their administrative units
would then be in order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to submit these views.
Sincerely,
ERNEST M. DICKERMAN,
Eastern Director of Field Services.
[p. 1971
EXHIBIT 40
STATEMENT BY RICHARD H. STROUD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SPORT FISH-
ING INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER l, 1970
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Richard H.
Stroud. I am Executive Vice President of the Sport Fishing Institute, which
is America's only non-governmental, professionally-staffed, national non-
profit organization devoted principally to the conservation of America's
water resources and the aquatic life therein. The Institute's main objective
is to stimulate and encourage the rapid development and sound application
of fish conservation principles and practices. This, in turn, will provide for
optimum sustained production of aquatic life resources. There will then be
a maximum of opportunity for recreational fishing for the benefit of
60,000,000 Americans who now look principally to angling for their vitally-
needed outdoor recreation, including an estimated 15,000,000 citizens who fish
in estuarine and coastal marine waters.
The Institute derives much of its operating funds from a wide representa-
tion of manufacturers of various sorts of equipment and supplies used in
some manner by fishermen. Some funds are also provided by many individual
anglers and other citizens who share increasing concern for the quality
of their environment, particularly the nation's waterways, and their related
living experiences.
[p. 198]
-------
102 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The Sport Fishing Institute (SFI) appreciates this opportunity, Mr. Chair-
man, to appear before you today to express opposition to Executive Reor-
ganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (House Doc. 91-365), to establish within the
Department or" Commerce the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). We regret the necessity to record that we have
serious reservations about the wisdom of placing such an organization in the
Department of Commerce. We especially challenge this action in its proposed
form, which would bring together responsibility for conservation of the liv-
ing resources of the sea with that for ocean engineering and related resource
development functions, as well as administration of atmospheric and ocsano-
graphic services.
We also have some reservations with respect to Executive Reorganization
Plan No. 3 (House Doc. 91-364), to establish the independent Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Nevertheless, we have endorsed that proposal,
as we have already advised you separately by letter, because we believe that
the gravity of environmental degradation and the related short-term urgency
for concentrated coordination of government efforts to abate pollution of all
kinds are so great as to override all counter considerations. At the same time,
unless substantial new funds are also pumped into the pollution abatement
programs, after being collected together in the new agency, we very much
fear that Reorganization Plan No. 3 will prove to have been merely an ex-
ercise in useless paper shuffling. The very reason that the proposal for EPA
makes some sense is the same one, in our view, that makes it illogical and
improper to set up NOAA, in its proposed structure, within the Department
of Commerce. That reason is, as a July 12 New York Times editorial (in
part) succinctly stated, that:
"No agency entrusted with promoting the development of ... natural re-
sources—minerals, seafood, water power—should be entrusted at the same
time with protecting the environment against the consequences of that de-
velopment. The two objectives often conflict, and it is almost invariably the
organized exploiters who win, the unorganized public that loses."
It makes sense, for example, to remove regulation of radiological emissions
at nuclear power plants from the AEC, which is charged with promoting their
development, and placing that responsibility in an independent EPA. Con-
versely, it courts disaster to assign the responsibility for conserving marine
fisheries resources within the Department of Commerce, which is traditionally
devoted to development and exploitation of resources rather than their pro-
tection from the consquences of such exploitation.
This is the basic reason why, on July 8, responsible officers of eight national
conservation organizations joined together to send the following telegram to
President Nixon:
"The undersigned national conservation and environmental organizations
endorse the Administration's executive reorganization creating an Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) as an independent agency dealing with
our nation's serious environmental degradation problems.
"But we are strongly opposed to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric [Ad-
ministration] that proposes to transfer research, management, and regulatory
functions of a most important renewable resource belonging to all of the
people to the Department of Commerce, which traditionally represents the in-
dustrial and economic viewpoint. Moving commercial fisheries management,
research and the anadromous fishery program to the Department of Com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 103
merce would split executive jurisdiction of the fisheries resources to the
detriment of a growing public use of the resource by sport fishermen."
Signed by: American Forestry Association, William E. Towell,
Executive Vice President; American Institute of Biological
Sciences, Donald R. Beem, Assistant Director; American
Scenic and Historic Preservation Association, Richard H.
Pough, Conservation Chairman; National Association of
Conservation Districts, Gordon K. Zimmerman, Executive
Secretary; National Audubon Society, Charles H. Callison,
Executive Vice President; National Wildlife Federation,
Thomas L. Kimball, Executive Director; Sport Fishing In-
stitute, Richard H. Stroud, Executive Vice President; Trout
Unlimited, Ray A. Kotrla, Washington Representative; Wild-
life Management Institute, Daniel A. Poole, President.
[p. 199]
PATTON, BLOW, VERRILL, BRAND & BOGGS,
Washington Counsel to BIA and NAEBM.
EXHIBIT 42
TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WATER WELL ASSOCIATION CON-
CERNING THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(Submitted by Dr. Jay H. Lehr, Executive Director, National Water Well
Association)
BACKGROUND OF NWWA
The National Water Well Association represents the entire underground
water supply industry in the United States. Among our members are num-
bered this country's leading ground water geologists and hydrologists, its
water well drilling contractors, as well as, virtually all manufacturers and
suppliers involved in ground water supply.
Seventy-seven per cent of all municipal water supply systems are served
by wells bringing our vast underground water supplies into our homes. An-
other 15 million families are served by individual ground water systems.
Therefore, the 20,000 plus individuals working in ground water supply are
deeply involved in the process of bringing pure drinking water into the homes
of the American public.
Our overall objectives are: "to assist, promote, encourage, and support
the interests and welfare of the water well industry in all of its phases; to
foster, aid and promote scientific education, standards, research, and tech-
niques in order to improve methods of well construction and development, and
to advance the science of ground water hydrology; to promote harmony and
cooperation between well contractors and scientific agencies relative to the
proper development and protection of underground water supplies; to en-
courage cooperation of all interested groups relative to the improvement of
drilling and pumping equipment; to encourage, serve, assist and promote
closer cooperation among the existing state water well contractors' associa-
tions and to foster the devlopment of such associations in states where they
do not exist; to collect, analyze, and disseminate to the public, facts about
-------
104 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the role of the water well industry in the economy of the nation; and to ad-
vance generally the mutual interests of all those engaged in the water well
industry, in their own and the public welfare."
INTRODUCTION
At present, NWWA is actively involved in education projects with the
Office of Water Resource Research and the Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration in the Department of Interior, and we are just beginning to work with
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on some broad based train-
ing programs in water system management. It is in fact, our recent studies
of existing programs in HEW that have led our organization to request per-
mission to testify at this important hearing.
I am therefore, pleased to be here to speak in support of the creation by
the President of a new Environmental Protection Agency. The creation of
this Agency with the singular purpose of protecting our environment provides
[p. 209]
at least an opportunity to look at the environment as an integrated system
upon which a coordinated effort can be made to improve its present status and
prevent additional degradation.
This agency will eliminate much of the present bureaucratic entanglement
and will thus be better able to assist the local and state agencies to fulfill
their own responsibilities. It will also be better able to make Congress aware
of present inadequacies existing in our federal environmental programs.
Until now, it is apparent that many departments of government have been
concerned with a single pollutant or a single environmental medium. This
fragmentation of effort has resulted in confusion, overlap and inefficient man-
agement making it impossible to view the total effect of any pollutant on the
environmental system. The consolidation of the present agencies vitally con-
cerned with the environment, will eliminate many of the aforementioned prob-
lems and will at the same time assure that we do not create new problems in
the process of controlling existing ones.
THE ROLE OP WATER HYGIENE IN THE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This new type of approach is particularly revelant to one of the HEW
Bureau's scheduled for transfer to EPA—The Bureau of Water Hygiene,
which should have the identity, legislative base, and financial resources neces-
sary to provide Federal leadership in assuring the safety and adequacy of
drinking water. This activity is vital to each of us, in order to assure good
health for the people of this Nation.
The drinking water problems of this Nation, as well as the functions and
responsibilities of the Bureau of Water Hygiene, constitute one of the few
unrecognized environmental problem areas, and thus the BWH presently con-
stitutes a major program void which has developed from a previously dis-
organized approach to the environment.
DOES A WATER HYGIENE PROBLEM EXIST TODAY?
Overconfidence or apathy seems to pervade the public's attitude with re-
spect to drinking water. Common daily experience plus a current myth about
the future, falsely implies that the quality, safety and adequacy of our
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 105
municipal water supply systems are above reproach. Perhaps the myth can
be stated as follows: Everyone knows we have launched a massive water
pollution control effort and that water-borne disease outbreaks are a thing
of the past.
This statement is simply not true and the dangers of this misinformation
are illustrated by the epidemic at Riverside, California in 1965 which affected
18,000 people, the 30 % gastroenteritis attack rate in Angola, New York in
1968 due to a failure in the disinfection system, and the 60% infectious hepa-
titis attack rate which afflicted the Holy Cross football team in 1969 as a
result of the ineffective cross connection control procedures.
The recent discovery of critical amounts of mercury in our water supplies
as a result of industrial waste disposal is even more conclusive evidence of
the existence of very current water hygiene problems.
The Federal Water Quality Administration has assumed the primary epide-
miological role of digging up facts on the extent of the contamination. But
FWQA has little capability for assessing human health effects of mercury,
and even its data collection system based on quickie telegraphed reports, may
not be adequate. Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration has limited
jurisdiction, coming1 into the picture only when the mercury is taken up in
the food chain, which it apparently has.
The National Communicable Disease Center (now known as Center for
Disease Control) probably is best equipped to provide an over-all assessment
of the health effects, but it came into the present picture late.
From the standpoint of environmental health, the point of all this is that
here we have a potentially lethal contaminant which has been allowed to
build up to possibly dangerous levels in water, perhaps affecting many ele-
ments in the ecological balance, without coming to attention of Federal
authorities (it is, after all, a national problem) and then dealt with in a
piecemeal fashion by several agencies which rarely communicate their findings
to each other.
It was this sort of fragmentation which presumably led to formation of
the proposed Environmental Protection Administration. But will EPA be
organized in such a way that a mercury contamination problem such as this,
can be dealt with swiftly and effectively? And who will be providing the
health data to EPA?
The answer to both these questions I believe, must be found in the estab-
lishment of a greatly strengthened Bureau of Water Hygiene working within
the Environmental Protection Agency.
[p. 210]
PAST SUCCESS IS THE KEY TO CURRENT FAILURE
In a somewhat different sphere, scientific work on chlorine and the dis-
covery that it can disinfect drinking water is a major cause of the pollution
of our waterways. I do not refer to the role that chlorine itself may play as
a "pollutant," although, astonishing to say, 'this has been the subject of very
little research. Rather, the confidence that chlorination would make any
water supply "safe" no matter how badly polluted to start, is the keystone
of our sewage disposal system, namely, "dump in the nearest river."
Speaking before the Diamond Jubilee Meeting of AWWA in 1956, Abel
Wolman characterized the accomplishments of our forefathers over the pre-
ceding century, from the standpoint of the sanitary quality of the Nation's
-------
106 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
public water supply system, as "one of the most dramatic improvements in
public health that the world has ever known." As^ result of past progress
such words as typhoid, dysentery and cholera have become anachronisms. For
instance, diseases which plagued the cities of the East Coast in the mid-
1880's have all but disappeared, such as typhoid fever, which has declined
from 75-100 deaths annually per 100,000 persons to less than 0.1 on a Na-
tional basis.
By the 1930's the state-of-the-art in municipal drinking water treatment
advanced to a point where water borne disease was all but eliminated. As
part of our way of life, people expect to travel anywhere in the United
States and drink water from public supplies without fear of getting sick.
In other times and in other countries, the accomplishment of that feat
would be considered an idealistic dream. Yet, the water works industry of
the United States under unifying controls of federal and state health regula-
tions made the dream come true during the first half of this century. All
three elements, a knowledgeable and dedicated industry, a strong federal con-
trol effort, and intelligent determined regulation at the state level, were re-
quired to accomplish the feat.
There is ample evidence that after achieving safe water for the entire
nation, federal and state efforts began to lag. Control in many areas has
relaxed. Criteria standards, and design practices are still pointed toward
prevention of communicable disease as they were in the 1920's. Not as they
are now in 1970.
During the 1950's and 1960's, Federal, state and local program emphasis
shifted from stressing the treatment and protection of our drinking water
systems to curbing the discharge or organic pollutant at the source. The
resultant decrease in interest or concern has led to a backsliding of state
and local community water supply programs which were evaluated against the
U.S. Public Health Service Drinking- Water Standards. In the face of lagging
efforts at the federal level and in some states, imperfections in the nation's
water supply are beginning to show up.
A roon to bj released study report by the BWH notes that all too many
Americans are drinking potentially dangerous water containing bacterial in-
dicators of water borne disease. Therefore, the near term activities that will
preoccupy the Federal Water Hygiene Program must be an enumeration of
deficiencies found in municipal and state water supplies.
OUR WATER HYGIENE PROGRAM MUST BE UPDATED
C. C. Johnson, Administrator of Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service, speaking in Sept. 1969, before the Chesapeake Section of
AWWA on "Preliminary Findings of the Special Community Water Supply
Survey," said, "The question we face is this: Are we going to wait until the
public health statistics reveal a drinking water crisis or are we going to begin
now to upgrade our water treatment and distribution systems to cope with
the problems of our own time and place? In the case of water hygiene, as
in all of the many environmental problems that face our Nation and the
world today, if we must wait for epidemiological studies of human illness to
convince us of the hazards, it may well be too late."
The philosophy of letting the nation's control over public water supplies
deteriorate until adverse health effects are noted is condemned. In fact, it is
generally conceded that the involuntary use of our citizens for bioassay is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 107
immoral. Yet, isn't that precisely what is being done, when as a necessary con-
dition for a budget increase, public health safeguards are allowed to fall
lower and lower to the point where adverse health effects can be observed?
I think for a long while in this country we sort of mesmerized ourselves
into thinking that the only water problems we had were water pollution con-
trol problems. As a result of that, very little attention was given to what we
call the water hygiene aspects of the water problem.
[p. 211]
The backsliding in local, county, state and Federal water hygiene programs
can be traced to a lack of Federal leadership associated with the popular mis-
conception, that water pollution control efforts are a panacea which will not
only restore and enhance the quality of our lakes, streams, and coasts to the
benefits of fish and aquatic life and recreational pursuits but also guarantee
delivery of healthful quantities of safe drinking water to the consumer's tap.
This is not true insofar as drinking water is concerned.
Water pollution control efforts can assist the delivery of safe water to the
consumer's tap but the community drinking water supply must be treated in
any event. Pure water can be collected, treated and delivered to individual
homes only under the close scrutiny of competent local, state and Federal
programs.
These programs must begin to receive the needed resources to conduct nec-
essary planning and research both to catch up on past voids and looking to
the future, to provide training and technical assistance to assure full appli-
cation of existing technology and to conduct active, constructive surveillance
and enforcement programs.
FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Federal water pollution control effort of the Department of the In-
terior now exceeds $800 million per year and is scheduled to rise to well over
$1 billion next year, while the Federal water hygiene efforts of the Bureau
of Water Hygiene situated in the Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare is currently being subject to a budget cut from $2.7 million to $2.4
million. I am in complete agreement with the major attack being waged
through the Federal Water Quality Administration against water pollution.
It must not be minimized in any way if it is to succeed. In contrast, however,
I am appalled by minimal support being given to the Bureau of Water
Hygiene.
It is crucial that we have support at the Federal level to overlap state
boundaries and variations in state capabilities in the field of water supply.
There is no reason why there should be any better water supplies in one
state than another, and the development of adequate criteria based on mean-
ingful research is essential to our setting reasonable and understandable
standards and then keeping these standards abreast of our changing environ-
ment.
The federal government has a responsibility and a role which it cannot
avoid, and the water supply industry in the United States certainly en-
courages and depends upon the federal departments for fulfilling their re-
sponsibility.
-------
108 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
CURRENT COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY STUDIES
The Community Water Supply Study was launched to determine the
quality and dependability of water being delivered to a cross section of the
population including many small towns up through the largest cities. A total
of 969 public water supply systems located in 9 areas of the country have been
investigated. The study includes 5% of the systems and 12% of the urban
population on a National basis when compared with statistics from the last
comprehensive facilities inventory conducted in 1962. In addition to large
metropolitan systems like New York City, Cincinnati, and New Orleans, the
study includes 760 systems serving populations of less than 5,000 persons.
Using the 1962 PHS Drinking Water Standards as a guide, each water
supply system was investigated on these bases. First, drinking water quality
was determined by sampling the finished and distributed water and returning
these to the laboratories of the Bureau of Water Hygiene for bacteriological,
chemical and trace metal analyses. Second, the status of the water supply sys-
tem facilities was determined by a field survey of the system and the gather-
ing of information on a) source of supply; b) treatment, if any; c) distribu-
tion system pressures, and d) operations. Finally, the status of the surveil-
lance program over the water supply system was evaluated by obtaining bac-
teriological water quality data for the previous 12 months of record from
state and county health department files.
While we all hold the Drinking Water Standards in high esteem, an unex-
pectedly high number of communities exceed either the rcommended or man-
datory constituent levels and a surprisingly larger number of communities
show deficiencies in operations and surveillance. For instance—in excess of
80% of 969 systems investigated, primarily communities of less than 100,000
people, failed to meet one or more of the provisions of the U.S. PHS Drinking
Water Standards because of water quality deficiencies or system risks; one
out of every four samples (based on 3.563 samples) exceeded one or more of
the recommended limits in the Drinking Water Standards; 9% of the samples
evidenced bacterial contamination at the consumers tap; 11% of the samples
[P. 212]
drawn from systems using surface waters as a source of supply exceeded the
recommended organic chemical limit of 200 parts per billion; 53% of the sys-
tems evidenced physical deficiencies including poorly protected groundwater
sources, inadequate disinfection capacity, inadequate clarification capability,
and or inadequate system pressure; 79% of the systems were not inspected
by State or county authorities in 1968, the last full calendar year prior to the
study, and 50% of the chief operators of the supplies did not remember when,
if ever, a state or local health department has surveyed the supply; 77% of
the plant operators had inadequate microbiological training and 46% were
deficient in chemistry relating to plant operation; cross connection prevention
ordinances, plumbing inspection programs on new construction, and re-inspec-
tion programs were lacking in a vast majority of the systems studied; the
study showed that as to training 61% of the personnel responsible for the
operation of water treatment facilities have not had formal training even
at the short course level; 77% were deficient in microbiological training; 72%
were deficient in chemical training.
The smaller water systems often operated by part-time personnel, generally
have the poorest records of operator training and experience.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 109
PRESENT TASKS OF THE BUREAU OF WATER HYGIENE
The Bureau of Water Hygiene works to assure the safety and adequacy of
the water that man ingests or otherwise contacts in his day-to-day activities
by conducting a comprehensive program of research, development, technical
assistance and training.
In the current fiscal year, the Bureau has: (1) Completed a cross section
study of community water supplies involving 969 systems serving approxi-
mately 18 million people, which documents for the first time the deficiencies
in the Nation's water supplies; (2) completed joint Federal-State field sur-
veys on 43 of approximately 700 water systems serving interstate carriers;
and (3) launched a technical task force to review and update the U.S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
The research accomplishments include: (1) Development of a new and fast
method for the identification of fecal contamination; (2) development of new
quick, accurate, and cheaper methods of examining waters for cadmium, zinc,
copper, and lead; and (3) demonstration of subclinical methemoglobinemia in
children utilizing a specific ionelectrode and direct analysis of blood samples.
While the accomplishments of the BWH are admirable under severe budget
restrictions, it can not be said that we truly have a National water hygiene
program today. But this proposed reorganization provides the opportunity
to both highlight and rectify past mistakes and to begin planning and imple-
menting the necessary action program.
The problems of the future require: 1. research; 2. planning; 3. technical
assistance; and 4. surveillance, if our society is to continue to be blessed
with the benefit of adequate quantities of safe drinking water.
THE ADEQUACY OF WATER HYGIENE RESEARCH
We must not lose sight of research and development needs which exist
today. Each of us faces a host of new questions on a day-to-day basis. One
day the questions concern arsenic, the next day, nitrates. And how about
mercury? Is there a general accepted detecting method? And, once the meas-
urement is made, what criteria is used to judge health effects?
It is evident that a broad program of research and development is vitally
needed to investigate and elucidate potential hazards, thereby insuring the
strength of the Nation's water supplies and to provide for a higher degree
of efficiency and effectiveness in the management of water supply systems.
For example, a recent Bureau of Water Hygiene Report summarized some
of the potential hazards as follows: "Water for direct and indirect human
ingestion contains varying amounts of organic and inorganic material and
in some cases may harbor bacteria and viruses. In order to safeguard the
health of the American public by having the mechanism to detect, analyze,
and remove any hazard in water, many studies MUST be conducted. Com-
pounds to which people are exposed number in the thousands and include
herbicides, insecticides, corrosion inhibitors, water softeners, coagulants,
coagulant aids, fecal material, industrial waste material and breakdown
products, household waste material and breakdown products."
Using the carbon-chloroform-extraction technique, it is known that many
of these organic and inorganic compounds are in drinking water. What we
[p. 213]
-------
110 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
need to know is: (1) Specifically, which chemicals are in water? (2) What
is the concentration of each chemical in the water? (3) What are the
efficiencies of recovery (for analysis) of the compounds? (4) Are the
chemicals at the environmental concentration a hazard, either acute or
chronic, to the health of the users? and (5) If a hazard exists, what pro-
cedures can be used to effectively cope with the problem? It is equally
apparent that virology criteria must be added to future editions of the
Drinking Water Standards stressing the need to develop new methods of
sampling, isolating, concentrating and enumerating enteric viruses. And,
aside from detection procedures, health effects, and constitute levels there
is the need to develop and demonstrate new municipal and individual water
treatment procedures.
MANPOWER AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Providing a continuing safe and adequate water supply depends on a re-
search and development program in water analysis, an ability to evaluate
health effects of the water constituents, and a full understanding of treat-
ment methodology. It progresses through the design and construction of suit-
able treatment and distribution facilities and ends with the proper operation
of the facility under the guidance of a ground surveillance and technical
assistance program. With this in mind, several areas of manpower need
emerge: (1) Engineers and technicians are needed to design and supervise the
construction and operation of water treatment and distribution facilities; (2)
Managers and operators are needed to supervise the operation and mainte-
nance of water supply and distribution facilities; and (3) Research engineers
and scientists are needed to conduct a water quality surveillance and techni-
cal assistance program at both the state and Federal level and to conduct
the research and development program related to municipal water supplies.
It is estimated that in the next 20 years, over 20,400 new plant operators
will be required. At the present time, the inadequate salary structure of most
small public water systems has meant that the average operator in the small
utility has less than a high school education. A Federal program to enforce
mandatory certification of water plant operators based on the completion of
a minimum level of general education (high school graduation) and special-
ized training is long overdue. Water treatment technology is sufficiently ad-
vanced, and the public health responsibility is so important, that the minimum
specialized training need for a plant operator and/or manager in responsible
charge of a water plant or system is the completion of a 2 year technical
institute program in water hygiene technology. To attract competent people
to enter this important field, a major change in the salary structure for oper-
ators and managers of the smaller, public water systems is essential. Such
a salary structure is, of course, dependent on the availability of adequately
trained personnel.
Thus, there is a significant and overwhelming need to develop a pool of
trained operators at the post-high school or technical institute level. In the
area of water pollution control, this need has been recognized to the extent
that the Water Quality Act of 1970 recently passed by Congress authorized
the expenditure of $62 million for the training of men at the undergraduate
level in the design, operation, and maintenance of water quality (pollution)
control facilities. If we can justify such a program in pollution, how much
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 111
more important is such a program in the area of water hygiene? This expen-
diture of funds for operator training is designed to provide more adequate
training of people to operate plants for the production of water which can
be returned to our streams. Unfortunately, the legislation and the author-
ization ignored the fact that there is an equal need for training of operators
for the operation of water facilities where the water is designed to be used
for human consumption.
Even if we were willing to accept deficiencies in average chemical water
quality, and we are not so inclined, who has the resources to provide on-the-
job training, technical assistance, or short courses on disinfection even if we
could discount the numerous other prevalent community water system defi-
ciences? Certainly, the results show that the State and county health depart-
ments, as now financed, are hard pressed to inspect the community systems
in an effort to detect and correct gross deficiencies let alone provide broad
technical assistance and training.
It should be apparent to the entire professional community, local, state,
university, and Federal, that we can either wait for a major tragedy to
occur and say "we told you so" or we can begin to face up to our program
deficiencies and identify water hygiene program needs in a responsible pro-
fessional manner.
[p- 214]
The emphasis given to the number of individuals supported in training
programs for professional careers in water supply in our universities is cur-
rently at its lowest ebb, and must be revitalized at the earliest possible time.
SUMMARY
Our Association feels that implementation at the federal level of a true
water hygiene program rates a high priority in the total effort to meet the
water supply problem and is necessary to enable the water industry to con-
tinue on its present self-sustaining utility basis to supply not only safe, but
high quality water. We must strengthen and accelerate programs which will
assure that all people have adequate quantities of safe water for drinking
and other human use.
We know increasing quantities of pesticides, organic chemicals and toxic
metals are entering the waters that serve as sources for the Nation's public
and that many of these new contaminants are not being removed by estab-
lished water treatment methods. Their daily consumption thereby, presents
a potential threat to the people's health.
We know that in the absence of adequate planning, supervision and man-
agement, a proliferation of water supply systems has grown up to serve
metropolitan areas, many of which are too small for efficient or safe opera-
tion, thereby resulting in hazards to the public health.
We know that inadequacies in the quality of drinking water and in the
construction, operation and maintenance of drinking water supply systems
have allowed the occurrence of disease outbreaks and that increased surveil-
lance and attention to drinking water supply systems is needed to control
and prevent public health hazards and to protect the health of the people.
We know that in many areas of the country, water shortages will necessi-
tate thorough consideration of the reclamation and reuse of waste waters
-------
112 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and that the health impacts and aspects of such reuse for drinking and other
human purposes must be investigated and evaluated.
All people should be served by adequate quantities of safe water for drink-
ing and other human uses and where public water supply systems are
involved, these systems should provide service meeting public health require-
ments.
Federal assistance and leadership is essential for training, research and
development, for stimulating State water hygiene programs and for the solu-
tion of regional, interstate or metropolitan area water supply problems.
We simply do not have today, an adequate National water hygiene pro-
gram. The President's plan for reorganization of our environmental agencies,
however, does at least provide an outstanding opportunity to overcome past
mistakes by setting a high priority on planning and implementation of a
required active program.
Therefore, the National Water Well Association urges Congress in its
future deliberations to authorize comprehensive plans and appropriate
required funds to establish this vitally important environmental program.
Furthermore, we believe within the framework of this committee's consid-
eration of the reorganization plan, that a strong recommendation should be
made to establish a major organizational division within EPA to be charged
with responsibility for providing safe drinking water of the highest quality
to the American public.
As the President and Congress engage in an effort to provide environmental
protection for our present future generations, we feel it necessary to empha-
size this overwhelming need for an organizational entity within EPA, dedi-
cated to man's healthful use of water. A firm Congressional recommendation
on this issue is necessary now or we may find ourselves faced with the same
old problems and inadequacies under the guise of a new administrative agency.
[p. 215]
l.ld HEARINGS ON REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF
1970 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOV-
ERNMENT OPERATIONS, 91ST CONG., 2D SESS. (1970)
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970
(Environmental Protection Agency)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1970
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
REORGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 113
Present: Representatives John A. Blatnik, Benjamin S. Rosen-
thai, Chet Holifield, John N. Erlenborn, Clarence J. Brown, and
Paul Findley.
Also present: Elmer W. Henderson, subcommittee counsel; Her-
bert Roback, staff administrator, Military Operations Subcommit-
tee ; James A. Lanigan, general counsel; J. Philip Carlson, minor-
ity counsel; and William H. Copenhaver, minority professional
staff, Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. BLATNIK. The Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative
Reorganization will come to order.
We meet in public session to hold hearings to consider President
Nixon's Reorganization Plans Nog. 3 and 4 of 1970, submitted to
the Congress on July 9 and subsequently, under the Rules of the
House, referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
The Reorganization Act permits such plans to become law after
60 days unless either the House or the Senate has passed a resolu-
tion of disapproval. No such resolution has been filed to date.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 creates an Environmental Protection
Agency which will include by transfer the Federal Water Quality
Administration from the Department of the Interior, the National
Air Pollution Control Administration from HEW and certain
other scattered environmental functions.
Reorganization Plan No. 4 creates a National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce
that will include the Environmental Science Services Administra-
tion, now in Commerce, and certain other programs and agencies
by transfer.
Both of these plans deal with our physical environment and the
President tells us they are necessary for its protection and preser-
vation. In his message, however, he said that in proposing the new
Environmental Protection Agency as a separate body, he made an
exception to one of his own principles; that is, that new independ-
ent agencies normally should not be created. In this case, however,
[p.l]
he advised us that "the arguments against placing environmental
protection activities under the jurisdiction of one or another of
the existing departments are compelling." One of the purposes of
these hearings is to learn what those compelling arguments hap-
pen to be.
Likewise, the subcommittee feels that in view of the importance
of this reorganization proposal, that as complete a record of testi-
mony and as many answers to as many questions as possible be
-------
114 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
made available in writing and an official committee print be made
available to the Members of the Congress and to all those in the
public interested in this very important sector.
This subcommittee is fully aware of the importance of effective
governmental action against pollution and of protection for the
environment. We need to be certain, however, that reorganization
of these functions will serve a proper purpose, will improve condi-
tions and are a more effective and related mechanism to achieve
these ends. In the area of water pollution alone, I have lived
through a number of transfers and reorganizations and, frankly, I
must look upon these changes with a certain degree of skepticism.
But we shall approach these plans with open minds and note the
justifications that are presented by the administration witnesses.
To provide an orderly record we are considering the pending
plans separately: Plan 3 this week and Plan 4 next week. After-
wards we will have additional hearings on each plan as needed.
We will make every effort, however, to accommodate those who
testify on both plans and to avoid inconvenience, if at all possible.
Plan 3 had its genesis in the President's Advisory Council on
Executive Organization. Roy Ash, the chairman of the Council,
was unable to appear today but will be with us on Thursday.
We also have had the opportunity and the privilege of meeting
with Mr. Ash and most members of his advisory council in pre-
vious discussion sessions.
[P. 2]
[Omitted pages are reprint of the President's message and Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970.]
Mr. BLATNIK. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Russell
Train, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. Train, we welcome you here this morning. We are aware of
your record of competence in this area and look forward with
special interest to your testimony.
Before we begin, may we at this point, without objection, have
in the record, for the purpose of those who shall read the record, a
biographical sketch of our first witness ?
(The biographical sketch referred to follows:)
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF RUSSELL E. TRAIN
Russell E. Train became Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality,
February 9,1970.
Born in Washington, D.C., in 1920, Train has served in all three major
branches of the national Government, executive, legislative and judicial.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 115
He began as an attorney for the Joint Congressional Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation in 1947, and became Clerk and then Minority Advisor
to the House Ways and Means Committee in 1953-56. From 1956 to 1957
[p. HI
he headed the Treasury Department's tax legislative staff.
In 1957, Train was appointed to the Tax Court of the United States by
President Eisenhower. He was reappointed to a full 12-year term in 1959.
Train became active in conservation work while serving on the Tax Court.
He founded and became the first president of the African Wildlife Leader-
ship Foundation, which led to participation in the work of other conservation
groups at home and abroad. On August 1, 1965, he resigned from the Tax
Court to become president of The Conservation Foundation, a nonprofit re-
search, education and information organization concerned with a broad range
of environmental matters.
While president of The Conservation Foundation, Train was named by
President Johnson to membership on the National Water Commission in 1968.
Following the elections of that year, President-elect Nixon appointed him
chairman of a special task force to advise the incoming Administration on
environmental problems.
Train resigned from the Conservation Foundation after being nominated
Under Secretary of the Interior in early 1969.
He holds a B.A. degree from Princeton University and a law degree from
Columbia. He served in the Army from 1941 to 1946, rising to the rank of
Major. Mrs. Train is the former Aileen Bowdoin; they have four children.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Train, before you get to your statement—I
have a copy of that statement and had an opportunity to go
through it last evening. Could you tell the subcommittee what
authority your Council has and how you and your Council will
operate with the proposed new Environmental Protection Agency
if that agency is approved ?
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON EN-
VIRONMENTAL QUALITY; ACCOMPANIED BY TIMOTHY B. ATKE-
SON, GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. TRAIN. The authority and functions of the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality are set out by the National Environmental Pol-
icy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, and by Public Law 91-224,
the Environmental Quality Improvement Act that was signed into
law early in April.
These have been spelled out in greater detail by the President in
an executive order earlier this year. The functions of the Council
are to coordinate the environmental programs of the Federal Gov-
ernment, to review and evaluate all other Federal programs that
have an impact on the environment, to advise the President on
-------
116 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
environmental policy, to assist the President in making proposals
to the Congress in the field of environment, to assist the President
in preparing an annual report to the Congress on the state of the
environment.
Those, very broadly speaking, I believe, cover the functions of
the Council.
Our relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency
will be exceedingly important. The President has pointed out in
his message of transmittal of Reorganization Plan No. 3 that our
Council and the Agency would maintain a very close working
relationship. Likewise, the President has indicated that the Ad-
ministrator of the Agency would assist the Council in its develop-
ment of policy recommendations to the President in the field of
pollution.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
[P. 12]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Let me understand this, if I may momentarily
interrupt. The Environmental Council will continue?
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. In other words, it is not abolished and this Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency is to be considered an operating
agency and the Council a policymaking agency ?
Mr. TRAIN. That is generally a correct statement, sir.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is this paralleled anywhere else in the
Government? Does the administrator of an agency or department
usually recommend policy from the basis of his experience and
operation ?
Mr. TRAIN. What I would expect—
Mr. HOLIFIELD. For instance, the Secretary of State would rec-
ommend policy to the President on treaty matters or any other
international matters. The Agriculture Secretary would recom-
mend policy based on his actual experience in the operation of
different programs. I am a bit unclear as to why the Council
should not have been abolished along with the Federal Radiation
Council, which was abolished and its functions transferred over to
the Environmental Protection Agency. It seems to me this is a
proliferation of agencies certainly doing the same thing. It makes
two exist where one existed before. If you combine them with
other agencies, then you still have policy divorced from the operat-
ing level.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 117
I can see here an operating agency being set up that must go
through the Environmental Council to obtain its policy, and they
in turn stand between the operating agency with the experience on
this program and the President.
Here you have another step in the bureaucratic ladder which
people have to climb in order to obtain the results that they want.
Will you explain to me why that is not so ?
Mr. TRAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. Holifield, I will be delighted to com-
ment on those questions. There is no suggestion in the reorganiza-
tion plan that the Administrator of EPA would not make policy
recommendations directly to the President. The Administrator of
the EPA would report directly to the President, and I did not
mean to suggest that the Administrator of EPA would not have
responsibility for making policy recommendations in the field of
his agency's particular operating responsibilities.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Where does the constructive contribution of the
Council come in if EPA can go directly to the President with their
recommendations? Where does your Council come into this, and
why does the Environmental Council cover a much broader field
than the Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. TRAIN. Yes, Mr. Holifield. The scope of the responsibilities
of the Council on Environmental Quality go far beyond the scope
of the functions of the new Environmental Protection Agency. If I
may spell that out a bit, I think we are all aware that environmen-
tal effects exist in almost every program conducted by the Federal
Government, whether in the Department of Transportation,
Atomic Energy Commission, the Agency for International Devel-
opment in the Department of State, HEW, Interior—they all have
very important environmentally related programs, including the
Department of Defense and, very specifically, the Corps of Engi-
neers.
[p. 13]
The responsibility of the Council extends to all of these activi-
ties of the Federal Government. The responsibilities of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency extend only to those specific pollu-
tion functions transferred by the proposed reorganization plan.
These deal, generally speaking, with the control of hazardous pol-
lutants in the environment. The responsibilities of the Council, on
the other hand, go far beyond pollution. It extends to land use, to
population concerns, a wide range of Federal interests that affect
the environment generally. It is intended that the Council will
continue to exercise these functions for the President.
-------
118 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You concede that the Council has a much wider
field of responsibility, and possibly a field of coordination, not only
of the EPA but of the Defense Department and any other depart-
ment which has programs affecting the environment?
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.
The Council at the present time, for example, receives state-
ments from all Federal agencies with respect to their proposals
for legislation and for other major actions which affect the envi-
ronment. These statements spell out in detail the nature of the
potential impact on the environment, the alternatives to the pro-
posed action, the long-range costs compared to short-range bene-
fits.
These statements are reviewed by the Council, discussed by the
Council with the operating agencies, and the whole effort as in-
tended by the Environmental Policy Act is to insure to the extent
possible that all agencies of the Federal Government take into
appropriate account environmental factors in all of their planning
and decision-making.
This is a major function of the Council which would, of course,
not be a function of the proposed new agency.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Then there is an admission that this Environ-
mental Protection Agency is confined to certain areas and does not
in any way cover the whole problem of environmental purification,
or whatever you want to call it; it is built up in the minds of many
people that this agency is going to cover the universe, you might
say, in the field of pollution. As your testimony indicates, it cer-
tainly is not in complete control of the problem that faces us. So,
if it is not in complete control, then there must be someone who
has to coordinate the programs and policies of this agency with all
of those relating to the environment that exists in other parts of
the Government?
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct, sir.
As I indicated earlier, environmental factors exist in practically
all operating programs of the Federal Government. If it were
attempted to bring all of these together into one agency, we would
end up with the entire Government in one agency and then would
have to reorganize that into some kind of divisions. This was not a
practical approach.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Assuming that you have responsibility and over-
all coordination of all environmental pollution sources and juris-
dictions by the Federal Government, what peculiar use will this
agency be, what advantage will it give to you in coordination over
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 119
the present system, where you would also coordinate, I would
assume, all these different programs ?
[P. 14]
Mr. TRAIN. In the particular areas transferred to the new
agency, particularly water pollution abatement, air pollution
abatement, pesticide regulation, radiation standard setting, and
solid waste management more than mere coordination will be
made possible by the reorganization. As time goes on we would
foresee actual integration of some of these functions; particularly,
I believe, in the areas of air and water pollution and solid wastes,
where these three kinds of pollution frequently arise from the
same source.
The reorganization will make possible, for example, the func-
tional integration of research covering all environmental pollu-
tants in one research program. This is something, of course, that
cannot be achieved simply by coordination of separate programs
so that the new agency will have a very positive potential for
strengthening these programs through functional integration as
time goes on.
This is the great promise, I think, of the new agency.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Train, I think it would be proper to continue
discussion of this point in an orderly fashion from the last ques-
tion propounded by the gentleman from California. Would you
then read your statement which would explain the concept of one
comprehensive interrelated departmental agency and also give us
the reason why this separate agency is necessary? That is the
thrust of the two main points of your testimony, is it not?
Mr. TRAIN. That is right.
Mr. BLATNIK. Give us a brief capsule summary of the testimony
and proceed with your testimony.
Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Blatnik, members of the subcommittee, it is a plea-
sure to have this opportunity to discuss with you the President's
proposal for the creation of an Environmental Protection Agency
—EPA—set out in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. I know
that many of you have had extensive experience dealing with
environmental protection problems which will be valuable back-
ground for the consideration of this proposal.
I might add, following my testimony there are a number of
other Government witnesses scheduled who have direct program
experience and responsibility in the area of the transfers recom-
mended here. Probably these gentlemen will be able to answer
-------
120 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
questions that I perhaps cannot in some of the specific program
areas.
President Nixon has established environmental quality as a
priority objective of this administration. In his state of the Union
message of last January, he declared the goal of the seventies to be
"a new quality of life in America." On February 10, he sent the
Congress a message on environment which proposed a comprehen-
sive, 37-point program for environmental improvement, including
some 23 specific proposals for legislation. Most of these dealt with
urgently needed improvements in our air and water pollution con-
trol programs, including strengthened enforcement procedures.
During the 6 months that have followed, the President has sent
a series of environmental messages to the Congress proposing:
A 10-point program dealing with oil spills in marine trans-
portation ;
[p. 15]
A program to bring to an end the dumping of dredged
spoils in the Great Lakes and announcing a study of the
problem of ocean disposal of wastes;
A $4.25-per-pound tax on lead in gasoline; and
The reacquisition of 20 oil leases off Santa Barbara, Calif.,
leading to the establishment of a marine sanctuary in that
area.
In his message on environment, the President stated that he was
directing his Advisory Council on Executive Organization to study
and report on the organization of environmental programs. The
proposals now before Congress are the result of this Presidential
initiative.
The United States is now committed—by statute, by policy, and
by the awakened insistence of our citizens—to the goal of a high-
quality environment for human life. Such a goal calls for the
dedication of major resources of personnel, time, and money. If
these resources are not to be frittered away in scattered, piece-
meal programs—if we are truly to mount a coordinated attack on
the problems of the environment—then we must create an effec-
tive institutional base for sound environmental management.
I personally am convinced that the proposed Environmental
Protection Agency is of crucial importance to the effectiveness of
our pollution-abatement efforts. The current dispersion of Federal
programs involved in attacking pollution problems has developed
piecemeal over the years, and we are not at present organized to
mount the kind of sustained, coordinated, high-priority effort
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 121
which we know is needed. Pollution has become everybody's prob-
lem but the responsibility for control is still divided. The Presi-
dent's proposal makes it the basic responsibility of a single
agency. This will allow the President, the Congress, and the Amer-
ican people to expect and require unified management of our pollu-
tion-control programs.
Reorganization inevitably produces its own stresses and strains,
and the current plan will doubtless prove no exception. However,
careful attention is being given to minimizing such effects, and
there is no reason for delaying now a reorganization which is long
overdue. Indeed, continuation of the present fragmentation of
Federal anti-pollution responsibilities will only aggravate existing
problems. The time to make corrections is now, not later.
DESCRIPTION OF REORGANIZATION
Reorganization Plan No. 3 would create the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency which will be independent of any cabinet agency,
similar to NASA or the Atomic Energy Commission. EPA would
be headed by an Administrator who would be compensated at a
level comparable to the heads of NASA and AEC. It would take
over certain pollution control responsibilities now located in six
different departments and agencies, and would have primary re-
sponsibility for control of air and water pollution and solid
wastes, and for controlling the environmental effects of pesticides
and radiation.
EPA has estimated a fiscal year 1971 budget of $1.4 billion and
approximately 5,650 personnel.
The following authorities and programs would be transferred to
the new agency:
[p. 16]
For air pollution control—the authorities contained in the
Clean Air Act, as amended, and the National Air Pollution
Control Administration now in HEW;
For water pollution control—the authorities contained in
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; the
Federal Water Quality Administration now in the Depart-
ment of the Interior; and the water hygiene program of the
Environmental Control Administration, HEW;
For solid wastes disposal—the authority given to HEW in
the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, and the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, HEW;
-------
122 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
For pesticides—the authorities, mostly related to register-
ing pesticides, contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act, now administered by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture; part of the authority of the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to conduct research on the effect
of pesticides on fish and wildlife; the authority of the Food
and Drug Administration to set pesticide tolerance levels on
food; and the Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory of the Bu-
reau of Commercial Fisheries;
For radiation—the authorities and functions of the Federal
Radiation Council; the authority under the Atomic Energy
Act to set standards for the emission of radiation to the
general environment; and portions of the Bureau of Radiolog-
ical Health in HEW; and
For general purposes—the authority given to the Council
on Environmental Quality by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 to conduct research on ecological systems.
I would like to explain why we feel that such a major reorgani-
zation is so necessary.
The reasons for such a major reorganization are compelling.
REASONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION
The current organization of the Federal Government to deal
with pollution suffers from two obvious problems. First, for many
particular kinds of pollution a number of different Federal agen-
cies have overlapping or closely related responsibilities. Three
Federal departments—Agriculture, HEW, and Interior—are di-
rectly involved in regulating pesticides; and similarly a number of
agencies have some responsibility for radiation problems. Second,
the organizational basis for controlling pollution is not consistent
or adequate. The two largest agencies, the Federal Water Quality
Administration and the National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, are organized on the basis of the media—air or water—
through which pollutants travel. The other pollution control pro-
grams, on the other hand, generally are organized on the basis of
particular pollutants—pesticides, radioactive materials, and solid
wastes. Confusion results today, for example, about the extent to
which air and water pollution control agencies are responsible for
radioactive materials and pesticides when these materials appear
in air or water.
The programs to deal with pesticides and radiation were devel-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 123
oped in part because these two kinds of pollutants did not fit
neatly into the categories of air and water pollution. Pesticides
[P. 171
and radiation are found in air and water, and on the land. We
expect pollution-control problems of the future will increasingly
be of this kind. They will involve toxic chemicals and metals which
are found in all media, and which thus run counter to the air and
water pollution organization of the Government. The current
problems with mercury and polychlorinated biphenols are an indi-
cation of what lies ahead.
Some pollution problems remain unrecognized because of gaps
in agency jurisdiction or because no one agency has clear lead
responsibility. With its broad responsibility for environmental pol-
lution control, the Environmental Protection Agency would
greatly improve our ability to recognize and to take action on
"new" problems, such as noise. Pollution problems of the future
will increasingly cut across the jurisdiction of existing depart-
ments, making the need for a unified pollution-control agency even
more imperative.
Another problem of present Federal organization should be
noted. Agencies which have responsibility for promoting a partic-
ular resource or activity also have responsibility for regulating
the environmental effects of this activity. The two clear examples
of this potential conflict of interest are the Department of Agri-
culture's regulation of pesticides and the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion's regulation of radiation levels. Regardless of how good a job
these agencies do, the public is increasingly questioning the vest-
ing of promotional and regulatory powers in the same agency. The
Environmental Protection Agency, by assuming these regulatory
functions, should help restore public confidence in our ability to
control pollution from these sources.
The existence of a unified pollution-control agency should also
greatly clarify the Federal Government's relations with State and
local governments, and with private industry. More than half the
States, and many localities, already have a single agency responsi-
ble for all forms of pollution. A number of others are considering
establishing such an agency. In the cases where a unified agency
exists, the differing Federal requirements are a significant source
of irritation and inefficiency. Several States reported to the Ash
Council that the existing Federal organization was a factor hold-
ing back their plans to consolidate pollution-control programs.
Industry pollution-control efforts will also benefit from the crea-
-------
124 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tion of EPA. A manager responsible for controlling pollution from
his firm must now go to several agencies to find out what action
his firm must take. The standards and enforcement actions to
which he is subject are uncoordinated and sometimes conflicting.
The air pollution agency tells him how to control air pollution, and
the water pollution agency how to control water pollution. But
nobody is in a position to consider the entire range of environmen-
tal standards that will affect a firm's operations. Since many types
of plants can dispose of the same wastes in the air, the water, or
as solid waste, this lack of coordination can result in significantly
higher costs to the firm and to society as a whole.
FUNCTIONS OF THE NEW AGENCY
As you well know, a reorganization plan cannot create any new
legal authorities or functions. Therefore, the functions of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, when it comes into being, will be
[p. 18]
the same as those of its constituent parts. However, the new
agency will be able to perform existing functions better, and will
also be able to undertake new activities which are not easily done
under the existing structure.
The key functions in pollution control are standards-setting and
enforcement. Standards provide the goals of the control program,
the basis for enforcement actions, and the measure of the pro-
gram's progress.
Standards should be based on the total amount of a given pollu-
tant to which humans or some element of the environment are
exposed, even though the standards apply to a particular medium.
Lead, for example, may reach humans through the air or the
water, but the key question is how much comes from all sources
together. It is very difficult to deal with this problem under the
current fragmented organization. As the pollutants of primary
concern to the Government increasingly cut across media lines,
this problem of setting standards will become more acute.
Even in those areas where the Government is not organized on
the basis of air or water pollution—as, for example, in the case of
pesticides and radiation control—the need to regulate the total
allowable exposure from different sources is becoming apparent.
This can only be done by a consolidated agency.
The enforcement function will also be improved in several re-
spects. Perhaps most important, the way will be cleared for for-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 125
mulating and applying the best overall strategy for controlling
particular pollution problems. The new agency will be able to
examine the path of a pollutant through the total environment and
determine at what point control measures can be most effectively
and efficiently applied. For example, it may be that in some cases a
pollutant can best be controlled by exercising control before it
enters the environment, as is now done with pesticides.
Enforcement will also benefit from the more efficient relations
with State and local governments, and with the private sector.
Monitoring and surveillance will be improved and made more
effective, for example, by simultaneously monitoring a river for
pesticides, radiation, and other water pollutants. New hazards will
be recognized more rapidly by a coordinated monitoring system.
Research will be similarly strengthened. Research on the health
effects of pollution will be able to take into account the exposure to
a given pollutant from all sources. Research on ecological effects
must, almost by definition, consider the interrelated parts of the
environment, since ecology is to a great extent the study of such
interrelationships. It will be far easier to conduct ecological stud-
ies in an agency which is not limited to one particular medium or
pollutant.
ORGANIZATION OF EPA
The internal organization of the Environmental Protection
Agency has not been finally determined and should not be until the
head of the agency is named and has had an opportunity to weigh
the various alternatives. An important part of the responsibilities
of the Administrator of EPA will be to develop the most effective
organization of his resources.
[P. 19]
One factor which will weigh heavily on the new Administrator
is the necessity of avoiding any delay or disruption of ongoing
pollution-abatement programs. We are taking every step possible
to assure that such disruption does not occur. The new agency will
be acquiring a large number of experienced personnel, which will
ease the problems of transition. As Mr. Dwight Ink will describe
in greater detail, the administration has sent to the Congress
legislation designed to facilitate the transfer of members of the
Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to the new agency.
One other fact relevant to the problems of transition is worth
noting. The major agencies which would be transferred to EPA
are enthusiastic about the reorganization plan. Their personnel
-------
126 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
know that the plan represents recognition of the critical impor-
tance of the pollution-control functions. I am confident that the
reorganization will result in a substantial boost in morale.
Of course, those agencies will be in a better position to testify
directly to those matters than I.
The independent Environmental Protection Agency will hava a
sense of purpose, of thrust, and of publ;c commitment that is
impossible to achieve under present circumstances.
RELATION OF EPA TO CEQ
Our Council strongly supports the plan of reorganization. There
is no conflict between the missions of EPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality. Indeed, the two organizations will be mu-
tually reinforcing.
The Council is essentially a staff organization. It is not intended
to have operating responsibilities, and its functions are to advise
the President with respect to environmental policies and to coordi-
nate all activities of Federal agencies related to environmental
quality. EPA, on the other hand, will be responsible for executing
antipollution policies and for carrying out the many functions
involved in controlling pollution. It will assist the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality in developing and recommending to the Presi-
dent new policies for the protection of the environment.
There is also a difference in the scope of concern of the two
agencies. The Council is responsible for the environment, broadly
defined. This includes such subjects as population, land use, and
conservation. The new agency will focus specifically on pollution
control, which is only one part of the Council's responsibilities.
However, the creation of EPA will be a significant building block
in achieving the comprehensive view of environmental matters
which the Council has tried to encourage.
A PROPOSAL WHOSE TIME HAS COME
As the President has said, "We are determined that the decade
of the seventies will be known as the time when this country
regained a productive harmony between man and nature." Issues
of great priority and lasting significance tend to take institutional
form, and the Environmental Protection Agency is the institu-
tional manifestation of the priority and significance which this
Nation attaches to controlling environmental pollution.
[p. 20]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 127
This is a proposal whose time has come. Until just a few years
ago we considered pollution control as subordinate to other goals
of the Government. It was part of our health efforts or our water
resources policies or our aid to agriculture. This is no longer true.
While pollution control must integrally relate to these other goals
and policies, it also transcends them. It is part of our overall effort
to restore to the American people the environmental quality which
they deserve and are demanding. The Environmental Protection
Agency is responsive to this demand and to the vision of clean air
and water which lies behind the demand. It will provide us with
the unity and the leadership necessary to protect the environment.
I urge your support of this bold and farsighted proposal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Train, for your very impressive
testimony.
We do have gaps and, one, we want to get a better understand-
ing of why a separate agency is necessary.
Two, while intentions are good, it may not be as effective as is
claimed.
Three, why are any other functions that are directly related to
environment still left in other agencies ?
These questions are not in the form of protagonism or antago-
nism but a form of devil's advocate to try to get as many answers
to as many questions in these hearings to those of us on the
subcommittee, and others, so that we may have answers ready in
advance for further discussion. Obviously, we are going to have
debate on the floor of the House at some time or another with
regard to this agency.
The first question would be, Mr. Secretary—you are better able
to answer this, since one of your primary functions as head of the
President's Council on Environmental Quality is to advise the
President on programs—how much of this structure would you
recommend or advise? Would you be able to tell us now?
Mr. TRAIN. The primary responsibility to the President for the
development of proposals for improving the Federal Government's
organization for environmental management lay with the Presi-
dent's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, the Ash Coun-
cil.
Of course, Mr. Ash, when he testifies, will be able to inform the
subcommittee in greater detail of the operations of his Council.
From the beginning of the work of the Council, which of course
goes back now many months, prior to the time in fact that the
Council on Environmental Quality came into existence, I person-
-------
128 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ally had contact with their work. As Under Secretary of the Inte-
rior I was among those whom members of the Ash Council and
staff of the Ash Council contacted and met with on a number of
occasions.
I believe that—here again Mr. Ash can testify to this—the
Council and members of the staff met with and interviewed some
180 individuals both in Government and outside of Government on
this very important area of concern.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Train, may I pause at this point? You stated
that the staff of the Ash Advisory Council on Executive Organiza-
tion, in their intensive study of this proposal creating a new Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, concurred, or discussed, or con-
sulted and advised, with 185 people.
[p. 21]
Mr. TRAIN. About 180 people is my information.
Mr. BLATNIK. Where were these people located—entirely in the
executive branch ?
Mr. TRAIN. Of course, I am giving you hearsay testimony, Mr.
Chairman. My understanding is that these are people both in
Government and outside of Government, in universities and in
private organizations.
Mr. BLATNIK. I don't want to press you on this, because perhaps
you were not involved. But the question is, very frankly, Mr.
Secretary—and I am sure that we will get the answers later on as
we get to other witnesses—who was being consulted ?
No one either in the House or Senate, as far as I know, outside
of the few witnesses we have had; but on the working level we
have some very first-rate experts in both the Senate and House
who were not consulted on any one of these major areas, certainly
not on water.
The House started this whole water program. There is a major
updating. Seventy-five percent of the agency is essentially a wa-
ter-protection agency, and yet not one single staff member, includ-
ing those who were in this water battle from the very beginning,
were consulted or their opinions sought in connection with this
subject.
Would it be more effective to move this water agency out of the
Department of Interior, where it is under an Assistant Secretary
of the Interior ? Would it be more effective in a separate agency or
not ? We don't claim any particular pride of authorship or particu-
lar monopoly in connection with these, but we do have quite a
body of testimony and experience.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 129
As recently as 10 years ago, when the current President was
Vice President, the President vetoed a bill or amendment. The
original Water Pollution Control Act was passed in 1956, and in
1960, as I recall—I will get the exact time of the veto message—.
the President said it was essentially a local problem which could
be dealt with primarily through grants to municipalities; that it
was not necessary and was perhaps undesirable.
The policy now is that pollution is a national problem requiring
an enormous, all-out effort by the Federal Government to save
municipalities and districts on a grant program which 10 years
ago was assaulted with great vigor by the administration.
To be sure, the Congress in establishing policy was far ahead of
both the agencies and the administration.
On the matter of grants, the Congress established grants in
1956 and sought to increase them in 1960, again increased them in
1961, and was supported by that administration. It continued this
battle until 1966, 4 years ago, when we realized we had gradually
to escalate our financial support to make the water pollution pro-
gram meaningful. With an almost unanimous vote, with only 2 or
3 Congressmen voting in objection to the amendments in 1966, we
escalated the authorization from $200-plus million to $450 million
to $700 million for the year before last, to $1 billion for last year,
fiscal year 1970, and to $1% billion for this year.
The administration, covering both parties, for it is a nonpar-
tisan matter—year before last the Johnson administration request
for funds was $214 million when the Congress had already author-
ized $700 million. Last year this present administration requested
[p. 22]
again the same amount, $214 million, and the Congress had al-
ready recommended an escalated amount at $1 billion.
This year, as I recall—I am subj ect to correction—I believe the
administration asked for no funds from Congress after an author-
ization for 4 years. This last year, in order to nail down the
proposition that pollution was important and had to bs met head
on, the Congress took the Bureau of the Budget's or the adminis-
tration's recommended figure of $214 million and the Subcommit-
tee on Appropriations raised that to $400 million.
In a very difficult situation with inflation, high taxes, and pres-
sures for economy, the full Committee on Appropriations took the
unprecedented action of raising the $400 million to $600 million.
Then the battle was carried to the floor of the House. On the
teller vote, out of almost 300 votes, a very large teller vote, to be
-------
130 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
exact, as I recall, 298 Members of the House walked down the aisle
on the issue of whether or not the $600' million should not be
raised to $1 billion. It was lost by two scant votes.
Later on, the Senate appropriated $1 billion, and in conference
that was set at $700 million.
Th's year the Congress went ahead and—again, in a very diffi-
cult fiscal, tax, and inflationary situation facing the country—in
its judgment, voted a full $1 billion appropriation for the pro-
gram.
I think the Congress has been far ahead of the administration
or any of the executive agencies for all of these years. We are
puzzled as to why so little attention was paid to the 180 or 185
so-called experts, both in the Government and outside; and why so
little attention was paid to those of us who established this pro-
gram and who carried on this fight over a period of many years
and nailed down this policy which now finally the administration
accepts as important.
Mr. Train, you have listed on the chart before us the programs
which would be incorporated into this agency. If you have the
information, you may answer this. I do not necessarily ask that
you do so now. The question is not necessarily directed to you, but
to all witnesses.
We would like a list of how many environmental functions,
directly or partially or peripherally related to the agency's work,
are still left in the other agencies: the one on pesticides, for
example; in fish and wildlife, for example; or the technological
research function in the Department of Transportation dealing
with noise pollution—a very important factor which is not listed
here. I have a list of about 18 important areas of research work
and other activities dealing with environmental protection which
are still left in the agencies. Would you not add to proliferation by
removing part of the function from an agency and leaving another
part in the agency? You have a more divided and spread-out
operation than you think you are getting when you say you are
concentrating all these interrelated programs within a comprehen-
sive, coordinated, single agency.
Have you any response to make on what environmental func-
tions are now left in the agencies ?
Mr. TRAIN. I do not have such a list before me, Mr. Chairman.
It can certainly be prepared and submitted for the record, and
perhaps Mr. Ink addresses himself to that question in his testi-
mony.
[P. 23]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 131
As I pointed out earlier, there is a large number of environmen-
tally related activities that exist in practically all Federal agen-
cies. A great many of these, of course, are left where they are. In
most cases where they are integrally related to the program re-
sponsibility of the agency concerned and are more related to that
program responsibility than to pollution prevention, the program
is left where it is, particularly if it is a fairly small one.
I do not think there is any suggestion made that the reorganiza-
tion proposed here is the last word and the final improvement in
our organization for environmental management in the Federal
Government. There are a number of programs about which a
question could be raised, such as noise. This is an area where
Federal programs are in a very embryonic stage. I think there is
only one specific statutory program, and that is in the Federal
Aviation Agency, relating to aircraft noise. It seems a mistake in
this very early developmental stage to subject the field of noise to
reorganization.
At the same time, the President has pointed out in his message
that the existence of the new agency would make it quite appropri-
ate for it to become the focal point for noise pollution programs as
they develop. I think that is probably the point to be made with
respect to other programs.
Mr. BLATNIK. You say, very properly, that the form or composi-
tion of the Environmental Protection Agency has not been finally
determined and should not be until the head of the Agency has
been named. Obviously, this is just a start, as you have indicated.
In my judgment, with no reflection on you at all, sir, but on those
who put this program together, a great deal more can be done to
make the Agency much more comprehensive and unified. The time
spent on that could have been much better served than by this
very elementary beginning.
As we add programs and change policies, how can we be sure
programs established by Congress will be carried out and not
buried in organizations through excessive reorganization? Per-
haps that question could be more appropriately directed to the
Bureau of the Budget witness.
Mr. TRAIN. I do not see, Mr. Chairman, why such a situation
would be any more likely to arise under the reorganization than
under the existing location of the functions. The appropriate con-
gressional committees will continue to have their legislative over-
sight function. I would imagine that the organization and placing
of these responsibilities in one single independent agency would
result in just the opposite effect. Indeed, the conduct of these
-------
132 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
responsibilities will be very visible to the public eye and will be
much more subject, I would believe, to public surveillance and
congressional surveillance and executive surveillance by the Presi-
dent than is possible at the present time.
Mr. BLATNIK. You make a good point. It would be one single
comprehensive agency, you suggest, similar to the Atomic Energy
Commission. My senior colleague, Mr. Holifield, for whom we have
a good deal of respect, helped to establish that program over a
period of many years. There the goals were very clearcut. The
type of talent was specifically known. Scientific, creative ingenu-
ity, enormous technical and scientific problems, and enormous
amounts of money were required. The story of NASA is one of
trial and tribulations, one of birth pains and growing pains. There
were shifts of the administrative and organizational structures,
changes within the organization, which resulted in a tragedy
which was not very adequately explained, even after the Congress
went to great pains to find why this should have happened.
[p. 24]
Here you had a program which was clearly visible and, after a
long period of time and after great effort, sweat, blood, tears,
pain, and anguish, it has developed into one of the most frighten-
ing achievements in the history of mankind: that man can land on
the moon and return safely.
We are not satisfied with NASA by itself. It is like the Red-
skins. There is no question of their first-rate coach, of whom the
State of Minnesota is proud. Or like the Senators, with one of the
outstanding historic baseball leaders of all time in the history of
the game as their manager. There is no question about the good
intentions, dedication, self-discipline, and determination of the
players. There is no question even that the uniforms are attrac-
tive. They have everything, but they cannot hit the ball.
Ninety percent of these agencies are concerned with water.
After repeated objections of the administration over a 10-year
period, now the administration tells us what a good program the
water program is. I say with a little pride—we do not want to
fault the administrations, both the Republican earlier and the
Democratic later, but they were slower. We developed the idea of
the Headstart program in Congress. At least, these programs are
here, but we want to go ahead and continue with the program.
These are a few of the many questions we have. To repeat, those
testifying later on can probably address themselves to it.
Mr. TRAIN. May I make a brief comment on this point, not on
the performance of the Redskins, but on the new Agency. It does
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 133
look as if it will go through growing pains. The field of environ-
ment is a relatively new one. The environment has been with us
for a long time, but our concern for the problems is relatively new
and our serious attention to them is even newer.
I would assume that we are dealing here with what will prove to
be an evolving field. As I said earlier, I would not for a moment
suggest that the reorganization proposed now will be the last
word, not at all. New problems will arise. New experience will be
obtained.
I am sure, as I say, that these developments will evolve as time
goes on. This, I think, again argues for not trying at this time to
sweep every possible environmentally related program in the Fed-
eral Government into one new agency, but to make a more nar-
rowly based—although I think still very comprehensive—ap-
proach to the problem. It is a start, and a very important start.
Mr. BLATNIK. It is a start.
Let us take dollars as a measure, not that these are absolutely
reliable, but they are a fairly good yardstick or measure of the
magnitude of the spread of the programs. We have now an Agency
for the total environment. These figures are reasonably accurate.
Here is a comprehensive Agency, and the proposed budget for all
its functions gives some measure of magnitude. Compared to the
$80 billion a year Defense effort, your effort will be about $1.4
billion. Of that, almost 90 percent or possibly 85 percent, a lop-
sided proportion, $1.2 billion, will go for water alone. The rest of
it, some $200 million, will be spread over air pollution, Bureau of
Water Hygiene, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Pesticides,
Radiation. I do not see anything on fertilizer or chemicals in soil
which leach off and contribute to the pollution problem in water.
Are there not many other environmental programs that have
not been funded? I would bet there are more than $200 million
[P. 25]
worth of environmental activities outside of those listed here for
the proposed agency.
Mr. TRAIN. I would not want to bet with you on it, Mr. Chair-
man, but I have no reason to believe you are not right. A great
many activities of lesser importance are left in other agencies.
What they would add up to dollarwise, I do not know. The Federal
Water Quality Administration budget for 1971 I think is $1.233
billion. So, as you point out, it will represent a very large propor-
tion of the total. Most of that, of course, is taken up by the waste
treatment facilities grant program, and the other programs which
-------
134
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
are involved here do not involve that same kind of very large
capital outlay granting program.
I would suspect when you bring it down to enforcement and
standard-setting, there isn't quite the same imbalance as the total
dollar figures would suggest.
Mr. BLATNIK. In the water program you have over $100 million
for research alone. There has been a fantastic advance in synthet-
ics and chemical compounds of all types—in the clothes you wear,
the food you eat, the materials you use, such as paint. In pharma-
cology alone, easily three-fourths of the medicines and prescrip-
tions which doctors write in America today are for medical com-
pounds that did not exist and were not used 20 years ago. There
has been a fabulous advance and increase in chemical structures.
The water program alone has $100 million for research, even
more than for enforcement.
(Following is a Summary of Estimated Personnel and Funding
under this reorganization:)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY '-SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONNEL AND FUNDING
[Dollars in thousands]
Agency and current function
1970 1971 President's request
Positions' Obligations Outlays Positions Obligations Outlays
HEW-
(Departmental totals for HEW)... (2,565) ($146,785) ($127,030) (2,625) ($157,602) ($151,372)
NAPCA
FDA (pesticides)
Solid waste management -
Water hygiene
Radiological health
Office of the Commissioner
(ECA) 3
Office of the Administrator
(EHS) «
Interior:
FWQA
Pesticides:
Label Review
Gulf Breeze Laboratory
USDA
Agriculture Research Service
Pesticides Regulation (PRO).
Monitoring (PPD) _.. -
AEC: Radiation Protection Standards.,
Federal Radiation Council All
functions
Total
1,055
265
206
160
551
129
199
2,421
9
20
294
26
3
4
5,322
102,662
8 443
15,275
2 701
12 277
1 920
3,507
615 600
188
551
4,286
714
75
132
768,331
81,357
7,599
14,502
2,431
11,049
1,728
8,364
258,000
175
551
3,857
571
67
119
390,370
1,141
272
206
160
508
127
211
2,669
9
20
435
26
3
4
5,791
112,118
10,733
15,336
2,344
11,051
1,913
4,107
1 233,300
216
551
6,668
714
75
144
1,399,270
107,400
9,660
15,305
2,110
9,946
1,722
5,229
650,000
200
551
6,001
571
67
130
808,892
1 These are preliminary estimates and are subject to change. These estimates do not Include portions of Buildings
and Facilities accounts which may be subject to transfer, for instance.
2 Full-time permanent positions authorized.
! 59 percent of the former personnel and dollars of the Office of the Commissioner (ECA).
1 86 percent of the former personnel and dollars of the Office of the Administrator (EHS).
[p. 26]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 135
Mr. BLATNIK. You speak of allowable standards. You can do a
lot of measuring and testing to find what is permissible and allow-
able. For example, we have worked on water pollution with able
men, and there were working pains and growing pains in that
program over the last 15 years. We suddenly found, out of the
clear blue sky, we had mercury poisoning; not in one section, but
in four major parts of the United States—the Northeast, the
Southeast, the South, and Midwest up in my area—involving at
least 8 or 10 States. I know that this mercury poisoning did not
begin 2 weeks ago yesterday, early in the morning. It has been
there for a heck of a long t'me.
No matter what the intentions are—and I do believe they are
sincere and honest—I am trying to point out that the complexity
of this environmental problem requires more than good intentions
and more than half-baked proposition which brings in partial
functions from many scattered agencies, leaving other parts of the
functions back in the agencies.
Have you any idea, Mr. Train, why this mercury poisoning went
undetected so long? Mercury is one of the easiest of the pollutants
to detect, one of the easiest to eliminate, and one of the most
deadly and devastating when in the body. How come our radar
scanning program did not detect this? Have you any comment on
that?
Mr. TRAIN. I think you had better ask later witnesses on this
one. I am not an expert in this field. From what I understand, I
think it has been pretty much assumed in the past that mercury
was largely an inert metal, and by itself as mercury is not a
dangerous substance. It will enter the water and fall to the bottom
and stay there, and not become toxic.
However, it has developed that mercury is to some extent bio-
logically degradable and forms methylmercury, or something of
that sort, which can be absorbed by the flesh of fish and other
living organisms, and becomes toxic.
Why this has not been discovered before, I do not know. The
Federal Water Quality Administration witnesses can perhaps give
you more detail on that problem.
I would agree with the chairman: There certainly is no assur-
ance that the mere fact of reorganization is going suddenly to
make all of our pollution abatement efforts a huge success. Reor-
ganization alone never can be looked to for that kind of instant
solution.
On the other hand, the reorganization, I assure the committee,
is far more than just some sort of window dressing. It will pro-
-------
136 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
vide the opportunity for far more effective coordination and func-
tional integration of the programs than is possible at the present
time.
I would also assure the committee, and you particularly, Mr.
Chairman, that, while the water pollution abatement program rep-
resents perhaps 80 percent or a higher percent of the total budget
of the proposed new agency at the beginning, it certainly poses no
threat to the appropriations or budget recommendations for the
water program. Historically, our experience has been that the
establishment of new independent agencies such as this, with the;r
single focus on areas of high public interest such as atomic energy
or the space program, has been that budgets go up, and we are
dealing here with a field in which public interest, public concern,
and the administration's commitment are high and rising all the
time.
[P. 27]
I am personally convinced that the level of spending, budget
requests by our Government in the field of environmental control,
will go up and will continue to go up for the foreseeable future. I
think the water pollution program will benefit, and I believe the
other pollution abatement programs will also benefit, but I do not
believe that any of them will suffer budgetwise by being brought
together.
Just to the contrary, I think a new sense of priority will be
given all these programs, in addition to which I believe that the
better coordination and integration will mean that the American
people will get more mileage for their dollars out of this program.
Mr. BLATNIK. Number 1, you do strongly feel that, although
more reorganization is to come as we gain experience in the pollu-
tion protection program, all these functions should be put in one
agency for the purpose not only of making it more visible, but of
giving you a better 3-dimensional view of the overall program
which touches on all areas of human activity—water, air, land,
food, and so forth. You do strongly believe that?
Mr. TRAIN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Even though we put it right up under the Cabinet
as the Water Agency now is, you think a single agency will give us
a more visible and a better 3-dimensional, comprehensive view of
the whole environmental program?
Mr. TRAIN. I think the placing of these pollution or environmen-
tal protection functions in a single separate agency very clearly
signals the importance which the President, the administration,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 137
and this Government attach to environmental quality. This is
highly important. I do not think it can be achieved by putting the
program along with a lot of other essentially unrelated programs
in any Cabinet agency. I think the form recommended here, as
earlier forms such as the Atomic Energy Commission took and
NASA has taken, will provide a very strong focus so far as public
attention is concerned and so far as administration priorities are
concerned. This will certainly extend to budget.
Mr. BLATNIK. You state on page 8:
Industry pollution control efforts will also benefit from the creation of
EPA. A manager responsible for controlling pollution from his firm must
now go to several agencies to find out what action his firm must take. The
standards and enforcement actions to which he is subject are uncoordinated
and sometimes conflicting.
But now he will be able to go to one agency.
I think that is a very good point. Congress is aware of that. I
think we passed a few such measures in this committee. One was
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, and another the Jo'nt
Funding Simplification Act. It is a very serious problem for mu-
nicipalities and States as well as for industry and citizens.
I like your comment on page 11. We do appreciate the efforts in
these various environmental fields. They are truly unsung heroes,
many working in basement rooms out of sight and out of mind,
but creating and doing enormously valuable efforts. On page 11,
when you refer to the personnel problem, you state that "the
major agencies which would be transferred to EPA are enthusias-
tic about the reorganization plan." You think it important, and
you want the talented and dedicated specialists to know that their
efforts are recognized as individuals.
[p. 28]
We think the confidence of Congress was expressed in the water
pollution control program when, in these adverse economy times,
we appropriated $1 billion just for the grant program alone. That
is a measure and indication of the confidence we have in the work
these able people are performing.
We have other questions. We thank you very much for the
contribution you have made, Mr. Train.
Are there any questions on this side?
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have a few, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Train, I am interested in knowing whether the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences was included. I as-
sume it was included, but, if not, why not?
-------
138 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. TRAIN. It is not included, Mr. Rosenthal. It will, of course,
continue as a broadly related research program. Perhaps others
can go into this in more detail, but it was felt, as I understand it,
that the research activities of the Institute extend well beyond the
direct pollution responsibilities that have been put in the new
agency, as, for example, with respect to occupational health haz-
ards which are largely left in other agencies.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Let me read from the HEW 1969 Annual Re-
port, as it seems to me this description is pertinent to the new
agency. I quote:
The mission of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is to
identify the chemical, physical, and biological factors in the environment
that can adversely affect man, to learn how these operate, and to provide
scientific bases for the development of control measures by other agencies.
That seems to me right on center with the EPA.
Mr. TRAIN. Of course, it will continue to do these things. The
data and results of the research will be available to EPA.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. But, if they are going to do basic research
which covers the whole broad spectrum of the mission and respon-
sibility of EPA, I am curious why it was not included.
Mr. TRAIN. It will do a lot more than that. It is simply that
these things are the responsibility of EPA. I mentioned occupa-
tional health.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. It hasn't anything to do with occupational
responsibilities.
Mr. TRAIN. Then I think you had best address your question to a
later witness. It may be that the Surgeon General, who will testify
tomorrow, would be in a better position to answer that question.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I thought you were the one who had pulled all
this together.
Mr. TRAIN. I do not pretend to be an expert in every one of
these programs, Congressman, nor did I pull it together. That was
done by the Ash Council for the President.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. From the Environmental Health Service of
HEW, three functions are proposed to be transferred to EPA—
the National Air Pollution Control Administration, the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, and the Bureau of Radiological Health.
Three are not transferred. Among those not transferred, one is
the Bureau of Water Hygiene, and another is the Bureau of Com-
munity Environmental Management.
Mr. TRAIN. The Bureau of Water Hygiene is transferred.
[p. 29]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 139
Mr. ROSENTHAL. The Bureau of Water Hygiene is transferred.
But what about the Bureau of Community Environmental
Management? I wonder if you have any comment on that? From
my reading, it seems quite similar to the work that EPA would be
involved in.
Mr. TRAIN. I cannot answer your question offhand, Mr. Con-
gressman.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Let me then go to another subject. I have been
very much concerned about noise pollution, jet-noise pollution. My
district includes La Guardia Airport in New York, and conse-
quently the pollution from jet airplanes. I know you mentioned in
your principal testimony that you hope in the future that the EPA
might have some mandate in the field of noise pollution. What do
you think we can do really to move this Government forward in
curbing noise pollution and air pollution in the vicinity of
airports ?
Let me tell you first, candidly, that in New York City the prob-
lem is acute. At 5 o'clock in the afternoon, you can see black waves
of smoke across the community. In the summertime, particularly
in bad weather when the ceilings are low, planes come into Ken-
nedy and La Guardia, and people who have any kind of personal
disability simply cannot survive.
NASA has done a few things, and other agencies have made
some efforts, but it seems to me that the responsibility should be in
a new agency with a new spirit of accomplishment. Why isn't it?
Mr. TRAIN. The air pollution aspects of aircraft emissions defi-
nitely are in the new agency at the present time. The setting of
noise standards is not moved, for the reasons which I explained
earlier in response to the chairman's question on the same point.
The noise portion of the Federal program is in its very early stage
of development. The only statutory program in existence at the
present time is that being conducted by FAA—
Mr. ROSENTHAL. That is the point I am trying to get to.
Mr. TRAIN (continuing). As part of its engine design responsi-
bilities, and also in setting noise standards for airports. Our Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality is, at the present time, engaged in a
review of all of the noise programs with a view to the development
of proposals for stronger and more effective and better coordi-
nated Federal efforts in the noise field. I can assure you that much
is being accomplished, and we would hope within a very few
months—
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I do not want to press you too hard, because it
really would be unfair, but the words you just used, I can remem-
-------
140 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
her Najeeb Halaby saying the same thing when I first came to
Congress SVa years ago. "The state of the art is developing, and
we will develop new standards."
General McKee said the same thing and then Mr. Shaffer. All of
these FAA people said the same kind of thing. But no one has ever
followed through in this field.
The point I am trying to make to you is that I would be de-
lighted if we took some of those responsibilities away from FAA
and gave them to this new agency, because FAA does have a
live-and-let-live attitude with the airplane industry.
If we could take some of those responsibilities for noise and air
pollution from aircraft and give them to this new agency, an
agency that does not have a long historical tie with the aircraft
[p. 30]
and airline industry, I, personally, think a great deal more could
be accomplished.
This plan cannot be amended, as I understand the procedure. I
wish I knew a way to take those things from FAA and put them
in here. It is not the fault of this administration. Any administra-
tion, all administrations, since I first arrived here, have taken the
same attitude. "There is not much we can do with it. You want
progress. You want airplanes and you have to have the noise."
It has reached the point of a crisis situation.
Mr. TRAIN. That is not the attitude of this administration. The
administration is exceedingly concerned about the noise problem.
Our Council is in the process at the present time of developing
recommendations in this field. The new agency will be concerned
with noise. This was set out and specified in the President's mes-
sage of transmittal to the Congress of this plan.
It is true the specific statutory function relating to aircraft noise
is not specifically transferred by this plan. Presumably, it could
be at some later date.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. My view is that organizations make policy. I
assume you are correct when you say the administration is com-
mitted to reducing noise pollution. The way to do that is to take
the responsibility from an agency that is allied or concerned with
industry, and transfer it. In other words, you exhibit your com-
mitment to the program of reducing noise pollution by taking it
from an agency that has done very little while it had the responsi-
bility, and transfer it to a new agency that has a new lease on life
and a mission to accomplish. I think the public interest demands
this of the administration. I think this agency is a good idea.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 141
Mr. BLANTNIK. A very significant type of thing, another one of
very high priority, raises doubts in the minds of those of us who
worked on one aspect, water pollution, very intensively for a 15-
year period of time. On page 7 in your statement you say you are
the adviser to the President, and apparently one who hopes to
have something to say in advising about the structure of this
agency
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would like to ask a question on this point.
Mr. BLATNIK. May I complete this, if I may?
On page 7, speaking as the President's adviser on environmental
problems, I quote from the top of the page:
"With its broad responsibility for environmental pollution con-
trol, the Environmental Protection Agency would greatly improve
our ability to recognize and to take action on 'new' problems, such
as noise."
Is noise listed anywhere in that list of agencies as one of the
functions ?
Mr. TRAIN. No, sir, because we are dealing only with statutory
functions. There is nothing to prevent this agency from dealing
with the problem of noise.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Train, again subject to check, there does exist
a statutory function dealing with noise, in the research and tech-
nology section of the Department of Transportation, which con-
cerns itself with that. Is there any reason why this was not trans-
ferred and included in this agency ?
Mr. TRAIN. A specific decision, as I said, was made by the Ash
Council not to recommend that transfer, after careful considera-
[P. 31]
tion of the integral relationship of that standard-setting to the
other functions of FAA, such as engine design, airports, and so
forth.
Perhaps others could address themselves more specifically to
that than I can. The new agency very definitely will have broad
authority to go into the general problem of noise pollution, and I
suggest that the President has given an indication that this would
very likely be an appropriate focal point for placing responsibility
later in that area.
Mr. BLATNIK. You are correct. We shall address our question to
other witnesses, perhaps from the Bureau of the Budget, and
particularly to Mr. Ash.
In your testimony on page 3 you state, "Indeed, the continuation
of the present fragmentation of Federal antipollution responsibil-
-------
142 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ities will only aggravate the existing problems." And you are
absolutely correct. We have too much of this fragmentation.
Here we have a brand new, up-to-date recommendation of a
single comprehensive, integrated agency which will have authority
to talk to the airline people about airline pollution but cannot say
one word about noise pollution. It does not make sense. This pro-
posal is further fragmenting a very important aspect of our pollu-
tion problem concerned with the airplane.
Mr. TRAIN. It really makes no change in the existing situation
in that respect. The air pollution aspects are in HEW and the
noise
Mr. ROSENTHAL. The pollution situation is in a bad state, pe-
riod. I thought this would be a new day and a new dawning, but it
is not.
Mr. BLATNIK. This is a question which raises doubts in our
minds, and we shall ask this question of a witness more directly
involved in the structure of the agency.
Mr. Erlenborn.
Mr. ERLENBORN. First of all, I want to thank you for recogniz-
ing me at this point. I would like to note it is getting close to noon,
and the witness has been on the stand for an hour and a half or so.
This is the first time this side has had an opportunity to ask
questions. We are not going to have sufficient time, because we do
have a bill on the floor this afternoon, the Labor and HEW appro-
priation bill, which is up for amendment, and we know there are
many important amendments to be offered.
So, I shall suggest that the Chair ask Mr. Train to return
sometime at his convenience and the committee's convenience so
all members may have opportunity to participate in the question-
ing.
Mr. BLATNIK. The Chair concurs with the gentleman's sugges-
tion and his request, and the Chair also wishes to make clear again
that many of the questions directed to Mr. Train were not directed
to the witness specifically, but as general areas of inquiry. We
thought it would promote the more orderly flow of testimony if we
expressed some of our doubts and concerns and apprehensions in
advance.
Obviously, many of these will be more properly directed later on
to those who are more directly involved with the recommending of
this particular agency. So, we do apologize for taking too much
time with these clarifying questions. Full time will be made avail-
able at the convenience of the committee and Mr. Train, and full
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 143
opportunity will be given to the minority to question the wit-
nesses.
Mr. HOLIPIELD. Will the gentleman yield ? I would like to concur
in Mr. Erlenborn's request that Secretary Train come before the
committee again. I have a number of questions. I am not sure
[P. 32]
whether we shall have a chance to ask them this morning. I would
like to know if Mr. Train's group was consulted in the formulation
and takes responsibility for this reorganization. Since it will be
the policymaking body, Mr. Train really ought to have answers to
the questions. I would like him back, too, because there are some
questions I would like to ask.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I have quite a few questions I would like to ask
you, Mr. Train. Let me first make an observation about the organi-
zational structure of the policymaking body in the Executive Office
of the President, an independent agency interested in our environ-
ment.
Strangely enough, the structure is parallel to the recommenda-
tion of this subcommittee in another area, a bill which has been
reported by our full committee just recently, for the creation of an
independent Consumer Protection Agency and a beefed-up statu-
tory office in the Executive Office of the President for coordination
and policymaking.
I want to congratulate the Ash Council and the administration
for following in environmental protection the pattern that this
subcommittee developed for the administration in an area as im-
portant as consumer protection. I think my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who helped formulate that plan will see the genius
thereby displayed, which can be utilized here in the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and the Council and in the Executive Office
of the President. I congratulate you on following the approach we
developed.
Let me ask you first, Mr. Train, is there any question in your
mind or do you know of anyone who questions the need for reor-
ganization in the field of environmental protection ? Are there those
who can logically or do logically argue that we ought to leave
things as they are?
Mr. TRAIN. I would not say there isn't anyone. There may well
be. I would say the absolute, overwhelming majority, 90-plus per-
cent of the people, accept the principle, not only accept but enthu-
siastically endorse the principle of bringing the environmental
-------
144 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
protection functions of the Federal Government together in one
agency.
They may differ as to some item, as to whether it should be
added or subtracted. They may differ in how the agency should be
located. But on the basic thrust of bringing these together into one
operating unit, I found no substantial disagreement.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I think you are eminently correct that the vast,
overwhelming majority feel that reorganization is needed and the
pulling together of these functions to administer an on-going pro-
gram is needed, if we are to get the job done. I think we can pass
that point and say that there is really little or no question about
the need for reorganization.
The question, then, is what sort of reorganization. Should we
put this into some other existing department where it would be-
come one more function among many that that department
administers ? My own answer to that, following the experience we
have had with NASA and AEC, would be that if you really want
to put emphasis on getting the job done in a particular area, the
best way to do it is with a single-purpose agency or commission.
I again point out the subcommittee seemed to think that was the
right thing to do in the area of consumer protection.
So, I think we are logically led to accept the Environmental
Protection Agency as the best vehicle for reorganization.
[p. 33]
Then I think the only question remaining is what should be in
there and what should not be. I think you have said, and I think
we would all agree, this is not the "be all and end all" in this
organization; that it will not solve all of our environmental prob-
lems. But it is a good start, and through further reorganizations,
through statutory enactments, we can add to the functions of this
Agency. Is that not correct ?
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.
Mr. ERLENBORN. We might put noise pollution in this Agency
later if it is determined to be the proper place for it, and it might
take other functions as well.
I am sure in developing this, there were probably questions in
your mind, in the Ash Council, and in the Office of Management
and Budget, as to some of these functions or others that you
finally determined should not at this time be transferred. These
things are not clearcut.
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.
With respect to some of the functions that are transferred, such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 145
as pesticides and radiation, some aspects of the function are left
behind. The breaking point has been very difficult and complex to
determine. This has received a great deal of attention and discus-
sion with the people concerned.
If I might comment on one question which Mr. Holifield raised
as to what involvement our Council had had in the development of
this particular plan, we were consulted periodically as the plan
approached maturity. From the time we came into existence in
February, we were quite actively engaged in discussions with the
staff and also with the full membership of the Ash Council. I
formally appeared before the Ash Council on at least one occasion
to express my views and to answer questions.
On several occasions within our own Council staff we reviewed
the proposals in working draft form and gave our comments in
writing at that time, or verbally, to the members of the Ash
Council and their staff.
While not the responsible agency in pulling the plan together,
we were very much involved, particularly in the latter stages of
the development of the plan.
I think, like everyone else who has taken a look at this, I would
find some areas in which I might think it might have been better
to go some other way. Any reorganization of this magnitude and
complexity will have that kind of element to it.
I think on balance it is a step forward, and provides a strong
institutional basis for later changes. I am sure there will be
changes, and doubtless should be.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me ask you several questions that maybe
you would rather I deferred and asked of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, but you may be able to answer them now.
In the creation of this agency, first of all, obviously you will get
coordinated administration of these programs that are being com-
bined. Will this then also lead to a coordinated request for authori-
zations under the various acts that give authority to these
programs ? In other words, this agency, with the single purpose of
having its interests in environmental programs, will then be the
agency to go to the authorizing committees with requests for in-
creases in authorizations ?
[P. 34]
Mr. TRAIN. I would certainly assume so, but I think you had
better ask that of Mr. Ink, who will be more familiar with that.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Then the next question as far as the appropri-
ations are concerned—and again, Mr. Ink may be better able to
-------
146 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
answer that—I would suspect the creation of this agency would
mean that rather than having the environmental aspect of the
appropriation buried in, say, HEW's overall appropriation or Inte-
rior's, this would likely come out in the independent offices appro-
priation as a single request for this new agency, again putting
emphasis on the environmental aspect of the appropriation rather
than having it buried in a lengthy departmental request.
Mr. TRAIN. I am sure that the appropriation and the budget
request for these environmental protection agencies will be much
more readily visible and understandable to the public at large, but
how it may ultimately be dealt with by the various committees of
the Congress, I really do not know. I do not know how the juris-
dictions of the committees would relate to this new agency appro-
priation.
Mr. ERLENBORN. In sum, however, I think that we can rightly
say that the administration in recommending this reorganization
shows the emphasis that they put in this subject area of environ-
mental control, and the Congress by approving this reorganization
can show their interest in this particular area.
I would hope that this reorganization plan will be approved and
we can get on with the job that is I think now being very clearly
demanded by the people in this country—of doing something about
saving the environment that we depend upon for life.
Let me make one last comment about the chairman's reading of
the history of the appropriations made available by Congress. I
think he is certainly right that Congress has been in the lead in
this area in requesting and demanding more funds, particularly
for water pollution control. Let me also say that this is not as
simple as putting a dollar sign on achievement.
The mere fact that we appropriate additional funds does not
necessarily mean that we are getting the job done. That is not the
only measure.
I also happen to know that as we are increasing Federal appro-
priations there is a lessening of the effort at the local level, which
is unfortunate. If we had the same sort of increase in the States
and localities and the communities, we would be getting a better
job done. So many of these programs reward those who have not
done anything in the past. In other words, the community that has
spent their own funds locally for good pollution control, sewage
treatment facilities, don't get the funds from these programs. It is
those that have lagged behind, that have not taken on themselves
the job of doing this locally, that are the ones who are rewarded
with the funds.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 147
Lastly, my own State of Illinois—a few years ago I recom-
mended to the State legislature, and many of the people in the
legislature were ahead of me on this, a proposal for a $1 billion
referendum, a statewide referendum for water pollution control.
It was turned down by the people. In sum, it is not simply a
question of appropriating dollars here in Congress. We have to get
the people to approve referendums that are being turned down in
this field of pollution control and get the States to do a better job.
[p. 35]
Thank you very much, Mr. Train. I look forward to asking you
some other questions. I think Mr. Findley should have a chance
now.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Findley.
Mr. FINDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TRAIN. First of all, could you clarify the chain of command
that would exist under this reorganization? Would you be in full
command and charge of all of the personnel listed on this chart?
Mr. TRAIN. No, sir.
Mr. FINDLEY. Who would be in charge of that?
Mr. TRAIN. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Mr. FINDLEY. The line of command would be directly through
the Administrator; is that correct?
Mr. TRAIN. The Administrator would have full responsibility to
the President for the management and operation of the Agency.
Mr. FINDLEY. For example, the person who is now in charge of
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management would no longer have any
responsibility to the Secretary of HEW? That would be completely
divorced; is that correct?
Mr. TRAIN. That is correct.
Mr. FINDLEY. If there is a lack of spirit, as Mr. Rosenthal
suggested there is in some places, this conceivably could be reme-
died by the Administrator of this Protection Agency replacing the
personnel now in charge of the various functions ?
Mr. TRAIN. That is conceivably right; yes.
Mr. FINDLEY. Can you tell us, or do you have with you a listing
of the statutes which would come under the purview of this
Agency?
Mr. TRAIN. The ones that I am familiar with are all listed in my
statement.
Mr. FINDLEY. Is that a complete list, as far as you know? A
-------
148 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
section-by-section listing, I think, would be a helpful reference for
the subcommittee in giving us a
Mr. TRAIN. May I submit that for the record?
Mr. FINDLEY. I think it would be especially helpful if we could
have it in advance of your subsequent appearance before the sub-
committee.
Mr. HENDERSON. Just to be fair—excuse me. I would like to
point out that the Bureau of the Budget has filed with us a copy of
each of the statutes that affect this program.
Mr. FINDLEY. Then I think that simply means we can refer to
this document.
To what extent would you contemplate this Agency will create a
new superstructure of bureaucracy as opposed to an amalgama-
tion of existing bureaucracy? In other words, would the Bureau of
Water Hygiene, for example, occupy a high position in the Agency
or would it be buried below a new superstructure on top of all the
existing structure ?
Mr. TRAIN. As I pointed out in my statement, the plan as sub-
mitted does not seek to spell out the form that the internal organi-
zation of the Agency will take, it being the President's intention to
leave this, in the first instance at least, to the initiative of the new
Administrator as he gets on board and as he gets experience with
the job.
[P. 36]
As I indicated to others, I am sure that the Administrator
would be consulting with and informing the appropriate commit-
tees of the Congress of his thinking in this respect. So I really
can't say specifically how any one of these programs will eventu-
ally be organized and located within the new Agency.
There is no intention, however, I assure you, of simply creating
any new superstructures. I would think just the contrary. The
responsible heads of these programs, however organized, are
going to be much closer to the top and closer, I think, to the
essential center of authority and the President than where they
are presently located, fairly well buried and layered down in large
departments.
Mr. FINDLEY. Could you give us some estimate as to how many
additional employees are contemplated in this reorganization as
compared with the total now occupied in the various units de-
scribed on that chart ?
Mr. TRAIN. Subject to correction by Mr. Ink, the Office of Man-
agement and Budget, I don't believe there are any additional per-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 149
sonnel contemplated at all other than perhaps the Administrator
—in other words, very few. In effect, no change in numbers of
personnel.
Mr. FINDLEY. I think Mr. Rosenthal pointed out what may be a
very important oversight in the formation of this Agency, in that
noise pollution is not brought into it at this time. Is it possible
that the authority of the National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration is broad enough to encompass air pollution in the form of
noise?
Mr. TRAIN. I think that if this reorganization comes into effect
that it would not be a matter of giving that authority to the
National Air Pollution Control Administration but rather to the
new Environmental Protection Agency.
If I might just refer to the paragraph in the President's mes-
sage of transmittal dealing in part with noise, the President said:
With its broad mandate EPA would also develop competence in areas of
environmental protection that had not previously been given enough atten-
tion. Such, for example, as the problem of noise. It would provide an or-
ganization to which new programs in these areas could be added.
Mr. FINDLEY. Does this organization plan provide the President
with authority to terminate whatever is now in progress on noise
pollution so that when the Protection Agency does develop these
new programs to which he alluded, he also would have the author-
ity to terminate what is now being done elsewhere so as to avoid
overlap ?
Mr. TRAIN. I would suppose that unless there is a specific statu-
tory directive for those particular programs that the President
would have the authority to terminate any of those programs
which I suspect probably are research oriented. As I mentioned to
Mr. Rosenthal, our Council is in the process at the present time of
reviewing the entire Federal posture as it relates to noise pollu-
tion, including the possibility of various kinds of noise standards.
This study would include the organizational basis for the Federal
effort. I think our feeling basically was it was simply premature at
this time to lump noise specifically into this reorganization.
Mr. FINDLEY. It is premature. Would you expand upon that? We
don't know the identity of the person that will be the administra-
tor. We don't know the organizational structure. That is, for the
[P. 37]
reasons you have given, undetermined. Why would you consider it
premature, because the present state of the art is not advanced far
enough?
-------
150 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. TRAIN. Not that so much. That is also a part of the problem.
My only point was, Mr. Findley, our Council at the present time is
in the process of developing recommendations for the President in
the field of noise regulation, including organization. As of this
time, that process simply has not gone far enough to enable us to
make a specific proposal.
Mr. FINDLEY. I note that pollution of navigable waters and seas
is not encompassed here, at least to the extent that this proposal
does not bring under the agency the pollution of navigable waters
which is now under the Corps of Engineers, nor does it bring, so
far as I understand it, the control of pollution represented by the
discharge of oil in seas which is now in the Department of Trans-
portation.
Is there some reason why these two items were not brought
under the protection agency at the outset?
Mr. TRAIN. You are correct, Mr. Findley. The responsibilities of
the Corps of Engineers under the Harbor Refuse Act of 1899 were
not transferred, I believe primarily because most of that function
relates to navigation and obstacles to navigation rather than to
pollution, although recently, of course, that authority, particularly
the sanctions, have become a useful tool with respect to the abate-
ment of pollution. I think that is the reason why that function was
left where it is. It is primarily a navigation matter.
With respect to oil pollution, the existing responsibilities for
dealing with oil pollution by statute and by the national contin-
gency plan recently promulgated is in the Coast Guard for cleanup
essentially and in the Federal Water Quality Administration in
coordination with the Coast Guard.
The President has issued an executive order which spells out
much more clearly the delineation of responsibilities between these
two agencies. To the extent that the Federal Water Quality Ad-
ministration at the present time has responsibilities with respect
to oil pollution on the seas or in the navigable waters, these re-
sponsibilities are transferred to the new agency. So this reorgani-
zation makes no change in that respect. It does not create any
gaps or anything of that sort. It simply shifts the existing func-
tion.
Mr. FINDLEY. On the bottom of page 6 you state that some
pollution problems remain unrecognized because of gaps in agency
jurisdiction or because no agency has clear responsibility.
It would be helpful if you could identify these gaps and what
EPA can do to close them.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 151
Mr. TRAIN. I think one of the examples that I referred to in my
statement involves radioactivity. Another example is pesticides.
Either of these pollutants can be identified in the air or in the
water or in the earth for that matter. It is not clearly an air
pollution problem or water pollution problem or solid waste prob-
lem, so I am informed.
There is a tendency within the existing organization for prob-
lems that fall into that kind of category to not receive the kind of
responsible attention that they should be getting because no one is
quite sure whether it is his responsibility or someone else's. We
feel that this will be increasingly the case with trace metals such
as beryllium and with problems such as asbestos poisoning. These
[p. 38]
are really not clearly air, water, or other kinds of pollution. They
cut across the entire environment.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Train, I can tell by the clock that the time is
fast approaching when we have to meet a quorum call and termi-
nate this. I do have a number of questions. Before yielding the
floor back to the Chairman, I would like to state my support for
this idea. I think the proposal is a sound one. I believe that it could
have a little smoother passage here if you could present a sug-
gested organization chart to us, not necessarily binding upon the
future administrator, to give us a clearer idea of what is contem-
plated here. Because while reorganization plans are to a degree
necessarily vague and imprecise, nevertheless this is perhaps as
vague and imprecise as any in a long time.
Mr. TRAIN. Let me say, Mr. Findley, that it is intended that
initially at least the organization of the new agency will simply be
predominantly the carryover of the existing organizational struc-
tures. It is not intended to at the outset shake up all those organi-
zations with very likely deleterious effects on the efficiency of their
operations. It is intended to move over the old organizations bodily
and to only reorganize internally as the new administrator makes
these decisions.
Mr. FINDLEY. Well, to the extent that that can be shown in a
tentative organization chart, it might promote some stability and
confidence and greater self-assurance within the existing plan.
Mr. TRAIN. I will see that it is pulled together.
Mr. FINDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair thanks you very much for your patience.
May the record show that many of these questions were not
-------
152 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
directed precisely at you or as chairman of your Council, but these
are the gaps that we hope to have filled in fairly logical order by
the subsequent witnesses.
I apologize to those witnesses who have waited all morning long.
At least, perhaps you now have a clear idea of some of the ques-
tions to anticipate in tomorrow's hearings. We will not be able to
continue this afternoon. We have a very important HEW appro-
priation bill with many amendments coming up. But let the Chair
announce that we do plan to proceed tomorrow morning at 10
o'clock with Mr. Roy Ash, the Chairman of the President's Advi-
sory Council on Executive Organization who, with members of his
Council and staff, had a major role to play in structuring this
proposed agency. Following Mr. Ash, we will have our good
friend, the Honorable Dwight Ink, the Assistant Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
That will pretty well give us the details on how this proposal
came about and what it is and what it is intended to do.
We will also hear, following that, the Honorable Fred J. Russell,
Under Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
The hearings for today are adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
(Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to re-
convene at 10 a.m., Thursday, July 23, 1970.)
[p. 39]
STATEMENT OF ROY L. ASH, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY
COUNCIL ON EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DOUG-
LAS M. COSTLE, SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATE; AND DWIGHT A. INK,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; HOWARD SCHNOOR, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION STAFF; AND CHARLES ELKINS, EXAMINER, OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. ASH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
When the President's Advisory Council came into being, we
were asked by the President to consider the organizational mat-
ters within the executive branch which we felt might be improved
in order to make the Government more effective.
Shortly thereafter, he particularly asked that we consider the
subject matter of environmental protection, and we then spent a
number of months considering various ramifications of this mat-
ter. We came to certain conclusions which were reduced to recom-
mendations to the President which in turn were taken into ac-
count as he submitted Reorganization Plan No. 3.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 153
We considered a number of alternatives for strengthening envi-
ronmental protection and responsibilities within any one of the
existing agencies, and one of those considerations was the Depart-
ment of the Interior. As we considered the many different func-
tions and responsibilities that would have to be, we felt, brought
together and carried out in a unified manner, we observed that
they crossed many of the present operating departments. Some
related to Interior and some related to a number of other depart-
ments.
In order to be fully effective, since an important part of the
functions of the Environmental Protection Agency deals with
standard-setting, and standards are set by a number of depart-
ments, such an entity or agency could be more effective if it were
not within one of the departments, imposing standards in effect on
others, but established independent of the existing departments
who would, in turn, be conducting their operations within those
standards as set by this Agency.
We felt that to place the environmental protection functions in a
separate agency would give greater attention to the importance of
the subject matter, because in fact the Administrator of the new
agency would report directly to the President, and that greater
attention would in turn, hopefully, give rise to greater and more
effective results of those operations that it is so important at this
time to work upon.
While considering the Department of the Interior and the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, for example, we felt
the functions should be brought together and we concluded that a
better organizational alternative would be to separate them from
any of the operating agencies. They have a very important func-
tion that bears across all agencies and, therefore, they should be
set up independent of any one.
Mr. BLATNIK. Earlier, Mr. Ash, the idea of using the Depart-
ment of the Interior, enlarged, upgraded, and broadened, was
given serious consideration; that other environmental functions
would be added to the water pollution control program, such as
fish and wildlife, game management, and saline water. Earlier
[P. 42]
consideration was given to perhaps reorganizing the Department
of the Interior and making it a Department of Environment. Is
that correct?
Mr. ASH. Yes, sir. We considered four basic alternatives and
that was one of them.
Mr. BLATNIK. To save time, you may proceed with your state-
-------
154 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ment. First of all, may we identify the gentleman with you? We
have Douglas M. Costle, senior staff associate to the President's
Advisory Council on Executive Organization, who was_ present
yesterday. We welcome you here this morning.
Mr. Elkins, you are with the Office of Management and Budget?
Mr. ELKINS. I am Charles Elkins, examiner with the Office of
Management and Budget.
Mr. BLATNIK. You probably have seen the work on the whole
problem from the very beginning.
Mr. ELKINS. I worked on it after the President made his deci-
sion.
Mr. BLATNIK. So the Council made its recommendation to the
President, and the President asked the then Bureau of the Budget
to review it in behalf of the Executive. Is that correct?
Mr. ELKINS. That is correct.
Mr. BLATNIK. We have our good and esteemed friend, recog-
nized for his competence, Mr. Dwight A. Ink, Assistant Director
of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Ink, you have with
you Mr. Schnoor, who has been with us before. Mr. Schnoor, for
the record, will you give your title to the reporter, and give us
some idea what role you played in the formulation of the recom-
mendations to create a new separate and independent environmen-
tal agency ?
Mr. SCHNOOR. I am the Director of the Government Organiza-
tion Staff in the Office of Management and Budget. Our role in the
enterprise began some months ago when we had some initial con-
tacts with the Ash Council, which was studying the proposal. We
provided information and data to them. After the proposal was
made to the President, we worked very intensively with them in
the formulation of the plan which is now before the committee and
in developing the background materials, and so forth, which you
have before you.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Ink, you and your assistants, Mr. Elkins and
Mr. Schnoor, have all recently been through the reorganization
tumblewheel, haven't you, in the new Office of Management and
Budget?
Mr. INK. Yes, sir; and we are not finished yet.
Mr. BLATNIK. Have you been able to get your sea legs back after
stumbling around for a while?
Mr. INK. The stumbling has not been too bad. We are in the
process of working out the kinds of arrangements that we dis-
cussed with the committee. We believe we shall be able to meet the
kinds of problems that we discussed at the hearings previously.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 155
Mr. BLATNIK. You have your own statement to present, but at
this point will you give us a brief statement of what role or at
what point you and the Bureau of the Budget, at that time, came
into the formulation process, if you were in it at all; or, were the
plans already formulated and was it your task to review it and aid
in its presentation to the Congress ?
Mr. INK. We did have the opportunity to express our views as to
the advisability of an environmental protection or pollution con-
trol agency of this type before the plan went forward and, as Mr.
[p. 43]
Schnoor indicated, after the President made his decision we were
heavily involved in working up the material and developing of the
plan to come forward to the Congress.
I might say that the notion of an agency of this type is some-
thing which we strongly support.
Mr. BLATNIK. At this point, may the record include the full
membership of the President's Advisory Council on Executive Or-
ganization and the staff members.
(The membership referred to follows:)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT—PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION
Chairman: Roy L. Ash.
Members: Dr. George P. Baker, Hon. John B. Connally, Mr. Frederick R.
Kappel, Mr. Richard M. Paget, Mr. Walter N. Thayer.
Staff: Andrew M. Rouse, Executive Director; Douglas M. Costle, senior
staff associate; James H. Finch, Jr., senior staff associate; Michael K. Glenn,
senior staff associate; Richard T. McCormack, senior staff associate; William
J. Nagle, senior staff associate; Harvey G. Pippen, Jr., senior staff associate;
Kurt J. Wehbring, senior staff associate; Norman J. MKenzie, administrative
officer; John J. Cohrssen, staff associate; Bruce C. French, staff associate;
Lawrence T. Graham, staff associate; Arlene P. Krimgold, staff associate;
Herbert E. Meyer, staff associate; Elena T. VanMeter, staff associate; Egils
Milbergs, research associate; Margaret W. Brill, research assistant; William
B. Golden, research assistant; Larry L. Goldstein, research assistant; James
C. Jennings, research assistant; Scott T. Kragie, research assistant; Creigh-
ton R. Moeller, research assistant; Loretta A. Molandro, research assistant;
James S. Rice, research assistant; Thomas E. Walker, research assistant;
Geneva M. Coleman, administrative assistant; Lois V. Toliver, administra-
tive assistant; Patricia A. Beckwith, secretary; Pauline T. Bischoff, secre-
tary; Margaret C. Borengasser, secretary; Judith A. Dorey, secretary; Joyce
R. Edwards, secretary; Dorothy A. Hitselberger, secretary; Elizabeth F.
Koury, secretary; Mary H. McDermott, secretary; Shirley J. Moore, secre-
tary; Barbara Pedrini, secretary; Martha K. Smith, secretary; Cheryl L.
Solomon, secretary; Robert J. Beverly, clerk; James R. Owen, clerk.
-------
156 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Ash, will you present your statement in be-
half of the Council ?
Mr. ASH. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we
welcome the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee in
support of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. This plan consoli-
dates the major control programs in a new, independent agency in
the executive branch, the Environmental Protection Agency.
In appearing before you today, I am speaking on behalf of all
the members of the President's Advisory Council on Executive
Organization. They are Dr. George P. Baker, the Honorable John
B. Connally, Mr. Frederick R. Kappel, Mr. Richard M. Paget, and
Mr. Walter N. Thayer.
Our Council supports the plan without reservation. As individ-
ual citizens personally concerned with the environmental problems
faced by the Nation, we believe that the Environmental Protection
Agency will provide an improved organizational base for the con-
duct of a more effective and better balanced Federal pollution
control effort over the long term.
When the President created the Advisory Council on Executive
Organization in April 1969, he gave it a broad charter to examine
ways in which the executive branch could be better organized. The
President asked that the Council particularly look at the organiza-
[P. 44]
tion of environmental protection or antipollution programs. Since
late November of last year, the Council, aided by a full-time pro-
fessional staff, consultants, and representatives of the agencies
involved, has examined the organization of pollution control pro-
grams scattered throughout the executive branch. The Council
staff interviewed and consulted with approximately 180 persons,
including the top officials of all the Government programs exam-
ined, former Government of throughout the executive branch. The
Council staff interviewed and resource economists. The Council
staff also interviewed a number of regional, State, and local pollu-
tion control officials.
We found that pollution control activities are now located in
separate bureaus, often in separate departments, and frequently
are very low in the departmental hierarchy. Typically, environ-
mental protection activities represent only one of many missions
within a single department, and often are subordinated to other
missions of that department.
Such fragmentation is, in many instances, characteristic of or-
ganizational responses to problems that were first perceived inde-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 157
pendently. Such piecemeal reorganization structure becomes inad-
equate when the interrelation of the problem or the solution be-
comes the dominant factor.
In our opinion, the present fragmentation of pollution control
programs among several agencies of Government no longer serves
the public interest. It inhibits the effective use of public and pri-
vate funds and of the talents and energies of concerned and dedi-
cated people. Perpetuation of this condition will severely limit our
solving the problem, even if we expand our commitment to pre-
serve and restore the quality of our environment.
For the most part, responsibility for pollution research and
control has been divided according to the environmental medium
(that is, air, water, and land) in which the pollution occurs. The
programs have been assigned to different agencies or departments.
In other instances efforts have been organized around single pollu-
tants, such as ionizing radiation and pesticides—and even here,
the responsibility has been fragmented among several agencies.
An effort has been made through interagency agreements and
working level communication to make this fragmented approach
effective. Such efforts in general have not been fruitful. The in-
creasing degradation of our environment and the mounting costs
of pollution abatement make clear that effective abatement must
span all media with a unified approach, recognizing, of course,
that control of one problem may cause another. Situations should
no longer be tolerated in which enforcement of pollution standards
by one agency concerned with a single medium may merely shift
the pollution to another medium, the concern of yet another
agency.
Organizing by media also tends to ignore the fact that most
pollutants—many chemicals, radiation, pesticides, trace metals—
do not fit into the traditional air-water-soil classifications, but are
present in or travel through all media. To effectively control these
pollutants, their presence and effects should be studied in all media
and, on that basis, the decision should be made as to the best point
of interception.
For example, pesticides are first applied to the soil or to crops.
The original compounds and the derivatives resulting from their
[p. 45]
use—some more toxic than the original substances—are absorbed
in biological ecosystems. They are then stored or metabolized and
excreted into the environment. Some persist on the land itself and
may affect the underground water supply. Some remain in the
-------
158 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
harvested crop and find their way to the ultimate consumer. Some
reach waterways (through rainfall runoffs or irrigation practice)
where they are carried to inland lakes and to the ocean. Some
become airborne.
These chemicals may interact with any number of other com-
pounds and affect any variety of ecological systems. Successful
interdiction now requires the coordinated efforts of a number of
separate agencies and departments.
We also find there is much more we need to learn about our
ecological system, the way pollutants travel, interact and take
effect. In a sense, we are in the process of defining the total
problem. Yet, at the same time we must continue developing the
necessary technology to monitor and control the effect of major
known pollutants throughout our environment. The fragmentation
of this effort and the fact that no single agency is responsible for
developing an integrated research, standard-setting and assistance
program, seriously handicaps our effort to develop and implement
a comprehensive strategy of pollution reduction.
The Environmental Protection Agency would bring together in
a single organization the major Federal pollution control pro-
grams now existing in four separate agencies and one interagency
council. It will have an estimated fiscal year 1971 budget of $1.4
billion, and approximately 6,000 personnel.
In formulating the recommendation for the creation of an
Environmental Protection Agency, our Council had in mind the
following objectives:
Research and standard-setting based on a comprehensive view
of the individual's health, the planet's ecology, the economic costs
of pollution and its abatement, considering also the benefits to
health and well-being that may accrue from the products, proc-
esses, or activities that give rise to pollution.
Formulation of coordinated policy for pollution control, taking
into account all media in which a particular pollutant may appear.
Recognition of new environmental problems and development of
new programs to meet them.
Integration of pollution control and enforcement so that we do
not create new problems in the process of controlling existing
ones.
Simplification of relations for State and local governments by
reducing the number of Federal agencies with which they must
deal and clearly identifying their responsibilities.
Provision of a unified U.S. responsibility to work with other
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 159
governments as pollution problems become a matter for interna-
tional concern, agreements, and action.
Clarification of the responsibility of private industry by provid-
ing consistent standards and a single enforcement agency.
It became clear to us that to bring together under one organiza-
tional roof all the executive branch entities dealing in any way
with environmental pollution is impossible, even if it were desira-
ble. Our central and guiding concept was to bring together and
organize around those functions essential to setting standards for
pollution control.
[p. 46]
Also, we do not feel that it would help very much, given the
large number of departments involved, to affiliate antipollution
responsibility, particularly the critical standard-setting function,
with any single existing department. That department would, as
part of its activities, be called upon to make decisions affecting
other departments. Fairly or unfairly, its own objectivity could be
called into question.
Since the Council believes that the key standard-setting function
should be performed outside agencies whose interests may affect
those standards, we regard the EPA as the strongest organiza-
tional alternative.
The question then became one of deciding what other functions
such an agency should have to do its job.
We believe that the standard-setting function cannot stand
alone. We must know that the standards are soundly based; thus,
a research capability is necessary. We must know if standards are
working; thus, we must be able to monitor the environment. We
must be able to offer incentives and assistance for compliance as
well as being able to move against violators. These are the activi-
ties that will give effect to the standard-setting function.
The decision as to which programs should be included in the
EPA involved a delicate balancing between what the new agency
needs to fulfill its mission and the needs of existing agencies from
which programs would be moved. Many programs with environ-
mental implications could be seriously impaired by extracting
them from their present contexts. We have not proposed, for ex-
ample, that all pollution-related research be concentrated in the
new agency. Research on a particular form of pollution may be a
spinoff of the activities of other Government entities or the work
of industries affecting the source. We envision the EPA as serving
as a point of central cognizance for such specialized research,
-------
160 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
relying on the processes of information and funding transfers to
make sure that the total research effort is adequate and well artic-
ulated. Existing departmental skills should be recognized by the
EPA in gathering data for the formulation of standards.
Our concern was that the EPA have an in-house appreciation
for such external competence. We adopted as a guide in consider-
ing organizational changes the principle that the burden of proof
rested with those who proposed transferring a program to the
EPA. At all times our purpose was to identify only those pro-
grams which we felt were essential to the functioning of the EPA.
There is no perfect structional arrangement which will reconcile
all interests or resolve all conflicts. The EPA is neither perfect nor
immutable. As we have said, the reorganization provides an oppor-
tunity to integrate the functions and activities of those programs
incorporated in the EPA. In doing so, the potential for effective-
ness of these programs is enhanced. As both the Congress and the
Executive observe the performance of the EPA, they may deter-
mine that the functions and the roles of the Agency should be
further strengthened and improved through the legislative proc-
ess. The EPA is a focus, but the discharge of its mission will
depend on all of us—the Congress and the executive branch, pro-
ducers and consumers, and the public in general—working with it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Ash.
[P. 47]
Mr. Holifield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Ash, I am going to confine my remarks to
just one sector of this, and that is the transfer of the radiation
protection standards and the transfer of all the functions of the
Federal Radiation Council to the EPA.
I note at the start that there will be three positions transferred
over from AEC, I suppose, and four from the Federal Radiation
Council. That makes a total of seven. The budget remains about
the same, in the neighborhood of a little less than $200,000, for
functions in that field.
I note you mention in your statement, on page 7:
We believe that the standard-setting function cannot stand alone. We must
know that the standards are soundly based; thus, a research capability is
necessary. We must know if the standards are working1; thus, we must be
able to monitor the environment. We must be able to offer incentives and
assistance for compliance, as well as being able to move against violators.
These are the activities that will give effect to the standard-setting function.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 161
Over on page 8, about six lines down:
We have not proposed, for example, that all pollution-related research be
concentrated in the new agency.
I want to clarify this, where you say the standard-setting func-
tion cannot stand alone. Mr. Ink is very familiar with this, and I
solicit his comments on this, also, because of his background in
the Atomic Energy Commission for many years.
The permissible doses of radiation, contrary to a lot of state-
ments in the press, have not been set by the AEG. The standards
have been set originally on recommendations by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. This body is
composed of about 65 independent scientists of several different
disciplines, but all related to biomedical radiation or physics or
chemistry or something that has to do directly with specific knowl-
edge about this subject matter. This body of scientists is com-
pletely independent, not on a salary or on the payroll of the Gov-
ernment at all, but people who work voluntarily and who over the
years have looked at all types of radiation—radiation from X-ray
machines, from shoe-fitting fluoroscopic machines in the old days
when we used those things, and the use of radium, such as the
radium watch dial painters, and the use of radium in medicine.
Much of that has since been discontinued because of recommenda-
tions of this body as to the damage which was being done.
The policy heretofore has been that the National Council on
Radiation Protection makes recommendations as to the ceiling for
permissible exposures to populations. These recommendations
have been sent to the Federal Radiation Council since it has been
in existence, and then, in turn, turned over to the AEC for imple-
mentation.
In my opinion, the most expert bodies in the world are the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement and
the International Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ment, which is composed of representatives from the United
States and from all the nations of the world. They are consistent
in their recommendations. They are not at variance with each
other. They usually agree on their recommendations.
Another factor involved is the tremendous program of experi-
mentation by the AEC in the biomedical field in their laboratories.
[p. 48]
For instance, in the Oak Ridge Laboratory, over 5 million mice
have been irradiated to give degrees of doses of radiation, and the
genetic effects have been traced for several generations of mice.
-------
162 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The thing that concerns me is the transfer of these seven men
over into an organization, the EPA, which will have 6,500 people
in it. Will they not be lost in this tremendous organization? Will
they have anything to say at all about the permissible levels of
radiation? Will they have the research program, which amounts to
around $100 million a year, in the AEC today in the biomedical
field, most of it for radiation effects ? Will they have access to all
that research and development?
Those research laboratories are not transferred over to EPA.
Will these people be lost there, without access to really basic ex-
perimental data and continuing research in this field, which has
been very large and outstanding? Will the recommendations of the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement still,
you might say, rule or still be the substantive recommendation
upon which standards are set, or will they be overruled by bureau-
cratic administrative lay judgments?
This is a series of questions; each one of which, of course, would
involve an answer of some length. I am seeking to find out what is
to happen when these people are put over there. The Federal
Radiation Council was set up under statute to do certain things.
That is being abolished.
I might say I think it should be abolished. I am not complaining
there, because it is not functioning as it should function. It has not
had the attention. This is not due to staff incompetence. It is due
to the fact that it was composed of members of the Cabinet who
had no time to attend the many councils and commissions upon
which they serve. I came to the conclusion that I made a mistake
in setting up this kind of council. I am for abolishing the Federal
Radiation Council and, if we have any kind of council, I want it to
be an expert council of working people in place of a body of
laymen such as Cabinet members, with all due respect to their
rank.
These are some of the things that are worrying me. I would like
both you and Mr. Ink to comment on that.
Mr. ASH. I will make two or three comments in response to
that.
Recognizing the very great importance of that subject, we have
spent considerable time considering the very kind of thought that
you express.
First, because of the importance of radiation among all the
potential pollutants, we do not believe that the number of people
will necessarily equate to the importance given or ascribed in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 163
EPA or the attention given to the subject. I think the very nature
of the concerns that one must properly have about radiation pro-
tection will itself cause the consideration of those matters to be
given foremost attention, not necessarily related to the number of
people.
That possibly relates to the second point, the one that you men-
tioned, which I would like to reiterate. We believe that by provid-
ing this full-time exclusive attention to environmental protection,
we can avoid the very kind of problems of only partial attention
that would be given to such subjects as was done in the Federal
Radiation Council.
[p. 49]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. This full-time attention is being given of course,
by these people who are in the AEC.
Mr. ASH. I had in mind the Cabinet members of the Federal
Radiation Council, who themselves became the recipients of that
full time effort. In this particular case, the Administrator of the
EPA, reporting directly to the President, will be, we believe, in a
much better position to actually be effective with the knowledge
that he comes to gain from those working full time on the subject
matter, because of his organizational placement and organiza-
tional position.
As to another point that you mentioned—
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You are saying that the Administrator of EPA
will be in consultation with this group. I suppose this would be a
small office of seven people somewhere in this giant agency, but
they will be top people as I understand. They will be experts in the
field of radiation. They will be either scientists or people of disci-
plines who know about radiation and have a background of knowl-
edge and long experience; is that right?
Mr. ASH. Yes, sir, we believe they must be.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now let us get to who sets the standards. Does
the Administrator of EPA set the standards, or do they get their
recommendations for standards from the most expert body in the
world?
Mr. ASH. Their recommendations will still come from those
very sources that are presently being used for the purpose of
expert information.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Are you speaking of the National Council on
Radiation Protection?
Mr. ASH. Yes, sir.
-------
164 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is the most competent body in the United
States and in the world, independent scientists, most of whom
have backgrounds of more than 30 years in the field of radiation. I
am asking specifically if the National Council on Radiation Protec-
tion will be the body that will recommend the permissible levels of
radiation exposure to the Administrator of EPA.
Mr. ASH. We believe strongly it must be that same body as well
as the International Commission providing similar information.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. They are usually harmonious in their recom-
mendations.
Mr. ASH. Yes. It is our thought and recommendation that that
advice and those recommendations be the basis for the action of
the EPA.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. There is a great deal of emotion in th"< field
there is a great deal of ignorance and propaganda, and there is a
great deal of political pressure. In the FRC we have seen the
political pressure which occurred when the Chairman of the Fed-
eral Radiation Council, Mr. Finch, and all the cabinet members
were blackjacked—I use the word advisedly—into signing a re-
port by Secretary Wirtz, who was only a member of the Federal
Radiation Council, but who had very strong and, I think, sincere
feelings on this subject. He set standards for work in the uranium
mines which are rapidly going into effect, applied to material
purchased by the Federal Government. He would not take scien-
tific advice, but set standards arbitrarily and on the same type of
judgment that you and I would use as laymen.
Here is where my complaint came against the Federal Radiation
[P. 50]
Council, that it did not operate, that it did not have a meeting and
bring in expert opinion on that. Apparently, a paper was circu-
lated and everybody signed it. The people who signed did not know
any more about it than a hog knows about Sunday. They did not
take into account expert scientific advice on the subject matter.
I can conceive the same kind of thing happening here if you
have a lay Administrator, as you will have in EPA, undoubtedly,
or a lay group at the top of it. For administrative, bureaucratic,
fiscal, sincere or insincere, political or nonpolitical purposes, they
will override the recommendations of the scientists who know
more about this than anybody else.
I am getting right down to the nuts and bolts of this question;
are we to have the standards set on the basis of scientific compe-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 165
tence, or will we have them set because of political pressure and
because of emotion ?
Mr. ASH. That is a difficult question. I do not know of any way
to preclude errors of judgment, at least by organizational struc-
ture. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that any organizational struc-
ture proposed would insure that there would not be errors of
judgment.
One thing I think is very important that may go directly to your
point; we are establishing in the EPA Administrator a point of
visibility and accountability in a person who is justified and evalu-
ated by the Congress, by the people, and by the President for his
judgments and his positions on these particular matters, rather
than they being one of the many things for which he is responsible
and for which he is judged and accountable.
This sets up clearly, for the Congress, for the people, for the
President to see, an accountability for decisions, for judgments,
for actions that we believe give a greater probability of better
judgments and better decisions. I know of no way to guarantee
that they would all be the ones that we would make.
Mr. HOLIPIELD. I realize we cannot guarantee it, but I want to
know the purpose of it. Is it the purpose to lose these seven people
in this great organization, or will they have enough visibility with
the Administrator? I am sure they will have some visibility with
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, which I chair. The Ad-
ministrator will have his day before the committee if he disre-
gards the expert opinion of scientists and substitutes therefor his
own political or administrative judgment.
Mr. ASH. I think the important word is "accountability." We
propose the creation of an agency and an administrator who is
accountable for his actions in this field and not diffused with a lot
of other activities that he may also be concerned with. We b }]ieve
that this will go a long way toward achieving the very objective
that you have in mind.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Do you know a better way of establishing
standards for the protection of the people's health and safety
than reliance upon the most expert scientific judgment?
Mr. ASH. I know of no better way.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Would you like to respond to this series of ques-
tions, Mr. Ink?
Mr. INK. First, on the numbers that will be transferred over, we
have given you estimates. That determination will not be final
until and if the plan is permitted to go into effect and there is an
[p. 51]
-------
166 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
administrator, or at least an acting administrator, who can be
consulted so the viewpoint of the new agency can be taken into
consideration. Instead of three, it may be a slightly different num-
ber, but that does not really affect your point.
Second, there will also, of course, be transferred from HEW
several hundred people in the radiological health area.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Their function is more in the monitoring field.
Mr. INK. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. They are working in harmony with these recom-
mendations, and also in harmony with our agreements with those
States that have entered into Federal-State compacts.
Mr. INK. Yes, sir. I mention this to indicate the radiation part is
not quite such a small part as the seven or eight might suggest.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You have, I believe, 511 working in radiobiology
at HEW, but these are not really in the policymaking field, are
they?
Mr. INK. No.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. They are in the implementing and monitoring
field, is that not true ?
Mr. INK. Yes. But again, they do add to the resources in the
agency concerned with radiation problems.
Third, the radiation group will report to the Director.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Of the EPA?
Mr. INK. Yes. I am sorry—the administrator. I misspoke. So,
there will not be two or three intervening levels. They will be
reporting to an officer who reports to the President. I think that
will help.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The radiation hazard is so small in relation to
the pollution hazard in water and air, my concern is that they not
be forgotten and subordinated in this agency to the point that they
are never heard from.
Mr. INK. It is an area in which there is a great deal of public
interest and concern. I really do not think it will be lost.
Finally, as you well know in transferring the functions of the
Federal Radiation Council to this new agency, there will go with
that the requirement that scientific expertise, including that of the
National Council on Radiation Protection, be brought into the
recommendation process.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I know of no way for setting levels that would be
based on a more knowledgeable group than this group of scien-
tists, because they have no ax to grind. They have only one con-
cern, and that is the scientific effect of radiation exposure.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 167
Mr. INK. Within that group over a period of years there has
been quite a broad range of scientific views expressed, so you get a
very good cross section.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Also, there is the National Academy of Sciences,
with a tremendous biological program. They are also a very im-
portant body. In the past, they have melded their information with
the information of the National Council on Radiation Protection,
and in most instances have made uniform recommendations.
Mr. INK. Yes, sir. Again, that is mentioned in the statute and
there will be a requirement carried over into this plan, through
the transfer of the functions of the Federal Radiation Council, to
consult with the National Academy of Sciences. I think it is im-
portant that in stressing the importance of these two groups we
[p. 52]
not preclude them from seeking other scientific advice. I know this
was not your intention and the Federal
Mr. HOLIFIELD. No, nor was it my intention. If an occasional
scientist stands out and denies the validity of findings by 65 ex-
perts in the field, I wouldn't want that occasional scientist's un-
proven theories to be accepted when a jury of his peers, you might
say, would say that they are unproven theories not worthy of
acceptance.
One doctor will say that you have a stomach ache and another
that you need an appendix removed. There is a difference of opin-
ion among doctors as to what causes pain in the abdomen, and
there is a difference of opinion among scientists. When you come
down to it you have to rely upon the positive opinion if you are
going to get any kind of consensus of scientific judgment on a
particular point.
Mr. INK. The act helps in that respect in that it talks about
qualified experts in the field of biology and medicine and in the
field of health physics. I don't think I would qualify, for example,
under that definition.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I have been exposed to this scientific problem for
24 years, and I would not consider myself competent to settle that
either. This is the thing that I am very much concerned about;
that we use scientific judgment in this field and we do not use lay
judgment.
Mr. INK. I think when you talk about a scientific problem, and
you are talking about scientific aspects of standard-setting, it fol-
lows almost by definition that you must draw upon the best scien-
tific expertise which is available. That certainly is the intention
-------
168 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
here and also drawing, of course, upon the strength and the re-
sources that are in the national laboratories, of which Oak Ridge
is one major facility, but there are others as well.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. These experiments on animals in the different
laboratories and the grants to the universities AEC handles, will
continue, and the results will be fed to these people in this group
of seven that you have outlined in your chart?
Mr. INK. It is extremely important that they continue. Some of
them have gone on for years; it is only through a succession of
generations of animal life that we can truly get meaningful data
that are useful for this kind of program.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. May I broaden this principle of consultation with
experts in laboratories that are set up in other fields such as
sewage treatment and air purification ? You have not, as you testi-
fied, moved those functions over into this department, but I think
if it is going to work you are going to have to avail yourself of
this tremendous research that is going on in the fields of water,
air, and pesticides—any of these potentially polluting or polluted
elements. EPA will need to maintain a very close liaison with this
research and development that is going in the laboratories, or
something is going to fall in the crack between them. I think that
the success of this organization is going to rest, in the last analy-
sis, on a close and continuing relation with the great research
programs authorized by Congress, that are going on in most every
university in the United States.
Mr. INK. Yes, sir.
Mr. ASH. Yes, sir. One of the main points of our recommenda-
tion centered around the matter of research. We believe as a
matter of effective organizational principle one should not bring to
one central point all research activities related to pollution but one
should at that central point have a cognizance and ability to iden-
[p. 53]
tify and fill vacuums in the research. I believe that the EPA must
have both of these functions, a cognizance of applicable research
in and out of Government, wherever it may—
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Application of that research?
Mr. ASH. Application.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. In their rules and regulations. If they just con-
sider and dismiss it for administrative or bureaucratic reasons,
why, then, we are going to lose.
In the AEC program today there is close to $180 million in the
biological and medical areas—detection of radiation and many
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 169
other research activities which add up to a great body of scientific
information which has been developed in the AEG.
I certainly hope that the relocation of these people that have
been working in close relationship with these laboratories will not,
from an organizational standpoint, divorce them from access to
and consideration of and implementation of the tremendous
amount of knowledge that is annually being developed in laborato-
ries throughout the country, both in Government and in private
laboratories and universities.
Mr. INK. When we talk about the importance of standard-set-
ting being independent of these agencies, and the AEC is a good
example of an agency where we think it is important that it be
separate and independent, we feel that in no way affects EPA's
ability to draw upon scientific results and scientific data from
these agencies. This is something which is true throughout what
we are talking about, not just the AEC area.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank you for your answers on this matter. I
think it is very important that we get this and I appreciate your
responses.
That is all, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to have taken so much
time. I am going to preside in the House and I wanted to ask these
questions before I leave.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
Mr. FINDLEY. On this same subject matter Mr. Holifield devel-
oped, there is a question that I don't think has been answered yet.
The question of disposal of waste nuclear byproduct materials is
going to be a very big problem in future years. Which agency
would have jurisdiction over the pollution represented by the dis-
posal of nuclear waste byproduct materials? Would it be EPA or
AEC?
Mr. INK. The standards with respect to general environmental
exposure would be set by EPA.
Mr. FINDLEY. EPA?
Mr. INK. Yes, sir; that is right. The design, engineering, that
goes into the facilities and determinations as to how to meet those
standards would, however, be retained by the Atomic Energy
Commission.
Mr. FINDLEY. Who would actually be in control of the disposal
practices? Who would supervise that, have jurisdiction over these
practices ? Who would police it, in other words ?
-------
170 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. INK. The AEC will use its licensing operation as a mecha-
nism for seeing that the EPA standards are met.
[p. 54]
Mr. FINDLEY. The Atomic Energy Commission would actually
be the onsite policeman of these standards ?
Mr. INK. Yes, sir; through the licensing operation. However, the
new agency, EPA, will have a monitoring capability and responsi-
bility for environmental problems and this is the function which
HEW now performs and it will be transferred.
Mr. FINDLEY. There would, to an extent, be a duplication of this
policing responsibility; is that correct or not?
Mr. INK. The Atomic Energy Commission—Dr. Seaborg can go
into this in more detail when he testifies—will continue to set
forth conditions in the licenses that need to be met. They have the
competence and the know-how to see how a reactor is put together,
and how it is designed, which, as you can appreciate, is a tremen-
dously complex type of engineering and scientific undertaking. We
have not tried to put into this new agency that kind of scientific
competence which would be needed in the different areas of the
Federal Government, moving over into transportation, for exam-
ple, it becomes—well, I think it is not just feasible over a short
period of time—or desirable. The individuals who will be out mon-
itoring the countryside to see whether the standards are being
met, whether the radioactive levels are higher than they should be,
will be employees of this new agency.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. If the gentleman would yield ?
I say that we have had many thousands of people testify over
the last 24 years that have developed the subject matter of waste
disposal. This has been one of the major concerns of our Joint
Committee and, of course, of the AEC. These 551 employees in
radiological health of the Public Health Service in most cases as
monitors in the States, along with State officials to ascertain if the
AEC is complying with the standards. The AEC or the operational
entities of these different plants that are making weapon material
or making fuel for electric reactors, they have the specific respon-
sibility of handling that material and disposing of the waste in
such a way that it will not damage either the employees or the
population. They work on very strict orders along that line.
They are monitored, I say, not only by their own people to be
sure that they are in line; this is an hour-by-hour and minute-by-
minute occurrence in every one of these factories. But their dis-
posal cemeteries, if you want to call them that, are all subject to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 171
the State and the Federal Public Health officer's monitoring also.
It is not just the AEC alone that has the say as to where this
material is placed and that sort of thing.
Mr. FINDLEY. I am not suggesting it be taken away from AEC.
I am wondering if there would be a duplication.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. There is a necessary duplication at the opera-
tional level. Care has to be constantly given by the people working
with the materials. This could not be done by an inspection by
Public Health officials. When you get ready to move that outside of
the plant, any material, whether it be material used in electrical
reactors or waste material left over after the fabrication of these
rods, then that becomes a matter of Public Health interest and
State officials' interests in many States, under joint agreements
with the Atomic Energy Commission.
This function is turned over to the States when they will accept
[p. 55]
the responsibility. And if they do not accept the responsibility, the
AEC has to be responsible to the Federal Public Health people.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Ash, if I
may, a more fundamental question; that is, why we have before us
an agency proposal as opposed to a departmental proposal. Is
there any advantage to an agency as compared with a
department?
On page 7, I think it is, you state that a department would be
called upon to make decisions affecting other departments that
could adversely affect its objectivity. I would imagine that the
same condition might develop with an agency in making decisions,
too; would it not?
Mr. ASH. The mission of the departments generally have a
degree of operations where they are affected by the standards that
would be set and where their own operations for which they do
have responsibilities in a sense, have a potential vested interest in
what the standards become.
An agency whose sole role and mission is not to carry out
operations—Interior has operations of its own, DOD has, and
others, but an agency whose mission is to set standards and make
sure they are conformed to does not have the potential problem of
a conflict of interest between promoting an activity or having
operational responsibilities regarding an activity.
The problem posed by having responsibility for setting stand-
ards that might bear upon that operational activity is the basic
reason that we feel EPA should be separate from any one depart-
-------
172 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ment or, for that matter, not another department but instead an
agency, because it does not have the operational content of the
departments generally.
Mr. FINDLEY. Once the new agency is established, it will have
complete control of the operational activities of all of these subor-
dinate units listed on the chart as well as standards involved, will
it not ?
Mr. ASH. These operational activities are ones that surround
and make effective the setting of standards, research that leads to
the setting of the standards, monitoring systems that follow them,
the means of enforcement that in turn are based upon standards
and monitoring.
While they do have operations under that definition, they are all
operations that are supportive of the function of environmental
protection as its total function. It is a much narrower function
than, let us say, all of Interior or the breadth of all of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. It is a crosscut type of responsibility that is
narrow and deep on the subject of environmental protection, and
therefore the operations are of a narrower mission as opposed to
the operations in the broader sense that Interior or Agriculture or
others would have.
Mr. FINDLEY. As I recall, Mr. Ash, you stated that the commis-
sion you had did not recommend the EPA even though you do now
endorse it without qualification. Did your commission, in fact,
recommend this ?
Mr. ASH. Yes, sir. I think that one account said otherwise. That
was incorrect.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this
point.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Ash, I have just a few questions.
We have a quorum call underway.
The questions on the manner in which this whole program was
attacked are not meant as a personal criticism against you or the
[P. 56]
council. There is no question, it is enormously complicated and it
is an involved, intertwined, and interwoven program. You stated
that you had your staff working since the latter part of last No-
vember in examining the organization of pollution control pro-
grams scattered throughout the executive departments, so they
have a pretty good notion of what you are trying for. It is a jungle
intertwined and interwoven as it affects us in so many, many
ways.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 173
Of all of the programs that you have examined, could you tell us
roughly just as 10, 20, 30, or 25 or 50 or 75, how many programs
dealing directly or partially or peripherally with environment
were examined? How many programs are there in the executive
departments and agencies of the Government?
Mr. ASH. I think that in those rough terms the number would
be approximately 50 to 60.
Mr. BLATNIK. How about 90? Peripheral.
Mr. ASH. It is a matter of definition. As an example, one of the
matters that we dealt with was the line of delineation between
environmental protection, on the one hand, and occupational and
product hazard on the other. In some areas that line is hazy and
we felt that nevertheless it was an important distinction to make.
Mr. BLATNIK. To be on the safe side, work with the figure
around 50. Of these, how many do you have in your agency, pro-
pose and recommend be included in the agency,
Mr. ASH. The number is approximately eight, I believe; six to
eight. Obviously, by numbers far from the preponderance of all
such programs, but by their particular substantive content—
Mr. BLATNIK. Could we get to that later? I recognize that num-
bers in themselves are something. We have to start somewhere.
Out of the 50 as a starting point we have established yesterday
that this Environmental Protection Agency was not so much pro-
tection as merely a start in the environmental protection field.
How many agencies are included in the chart presented to us in
yesterday's testimony?
Mr. ASH. I believe there are 10 of those that are there.
Mr. BLATNIK. How many agencies are recommended to be in-
cluded in this proposed agency ?
Mr. ASH. I have just seen that list for the moment. I didn't
know it was there.
Mr. COSTLE. There is a chart
Mr. BLATNIK. Who made the chart?
Mr. COSTLE. I believe it was furnished by the CEQ yesterday.
Mr. ASH. I didn't know it was there.
Mr. BLATNIK. Can we get this information from someone ?
Mr. ASH. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. In rough terms?
Mr. ASH. It looks like nine. I estimated eight and the list here is
apparently nine.
Mr. BLATNIK. Nine out of 50 ? You stated that your staff inter-
viewed 180 persons, including top officials of all Government pro-
grams examined, former Government officials, public administra-
-------
174 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tion experts, colleges, pollution experts and economists. The staff
also interviewed a number of regional, State and local pollution
control officials. We made one point yesterday that this Congress
began 17 years ago to work on water pollution, long before any
[p. 57]
governmental agency was involved, and built it up to the $1.2
billion program it is today. Not one single member of the top staff
people of either the House or Senate committees that I have per-
sonally checked on was consulted, except perhaps a very brief and
perfunctory discussion in one or two instances. Not one knowl-
edgeable member who knows the legislative processes, who knows
the subject material, who knows the contacts that we have had
with the citizens, with the individual conservation groups, with
industry people, has been contacted in this instance.
Is there any reason for that?
Mr. ASH. Well, I believe there were a number of discussions
that were held with the Members of Congress and by our staff
people. It is true that what was not done was to prepare recom-
mendations and then with those in hand present them to Members
of Congress. In fact, we started with such an open book and open
mind that our discussions with all of the people with whom we
talked were before rather than after we settled on any recommen-
dations at all. Those 180 people include, I think, 16 Members of
the House and Senate and were talked to by the members of the
staff prior to formation of any of the recommendations that were
made for any points that were felt to be important.
Mr. BLATNIK. I will drop this for the time being.
One point is this: We had a very fine illustration very recently
while working on a rather similar related subject matter, con-
sumer policy under the Consumer Agency, where the proposal
ranged all the way from creating a new Cabinet to making a little
office in the Executive Office of the President. We worked out a
compromise bill between the administration proposal, the demo-
cratic proposal, and the very fine proposal by Mrs. Dwyer on this
side; and, subsequently, the President and the administration sent
their own proposal to the Congress. After that, we worked in
conference and, with give and take, with a true molding process
that is truly legislative shaping, I think, in its best effort, we came
out with a proposal, I believe with the almost unanimous support
of this committee as well as unanimous and strong support from
consumers on a very emotional and controversial matter. I hope in
the future we can do more of this give and take. It is not that we
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 175
are real experts here, but in certain areas we do have quite a bit of
experience in the subject matter and the legislative processes. We
know the temper of the Congress. We do have, we think, some-
thing to offer.
It is necessary from this point to recognize the need for the
leadership to come from the commission of experts assigned to a
special mission. We do recognize and respect it. Likewise, we do
hope that you will acknowledge that we have no opportunity in the
slightest manner to alter a comma of this proposal. I think it is a
very weak start. I can start with almost no preparation and there
are several additions I can make immediately without any study.
No. 1, since you have the total water pollution program of the
Federal Water Quality Administration in which, right now, $1
billion has been appropriated for grants for pollution facilities,
why don't you include in HUD's program the water and sewer
grants which total $150 million a year for grants alone? Then the
$50 million in loans. Is there a $200 million program right there
[p. 58]
that should be included in this program?
Mr. ASH. Do you wish an answer on that?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir.
Mr. ASH. The Council discussed that particular set of programs
at some length. We felt that these particular programs were more
closely related to the primary mission of their departments in the
process of urban and community planning than they were to the
issue of environmental protection as the first order concern. This
was the main reason.
Mr. BLATNIK. I think it is obvious that a sewerline is very
directly connected with a pollution abatement plant. If you are not
going to have a sewerline you are not going to treat the water. No
matter how good the plant is, if you don't have the connecting
sewers and stations you are not going to be giving the treatment
to th'e area it should get. Let me give you another illustration in
connection with HUD and the water sewerlines. One of the big-
gest, totally frustrating, immutable, and insoluble problems is
what to do with the combined sewer problems in the cities. They
are continually getting larger and larger. The population rate of
growth is 15 or 20 times larger and yet we have a problem. No
matter how many pollution abatement plants you build, you can
not compete, you cannot do the job as long as we have these
combined storm and sewer lines.
To correct that it would cost $20 billion, which is a most con-
-------
176 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
servative estimate. We had a $20 million grant for a demonstra-
tion program available for 5, 6, or 7 years, with no takers. They
came up with two small projects. No one knows how to begin with
that problem. Why was that not included in this environmental
protection proposal? It is one of the toughest problems involving
municipalities and health, regarding research and engineering. It
needs every effort behind it. Why was that omitted ?
Mr. ASH. None of these are perfect solutions in the sense that
the issue solves itself as to whether to include a responsibility or
not. There were other close matters. We feel that we were looking
at the primary thrust of the programs as the main determinant
even though many departments, in their carrying out of their
primary missions, are charged—all departments are charged with
the cognizance of environmental matters in the process. We feel
that on these close matters it is worth continuing to observe and to
study the directions that the programs either do go or should go
because the Environmental Protection Agency, as an entity, is not
the last and only opportunity to improve. It can be augmented in
ways that might make it even more effective.
It is not fixed forever. We would welcome continual considera-
tion by the Congress as to which other programs and responsibil-
ities might in fact be brought into that Agency as it develops its
own capabilities and its own impact over the years.
Mr. COSTLE. Mr. Chairman, it might help for clarification for
the record to indicate that in examining this whole range of envi-
ronmental-related programs, including natural resource programs,
that virtually all of the programs we did look at have an obvious
impact in relation to environmental quality. This reorganization
plan is not an attempt to sift down all of those programs. That
would be a monumental task and would involve, for example, Land
Management, the Corps of Engineers. This particular plan deals
[p. 59]
with one particular corner of the problem, which is how to orga-
nize antipollution standard-setting functions.
Mr. BLATNIK. I don't mean to inerrupt you. You are absolutely
right. I fully recognize the interrelationship in many, many areas.
We are talking about, say, 15 out of 50, or easily 15 out of 80. Why
are we concerned with the sewage abatement facility plant itself,
and putting it in the agency and excluding all sewer lines that
connect up to it?
Mr. COSTLE. I think
Mr. BLATNIK. That is a simple directed one.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 177
Mr. COSTLE. FWQA is concerned with the problem of combined
sewers. You are aware of the interagency agreement. There is no
question that this was one of the most difficult judgments we had
to make. We thought the departments involved who have these
programs made very strong cases for why they needed to continue
to have these programs. Similarly, the connection, as you point
out, between sewers and pollution control is a very obvious one.
We were assured by the departments that the interagency agree-
ment was beginning to have its own real effect in terms of simpli-
fying the problem for local governments.
As Mr. Ash said, we do not view this plan as an immutable plan.
Mr. BLATNIK. I am not talking about a perfect start but a
reasonably good start. I think we are operating at about a 10-per-
cent level of efficiency here. Let us get up to around 30 or 40
percent, if we can, a reasonably good start. Let me give you
another example that puzzles me.
Another glaring, striking, vexing, frustrating problem that we
have been wrestling with and don't know how to cope with is
acid-mine drainage, which is seeping poisons and pollutants con-
tinually, day in day out, and week after week and year after year.
It is not included in this Environmental Protection Agency.
Is there any reason why this tough problem, that is quite well-
defined, visible, precise, and specific is not included? Isn't that a
serious part of this factor in environmental protection?
Mr. ELKINS. The Federal Water Quality Administration is con-
cerned with acid-mine drainage and will continue to be so con-
cerned in the new Agency. There are other agencies
Mr. BLATNIK. Is the acid-mine drainage a problem included in
the Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. ELKINS. The concern with that problem, which the Federal
Water Quality Administration now has, will be transferred to the
Environmental Protection Agency. There are other agencies con-
cerned with that problem
Mr. BLATNIK. What other agencies ?
Mr. ELKINS. The Bureau of Mines. I am not familiar with all of
them.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is that research function of the Bureau of Mines
transferred to this agency ?
Mr. ELKINS. No, it is not.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is there any reason why it should not be ?
Mr. ELKINS. The concern here, I believe, is that the Bureau of
-------
178 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mines is concerned with the entire mining operation. It is in a
position to develop control technology and is concerned with the
[p. 60]
whole economic structure of that industry. Since the Federal
Water Quality Administration is already involved
Mr. BLATNIK. You are not answering the question. Why was not
that function of research as it pertains to acid-mine drainage,
which is now in the Bureau of Mines, transferred over to this
Agency ?
Mr. COSTLE. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Mines is an example
of an agency which, in the course of performing a broad support
mission for a particular industry, has developed the expertise nec-
essary to conduct research into the control of pollution generated
by that industry. As such, the question of whether to consolidate
the research posed a difficult problem. It is clear the Bureau's
research activities are related to the antipollution mission of the
new administration because they focus on the capture and recy-
cling of wastes, which may create waste disposal problems. On the
other hand, these programs form an intimate part of the Bureau
of Mines' broad concern with maximum utilization of mineral
resources and require the Bureau's unique technical expertise for
their execution. The issue is whether transferring the Bureau's
program is essential to the operation of the new environmental
administration. On balance, we thought not. The EPA will be able
to achieve a considerable amount of control over the direction of
the Bureau of Mines pollution control work through negotiation of
interagency agreements and the transfer of funds needed by the
Bureau to continue its research. The National Air Pollution Con-
trol Administration has already had some success in this regard.
Most of the air pollution research the Bureau of Mines is now
doing, for example, with their technical experts is funded by
NAPCA.
Moreover, the Bureau of Mines must ultimately conduct its re-
search with reference to the effluent emission standards estab-
lished by the new Environmental Protection Agency. The Bureau
of Mines should be encouraged in its work on control and preven-
tion. EPA should not attempt, in our view, to monopolize all con-
trol technology research but should serve as a catalyst
Mr. BLATNIK. Stop at that point. We should not monopolize all
—you are still not explaining why you have only taken nine agen-
cies out of 50. I think mine acid research has been horribly ne-
glected by the Bureau of Mines for 50 years. That is why we have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 179
this problem, because they have not paid attention to it. You
cannot tell me that you are going to have an agency to deal with
some aspects of environmental control and allow this mine acid
drainage to go into these rivers around the eastern coast and
around the Capital City of Washington. I don't understand that. If
you are going to talk about standards and research and have
nothing to do with this, we don't understand why so many func-
tions were omitted from that agency.
Mr. COSTLE. The $15 million acid mine demonstration program
enacted in Public Law 91-224, which is with the Federal Water
Quality Administration, would be transferred to the new Agency.
Mr. BLATNIK. We moved—and I helped move that—because of
the insistence of the Congressmen from Pennsylvania and West
Virginia and particularly from Chairman Jennings Randolph on
the Senate side. We moved in because the Bureau of Mines was
doing such a lousy job, in plain language. We thought you would
pick it up and carry on the drive in this very important field. You
[P. 61]
have to tackle these problems. If you sit there and hope that
somebody else is going to do it, we don't need your Agency. We
can let the Water Quality Council do that.
If you are not going to have the Agency do the job, then don't
come to us and say we have a central, coordinated, and interre-
lated Agency to take care of all major aspects of environmental
pollution, because you are not doing it.
Mr. ASH. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that point? It is a
crucial point in our consideration.
Mr. BLATNIK. There are many other examples.
Mr. ASH. I am going to talk about the point here involved, of
which that is an example, because there are other examples of like
kind. There are two points that I would like to make.
First, there is always a temptation when a problem is identified
or given a higher degree of priority than it might earlier have
had, to reorganize the whole of the Government around that prob-
lem, identify the many places where activities exist, bring them all
to one place, and in effect structure the Government differently.
We felt that we should consider the principles of primary mission,
acknowledging that across the Government matters of environ-
ment were for many people a mission and an objective along with
other primary missions. So while we took cognizance of the many
activities that concern themselves with pollution, we felt that we
-------
180 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
should bring into one place those activities for whom the primary
mission was a matter of pollution control.
Secondly, the point that I made in my opening statement, and
we believe very strongly in, is that this new Agency has two
missions that we believe will deal with the very kinds of problems
that you have identified and for which there are other examples.
That is, to be a place responsible for identifying new problems and
new solutions and also to be a place that is not only cognizant of
research and efforts going on throughout the rest of the Govern-
ment bearing upon environmental protection but with an ability to
itself fill vacuums, to identify the needs that are not being met, to
take initiatives and cause those needs to be met.
The Bureau of Mines and others may each be charged with some
particular function or responsibility relating to pollution and pol-
lution control, but the EPA will be charged with making sure that
there are no unfilled vacuums, that there are no identified prob-
lems and needs worthy of attention that are not being dealt with
by one of the other agencies with the ability to take to itself those
responsibilities that are not being met by others.
We have deliberately charged it with the function that none of
the other agencies have, the identifying of the very kind of thing
that yon yourself have identified, the shortcomings of programs,
and charging it with the accountability and responsibility to act
on those shortcomings, rather than merely leaving the shortcom-
ings for all to observe but nobody to be responsible for meeting.
Mr. BLATNIK. To give another illustration, on page 6 of your
testimony, Mr. Ash, you list six major objectives. My illustration
relates to the last three of the major objectives that your Council
had in mind in the creation of an Environmental Protection
Agency. One was raised yesterday when Mr. Train was testifying.
In reading your third objective, the ability to recognize and deal
[p. 62]
with new environmental problems, one immediate problem came to
mind. That is the one of noise, particularly that in connection with
jet airplanes and especially the supersonic transport that is under-
way. Here again is a simple identifiable entity, by itself, which is
easy to locate and put your finger on.
Noise research is a new one. We have no agency concerned with
noise itself. We have the National Air Pollution Control Agency
whose officials can talk to the aviation people and say, "You are
emitting too much hydrocarbons; particles are being emitted by
the jets." They can talk to them about polluting the air but they
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 181
cannot talk about the noise problem we have. Why wasn't noise
included in this Agency?
Mr. ASH. That also is one of those subjects that was given very
careful consideration by the Council. It is also one that was a close
question. When we looked into the particular programs that to
date exist relative to noise as a pollutant, they relate to aircraft
engines primarily, even though we all know pollution from noise
ranges much more broadly than that.
As those programs do relate to aircraft engine noise, they are
very heavily tied in with the technical and engineering aspects of
aircraft engine design itself. Again, the closeness of the issue
revolved around the balance of the whole of that function, the
balance in aircraft engine design considerations versus noise, ver-
sus other factors, whether it be power, economics, or anything
else.
We do believe that as time goes on it is highly possible that the
Congress will feel that the definition of this country's concern for
noise pollution will be broadened from the present fairly narrow
program for aircraft noise.
Mr. BLATNIK. Why was it omitted ? We were told yesterday that
now is the time to start. Time is of the essence and the longer we
wait and delay, the worse it is. We go along with the idea and now
we are told there is no need to worry about the noise pollution; it
is at such an elementary stage and such a small program. What-
ever happens to it at the agency—in this case, noise research is
being done primarily by a part of the Research and Technology
Section of the Department of Transportation, that concerns itself
with noise pollution—now would be the time to get to this impor-
tant problem. There is no question that in the next 6 years it
would be a major problem with the jumbo and superjets coming
into operation.
I think now in its incipient stage this small but important func-
tion should be put into the proposed agency.
Mr. ASH. Mr. Ink and I each have a comment. I will defer to
him.
Mr. INK. I was going to say simply that I think Mr. Train's
point was that the work which is done in Transportation now is
primarily directed toward how you develop engines minimizing
the amount of noise. The President, when he forwarded this plan,
said that as a broad mandate—I am quoting now:
EPA would also develop competence in areas of environmental protection
not previously given enough attention, such as the problem of noise, and it
-------
182 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
would provide the organization to which new programs in these areas could
be added
I think the question is one of time. The decision is a close one and
could have gone either way. It would seem to me that if we later
draw together a noise program which has broader application
[p. 63]
than what we are talking about here, I would think EPA would be
a strong candidate for that kind of program. In the meantime, this
agency is one which the President will be looking toward to draw
together ideas about what we should be doing to more adequately
maet the problem of noise.
As I say, one could argue, as you are, that this
Mr. BLATNIK. Our intent is not to argue, but to cite a clear
example of the problem that clearly ought to be in the agency
right now. Time is of the essence.
Mr. INK. There is no question about that. I think we would
agree this has not been given the attention it should receive. This
is the group that needs to pull that together.
Mr. BLATNIK. These are just random illustrations. I have not
made any concerted attempt to go through this with a fine-tooth
comb. We are stumbling across these major problems. Look at
HEW. You are concerned with the Bureau of Radiological Health
in HEW; yet, HEW last February, through a reorganization plan,
renamed the former Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service to the Environmental Health Service. The title
sounds like it has something to do with your first objective stated
on page 6. Your objective there is that you should have research
and standard-setting based on a comprehensive view of the indi-
vidual's health.
My question again would be: Why isn't the Environmental
HeaHh Service in HEW combined with the Bureau of Radiological
Health; why only radiological health? Why wouldn't that be in-
cluded in this agency to comply with your stated objective, "based
on a comprehensive view of the individual's health" ? Why wasn't
that included ?
Mr. INK. I might comment that a number of elements of the
Environmental Health Service are going over to the new agency.
The solid waste group, water hygiene group, and the air pollution
group are going to the new agency.
Mr. ELKINS. Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful to explain for
the record the organization of the HEW to clarify this point.
Within the Environmental Health Service of HEW there are a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 183
number of components. One is the National Air Pollution Control
Administration which would be transferred to the EPA. The other
major component is the Environmental Control Administration.
That administration is made up of several subcomponents. The
first one is solid waste. That would be transferred. Another one is
water hygiene. That would be transferred. Another one is radio-
logical health. A portion of that would be transferred. Occupa-
tional health and safety would not be transferred; nor would the
Bureau of Community Environmental Management. This means
that the major proportions of the entire Environmental Health
Service would be transferred.
It may not be mentioned on Mr. Train's chart perhaps, because
it is a structure above a number of components that will be trans-
ferred.
Mr. BLATNIK. Let us conclude. Mr. Ash, we had our staff work
out a fairly reasonable picture here, after the staff had examined
the organization of the pollution control programs scattered
throughout the executive branch, out of which you brought to-
gether into the Environmental Protection Agency, a single organi-
zation, the major Federal pollution control programs now existing
in four separate agencies and one interagency. Of these, and in
[p. 64]
this new unit proposed, you estimate they will have a budget of
$1.4 billion, out of which $1.2 billion is for water alone and ap-
proximately 6,000 personnel. Could we have the same type of
general figures given as to how many agencies dealing with some
important aspects of pollution control have been eliminated? What
is the number of personnel engaged in those functions? Approxi-
mately how much money is being spent?
We feel that there are more people outside of this agency work-
ing on related environmental problems and spending more money
than you have. We would like to know the reason for leaving so
much out of the environmental program when you entitle this an
Environmental Protection Agency.
In short, how much protection are we getting? Is this 10 per-
cent or 20 percent or 30 percent of the total national effort? If so,
why that little?
Mr. ASH. I believe we can supply those data. I would like to ask
for clarification on one aspect of it. Many of the activities dealing
with pollution control, environmental protection within a depart-
ment may also be so intermingled with the other thrusts of that
department that to identify the individuals, the number of Individ-
-------
184 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
uals and the amount of funds that have to do with a portion of a
mission may be very difficult. As an example, much of the Corps of
Engineers work does bear upon environmental protection. I don't
believe that we want to count all the funds of the Corps of Engi-
neers or all of its personnel. I would find it difficult to determine
exactly where to draw the line as to numbers of personnel and as
to amounts.
On the other hand, we can very readily identify those many
activities that go on within the Government that bear upon pollu-
tion control. To the extent that there are separately identifiable
people and funds, I think that would be an easier job than where
such an integral part of such a major mission does not separate
these amounts. This is where I think we will find the difficulty.
When we talk about environmental protection here, we once
again feel it is important to keep in mind the standard setting,
research leading to it, monitoring, the control processes which are
still far short of everything that has to do with environmental
protection. It is a set of words, environmental protection, that can
be used to mean many, many things. It is not further defined. We
have felt it very important, as I indicated in my opening state-
ment, that we not get lost in the language and that we be very
precise in our understanding of what exactly we think should be
done and why it should be done. We did focus on these particular
aspects of environmental protection. We realize that matters of
population and population distribution all bear in one way or the
other on the environment. So we will do the very best that we can
to answer the question that you have asked and provide you with
those data, recognizing that definitions become very important as
to where environmental matters begin and where they end.
Mr. BLATNIK. The reason we ask for that information—we are
in agreement with you—is there is a great and urgent need to get
as many of these environmental activities in the Government,
which are scattered and fragmented at different levels of author-
ity and different levels of priority within their respective agencies,
[p. 65]
into a single organization. It is now quite a hodgepodge. You
continue to leave some of these functions in these agencies and
question the public emphasis on pollution control. I can just see
these department heads asking for increased budgets. These
things will be brought up again. It is like certain kinds of weeds;
you cut off the weeds and the next thing there are three of them
growing there.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 185
You have the same proliferation and same fragmentation except
you have it in the name of the Environmental Protection Agency
and probably to some degree in action too.
We want to make clear to the Congress the exact degree of
comprehensiveness, whatever you want to call it, and the degree of
effectiveness of this Environmental Protection Agency. We want
to say that this is a start; this is covering the other. We ought to
have the information. This covers 20 or 30 percent of the problem.
We are headed in that direction and we will be aiming, we hope,
within a 5-year period, upward to 70 to 80 percent of the problem.
When I first got the proposal, I got the impression that this is
probably good. I favored greatly upgrading, enlarging, and broad-
ening the existing department and calling it environmental on a
Cabinet level. That was my initial reaction. I saw the advantage of
putting all these environmental functions in a separate agency
where they would be visible, where we could see them, three-di-
mensional, like a cube or prism, and see them all integrated and
interrelated. The more I got into this specific proposal it became
clearly obvious that only a small percentage of the total environ-
mental programs in the Government are included in this agency.
We want the Congress to know that. It is not an environmental
program but just a start of an environmental protection agency.
We would like to have the information, as much as we can get,
now that we know how much is proposed to go into the agency.
Let us know what is outside.
Mr. ASH. We will identify those other activities that bear upon
environmental protection as we define it and discuss it. To the
extent that we can quantify numbers of people and dollars spent,
we will provide you with that information as to each such activity.
Mr. COSTLE. Mr. Chairman, I think the key to understanding the
rationale of this consolidation is the functions that we are talking
about here. What we have isolated and identified are the key
programs that set and enforce criteria and standards. With those
we have associated that research which represents an organic part
of those programs.
Mr. BLATNIK. You have a lot of research not in the agency, do
you not?
Mr. COSTLE. That is right. The research that is directly asso-
ciated with the standard-setting process is transferred. That in-
cludes the $15 million for mine acid drainage that you appropri-
ated for the Water Quality Administration. What we have not
attempted to do is consolidate all research, particularly in those
[p. 66]
-------
186 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
cases where that research may be more intimately related with the
mission of the agency in which it is now placed. The research to
support the standard-setting judgment is brought in, and this
package of programs represents those key standard-setting pro-
grams of the Government.
That is essentially the logical shell which surrounds this.
Mr. BLATNIK. You have a case for that. You see why we start
off with one understanding when you say it is going to be a
NASA-type agency. Imagine NASA going to the Bureau of Stand-
ards and saying, "Mr. Director, look, what kind of a valve should
we use on the gatelift or oxygen cycling system?" Can you imag-
ine that? They are going to build their own, design their own,
determine it, recheck it, and they will tell the industry what kind
they want.
We are getting too much of a presentation. This is a not a single
in-house agency. It is not comparable to a NASA or AEC struc-
ture which we were led to believe—I am sure not intentionally.
That is what I thought for a while.
Mr. INK. Even there they depend on other agencies for impor-
tant functions. For example, NASA did not undertake to develop
the nuclear power system for space. Rather, it continued to draw
upon the AEC for that aid. When we reach the point of going far
out into space, nuclear power is going to be a vital part of our
national space program. We decided not to try to pull everything
together.
Mr. BLATNIK. I agree, again, completely. I do generally agree
with you. My argument here is, if we had at least 40 percent of
the environmental functions in Government, after they all have
been reviewed and drawn together, I would think we had done a
pretty good job. But I do think you have 5 percent. We do not
know. It seems that the witnesses do not know. This information
should be available. We agree with you that the functions should
not be fragmented and scattered throughout the whole Federal
structure; but how much of this has been drawn together and how
much has been left out?
We cannot do it all. If we had 30 or 40 percent, we would say
this is really a good start.
Mr. INK. We agree, of course, that we are talking about the
beginning and not the end, by any means. I think we also would
agree that we have to be careful on the other end, not to draw so
much into EPA that, first, we end up with just another agency
with so many functions that the procedures get in the way of
moving forward a program which is critical and urgent and, sec-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 187
ondly, that we not move so far—I know you are not suggesting
this—that the agencies that have and must have continuing con-
cern, because of their mission, with things which affect the envi-
ronment feel they no longer have a concern or responsibility for
the environment, because that would be self-defeating.
The bulk of the resources of the Federal Government that are
needed to deal with these problems really are around in the var-
ious departments—Agriculture, Interior, and so forth—and we
want to make sure, as I stated in the beginning, that we do not
[P. 67]
move to the point of stripping them of their capability of carrying
out their mission for the enhancement of the environment.
Mr. BLATNIK. A final comment, Mr. Ash.
Mr. ASH. Examples of the principals are the ESSA and the
Bureau of Reclamation, just to take two out of a number that
were examined in the process of considering these organizational
recommendations. Obviously, both of them have much to do, while
carrying out their primary mission, with matters having to do
with environmental protection. The environmental protection
function is not separate even within them, but we would all ac-
knowledge they are there. We would all acknowledge they have
important roles to play.
On the other hand, their concern for environmental protection is
an integral part of playing another important role. To the extent
that we would let the environmental protection consideration dom-
inate, we could well do so to the detriment of the role for which
they were created and exist and even now perform well.
Those are the issues. Many things have been left out. When I
say there are 50 or 60 that deal with environment, I am including
such as the Corps of Engineers, the ESSA, and the Bureau of
Reclamation. I do not want to presume anything, but I think we
would all see the problem of suggesting that those major agencies
be subsumed under a heading of environmental protection, if they
have other prime missions to perform. Even in this comparison of
numbers, these are the substance of and by far the biggest part of
every program that goes on in the Federal Government that deals
with setting standards and the ancillary activities that relate to
the enforcement of the functions, but these are not a large number
out of all of those agencies whose roles include concern for envi-
ronment even as they are carrying out their other major roles, like
the Corps of Engineers, ESSA and the Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
188 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. BLATNIK. Your case is well stated. I gave a few illustrations
of glaring, striking, obvious, and very visible programs.
(The following information was subsequently submitted by Mr.
Ink:)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., August 8,1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Executive and Legislative Reorganization Subcommittee, Govern-
ment Operations Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR JOHN: Attached is a list of the principal programs related to pollu-
tion control and the environment which are not proposed for transfer to
EPA. This is the material that you requested Mr. Ash to furnish, and it has
been prepared by his staff in collaboration with the staff of the Office
of Management and Budget.
[p. 68]
There is no broad consensus as to what should or should not fall in these
categories. I am sure some would believe that additional items could be
added, whereas others would believe that some should be deleted.
As we discussed, the principal reasons for not including these types of
functions in the proposed new agency are:
1. The principal purpose of the President's proposal is to provide a
manageable, hard-hitting agency which can move forward with a vigorous
attack to control pollution, one of the most critical problems confronting
this Nation. To add large numbers of diversified programs would tend to
encumber the agency with administrative problems inherent in large or-
ganizations and dilute the sharp focus on standard setting which we regard
as basic to the urgent task of controlling pollution.
2. Most of the activities in the attached list are heavily involved in the
basic missions of the departments. We are concerned that moving very far
in the direction of breaking these out of existing departments could be self-
defeating since it is essential that these departments carry out their basic
missions in such a way as to enhance the environment and minimize pol-
lution. These departments must continue to feel a sense of responsibility,
and to retain a capability, for helping to improve our environment,
3. As part of the President's staff, the Council on Environmental Quality
has the task of flagging gaps and of seeing that all areas of governmental
activity related to the environment, not just pollution control, are coordi-
nated. Therefore, these diversified programs do not need to be consolidated
in EPA to assure a broad coordinated effort to improve our environment.
4. Although we regard this proposed reorganization as a very important
action which is urgently needed, we recognize that other steps will need to
follow. We believe that drawing the proposed standard-setting functions
together so that environmental control can be looked at in its totality rather
than on the fragmented and piecemeal basis we now use, will permit both the
executive branch and the Congress to better determine what additional steps
may be necessary.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 189
It is my personal view that there is great urgency in establishing the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
With warm regards.
Sincerely,
DWIGHT A. INK,
Assistant Director.
Enclosure
I. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION, $237
Most of this research is directly supportive of the mission of the agency
now carrying it out and is integrally related with other research programs
of the same agency. The results of this research will be available to EPA,
and EPA will have the authority to supplement it in order to ensure that
the total Federal research program is adequate and complete. In addition,
the EPA will have the standard-setting authority which will provide the
frame of reference within which other agencies must carry out their
research.
Despite the urgency associated with establishing the new agency to deal
with pollution control, the success of our efforts also depends heavily upon
many of our major Federal departments and agencies carrying out research
and other activities which will enable them to move forward with their
basic missions in such a way as to enhance the environment and minimize
pollution. We cannot permit these departments and agencies to gain the
impression that they no longer have a responsibility to be concerned about
the environment.
This research, development, and demonstration activity consists primarily of:
[p- 69]
TABLE I—PROGRAMS RELATED TO POLLUTION CONTROL BUT NOT TRANSFERRED TO EPA '
Not trans-
Category ferred:1971 Comments
obligations
(m millions)2
Pesticides:
USDA—Research on effectiveness of $19 USDA's research on pesticides, such as research on more
pesticides in controlling pests and effective methods of pesticide application, is integrally
development of safe alternatives to related to its mission of developing agricultural re-
pesticides for food and fiber pro- sources. EPA will concentrate its research resources on
duction. the environmental effects of pesticides and will look to
USDA and other agencies for advice on efficacy USDA
research will be readily available and accessible to EPA.
Interior—Effects on fish and wildlife. 2 Most of Interior's research on pesticides is integrally
related to its other research on fish and wildlife (e.g ,
research on the reproductive cycle of a particular species
of fish or animal). EPA will supplement the Interior
research and will share laboratory space and laboratory
specimens.
Radiation: AEC—Research on effects, 83 AEC research provides the basis for AEC activities directly
safety, disposal practices, etc. related to its primary mission (e g, research related to
the safe operation of its own and licensed activities,
including waste disposal, processing and handling of
nuclear materials, and more basic research, such as the
interaction of radiation with genetic material (DMA).
Much of it is conducted at the national laboratories.
EPA will have access to the results of the AEC research,
and will have the responsibility to identify gaps in the
research being carried out and the authority to fund
additional research not covered by existing programs.
-------
190
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Category
Not trans-
ferred: 1971
obligations
(in millions)1
Comments
Solid wastes. USDA Interior—Control of
animal and crop wastes, and recovery of
agricultural and mineral resources from
waste.
Noise: NASA/DOT— Design of aircraft en-
gines and vehicles that are quiet.
Air: USDA/DOT/lnterior/DOD—Develop-
ment of control methods for windblown
soil, and control of pollution from agri-
cultural processing plants, airplanes and
vehicles, utilities, and mineral indus-
tries.
Water:
USDA—Control methods for animal
and processing wastes, sediment,
and other agriculturally related
pollutants.
DOT—Coastal protection through de-
tection and cleanup of oil spills
(Coast Guard).
Interior—Basic research in Office o
Water Resources Research, Geo-
logical Survey, and control research
in Bureau of Land Management.
6 Much of this research is conducted for purposes other
than pollution control (e.g., resource development).
EPA will have the lead responsibility for research on
solid wastes and will draw upon the ongoing research
programs in USDA and Interior.
31 NASA and DOT's research is closely tied to its research
on the safety and efficiency of transportation systems.
EPA will have the authority to do research on the eco-
logical effects of noise from all sources, but will look
to NASA and DOT for inputs on the technology of
controlling noise from transportation. The only standard
setting for noise which now exists is in the FAA and
relates to the control of noise from only 1 source-
aircraft. The R. & D. program is largely directed at the
development of engine control devices. Recent research
suggests that noise from nonaviation sources for which
there is yet no standard-setting authority may be a
far more significant environmental hazard. Should
Congress enact standard-setting authority in this area,
EPA would be a logical candidate as the place in which
to put that authority. CEQ is now developing recom-
mendations for a total noise control program for the
Federal Government.
32 Most of the research on the control of pollution will be
funded by EPA. However, EPA will draw upon the on-
going research programs in other agencies where it is
relevant and helpful to do so and where another agency
may have a special expertise to contribute EPA will
review other agencies' research and will be charged with
the responsibility for insuring that the overall research
program for the Government is adequate and that
gaps are filled.
17 Most control technology research relating to water will
be funded by EPA, but EPA will draw upon ongoing
research in other agencies.
4 The Coast Guard has certain responsibilities relating to oil
cleanup because of its ability to provide an extensive
fleet for these operations and its competence in boat
safety. The Coast Guard does research directly related
to fulfilling these responsibilities. EPA will also do
research in this area and will coordinate with Coast
Guard.
9 EPA will have the lead in water pollution research, but
will draw on research done in other agencies also. The
research in other agencies is integrally related to the
missions of these agencies (study of ground water
characteristics and flow).
1 Table does not include water and sewer programs ($412,000,000) which sometimes are considered to be "pollution
related" programs, but which also serve other purposes. These programs are included in table II. This table also does
not include expenditures by HEW, Labor, and DOD on occupational safety and health ($16,000,000). Many of AEC's occu-
pationally related activities are included because it is impossible to separate them from other AEC activities which are
directly relevant to this table.
- The dollar amounts shown are estimates subject to determination orders to be issued by the Director, OMB, trans-
ferring resources to EPA. Also, amounts do not add to totals since only the principal items are listed in each category.
[p. 70]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
191
II. MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE, $41
EPA will collect, consolidate, and analyze data from all agencies and be
responsible for the development of a comprehensive pollution monitoring
program. EPA will make use of existing monitoring capabilities of the
Government, but will also have the authority to supplement and build upon
these capabilities.
The monitoring and surveillance activities not transferred to EPA consist
primarily of:
Category
Not trans-
ferred: 1971
obligations
(in millions)1
Comments
Water:
AEC—Monitoring of radioactive wastes
and other radioactive materials.
Geological Survey—Water monitoring
ESSA—Air monitoring.
HEW—Surveillance of pesticides in
food.
Other agencies—Monitoring of own
activities for control purposes.
$17 AEC's monitoring activities are aimed at specific AEC
facilities and operations. EPA will have authority for
monitoring aimed primarily at the general public and
the environment. These 2 efforts will be closely coordi-
nated. The experience and competence residing in the
Bureau of Radiological Health, HEW, which has been
directly involved in surveillance and monitoring activi-
ties related to the environmental impact of nuclear
energy operations will be transferred to EPA.
5 EPA will have the lead in water-quality monitoring, but
will rely on Geological Survey for much of the actual
sampling and analysis, just as FWQA has m the past
2 EPA will do extensive air monitoring, but will look to
ESSA for monitoring of background pollution in remote
areas and for weather prediction needed for determina-
tions of air pollution alerts.
3 HEW (FDA) carries out extensive food surveillance aimed
at protecting the public from unsanitary and contami-
nated foods. Monitoring for pesticides is only one part
of this system. Leaving this monitoring in FDA minimizes
multiple Federal inspectors checking the same food.
EPA will have the authority to fund supplemental
monitoring by FDA or others wherever EPA determines
it is necessary.
8 All agencies must maintain the capability of meeting
pollution standards in their own activities as required
by Executive order. Monitoring is essential to the ful-
fillment of this responsibility.
III. STANDARDS PROMULGATION AND ENFORCEMENT, $15
Primarily:
AEC—Licensing and regulatory activi-
ties.
DOT—Noise control for aircraft.
13 The AEC licenses and regulates facilities such as nuclear
reactors and specia I materials with emphasis on preven-
tion of accidental releases of radioactivity and the
protection of the worker. With regard to routine releases
of radioactive effluents, EPA will set environmental
standards which will be enforced by the AEC through
its licensing authority.
2 CEQ is now developing recommendations for a total noise
control program for the Federal Government. EPA
would be a logical candidate as the place for standard-
setting to be located.
IV. OTHER
A. AEC—Waste disuosal.
45 Capital and operating costs of AEC disposal sites used
primarily for AEC's own high-level wastes; for example,
-------
192 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Category
Not trans-
ferred: 1971
obligations
(in millions)1
Comments
the restricted disposal sites at Hanford, Wash ; Savannah
River, S.C , and Idaho Falls, Idaho.
B Pollution abatement at Federal instal- 213 Funds contained in various agencies' budgets for c'eanup
lations. of Federal operations. Actions are subject to Executive
Order 11507 which will require consultation with EPA
as to the adequacy of control measures in meeting
standards approved or set by EPA
i The dollar amounts shown ate estimates subject to determination orders to be issued by the Director, OMB, trans-
ferring resources to EPA Also, amounts do not add to totals since only the principal items are listed in each category.
[p. 71]
TABLE II
Federal Funding For Environmentally Related Activities *
(Not primarily related to pollution control)
1971 obligations tin
Program or activity 'millions of dollars)
I. Construction related to environmental quality 412
Water and sewer programs (HUD, USDA, Commerce, Appa-
lachian Region Commission.)
[Note: Water and sewer programs are multi-purpose. For
example, HUD utilizes sewer programs as a lever to reinforce
the goals of its urban development programs, since placement
of sewers is a key factor in determining the pace, direction,
and nature of urban development; Agriculture's programs
represent assistance to rural areas to improve the level of
public service provided in those areas; EDA programs provide
a subsidy to economically depressed areas for the purpose of en-
couraging economic development. Transfer of these programs
from their present locations would handicap these departments
in carrying out their primary missions.]
II. Enhancing the environment 1,050
Primarily: Provision of recreation resources (Interior, HUD,
Corps, USDA.) Preservation of fisheries and wildlife (Interior,
USDA.) Provision of open space, highway rest areas (HUD,
DOT, OEO.) Highway beautification, flood prevention, and
urban transportation planning (DOT, USDA, EDA.)
III. General science services related to the environment 796
Primarily: Weather prediction and research (ESSA, DOD,
NASA, USDA.) Data buoy program (DOT.) Locating and de-
scribing natural resources (USDA, Interior, NASA, NSF.)
Basic research (NIH, NSF, Smithsonian.)
1 Almost every agency of the Federal Government has programs which bear directly or
indirectly on environmental quality. Consolidation of all such environmentally related activities
would involve a major restructuring of many Federal departments, weaken the ability of
departments to use their programs to enhance the environment, and if carried very far, result
in a large, diversified agency in which it would be difficult to mount rapidly an effective pollu-
tion control program.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 193
1971 obligations (in
Program or activity millions of dollars)
IV. Weather modification 13
V. Management of public lands (Interior, USDA, DOD) 211
VI. Population control and redistribution _. 136
Includes new towns program (HEW, OEO, HUD.)
VII. Minimizing environmental impact caused by public works ac-
tivities (Federal and non-Federal) and by non-Federal natural
resource exploitation activities 864
Control of effects from water development and agricultural
programs and construction of highways (USDA, DOD, Interior,
DOT.)
VIII. Education 47
Primarily: Agricultural Extension Service.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Ash, I am wondering if you could give us
any clue as to what considerations the Council had in mind about
the internal arrangement of the new Agency after it is set up. We
do not have anything in the plan that tells us how this is to be
done.
Mr. ASH. I can make one statement, and then Mr. Ink can
augment that.
We have identified those activities that we feel should be
brought together. On the other hand, one of the reasons for bring-
ing them together is to recognize the interdependence among the
problems and their solutions, and that we feel the Administrator
of this new Agency should have the opportunity to identify those
interdependencies in a way that we can most effectively organize
the internal structure of the EPA.
[p. 72]
We do have some ideas, but we felt that it would not be proper
and not be valuable to impose those ideas on the structure, but
merely to develop them so that when the Administrator assumes
such a responsibility, the thinking would have been done, but at
the same time he would have the opportunity to structure the
organization in such a way that he feels will be effective.
Mr. Ink can discuss some of those ideas. They are not necessar-
ily the way that it ultimately will be internally organized, but it is
some thinking that has been done to this point.
Mr. INK. Of course, when the plan becomes effective, the opera-
tional units which are now in existence will be transferred over.
The water pollution control group from Interior, for example, will
be transferred intact. The air group from HEW will be moved
-------
194 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
over as a group. The pesticides programs are coining from several
different areas. They will be moved into a pesticide unit but, as
Mr. Ash pointed out, we do not feel we should preclude the new
Administrator from having a voice in how those pesticide groups
are brought together.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Ink, you are setting up five new assistant
administrators, new positions that are being created. Can you give
us some idea what each one of those would be doing and how these
organizations will fit in under their responsibilities?
Mr. INK. Let me come to that in a minute, if I might.
Finally, the radiation functions which are coming from three
different sources—AEC, Federal Radiation Council, and HEW—
will probably be put into one unit.
In addition to that, he will, of course, have an administrative
unit, and he will have some type of planning and evaluation unit.
We would expect that a new Administrator will also, as most
agencies do, want to establish some staff unit of a crosscutting
nature. I think monitoring may be one of these; EPA will have
monitoring in a lot of different areas and will have to see what can
be done with respect to coordinating that effort. Research is an-
other. Some of the pollution control areas have moved much fur-
ther in research than have others. That needs to be coordinated.
It is here particularly that we think the new Administrator
ought to have the opportunity to have a voice, as was done in the
case of the Secretary of Transportation, for example. You recall
when the Department of Transportation was discussed before the
committee, we talked about staff functions, but they were not
specifically identified. We discussed organization with the commit-
tee before they were actually specified. At the time of the hearings
on DOT on the Hill, this had not been determined.
Mr. HENDERSON. Maybe we can go into that in a little more
detail when you make your presentation. I do not want to detain
the committee now. Would that be all right with you ?
Mr. INK. Yes.
Mr. BLATNIK. We thank you, not only for your presence but for
the enormous amount of time that you and the members of the
Council have paid to this important subject. I hope the discussions
of yesterday and today do not indicate differences of opinion. I
think they underlie and underscore the magnitude of the problem
as much more complicated, complex and interrelated—a frustrat-
ing problem. We worked with water alone and are still having a
dickens of a time trying to solve that problem.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 195
We appreciate your recommendations and your judgments, and
I hope you understand our feelings. Our main problem, I think, is
not so much differences in objectives or differences in goals or
even how to get to the goals, but I think a closer working relation-
ship, to some degree, in advance of these problems would be
helpful.
The Congress is in a rather difficult position, being in a sort of
strait-jacket so it cannot make even reasonable minor adjustments
in the proposal once it comes up here. The more comprehensive the
program is before it is presented, the easier time we have here.
We thank you, the Council and the members of your staff, for
your participation and for your very important contribution.
The hearings will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. Mr. Ink,
I think you may summarize your portion on the administrative
aspects as necessary, I do want to express apologies to the remain-
ing witnesses. I am confident we will be able to hear your testi-
mony this afternoon.
The hearings will recess until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to re-
convene at 2 p.m. of the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. BLATNIK. The Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative
Reorganization of the House Government Operations Committee
will please come to order. We will resume public hearings on
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Thank you, Mr. Ink, for standing by all day yesterday and being
available this morning. You have a statement to present as Assist-
ant Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. Ink, if I may suggest it—it is our fault as much as any-
one's, because we inadvertently scheduled too many witnesses for
today—if you could summarize your statement, the statement in
its entirety will appear in the record at this point. Without repeat-
ing those areas that have been covered yesterday and this morning
—the need for a single agency, the advantages, et cetera—without
duplicating all that has been covered, feel free to make any com-
ments which you feel have not yet been brought to light to make a
more complete record available—what we have not covered too
well yet on the organizational structure, the agencies, the person-
nel, and the possible costs.
We may have some questions in that area, too.
-------
196 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
You may proceed. Your statement will appear in its entirety at
this point in the record.
(Mr. Ink's prepared statement follows:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OP DWIGHT A. INK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to appear in support of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970 which would create a new Environmental Protection Agency.
As the President pointed out in his message transmitting plan No. 3 and
plan No. 4, which would establish a National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in the Department of Commerce, these plans represent im-
portant steps toward organizing our environmentally related activities more
effectively. They have grown up piecemeal and are now scattered among a
number of departments and agencies. While he recognizes that further
changes may be desirable in this very complex area and that proposals have
been made for such changes, the President has stated, "I also think that in
[P- 74]
practical terms, in this sensitive and rapidly developing area, it is better to
proceed a step at a time—and thus to be sure that we are not caught up in a
form of organizational indigestion from trying to rearrange too much at
once."
The President well summarized the basic problem we face in the environ-
mental protection area when he stated that, "Our national Government
today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which
debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our
food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environ-
mental pollution often defies effective and concerted action." In pointing out
that the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system, the
President also indicated that current executive branch assignments do not
reflect that interrelationship.
At present, responsibility for pollution control is divided primarily accord-
ing to the medium in which the contaminant occurs, i.e., air (HEW), water
(mainly Interior), and land or food (HEW, Agriculture). However, a single
source may pollute the air with smoke and chemicals, the land with solid
wastes, and a river or lake with chemical and other wastes. Control of air
pollution may convert the smoke to solid wastes that then pollute land or
water, and control of water-polluting effluents may convert them into solid
wastes which then must be disposed of on land. Some pollutants, such as
pesticides and radiation, are present in all media, and do not fit into the tra-
ditional air-water-soil categories. This fragmentation leaves us vulnerable
to confusion, overlap and delay in the recognition of new problems which cut
across organizational boundaries. More importantly, there has been no place
of central cognizance and responsibility for determining research priorities
and recommending standards, for monitoring individual pollutants appearing
in different media, and for preventing the introduction of new pollutants into
the environment.
A more effective approach to pollution control would involve the systematic
identification of different pollutants and then the tracing of their paths
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 197
through the various elements of the environment, the determination of the
total permissible exposure of an individual or the environment to a pollutant
or pollutants, and the evaluation of the interactions among different pol-
lutants and different forms of pollution. Research, standard-setting and policy
formulation could then occur on a comprehensive basis.
A consolidation of the major existing pollution control programs is, in our
judgment, necessary to accomplish these objectives. Similarly, a consolidated
pollution control agency would insure that the responsibility for dealing with
new environmental problems will be promptly fixed. It would also serve to
simpify relations between the Federal Government and State and local gov-
ernments, and would enable private industry to comply more readily with
pollution control regulations by providing a single tolerance-setting agency.
In order to deal with these problems and issues, Reorganization Plan No. 3
would create a new agency—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—
to consolidate our basic efforts to determine tolerance levels and standards
for various major forms of pollution affecting the general environment and,
where appropriate, to bring together our efforts to enforce those standards
and to provide assistance in alleviating pollution problems.
The plan deals with activities relating to five basic areas of pollution—
water, air, solid waste, pesticides and radiation—and combines in EPA the
functions carried out by the Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA),
now in the Department of the Interior; the National Air Pollution Control
Administration (NAPCA), parts of the Environmental Control Administra-
tion (EGA), and the pesticides research and regulatory programs of the Food
and Drug Administration, all presently located in HEW; the pesticides regis-
tration and related authority of the Department of Agriculture; the environ-
mental radiation protection standard-setting function of the AEC; the func-
tions of the Federal Radiation Council; some of the pesticides research con-
ducted by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries; and authority to conduct
ecological systems research, now vested in the Council on Environmental
Quality. The EPA's estimated budget and staff in fiscal year 1971 will be
$1.4 billion and almost 6,000 personnel.
The criterion for deciding what programs should be placed in the new
agency was that the EPA should include all those, and only those, programs
or functions necessary for it to carry out its mission of integrated policy-
making and pollution control. Thus, the plan would transfer existing stand-
ard-setting authority covering all the major classes of pollutants to the new
agency, and provide it with access to the research competence necessary to
determine what the standards should be. EPA can also obtain needed infor-
[p. 75]
mation or services from other agencies, on the basis of interagency agree-
ments if necessary. In addition, the EPA will incorporate many of the major
Federal technical assistance and grant programs which, hitherto, have been
the backbone of the Government's antipollution effort. We have not felt that
it was either practical or desirable to transfer to EPA certain enforcement
activities—such as FDA's food removal authority—which are integral parts
of a larger effort in another agency involving factors other than pollution.
This has involved difficult judgments in some areas, and experience may
well indicate later adjustments are desirable.
While the plan results in reasonably clear and simple transfers in the
areas of water, air and solid waste pollution, I believe it would be helpful
-------
198 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
to explain in some detail how the plan would deal with the areas of pesticide
and radiation pollution which are quite complex and involve pulling together
programs of several agencies.
The present Federal regulatory authority in the pesticide area is directed
at providing farmers, homeowners, public health officers, and other individuals
with pesticides which are adequate to control pests while at the same time
protecting the public health, the health of the user, and the general environ-
ment. Federal law provides for a system of standard-setting and premarket
clearance in order to achieve this goal. For example, the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act directs the Secretary of HEW to establish food tolerances
for pesticides, that is, pesticide residues allowed on raw agricultural products
and in processed foods. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodent-
icide Act (FIFRA), the Secretary of Agriculture may register a pesticide
for specific uses in the United States if he finds that the pesticide is both
effective and safe for humans and is not overly damaging to the environment.
The pesticide must be registered in such a manner that the pesticide, when
used according to the directions on the label, will not result in residues on or
in foods greater than those established by the Secretary of HEW.
In establishing food tolerances, the primary objective of the HEW Secre-
tary is to protect the public from unsafe food. However, the Act also directs
the Secretary to "* * * give appropriate consideration among other relevant
factors * * * to the necessity for the production of an adequate, wholesome
and economical food supply * * *." These tolerances are enforced through
both the FDA food inspection program and the USDA meat and poultry
inspection programs.
The Secretary of HEW also reviews proposed pesticide labels for safety to
humans, focusing particularly on the possibility of hazard to the users or
to other humans who might come in contact with the pesticide. In a similar
way, the Secretary of the Interior reviews proposed pesticide labels to insure
that the label instructions are adequate to protect fish and wildlife. The
latter two reviews are conducted under the terms of an administrative
arrangement among the three Secretaries. The Secretary of Agriculture may
take the views of the other two Departments into consideration when reg-
istering a pesticide and in practice usually does, but he is not legally bound
to do so.
There has been considerable criticism recently of the way in which the
Federal Government has acted to avoid the undesirable effects of pesticides.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that the laws under which the
Federal Government operates are inadequate. For example, the Government
does not have control over the actual use of pesticides (except in the limited
case of application of pesticides by airplane). Another part of the problem
results from the fact that the principal emphasis of the Federal program
when it started was on the efficacy of marketed pesticides. While this aspect
of the problem is still extremely important, we are now beginning to place
very heavy emphasis on the environmental effects of pesticides. Further, since
the regulatory authority has been so fragmented, it has been difficult for
any one department to assume the needed leadership role and to direct
resources for a coordinated Federal effort.
During the past year considerable effort has been made to improve the
operation of the Federal program. A new interagency agreement between the
Secretaries of Agriculture, HEW, and Interior was developed which assures
that the registration process will reflect the increased concern with the human
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 199
health and other environmental effects of pesticides. This action has led to
cancellation and suspension actions on certain uses of some persistent
pesticides, such as DDT. Nevertheless, further steps, such as this reorgajii-
zation, are needed.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 calls for the consolidation of the major aspects
of the Federal pesticide effort. EPA will have the responsibility hoth for
establishing tolerances for pesticide residues on food and for registering
[p. 76]
pesticides under FIFRA. The EPA will look to the Department of Agricul-
ture, the Department of the Interior and the Department of HEW for
research and advice on the efficacy of these pesticides, and for basic research
on the effects of these pesticides on health and on the general environment.
However, EPA will have authority and funds to conduct certain research
needed for its regulatory decisions. The EPA will also be the focal point for
the Federal monitoring effort and public information activities related to
pesticides.
The Food and Drug Administration will retain its responsibility for taking
legal action against foods which have excessive residues of pesticides. This
legal enforcement function is an integral part of the FDA's food protection
activities and there is no need for the EPA to duplicate this extensive enforce-
ment capability. For the same reason, the Secretary of Agriculture will
retain his authority to remove from the market meat and poultry products
which contain residues of pesticides in excess of EPA tolerances. EPA will
do supplementary monitoring of pesticides and their effects to the extent it
deems necessary.
Perhaps the most essential feature of this reorganization of pesticide
activities is the combining of two Federal regulatory authorities—the USDA
registration authority and the FDA tolerance-setting authority.
In the radiation area, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency will assume responsibility for the functions presently performed by
the Federal Radiation Council, the functions of the Division of Radiation Pro-
tection Standards in AEC that have to do with establishing environmental
standards applicable to the general population, and the functions of the
Bureau of Radiological Health in HEW, except for those functions that
relate to consumer product regulation, radiation as used in the healing arts,
and occupational exposures to radiation.
The FRC now sets body dose guides or criteria: The amount of radiation
to which a member of the general public may be exposed. It also deals with
the problem of occupational exposures. To do this, the FRC now relies on the
published literature and the competence of groups such as the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements, and the International Commission on Radiation Protection.
The FRC also utilizes expert temporary staffs for special studies. The radia-
tion protection guides are now presented by the chairman of the FRC to the
President for approval. Upon his acceptance, they become guidelines for
Federal agencies in their own activities and those licensed by them, and the
guidelines are incorporated into standards and regulations promulgated by
the agencies.
The Federal Radiation Council would be abolished, but all its duties,
responsibilities, and activities will be assumed by the EPA. As a result, EPA
will establish radiation protection guides (dose criteria) for the general
-------
200 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
population and occupational workers. These criteria will be determined (and
continually reexamined), as is done now by the PRC, with the aid of panels
of scientists from within and without the Federal Government who will sift
data produced by researchers in the scientific community. The existing
statutory requirement that the NAS and NCRP be consulted would continue
to apply. I would stress the importance of drawing upon the best technolog-
ical and scientific expertise available for this important work.
The EPA will use these radiation protection guides in setting general
environmental standards. By standards, we mean limits on radiation ex-
posures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material, in
the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under the con-
trol of persons possessing or using radioactive material.
EPA's general environmental standards will be enforced by the AEC
through its licensing authority. They will also be used by the AEC and other
Federal agencies in carrying out their direct activities.
During the course of our discussions of plan No. 3 with Members of
Congress and others a series of questions have been raised which I would
like to comment on.
First, the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency as a
separate agency rather than as a component of an existing department or
agency has been questioned. A deciding factor in this case was the need to
give emphasis to the environmental protection programs and to avoid the
risk of those programs being buried in the massive variety of on-going efforts
in which Cabinet departments are involved. Just as the atomic energy and
space programs were organized to be performed by separate new agencies
because of their high national priorities at the time they were established,
so the President believes that the environmental protection program, which
is of critical importance, needs to be housed in a separate agency for the
concentrated effort that needs to be mounted.
[p. 77]
It has been suggested that, since most of the EPA programs now are with-
in executive departments headed by Cabinet members, their placement in a
separate agency headed by a non-Cabinet level administrator results in a
downgrading. We cannot agree. At present, these programs are placed in such
a way that various levels of supervisors exist between them and the Cabinet
members, and they must compete for attention with a host of other impor-
tant departmental activities. Their placement in EPA will assure close top
level supervision by an officer who will have a key position in the administra-
tion.
In addition, the decision was based, in part, on the need to avoid the insti-
tutional biases of existing agencies. This is not said in any derogatory sense,
but, as the President has pointed out, the existing departments have their
own primary missions—resource development, transportation, agriculture—
which properly and necessarily affect their views of environmental matters.
To vest all the EPA programs in one of those departments is apt to result in
a particular slant to those activities and questions as to its objectivity in
dealing with matters affecting and controlling other departments.
Second, interest has been expressed in the relationship between EPA and
the Council on Environmental Quality. The relationship will be akin to that
which exists between the Office of Science and Technology and our major re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 201
search and development agencies or between the Council of Economic Advis-
ers and the agencies having a major impact on the economy and employment
levels. CEQ, like OST and CEA, is a unit in the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent, and as such plays a key role in advising the President and acting in his
behalf to coordinate activities and to help develop policies and priorities in
its program area. These units do not have day-by-day operating responsibili-
ties. In contrast, EPA will have the latter type of responsibilities in the area
of standard-setting and certain related research, enforcement, and assistance
activities. Obviously, the two agencies will have to work closely together to
achieve overall strategies and objectives. In addition, CEQ is concerned with
all environmental activities, not just pollution control.
Third, there have been questions relating to the organization of EPA, par-
ticularly with respect to how ongoing programs can be moved into the new
agency without creating serious disruption and confusion. In part, I believe
this concern results from the problems which occurred several years ago when
the water pollution control function was shifted from HEW to Interior,
causing significant operating problems in the process. We agree on the im-
portance of avoiding these problems. For that reason, it is intended that the
programs involved be moved to EPA intact. Thus, we would anticipate the
Federal Water Quality Administration, the National Air Pollution Control
Administration and the Bureau of Solid Waste Management would move into
EPA as major constituent units. We would also anticipate that the radiation
activities coming from HEW and AEG and the pesticide activities coming,
from HEW, Agriculture, and Interior would move intact, although they prob-
ably will be brought into two overall units dealing with radiation and pesti-
cides.
We believe the new Administrator should consider the establishment of
certain cross-cutting staff units to help him coordinate related activities in
the operating units. In addition to a general administrative and management
staff, examples of such units might be ones dealing with the areas of research
and standards, monitoring, technical assistance to State and local govern-
ments and enforcement. We have established an interagency task force to
develop various alternatives for the new Administrator to deal with these
matters and to develop necessary common or consistent administrative ser-
vices.
We do not believe it wise to make a final determination with respect to
these staff functions prior to the new Administrator, or at least an acting
administrator, having the opportunity to consider the various options. I be-
lieve this is common practice. Likewise, there are a few organizational units
in existing departments in which some staff will be shifted to the new agency
and others left in the existing department. In those instances, although we
can indicate the approximate division of manpower, we believe that the final
determination should not be made until the new leadership has an opportunity
to express its views with respect to the division of resources. As you know,
the precise breakdown of dollars and numbers of people and other resources
is made by means of determination orders. Such orders are developed by the
Office of Management and Budget in consultation with the affected agencies
and are issued by the Director of OMB. Although planning1 is underway now
with respect to factors that will go into the determination orders, the actual
orders will be issued at the time the transfer becomes effective.
[p. 78]
-------
202 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Finally, there has been concern about the transferability of members of the
Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. You will recall that this was a
serious problem at the time the water pollution control program was trans-
ferred from HEW to Interior. Initially, such personnel will be detailed to
EPA. Then under separate legislation, which was forwarded to the Congress
last week, they will be given an opportunity to convert to positions in the
regular civil service in such a way that they will have compensation and
other benefits which will not result in a basic loss to themselves.
In summary, Reorganization Plan No. 3 would in creating EPA provide us
with a strong focal point for dealing1 with the critical problems of setting and
enforcing pollution control standards in a rational and consistent way. As
such, EPA would have a key role to play in protecting the environment by
abating pollution. It would bring to bear related research and information
activities, assist State and local governments and others in arresting pollution
through grants and technical aid and assist the Council on Environmental
Quality in developing new policies in this vital area.
I urge that Plan No. 3 be allowed to become effective.
STATEMENT OF HON. DWIGHT A. INK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OF-
FICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD
SCHNOOR, CHIEF, GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION STAFF, AND
CHARLES ELKINS, EXAMINER; AND DOUGLAS COSTLE, SENIOR
STAFF ASSOCIATE, PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EXECUTIVE
ORGANIZATION
Mr. INK. As was discussed this morning, the Agency is designed
to provide a special focus in the environmental pollution control
area. One of the areas about which I think some question has been
raised is the relationship of the Council on Environmental Quality
and the Agency. I might just add a little to what has been dis-
cussed thus far on that point.
Mr. BLATNIK. That is a good point.
Mr. INK. Important as we regard pollution control, it is, of
course, just one of a number of broad areas that relate to the
environment. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act talks about
some of these other areas for example, the development and con-
servation of natural resources, including land, water, minerals,
and wildlife. Here we have the Agriculture Department and the
Interior Department. Recreation and natural beauty, and planned
communities are other related areas. The environment involves, as
we see it, many functions, involving many agencies, and the Coun-
cil has the task from a policy standpoint, not as an operating staff
but as a staff to the President, of relating this broad range of
activities throughout the Federal Government.
As you know, the statute which established the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality did give that Council some specific functions
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 203
which, if it is agreeable, it might be useful to include in the record
at this point.
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Without objection, it will be so ordered.
Mr. INK. It talks about the appraisal of programs and about
following the trends, about studies and research relating to envi-
ronmental quality which, as I say, go far beyond just the element
of pollution control that we are concerned with here. As Mr. Train
pointed out yesterday, the Agency we are talking about, the EPA,
is an operating agency, and it would report directly to the Presi-
dent and not be a subordinate to the Council.
(The statute referred to, Public Law 91-190, follows:)
[p. 79]
Mr. INK. I think we have covered pretty much the question of
the components of the agency. I might add a bit to some of the
discussion this morning with respect to why certain types of
things were left out. I might give one or two examples that would
be helpful and, as requested this morning, a list of excluded func-
tions will be forwarded to the committee.
Pesticides are an important area of EPA concern, clearly, but
the pesticides research program in Agriculture is not transferred
to this agency. The rationale of the Ash Council, which we sup-
port, is that it is an important task of the Department of Agricul-
ture to continue to undertake research toward the effectiveness
and efficacy of pesticides. It is important from the standpoint of
the farmer that there be a place in the Federal Government that is
concerned about research that relates to the effectiveness of pesti-
cides to do the job they are supposed to do from the standpoint of
agriculture. So, it was felt that this program was too intimately
related to the Agriculture mission to be transferred, but the stand-
ard-setting of pesticides to assure the protection and health of
people is being shifted under this proposal.
Mr. BLATNIK. Will the efficacy, of pesticides be left to the De-
partment of Agriculture for the research work required?
Mr. INK. Yes.
Mr. BLATNIK. But the adverse effects on environment and stand-
ards will be included in the new agency.
Mr. INK. That is correct.
Mr. BLATNIK. Does not the Government require just the oppo-
site in the case of the Food and Drug Administration? In dealing
with drug certification, they require the manufacturer to prove the
efficacy of the drug, and also to secure the certification as to what
-------
204 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the side effects may or may not be, and, if there are side effects,
how serious they are.
I ask this question because of the relationship between the sci-
entific approach in the field of drugs and in the field of pesticides,
both affecting the health of living things. It is not an important
question at this point, but I am interested in why it is a divided
function in the case of pesticides, whereas the FDA requires the
manufacturer to do both in the case of drugs.
Mr. ELKINS. The new agency will make the decision with regard
to the registration of pesticides, and that decision will be based
not only on the effects of the pesticides on the environment and on
health, but also on the efficacy. So, the standard-setting or regis-
tration process decision will be on both efficacy and the effects.
What will be left in the Department of Agriculture is the research
on efficacy.
Mr. BLATNIK. And the adverse effects on the environment.
Mr. COSTLE. Agriculture also conducts research on developing
alternatives to pesticides. To that end, they have a special exper-
tise. The primary responsibility for that will be left in Agricul-
ture.
Mr. INK. Again, it is the feeling that that is an important part
of Agriculture's mission in the field of agriculture, and there is a
desire not to bring into the pollution control agency a range of
missions and functions which would probably decrease the effec-
tiveness of such missions, because it is hard to develop and main-
tain the kind of expertise in these special-mission areas outside of
their home base, which is the Department of Agriculture.
[p. 85]
Mr. BLATNIK. I do not quite agree with that, because the scien-
tists, usually biochemists, working on pesticides, find precisely
what is happening to a living organism, plant or animal. They
know the adverse effects, and they likewise know its effects in
other forms. They are not using a peephole approach as scientists.
For example, let us say a pesticide firm comes out with a very
effective pesticide which is cheaper, more efficient and more effec-
tive than any one thus far known. They use it. They say it is not
our responsibility to have regard or concern about the adverse
effects or how bad they may be. Certainly, it will have some
adverse effects, but if nobody hollers or yells, it is fine, and we will
continue to use it. It will be up to some agency to determine that
this stuff is not dangerous for immediate use but over a long
period of time the cumulative effects are terrible. There is a con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 205
troversy. What shall we do? Shall we continue using it? Shall we
find a less efficient pesticide which is more costly? You have to
balance the two sides in the approach.
There is a question about using that as a basis for making a
determination. In the case of pesticides, how much of the opera-
tional function shall remain in Agriculture and how much shall be
transferred to EPA?
Mr. COSTLE. There will be in EPA a considerable amount of
research on pesticides. For example, we are transferring a portion
of the authority for the Fish and Wildlife Bureau to do specific
pesticide research on fish and wildlife. The issue, I think, is more
the accessibility of the research and its results and its availability
to the people who have to set the standards. This is true particu-
larly with respect to agencies that would have related research
responsibilities. EPA would have the authority to supplement
their research and serve as the point of central cognizance to
assure the whole research effort in any area is in fact adequate.
Mr. BLATNIK. Would EPA have premarket clearance authority?
Would they have that authority?
Mr. ELKINS. That is correct.
Mr. INK. We think that standard-setting is a highly significant
function. It has significance out of proportion to the numbers of
people and numbers of dollars allocated to it. If you can set a
standard which will protect the safety of people, then you in effect
have set a line in back of which people have to work to develop the
kinds of systems and programs which can meet those standards.
Even in instances, such as atomic energy, where the numbers of
people in EPA are small, the standards are extremely critical and
crucial, we feel, to the overall operation.
There were questions raised with respect to the organization of
EPA. I might read my statement beginning at the bottom of page
12 on that part of it.
There have been questions relating to the organization of EPA,
particularly with respect to how ongoing programs can be moved
into the new Agency without creating serious disruption and con-
fusion. In part, I believe this concern results from the problems
which occurred several years ago when the water pollution control
function was shifted from HEW to Interior, causing significant
operating problems in the process.
[p. 86]
Mr. Chairman, you are aware of this because we have talked
about that problem.
-------
206 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
We agree on the importance of avoiding these problems. For
that reason, it is intended that the programs involved will be
moved to EPA intact. Thus, we would anticipate that the Federal
Water Quality Administration, the National Air Pollution Control
Administration, and the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
would move into EPA as major constituent units. We would also
anticipate that the radiation activities coming from HEW, AEC,
and the FRC and the pesticide activities coming from HEW, Agri-
culture and Interior, would move intact, although they probably
will be brought into two overall units dealing with radiation and
pesticides, that is, one unit for each.
We believe the new Administrator should also consider the es-
tablishment of certain crosscutting staff units to help him coordi-
nate related activities in the operating units. In addition to a
general administrative and management staff, examples of such
units might be ones dealing with the areas of research and stand-
ards, monitoring, technical assistance to State and local govern-
ments, and enforcement.
We have established an interagency task force to develop var-
ious alternatives for the new Administrator to deal with these
matters and to develop necessary common or consistent adminis-
trative services.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Might I ask the witness at this point, you
mentioned the difficulties that arose when the Water Pollution
Control Council moved from HEW to Interior. As I recall, one of
the elements that contributed to the problem here was the fact
that we were moving a group that was in the uniformed service, a
commissioned service, under different retirement rules, and not
under the regular civil service. That will not be the case in this
shift; is that correct?
Mr. INK. That was a problem. There were several problems, but
the difficulty in making that move was certainly one of the major
problems. We have introduced legislation to deal with this. Of
course, it will not be a problem in transferring the water group
from Interior, because that change has already been made, but we
need to make sure that a similar problem does not arise with
respect to the Commissioned Corps people who will be moving
from HEW to the new Agency. For that reason, legislation has
been introduced to meet that particular problem.
If you are interested, when Mr. Jones comes—he will be here in
a few minutes—he can go into that legislation with you. The
Surgeon General is also here, and he can describe it in some depth.
I also would like to suggest that it is easier to move into a new
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 207
agency in the sense that one has more administrative flexibility in
dealing with these kinds of problems than when you move from
one large Cabinet department to another, where the procedures
have been established for a good many years and applied to large
bodies of people.
We do not believe it wise to make a final determination with
respect to these staff functions prior to the new Administrator, or
at least an Acting Administrator, having the opportunity to con-
sider the various options. I believe this is common practice.
Likewise, there are a few organizational units in existing de-
partments in which some staff will be shifted to the new Agency
and others left in the existing department. In those instances,
although we can indicate the approximate division of manpower,
[p. 87]
we believe that the final determination should not be made until
the new leadership has an opportunity to express its views with
respect to the division of resources.
This, again, has been our practice in the past.
As you know, the precise breakdown of dollars and numbers of
people and other resources is made by means of determination
orders. Such orders are developed by the Office of Management
and Budget in consultation with the affected agencies, and are
issued by the Director of OMB. Although planning is underway
now with respect to factors that will go into the determination
orders, the actual orders will be issued at the time the transfer
becomes effective.
I think, looking over past history, they very often come out 2 or
3 weeks after the plan becomes effective. Although we like the
basic order to be issued at the time the plan becomes effective,
there may be some areas in which such orders will follow later.
Finally, there has been concern, which Mr. Erlenborn men-
tioned, about the transferability of members of the Public Health
Service Commissioned Corps. You will recall that this was a seri-
ous problem at the time the water pollution control program was
transferred from HEW to Interior. Initially, such personnel will
be detailed to EPA. Then under separate legislation, which was
forwarded to the Congress last week, they will be given an oppor-
tunity to convert to positions in the regular civil service in such a
way that they will have compensation and other benefits which
will not result in a basic loss to themselves.
In summary, we believe this plan would, in creating EPA, pro-
vide us with a strong focal point for dealing with the critical
-------
208 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
problems of setting- and enforcing pollution control standards in a
rational and consistent way. As such, EPA would have a key role
to play in protecting the environment by abating pollution. It
would bring to bear related research and information activities,
assist State and local governments and others in arresting pollu-
tion through grants and technical aid, and assist the Council on
Environmental Quality in developing policies in this vital area.
Mr. Henderson was interested in organization, and we were
talking about that briefly this morning. As we indicated, program
elements that are coming in from the other departments would
probably be grouped at the time the plan becomes effective into
five operational units: one on water, which is the water pollution
control group in Interior which would come over intact; the solid
waste group from HEW; the air group from HEW, the pesticides
group from three areas—Agriculture, Interior, and HEW; and the
radiation group, again from three areas—AEC, HEW, and the
Federal Radiation Council.
Mr. HENDERSON. Would they all be listed at the same level ? The
reason I ask that is there is so much more involved in the water
pollution program than in the others, both moneywise and person-
nelwise.
Mr. INK. I will be happy to give you a copy of the working chart
that we are using at the present time. We would show them all on
the same level from the standpoint of organization. This does not
necessarily mean they would all have the same grade level. They
would report to the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator.
[p- 88]
Then, as we mentioned this morning, we would expect some
staff groups to be established. Clearly, an administrative unit will
be necessary, and some type of planning and evaluation group will
be necessary. Decisions on the crosscutting staff units is where we
particularly feel the need for the new Administrator to have a
chance to express his views.
Before putting that in concrete, Mr. Chairman, we would wel-
come any thoughts you people may have in terms of areas where
you in your work or other committees have seen a need for this
kind of crosscutting staff effort.
We mentioned monitoring and research as two types of candi-
dates.
As I say, we would be happy to give you a copy of this work-
sheet.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 209
Mr. HENDERSON. There are five major groupings. Do you expect
each one will have an assistant secretary?
Mr. INK. Assistant administrator?
Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.
Mr. INK. We do not know whether the administrator would
want to use, I think it is, up to five for that purpose. In the case of
the Department of Transportation, for example, these types of
positions were used in crosscutting staff functions or combinations
thereof. We would feel it important that such aides not be a layer
above the operational units. In other words, if they were used in
an operational sense, they would head up the operational unit.
Mr. HENDERSON. Would that be different from the situation that
exists in Interior now, where there is an Assistant Secretary for
Water Quality and Research, and the agency is separate and has
its own head ?
Mr. INK. If the head of the water unit were made an Assistant
Administrator, then it would be different in that there would be no
group or no level in between the operating unit and the head of
the Agency. In the case of a Cabinet department where there are
so many functions, a broad range of functions, the kind of group-
ing becomes much more significant, and necessary, than in the
case of a more limited focus such as you have in an agency of this
kind.
Mr. HENDERSON. There has been a good deal of concern ex-
pressed by many interested in the legislation that bringing these
groups together, although they are not of the same order of mag-
nitude in their programs, might cause some of the larger ones to
be subordinated in ways that they may not presently be, to the
benefit of some of the smaller groups. Can you give us any assur-
ance on that?
Mr. INK. As I indicated, each of these program elements would
report directly to the Administrator and, consequently, I do not
really see how one would be subordinated to the other.
Of course, in any organization, some individuals are more effec-
tive than others. The funding clearly will be different. Some areas
have a public works element to them, whereas others do not.
There is no intention to subordinate air to water or water to air
or radiation to pesticides or pesticides to radiation.
(The following draft organization chart was subsequently sub-
mitted by Mr. Ink:)
[p. 89]
-------
210
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
u
Ul
(9
U
S
o
K
o
(0
° In
2 'c
« 1
1 I
"D *?
< a
OJ
__
—
_
c
0
Admintstr
Monitoring
Researc
lannmg
and
aluation
°- ui
1
0)
t/l
<1>
Ul
1
T3
"5
C/>
<
esticides
c
•c
(0
tr
ra tf) 0)
> 01 GO y?
s « f 1
a » s £ S-
« TJ o -2 « a
•o a *• = 00 *;
ttf c -a a) n c c
^ E » c a g^ 1
yS"£S~3£
miifc.(/)*J'DU(n
SEHJ^WCCO)
So-ogn-i:
o: 2 o <
u)
C
O !/>
?1g
"uiM
If?
ill
o: a.
1-s s
P (D (D
sl? *s
n 2 *• o '9
-o " « " ^
•g-c"'1S'Es = S
fes S*5^n
Sg£-S gl-s S
0 3 »- -M 0
a: 5 u
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 211
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Erlenborn?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not now have any questions to ask Mr. Ink. Your testimony
is eloquent in support of the plan. I know my colleague, Mr.
Brown, has a few questions, so I will defer to him.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Ink, if I were involved in some kind of business
concerned with a pesticide that might be put on crops and wanted
to get approval of this item, under present circumstances and
under the proposed EPA Agency, it occurs to me I might have to
go to a number of different agencies for that approval in order to
get it cleared. I would assume the same thing is true if you had
something in the pollution control area. It would be delayed in
terms of dealing with the Federal structure.
I have had experience with reference to a company which has a
solid waste disposal idea wherein they had to deal with at least
four different Federal agencies, and have run into the problem
that one agency tells them one thing, and another agency says it
will take a serious look at the situation, and total frustration
results from that.
Will this resolve that kind of problem?
Mr. INK. We think it will in most cases but not all cases, Mr.
Brown. The drawing together of the pesticides registration work
in Agriculture and that which is done in the Food and Drug
Administration supported by research from the Interior Depart-
ment, we think will help in most cases, but not all cases.
Mr. BROWN. At least it will resolve things that might be com-
bined, say, in solid waste and air pollution and water pollution.
Mr. INK. Yes. We think one of the advantages, both to industry
and to State and local governments, will be the ability to come to
one place in the Federal Government concerned with most of the
standard setting that relates to pollution control. This, we think, is
significant because pollutants do not all recognize the difference
between air and water and land. It is important that State and
local governments, in dealing with these problems, deal with the
environment as an entity. When the Federal Government is frag-
mented in this fashion we tend to handicap the State governments
by our inability, at times, to pull ourselves together in the Federal
Government. I think this probably handicaps the State govern-
ments in mounting the effective environmental pollution control
programs that they need.
Mr. BROWN. I get the impression, from what I know of pollution
control and the degree of sophistication of research and standard
-------
212 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
setting by the various agencies that are now being carried on
under different organizational levels in different departments, that
perhaps the water research is the most sophisticated. The water
pollution control agencies appear to have done the most work for
the longest period of time and are perhaps further along with
reference to pollution control, standards, and criteria, and enforce-
ment activities than, for instance, those in air pollution control,
and, certainly, a good deal further along than those in the solid
waste disposal area.
Mr. INK. There is no question that it is much further along than
solid waste disposal.
Mr. BROWN. What has been the atomic energy experience ?
[p. 91]
Mr. INK. In atomic energy there is a very high degree of sophis-
ticated experience. It is nonetheless a controversial area. There is
disagreement.
Mr. BROWN. You mean disagreement in sites.
Mr. INK. Yes; and some disagreement with respect to stand-
ards. But there has been a tremendous amount of scientific effort
put into the atomic energy field.
Mr. BROWN. The experience of the Water Quality Control Ad-
ministration demonstrates fairly effectively that objective water
quality standards can be developed and enforced. In the Water
Quality Control Administration, as I understand, just to take one
small aspect of it, the question of thermal pollution requires you to
determine, in advance, what kind of fish you want to maintain in
the river and then to regulate your pollution to different levels at
different times so you do not destroy the fish especially when they
are hatching.
Mr. INK. I am afraid you lost me, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Although the administration of the air quality
standards has not advanced to the same degree of development of
standards, objective standards can, undoubtedly, be developed
also. What I am really asking, is there a relationship, administra-
tively, between the experience that can be developed in water
pollution control enforcement and enforcement in the air pollution
area or in the solid waste disposal area?
Mr. INK. Yes; I think there is. We can tell a good deal better
how much and what that is after these units are brought together
in the same agency.
I recall in the early days of establishing the regulatory program
in the atomic energy field experience in other regulatory fields was
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 213
drawn upon and was useful. I am sure here we will find the same
thing to be the case here.
The water program has been under way, I believe, for a longer
period of time than air. I know the chairman and some others
have put a good deal of effort into the water program, and it has
developed a good deal of competence in recent years.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Now that Mr. Brown has gotten into this area,
it reminded me of one or two questions that I asked Mr. Train
yesterday and on which he deferred and suggested you might
better be able to answer them.
You may recall I asked him who would appear here before the
legislative committees to present the case for legislative authoriza-
tions and levels of spending. For instance, in the FWQA, I pre-
sume it is an assistant secretary who has some jurisdiction in this
area and maybe jurisdiction broader than just FWQA.
Under the EPA, it would be the Administrator or someone in
that Agency, I presume.
Mr. INK. Yes; I would suspect normally the Administrator
would bring along the head of whichever area was under discus-
sion. The Administrator would have the responsibility and the
accountability for defending these areas before Congress, both on
the authorizing and the appropriating actions.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Maybe on the appropriations side it is even
more imperative or important. Presently, you find the various
appropriations in the field of environmental control, I might use
the word "buried" in the overall appropriation for the depart-
[P- 92]
ment, some in HEW, some in Interior, and so forth. Would this
reorganization change that pattern so there would be an item or
several items in the independent offices appropriation that would
present a clearly identifiable package of environmental control
appropriations ?
Mr. INK. Of course, we do not know how the Appropriations
Committee will want to handle the appropriation, but the budget
will be drawn together on a coordinated basis. There will be a
budget for environmental pollution control. It will be drawn to-
gether within the executive branch, and it will be reviewed in the
executive branch on that basis. How it would be handled by the
Appropriations Committee will be determined by the Appropria-
tions Committee.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Obviously, it no longer would be in the sepa-
rate Cabinet departments such as Interior, HEW, and so forth,
since the jurisdiction has been removed from those departments.
-------
214 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. INK. That is right.
Mr. BLATNIK. The administrator, the head of the agency, with
officials under him, would appear before the appropriate Subcom-
mittee on Appropriations; but if there is more legislative action,
would the EPA chief appear before the parent committees that
created these programs ? For example, water pollution, which ema-
nated from the House Public Works Committee; solid waste dis-
posal, which stemmed I believe, from the Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee; and air pollution from the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee. Some health aspects, of course, are
in HEW. Would the Administrator and his deputies go back to the
parent committees?
Mr. INK. You remember this morning that Mr. Holifield said he
expected to see the head of the agency with respect to the atomic
energy area. The head of the agency will appear before the com-
mittees having substantive jurisdiction.
Mr. BROWN. Is it proper to consider this a regulatory agency?
Mr. INK. It has regulatory functions. We have not thought of it
in the same context as the Federal Trade Commission, for
example.
Mr. BROWN. It will have research powers. It will have standard
setting authority.
Mr. INK. It has research related to standard setting, yes, sir,
and it has monitoring powers.
Mr. BROWN. Where do you put monitoring? Do you consider
that an important authority? That would make it to a degree an
important agency.
Mr. INK. Yes.
Mr. COSTLE. Monitoring also in terms of what the problems are,
as well as telling you how effectively you are dealing with them.
Mr. INK. In terms of seeing what the gaps are. After these
groups are brought together and the administrator has an oppor-
tunity to look over the whole area in conjunction with the council,
we would be very much surprised if they did not conclude that
there are gaps that need to be dealt with; but in addition to that,
the monitoring should show this up.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned several instances of re-
lated environmental problems. We hope through the monitoring
capability over a period of time to identify those problems, be-
cause we have here an agency that is concerned with the environ-
[p. 93]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 215
ment as a totality from the control standpoint, rather than an
agency concerned with a single-purpose focus which is the present
way, since the elements are fragmented around in the Govern-
ment.
Mr. BROWN. As I indicated earlier, water, air, and solid waste
disposal, as well as atomic power plant pollution, must be consid-
ered together. In the enforcement area under the Clean Air Act
there is authority vested in the Secretary of HEW to go in and set
standards and engage in enforcement. Where does that now fit as
a result of this proposal ?
Mr. INK. This will be transferred to the agency.
Mr. BROWN. So, you put in the agency's hands the power to do
the research and determine what the criteria will be upon which
the standards are set for air, and then the enforcement of the
regulations, if the State or local agencies fail to act in timely
fashion. Is that correct?
Mr. INK. In most instances. However, there are some areas
where this is so intertwined with highly complex safety features
that not all of the enforcement machinery is moved over. The
standard setting is, but not all of the enforcement machinery is
shifted over.
For example, you were talking about atomic energy. How to
make nuclear reactors safe is a tremendously complex, scientific
and engineering problem. There is no effort here to move over that
tremendously complex capability, which involves immense labora-
tories, and so forth, although the general environmental standard
setting in the radiation area is being shifted over from the AEC to
the new agency.
Mr. BROWN. Under the Clean Air Act, there is recourse to the
courts, as I recall the legislation. In a way, this does become a
regulatory agency, does it not?
Mr. INK. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. A decision is made, and it becomes a judicial deci-
sion in a way, because there is opportunity for appeal. It is an
administrative decision, but it has a judicial aspect to it.
Mr. INK. In one area or another. I would not want to leave the
impression of uniformity because, as you know, we are not setting
up new functions. We are shifting them. Of course, they are some-
what apples and oranges as they come in from the different places.
Mr. BROWN. As a member of the Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce Committee where this originated, as the chairman pointed
out, I am very much interested in which parts of this will be
either better or more poorly administered. It occurs to me that by
-------
216 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
putting it all together in this Agency, it will be better adminis-
tered because the research will be closely connected.
I would also like to point out that in the Intergovernmental
Relations Subcommittee of this committee, we conducted a study
of the Agricultural Research Service, and not a very flattering
study, which disclosed the inability of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare to get information out of the Agricultural
Research Service that related to pesticide use in which the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare was interested and which
the Agricultural Research Service had the licensing authority
over.
I do not know whether you are familiar with that report, but
would that be resolved by the transfer of the pesticide functions of
these agencies as they relate to the health aspects of pesticides ?
[P. 94]
Mr. INK. The Pesticides Registration Division in the Agricul-
tural Research Service will move over under this plan, as well as
the environmental quality branch. Both of these units will be
moved over from Agriculture.
Mr. BROWN. The input of the part that FDA has in this, will
that also be combined ?
Mr. INK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. I cannot help but think that that would be a benefi-
cial combination.
One other area, if I may. This goes back to the point Chairman
Blatnik was discussing in terms of relationship of the legislative
branch. Between this proposed agency and the new Environmental
Council, what relationship is envisioned here? Will the Environ-
mental Council have an oversight responsibility with reference to
the Agency ?
Mr. INK. We look upon the Council as a staff group to the
President, somewhat similar to the Council of Economic Advisers
and the Office of Science and Technology. It does not have a direct
line relationship to EPA. The Council's responsibility deals with
the broad range of environmental activities that are in the Federal
Government, the conservation of resources, for example, recrea-
tion, enhancement of the environment, which is a much broader
area than we are talking about here in EPA. EPA has a very
important part of the environmental area but it is focused on
pollution control.
Mr. BROWN. EPA, if I may, will be charged with cleaning up
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 217
the water whether you use it to drink, swim in, or raise fish in. Is
that correct?
Mr. INK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. In other words, that is their interest?
Mr. INK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. The recreational area or the transportation area
goes to somebody else?
Mr. INK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Are you telling me that the Environmental Council
and the White House are concerned about what EPA is doing but
it also has some of these other things it is concerned with?
Mr. INK. That is correct in a staff sense. The Council is not a
line agency; it is not an operational agency. It is concerned with
what EPA, Agriculture, Interior, and other agencies do with re-
spect to environmental policy.
Mr. BROWN. The question is, If EPA does not do its job under
this reorganization, you have this Council to look down its throat
and tattle to the President or to the Congress or to the American
public or somebody. Is that right?
Mr. INK. In the sense of appraising the effectiveness of the
program, that is true. Not only with respect to EPA, but with
respect to other departments as well.
Mr. BROWN. You also have the substantive committees of juris-
diction, Mr. Blatnik's Public Works Committee, Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, and Mr. Holifield's Joint Atomic
Energy Committee. The House has passed a Joint Committee on
the Environment. I think that is still along with other things hung
up in the Senate. Presumably, that would also have jurisdiction
over some of the EPA, would it not?
[p. 95]
Mr. INK. I would suspect they would want to hear from this
group. I am sure that they would. It will be a highly visible group
and, as Mr. Ash pointed out this morning, we think it is in the
interest of the public that there be an organization, one organiza-
tion which has this kind of visibility for better accountability to
the President and the Congress and the people in its important
area of pollution control.
Mr. BROWN. I don't want to belabor the question, but, Mr. Chair-
man, if I might have permission to submit written questions
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes; Mr. Ink will be available on his return.
Mr. BROWN. Fine.
-------
218 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The only comment I have to make is that I am glad we have in
prospect here an agency which will have the standard-setting re-
sponsibilities and the research responsibilities and the enforce-
ment responsibilities put together. One of the concerns that I had
a couple of years ago when we had the Clean Air Act up for con-
sideration was that everybody wanted to do something about
taking care of the air. We have now been in this business for
several years.
Mr. BLATNIK. Seven years.
Mr. BROWN. Still, there was a real basic question as to what the
standards should be, because the feeling was that adequate re-
search had not been done. You were having somebody enforce and
set standards that didn't control the research aspect of it. You
began to feel around for answers and it was like fighting feathers.
In this area it seems to me we will now have a single responsible
agency which will not be able to pass the buck to other agencies.
We will be able to blame them for failures that occur or persist.
Mr. COSTLE. If I may, I would like to underscore the importance
that we place on the standard-setting function. As we go down the
road I think everyone expects that our problems of pollution are
going to increase as our population does, as our society changes.
The leverage that the standard-setting function has in this whole
area is just absolutely critical. Even though we are transferring
only a handful of programs, these programs represent that stand-
ard-setting authority that now exists, although fragmented within
the Government. One should not underestimate the leverage that
that function has on the whole question of environmental quality.
It is an extremely influential factor in our efforts to improve
, environmental quality.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman made a very fine point in his
concluding statement. The Chair is in complete agreement with it.
My question, Mr. Brown—not directed to you, but my question
raised several times during the course of the hearings yesterday
and today pertained to the fact that not enough of environmen-
tally related activities are included in EPA; it was subjected to
further research work; and the monitoring would revive the basic
information and basis for your standards and enforcement.
Mr. BROWN. I would only submit, Mr. Chairman—and it might
be appropriate to ask this question if it has not been already
asked.
There are other environmental concerns, are there not, that will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 219
surface, or have already surfaced, that can at some later time be
included in this agency or moved to this agency?
[p. 96]
Mr. INK. Yes, sir; we agree with that. We regard this as an
extremely important step. We do not regard it as the end-all for
dealing with the pollution control problem. There are undoubtedly
other things that the President and the Congress will feel should
be placed in this agency. We feel, however, this is a very meaning-
ful and important and significant step forward.
Mr. BROWN. That was an assumption on my part because there
are other agencies or other activities in this area that I personally
sense might be included and the plan, perhaps, could be criticized
on that same basis for their exclusion. I am glad, however, to see
the beginning made to develop this kind of strong regulatory
agency.
I am not leery of using that word. I think that is what it is and
what it ought to be. We should add to it and strengthen it and beef
it up and change the laws because there are laws that need revi-
sion. We can build from this a much more effective knowledge as
to how to deal with pollution in the future. It is going to be a
whale of a lot more effective, I believe, than what we have had in
the past. For this reason, I view it with some enthusiasm. If it
does not work out you will be hearing from us, I am sure.
Mr. INK. I am sure of that.
Mr. LANIGAN. I have one question at this time.
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
Mr. LANIGAN. In the case of pesticides, there are two factors
involved in registers or licensing. One is the chance that you might
pollute the atmosphere or their use be dangerous. Another is
whether or not they are as effective as claimed to be as pesticides.
Will this new agency register and license pesticides on the basis of
not being dangerous to the environment and being effective as
pesticides, or will the Department of Agriculture still have to
license them and do tests ?
Mr. INK. The registration will be done in one place in the new
agency. As we indicated earlier, the Agriculture Department will
continue to have research responsibility concerned with the
efficacy and will advise the new agency with respect to efficacy.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much.
Thank you and your associates, Mr. Costle, for standing by.
Your testimony has been helpful to us.
The next witness is the Honorable Fred J. Russell, Under Secre-
-------
220 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tary of the Department of the Interior, speaking for the Secretary
of the Interior.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your patience and your
tolerance in standing by these past 2 days. Mr. Secretary, we
know the gentlemen with you, the distinguished Assistant Secre-
tary for Water Quality and Research, Mr. Carl Klein, and the
Commissioner for the Federal Water Quality Administration, Mr.
David Dominick.
Thank you very much for your standing by so long. Do you
want to read your statement?
Mr. RUSSELL. It is short.
Mr. BLATNIK. Please feel free to utilize the time to present your
case as you want to have it presented. You can read the statement
or it certainly shall appear at this point in the record in full.
Summarize parts of it, if you wish. Proceed at will.
[P. 97]
STATEMENT OF HON. FRED J. RUSSELL, UNDER SECRETARY, DE-
PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY CARL L. KLEIN,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WATER QUALITY AND RESEARCH; AND
DAVID D. DOMINICK, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL WATER QUALITY
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
I am pleased to appear before you today to testify in support of
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which the President transmit-
ted to the Congress on July 9, 1970. This reorganization plan,
prepared in accordance with chapter 9 of title 5 of the United
States Code, provides for establishment of an Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA).
The President, in his landmark message of February 10, 1970,
on the environment, pledged to recommend new and improved
administrative measures to meet the environmental crisis. The
establishment of EPA will carry out that pledge by consolidating
the major Federal pollution control programs. Since you have
reviewed the reorganization plan and the accompanying message
of the President, and have heard the witnesses who have preceded
me, I will summarize the content of the reorganization plan briefly
at this time, but will not go into great detail.
EPA will bring together Federal pollrtion control programs
which are now administered separately by the Department of the
Interior and a number of other Federal agencies and councils. It
will be able to conduct a comprehensive campaign to advance
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 221
environmental quality and to combat pollution in a manner which
takes into account the interrelationship among what we have
tended to consider as independent environmental problems—air,
water, solid waste, radiation, pesticides.
We expect that EPA will make the Federal Government's major
pollution control programs fully effective; that it will expedite the
elimination of pollution in its many forms from Federal activities
and activities under Federal licenses or permits; that it will in-
crease the status and consideration accorded to environmental
problems and pollution abatement activities within the Federal
Government; that it will facilitate more prompt compliance by
industrial and other polluters by providing clear and consistent
standards and unified enforcement; that it will encourage State
and local governments to increase their emphasis upon environ-
mental protection and pollution abatement by providing a focal
point for financial support, technical assistance, and program
guidance; that it will separate, and thus avoid, any real or appar-
ent conflicts between (1) pollution abatement standards setting
and enforcement activities, and (2) the continuing responsibility
of various departments to promote activities which may cause
pollution if proper safeguards are not provided.
EPA will have an estimated 5,605 personnel and a budget of
$1.4 billion for fiscal year 1971. Of this total, the functions to be
transferred from the Department of the Interior presently have
3,005 personnel and $1,098,576,000 budgeted for fiscal year 1971.
EPA will be comprised of the following components:
The Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA), now in
the Department of the Interior.
[p. 98]
The National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA),
now in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Parts of the Environmental Control Administration (Bureaus
of Solid Waste Management, Water Hygiene, and part of the Bu-
reau of Radiological Health), also from HEW.
The pesticides research and standard setting program of the
Food and Drug Administration, also from HEW.
The pesticides registration authority of the Department of Ag-
riculture.
Authority to perform general ecological research, from the
Council on Environmental Quality.
Certain pesticide research authorities of the Department of the
Interior.
-------
222 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Functions regarding radiation criteria and standards now
vested in the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radia-
tion Council.
Specifically, there will be transferred from the Department of
the Interior the functions of the Secretary and the Department,
which the Federal Water Quality Administration administers; the
functions which Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966 transferred to
the Interior from the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare ; the functions which the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
vested in the Interior; the functions with regard to the studies of
effects of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides on fish
and wildlife resources vested in the Interior by the act of August
1, 1958; and the Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory of the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries at Gulf Breeze, Fla., which performs
research on the effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife resources
as its chief function.
In addition, the plan specifically transfers from the Department
the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and enforcement
hearing boards provided for in the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended, and the Secretary's functions as the Chair-
man of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board under the act.
The Department consistently has endorsed the concept of con-
solidating activities related to environmental protection and pollu-
tion abatement in a single agency.
We are cooperating fully in making the necessary changes and
adjustments which Reorganization Plan No. 3 requires.
I have with me other officials of the Department. We shall be
happy to answer any questions which you may have.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, may I ask, did you say the Water Quality Control
Administration would be more effective in the EPA by itself?
What would it do better in EPA than it is doing now in the
Department of the Interior ?
Mr. RUSSELL. I would certainly say it would do no less better
and it should be helped by the other activities of environmental
protection and pollution abatement that would have been brought
together with it.
Mr. BLATNIK. Your main point is that you would be satisfied, as
far as the water aspects of pollution are concerned, they would be
equally served by remaining in Interior, which is certainly justifi-
able. But do you feel that you would be in favor of coordinating or
[p. 99]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 223
consolidating all environmental functions that may bring the
water aspect closer to the others, such as pesticides?
Mr. RUSSELL. The help that would come from it being better
coordinated with the effects of pesticides and some of the other
pollution matters which now are addressed by our Federal Water
Quality Administration at a distance.
Mr. BLATNIK. Getting back to the important point we mentioned
yesterday, although not related directly to this proposition before
us, we are deeply concerned by the complete and unexpected sud-
denness of the appearance of mercury poisoning in many large
sections of the United States, almost simultaneously. Would you
give us a quick summary of just what has happened or how this
came about? How did it come about so abruptly? Obviously, the
mercury poisoning, ingestion of mercury into our water systems
and marine plants and fishlife didn't begin within the past few
weeks or months.
The question is, what is happening and how did this mercury
poisoning advance to the dangerous degree it has where it does
threaten the health and welfare of organisms and human beings
without having been detected earlier?
Do you have any comments on that ?
Mr. RUSSELL. Well, first we must understand that mercury is an
inert, heavy density metal and it has not been until more recent
times that the condition has developed, or has become known, that
it can be absorbed by such as fish in the waters. The accumulation
of it, occurring over a period of time, reaches an intensity that is
of concern, and it is a concern that is sufficiently great as to be
dangerous. But, I think, certainly, one ought to keep in mind we
don't have, in fact, a record of deaths of any people who have
actually died.
Mr. BLATNIK. Why did it become lethal or dangerous so
suddenly ? Was the buildup sudden or just the discovery new ?
Mr. RUSSELL. It is the discovery that is more recent. We should
remember that we don't actually have this record of death, of any
significant number of deaths, that have been caused from it. How-
ever, the danger is present and, having been more recently discov-
ered, it is something that has to be dealt with.
Mr. BLATNIK. How is this problem being approached? I notice
from the health aspect that the Public Health Service is involved
in the water quality aspect. The Water Quality Administration
would be involved. Are they working together on this or are they
each working in their own areas of responsibility ?
-------
224 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. RUSSELL. They are working together on it. We are able to
do it by development of the techniques and the means by which we
can actually make the measurement of the presence of mercury in
fish and other life.
Mr. BLATNIK. It is not the mercury in the water so much as it is
the mercury in the fish. If you eat the fish that is the dangerous
thing, not the drinking of the water; is that correct ?
Mr. RUSSELL. No, sir; there is no amount of mercury in the
water that would be of sufficient a level as to be dangerous. It is
only where it accumulates in the fish.
Mr. BLATNIK. I think we get the answer, then, that with the
monitoring system no dangerous levels of mercury in the water
[p. 100]
would show up. It is the cumulative effects in the fish, eating
plants or organisms, that have this accumulation over a period of
time.
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. Suddenly the lethal effects show up in the fish
itself that affect the human being.
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. It is a good illustration of how evasive and elusive
and insidious this pollution can be. It can reach human beings
through an indirect method rather than through water directly.
Mr. RUSSELL. This is even more elusive in that it is the accumu-
lation in the mud which in turn transfers into the plants, which in
turn are eaten by the fish, and finally accumulating in fish to the
point of the danger level.
Mr. BROWN. Could I interrupt you just a minute?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. When was it discovered that mercury ingestions
were dangerous or damaging? Does anybody know?
Mr. RUSSELL. Perhaps Mr. Klein.
Mr. KLEIN. Quite some time ago, we knew mercury was danger-
ous to human beings. The fact it was in the water and could be
ingested in this way first came to our notice when we got new
types of detection, the beginning of this year, when we were able
to identify parts per billion.
Mr. BROWN. As affecting water, only a few months old?
Mr. KLEIN. It has been there for a great many years. For
instance, the Wisconsin situation is still there even though those
plants closed in 1958.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 225
Mr. BROWN. I don't mean that. I mean the knowledge it was in
the water and
Mr. KLEIN. That is very, very recent.
Mr. BROWN (continuing). Ingested by human beings as a result
of being in the water.
Mr. KLEIN. Only by the fact it is in the fish in the water. The
fact
Mr. BROWN. Knowledge as to its effects upon humans
Mr. KLEIN. That is very recent. Within months.
Mr. BROWN. How long has it been known that the ingestion of
mercury by human beings was damaging?
Mr. KLEIN. I think that is quite a period of time.
Mr. BROWN. Are you talking in years?
Mr. KLEIN. Yes, sir; they had deaths, I think, in the fifties in
Japan from this.
Mr. BROWN. I heard something on the radio this morning that
said people who made hats in England some years ago used to
have something that had mercury in it and the expression "mad as
a hatter" was an expression used because of the result of this. My
question is, did people know that it was the mercury causing that
condition when that expression became popular, or is this a rela-
tively recent development ? The inference from the news story this
morning was that we have known for years that mercury was
damaging and people were being damaged by it. I wanted to know
whether that is true or not.
Mr. KLEIN. I think for quite some period of time they have
known that it was damaging, but the delineation of the damages
and where it came from is very, very recent.
[p. 101]
Mr. BROWN. Thank you.
Mr. BLATNIK. If we have no further questions
Mr. LANIGAN. I have a couple of questions.
One, how many positions are going to be eliminated in your
central personnel or administrative services office, information
offices, as a result of the transfer out of the Department of these
3,000 people?
Mr. RUSSELL. In view of the fact that the Federal Water Qual-
ity Administration would be moved in its entirety and the only
other personnel moving are 32 other people, it would have a very
limited effect insofar as other personnel that would have been
either above in authority over these operations or would have been
in a service relationship to them. We have not endeavored to make
-------
226 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
a measurement as to what this would consist of. It would be quite
inconsequential.
Mr. LANIGAN. Would you say there may be none; no change in
your central management personnel offices as a result of this
transfer?
Mr. RUSSELL. I think it might be safe to say none.
Mr. LANIGAN. Still, the new agency will have to set up its own
central personnel and administrative services, would it not?
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir; it would.
Mr. LANIGAN. You will have an old system plus a new one.
Let me get to another question. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of
1966, which transferred the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration from HEW to Interior, provided for an additional
Assistant Secretary of the Interior "who shall, except as the Sec-
retary of the Interior may direct otherwise, assist the Secretary in
the discharge of the functions transferred to him hereunder."
That is in connection with the Water Pollution Control transfer.
I see no provision in Reorganization Plan No. 3 either for the
transfer of this Assistant Secretary to the new agency or for the
abolition of his job. Was it contemplated that this additional As-
sistant Secretary will remain in the Interior Department ?
Mr. RUSSELL. There are certain functions that continue in the
Department of the Interior and would continue under that Assist-
ant Secretary. Very frankly, it is another reorganization plan that
we are not addressing today but will be addressing next week, this
being the Reorganization Plan No. 4. This introduces some other
changes affecting the Department of the Interior, and we will have
to consider the effects of both of these reorganization plans in
arriving at the decision on how to reorganize the Department of
the Interior.
Mr. LANIGAN. Reorganization Plan No. 4 transfers away from
the Interior additional employees?
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANIGAN. Not adding?
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANIGAN. Wouldn't you say that as a result of the transfer
to Interior in 1966 of the Water Pollution Control Administration
and the transfer out of it in 1970, Interior has sort of picked up
an extra Assistant Secretary without going through the normal
legislative process ?
Mr. RUSSELL. As I said, we will have to take into consideration
the effects organizationally on the Department of the Interior as a
result of what will have transferred out of the Department of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 227
Interior, plus taking into account the other developments that
[p. 102]
relate to the work of the programs which continue to remain in
the Department of the Interior. So we will have the need to reex-
amine our organization structure.
Mr. LANIGAN. Do you think one of the assistant secretaries
might be abolished in view of all the transfers out of the Interior
Department?
Mr. RUSSELL. It is a possibility, certainly. All I am saying is
that we have not really evaluated it in terms of this Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 because we have another reorganization plan that
is to take effect, and we would have all of these factors to consider
together in determining what next better be done about the De-
partment of the Interior organization.
Mr. LANIGAN. Do you think that you will have more after you
testify?
Mr. RUSSELL. No, sir. I would say that we would give it better
attention than merely to take a look at it, at this early point.
Mr. LANIGAN. The point I was making, these jobs are still going
to exist and the new jobs are going to be created and it would have
the tendency to enlarge that.
Thank you.
Mr. BLATNIK. Any further questions?
Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. The Honorable J. Phil Campbell, Under Secretary
of the Department of Agriculture.
Thank you for standing by for these 2 long days, and for mak-
ing yourself available on such short notice. We appreciate that.
Mr. Secretary, we notice Dr. Irving is with you. Will you, for
the record, give your full name and title to the reporter?
Dr. IRVING. George W. Irving, Administrator, Agricultural Re-
search Service.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. PHIL CAMPBELL, UNDER SECRETARY, DE-
PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. GEORGE W.
IRVING, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before
you and the members of your subcommittee to discuss the Presi-
dent's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. This plan would provide
for an Environmental Protection Agency by consolidating in one
-------
228 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
agency functions from various departments concerned with the
environment and pollution of land, water, and air.
The USDA recognizes the desirability of providing a focal point
for Federal activities intended to insure further environmental
protection and supports the President's proposal to consolidate a
number of environmental control programs under one agency. We
also recognize the rule of including pesticides in the problems
concerned with air, land, and water pollution.
Over the years the Department of Agriculture has worked dili-
gently to help provide farmers with the chemicals that are so vital
in meeting the Nation's food production needs, and so essential in
the economy. At the same time, the Department has made every
effort to assure safe application of chemicals for the protection of
the American public and the Nation's wildlife. During the past
year, additional reorganization of pesticide control efforts has
[p. 103]
been accomplished within the Department to further carry out
these goals and especially to give the public full assurance that
human health and the environment were being protected in a
completely responsible manner.
We anticipate that proper safeguards necessary for the protec-
tion of agriculture as well as for the American public in the area
of pesticides will be maintained in the new agency and that the
Department of Agriculture will have opportunity to work closely
with the new agency on all items that directly affect agriculture.
In other words, as the President has indicated, the new agency
would be able to make use of the expertise of this Department
with respect to the effectiveness of pesticides.
The effect of the reorganization plan on the Department would
be to transfer to the new agency the responsibility for the admin-
istration of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 135-135k), and the functions of the
Secretary of Agriculture under section 408(1) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 346a(l)).
This would involve the transfer of the Pesticides Regulation Divi-
sion of the Agricultural Research Service which now administers
these acts. This division had a total of 185 professional and 109
nonprofessional employees as of June 30, 1970. The majority of
these personnel are located in Washington, D.C. However, there
are 13 analytical laboratories located outside of the Washington
area, in New York, California, Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon,
Texas, and Beltsville, Md., which account for 94 of the total per-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 229
sonnel. One laboratory at Brownsville, Tex., involving one profes-
sional and five nonprofessional personnel would be retained by the
Department to continue activities concerned with pesticide use
management.
In addition, our soil monitoring activities of the Environmental
Quality Branch, Plant Protection Division of the Agricultural Re-
search Service would also be transferred to the new agency. This
branch has a total of 26 employees—13 professional and 13 non-
professional. Of this total, 2 employees are located in Omaha,
Nebr., and 20 are located in Gulfport, Miss. Only those personnel
would be retained by the Department that are essential to moni-
toring the ongoing activities of the Plant Protection Division con-
cerned with the plant pest control. The Department of Agriculture
will retain its current responsibilities for research on pesticides as
related to other pest control methods and on the effects on nontar-
get plants and animals. It will also retain responsibility for exten-
sive pest control programs which utilize pesticides.
This is the total impact of Reorganization Plan No. 3 on the
Department. I shall be happy to respond to any questions you or
the members of the subcommittee may have.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Secretary, your major concern would be the
distribution of responsibility and a working relationship with this
new agency for the protection of the environment in the area of
pesticides and insecticides and in rodent control methods, is that
right?
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct. Insofar as this transfer is con-
cerned, we retain many activities in the Department which would
be related to any agency involved with the environment because
the Department has many other activities which do bear on the
environment.
Mr. BLATNIK. You would retain some of the research functions
of this operation. Can you explain what those would be?
[p. 104]
Mr. CAMPBELL. We would retain research.
Dr. Irving, if you would give that detail insofar as the research
that would be retained.
Dr. IRVING. None of the research from the Department of Agri-
culture, Agricultural Research Service, would be transferred to
this proposed new agency. All of the research now in Agriculture
would remain in Agriculture.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I think the chairman asked specifically as to
-------
230 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
research that would be relevant to the work in the new agency. Is
that correct ?
Mr. BLATNIK. Right; to the pesticides.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The research with regard to the uses of pesti-
cides and the effects on domestic animals, crop and noncrop plants
and trees would be done in USDA. We have an agreement with the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare whereby they eval-
uate pesticide uses with regard to human health.
Mr. BLATNIK. I notice the pesticide standards and research
functions now in HEW and Interior would be transferred. Have
you been working with HEW and Interior on pesticide work?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; we have done this for many years.
Formerly there was a committee at the lower level within each of
these Departments. Last year the committee was elevated to Cabi-
net status so that Secretaries Hickel, Finch, and Hardin were the
committee in order to have better coordination coming right from
the top.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Secretary, it wouldn't be much of a problem
to work out the same type of mutually satisfactory and beneficial
relationship with this new agency.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; we think we could do that.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Any questions?
Mr. ERLENBORN. No questions.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Next we have Dr. Jesse L. Steinfeld, Surgeon
General of the U.S. Public Health Service, speaking for the Secre-
tary of HEW.
Doctor, welcome, and we thank you, too, for standing by these
past 2 long days to make your presentation.
Dr. STEINFELD. It has been quite an education, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF JESSE L. STEINFELD, M.D., SURGEON GENERAL,
U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION, AND WELFARE ; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES C. JOHN-
SON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; AND
DR. DALE LINDSAY, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR SCIENCE, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Dr. STEINFELD. Mr. Chairman, appearing with me is Mr. C. C.
Johnson, on my right, the Administrator of the Environmental
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 231
Health Service, and Dr. Dale Lindsay on my left, Associate Com-
missioner for Science of the FDA.
[p. 105]
Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have a prepared statement? Do you prefer
to read the statement in its entirety or summarize it?
Dr. STEINFELD. I can read it very rapidly.
Mr. BLATNIK. Proceed at will. Make whatever points you ought
to. We want to make the record complete. We are very happy to
have you.
Dr. STEINFELD. Thank you.
I am pleased to appear before you to present the views of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning Reor-
ganization Plan No. 3, submitted to the Congress by President
Nixon on July 9, 1970. In that message, the President expressed
his assessment of current Federal efforts related to pollution:
Our national Government today is not structured to make a coordinated
attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink,
and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure
for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted
action.
Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must
be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of depart-
mental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness.
The case for centralization of responsibility for pollution abate-
ment in a single agency is a strong one. A single agency can
provide visibility, focus, and overall direction to the complex prob-
lems of pollution control. Such an organization allows the develop-
ment of an integrated operational strategy for considering the
significant interrelationship among pollutants, including pollu-
tants which affect more than one aspect of the environment, as
well as those whose abatement may cause another form of pollu-
tion. A single organization with primary responsibility for pollu-
tion control can reduce the fragmentation which has characterized
Federal pollution control to the present time. For these cogent
reasons, the President has proposed the consolidation of these
responsibilities into a single, cognizant agency for pollution con-
trol. To carry out these responsibilities, he has proposed the estab-
lishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, an independ-
ent, sub-Cabinet level agency, to report directly to him.
The establishment of EPA, with the wholehearted assistance of
related programs, can greatly improve the effectiveness of Federal
action in pollution abatement. The Department of Health, Educa-
-------
232 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tion, and Welfare looks forward to assisting the Environmental
Protection Agency in effectively carrying out its pollution control
responsibilities.
Several major programs of the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare are to be transferred to the Environmental
Protection Agency according to the reorganization plan. From the
Environmental Health Service, these include:
The National Air Pollution Control Administration;
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management;
The Bureau of Water Hygiene; and
The environmental radiation functions of the Bureau of Radio-
logical Health.
In addition, the responsibilities of the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration for establishing pesticide tolerance in food, as well as for
that research which is integral to tolerance setting, will be trans-
ferred to EPA.
[p. 106]
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare supports
the President's reorganization of environmental programs and of-
fers its full cooperation to the environmental protection agency in
facilitating the transfer of these functions and the personnel asso-
ciated with them.
To minimize any untoward effects of this reorganization on the
careers of many of the personnel serving in these programs which
are to be transferred to EPA, the Department transmitted to the
Congress on July 16, 1970, draft legislation, "To provide for em-
ployment within the Environmental Protection Agency of commis-
sioned officers of the Public Health Service."
The effort to control environmental pollution, which has long
been a concern of the Public Health Service, engages some 900
PHS commissioned officers. Of these, approximately 600 are di-
rectly serving functions which will be transferred to the new
agency in accordance with Reorganization Plan No. 3. The draft
bill would authorize those officers serving in transferred functions,
and officers serving related functions as jointly agreed upon by the
Secretary and the Administrator of the EPA, to transfer to com-
petitive civilian positions within the new agency. The transfers
would be effected in most cases at levels of compensation, and with
benefits, comparable to those now being received by the officers. In
addition, for those officers whose functions have been transferred
to EPA, but who do not wish to transfer to competitive civilian
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 233
status, separate provision has been made in the draft legislation to
assign them to duty with the EPA while they remain on active
duty with the Public Health Service. This legislation is necessary
to facilitate the transfer of HEW programs to EPA, and we rec-
ommend its early and favorable consideration by the Congress.
Beyond present arrangements for the transfer of functions and
personnel to the new agency, the future relationship between
HEW and EPA will be an important one. While EPA is to have
primary responsibility for setting standards and conducting ap-
plied research on the health as well as other effects of pollution,
HEW will continue to be responsible for basic research as well as
all other facets of health, including the environment as it relates
to health. The impact of the environment is an important and
growing concern in human health, and is one in which HEW has
special interest and special competence. The Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare will place a very high priority on
the establishment of a good working relationship with the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency in these areas of mutual concern,
and will offer EPA every assistance in carrying out its important
responsibilities in the abatement of pollution in our environment.
My colleagues and I will be pleased to try to answer questions.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Dr. STEINFELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. You say a total of 900 Public Health Service
commissioned officers will be included in this transfer, is that
correct?
Dr. STEINFELD. No. These are the number that are engaged in
activities that relate in some way to environmental pollution. Ap-
proximately 600 are in those areas which we have identified as
being affected by the transfer.
Mr. BLATNIK. Of the 900, 600 will be transferred to the agency?
[p. 107]
Dr. STEINFELD. Approximately. These additional individuals
may be sanitary engineers, health educators, people interested in
the environment or conducting research, perhaps basic research
related to the environment. They would not necessarily be trans-
ferred.
Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have any other noncommissioned person-
nel operating in the transfer function? What would be the total
personnel, commissioned and noncommissioned transfers, from the
Public Health Service or HEW into the proposed agency?
Dr. STEINFELD. Approximately 2,200.
-------
234 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. BLATNIK. We didn't have that in the testimony at all,
did we?
Dr. STEINFELD. I didn't have it in the prepared testimony. We
are currently reviewing all of these activities to determine just
what their relationship is to the functions of EPA as it has been
characterized and to determine what should be done with func-
tions remaining in HEW.
Mr. BLATNIK. These 2,200 personnel were engaged in or taken
from the Environmental Health Services, the National Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Is there a solid waste management operation in HUD, too ? Do you
have the entire program yourself?
Dr. STEINFELD. I cannot speak for HUD. Perhaps Mr. Johnson
could answer that.
Mr. JOHNSON. The lead role at the Federal level is in the Envi-
ronmental Health Service program of HEW. We have the basic
responsibility in solid wastes. Other departments have solid waste
activities: Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior.
Mr. BLATNIK. Which has the
Mr. JOHNSON. The dominant role is in the Department of HEW.
Mr. BLATNIK. Which one would be trash and solid waste from
municipalities?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
within the Environmental Health Service of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. BLATNIK. It comes under the Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce Committee; is that right?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.
Mr. BLATNIK. You also have some environmental health activi-
ties coming into the Committee of Labor and Education; is that
right?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; if you are talking about the activities that
are in our Health Services and Mental Health Administration
under the Indian Health program.
Mr. BLATNIK. What is the total budget? Could you give me an
idea of what the budget is in round figures; that is, for air pollu-
tion control ?
Mr. JOHNSON. In 1970 our budget was approximately 1,055
people, about $102 million.
Mr. BLATNIK. Can you tell me for what type of activity most of
that budget went? Does it involve grants for public facilities, such
as municipal incinerators?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 235
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, not quite in that way, Mr. Chairman, but, I
would say that half, or a little better than half, of the dollars went
to research and demonstration grant activities. The next largest
portion, about 30, 35 percent went into abatement and control
activities.
Mr. BLATNIK. What kind?
[p. 108]
Mr. JOHNSON. This is the strengthening of the State and local
efforts to carry out programs that are administered through the
National Air Pollution Control Administration under the Clean
Air Act of 1967.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is that a grant to a municipally owned facility
such as an incinerator ?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. This abatement and control activity
would be the establishment of control operations on the part of a
State air pollution control agency or a local air pollution control
agency. We matched their funds at the rate of about 50 percent
local moneys, 50 percent Federal moneys; we set up air quality
control regions through which the States implement the various
aspects of the Clean Air Act.
Mr. BLATNIK. Can you give us some samples of the nature and
types of activities for the money that you put into demonstration
projects? What type of activities would they be?
Mr. JOHNSON. We have one now with the TVA in demonstrating
advanced design on an incinerator that will help to reduce the
amount of sulfur oxides that come out of the incinerator. This will
be a pilot plant operation. We have two stages on this. We have
others in which we will demonstrate the adequacy of the control of
automobile emissions. The Federal Government actually regulates
the control of emission of various gases from the exhausts of
automobiles and we have to find out how well the controls actually
work. We have demonstration grants with the State of California
in which we try to evaluate that aspect of the program.
Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have any demonstrations with industry,
say, the steelmaking industry, with enormous volumes of obnox-
ious fumes ?
Mr. JOHNSON. We do have cooperative research programs with
various industries. We have one with the coal industry, for in-
stance, in trying to find ways of reducing sulfur oxides from
burning coal, or cleaning up coal to remove the sulfur from it
prior to burning.
-------
236 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. BLATNIK. I was thinking of the steel industry. We have a
combination of metallic oxides, and what not, impurities. It is a
very complicated process.
Mr. JOHNSON. I would expect we do. I cannot recall one right
now but we are working with each of the major industries,
whether steel or the foundry industry, or cement industry, to find
ways to reduce the amount of pollutants that issue from their
manufacturing process.
Mr. BLATNIK. Do you set the standards for the proper levels at
which emissions are tolerable or permitted?
Mr. JOHNSON. We do, in a way.
Mr. BLATNIK. Do you set the standards or do the States do it?
Mr. JOHNSON. We establish criteria against which the States
establish ambient air quality standards and standards that ac-
tually regulate the emissions that come from these various pollu-
tant sources.
Mr. HENDERSON. Do you have to approve the State standards?
Mr. JOHNSON. We do approve the State ambient air quality
standards and the implementation plans against which the States
will operate to achieve the standard.
Mr. HENDERSON. Are your criteria maximum or minimum, or
what?
Mr. JOHNSON. Our criteria are based on a number of effects.
Actually, they are not maximum or minimum. They attempt to
[p. 109]
illustrate the various effects that will result from various levels of
concentrations of pollutants.
Mr. BLATNIK. The solid waste program is one that seems to be
further behind. This has been stated several times in the course of
the hearings and the Chair is certainly inclined to agree. It is a
very difficult problem and one of enormous magnitude.
Is the major Federal solid waste program or effort in your
agency, the one being transferred, the one that we are talking
about?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.
Mr. BLATNIK. Again, could you give us a more precise picture of
the magnitude of our effort? Could you give us the number of
personnel involved and the dollar volume?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. For the fiscal year 1970, figures for that
are approximately 200 people.
Mr. BLATNIK. You have 2,200 for air?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 237
Mr. JOHNSON. You said solid wastes?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am giving you the figures for solid wastes in
1970—206 people and $15.3 million.
You must understand that the legislative authority that we are
now operating under is essentially one of promoting solid waste
planning through State, local, and regional agencies, and of dem-
onstrations and research on improved methods of solid waste man-
agement. This is not a regulatory program.
Mr. BLATNIK. In the Federal program for solid waste manage-
ment you have roughly 206 personnel with a $15 million budget
for 1970, versus your efforts in the air pollution control program
where you have over 1,000 personnel with a $100 million budget.
Is that correct ?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is there any reason for such a small effort being
exerted in the solid waste program?
When was the air pollution program enacted by Congress, 1963?
Mr. JOHNSON. The first basic legislation that gave us the big
program, other than research, was in 1963.
Mr. BLATNIK. When did the solid waste management program
come in ?
Mr. JOHNSON. 1965 was the first Federal legislation.
Mr. BLATNIK. Five years. Do you have any indications, on the
basis of your research, what happened to greatly expand this
program so badly needed ?
Mr. JOHNSON. I believe there are lots of indications but I believe
that both the Congress and the executive branch have felt that
more demonstrations and research, particularly in terms of reduc-
ing the amount of solid wastes at the source before it really be-
comes a problem, are necessary steps before you have a much
larger program at this particular time.
Mr. BLATNIK. I did not realize that we were so far behind. This
is no reflection on your operation. It is the responsibility of Con-
gress to do what you have done with water pollution, where you
are operating a much larger program. I can see where on air
pollution, as explained earlier by Dr. Ash, the dollar volume may
not seem too large, but $100 million is considerable.
[P. 110]
When you set standards and enforce them on auto emission
devices, it would be an economic factor of quite some magnitude
toward economy even though borne by the users, and perhaps
-------
238 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
partly by the industry, we hope. I didn't realize we were very far
behind and your effort was that small in solid waste management.
Mr. JOHNSON. There are some other efforts of equally small
magnitude, in the Department of the Interior and the Department
of Agriculture.
Mr. BLATNIK. Are there any questions?
Mr. Erlenborn?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I have one or two questions, Mr. Chairman.
On page 2 of your statement you mention, "the responsibilities
of the Food and Drug Administration for establishing pesticide
tolerances in food, as well as for that research which is integral to
tolerance-setting, will be transferred to EPA."
How about enforcement? Will that still be in the Food and Drug
Administration?
Dr. STEINFELD. The enforcement will remain in the Food and
Drug Administration, in connection with their responsibilities for
other chemicals in food products. It would not make sense to break
up the enforcement apparatus to enforce the pesticide tolerances
separately.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you envision any problem in separating the
establishment of the level of salaries and the enforcement
procedures?
Dr. STEINFELD. No; I do not. We plan to work closely with the
new Agency as we have worked closely with other agencies in the
past.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I notice one of the other witnesses, I think Mr.
Ink, and now you, mentioned draft legislation has been transmit-
ted to Congress concerning the commissioned officers in the Public
Health Service. What assurance do you have that this legislation
will be acted upon ?
Dr. STEINFELD. I do not have any assurance that it will be acted
upon. We think it is a good piece of legislation. It provides that
these individuals who have dedicated their careers to health activi-
ties, who are working in the Public Health Service, will be able to
retain the kind of careers which they have chosen and continue
their work under the new Agency, assuming the new Administra-
tor agrees and would like to continue with the existing personnel.
If this is so, it would permit the exchange of commissioned officers
from HEW and the Public Health Service to the new Agency so
there would be a continuing exchange of expertise and experience.
I think this would insure a strong input to the new Agency. With
young PHS officers coming in, perhaps this system would provide
a form of recruitment for EPA as well.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 239
Mr. ERLENBORN. What authority do you now have for having a
commissioned officer assigned ?
Dr. STEINFELD. We have authority to assign commissioned
officers to various Public Health Service activities, and also to the
Coast Guard, the Bureau of Prisons, the Indian Health Service,
which is now part of the Public Health Service, and, if Congress
approves this legislation, to EPA as well.
Mr. ERLENBORN. So there is some precedent for this type of
legislation.
Dr. STEINFELD. Yes; there is.
[P. ill]
Mr. ERLENBORN. In the transfer from HEW to Interior of the
water pollution activities, what happened to the commissioned
officers?
Dr. STEINFELD. I was not here but, as I understand it, every-
body was not too pleased with the transfer. A number of officers
were transferred to Civil Service status, although they had chosen
a career in a commissioned corps. They lost a large number of
their benefits. Other officers who transferred from different units
were able to retain their benefits. So, there were people who were
working side by side, perhaps doing similar jobs, who were receiv-
ing widely varying rates of pay for similar jobs. This was one of
the major problems, as I understand it, in the previous transfers.
The proposed legislation would obviate this problem. We hope
we have learned from our experience of 4 or 5 years ago.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Drawing on that experience, do you think you
would be able to make the transfer in more orderly fashion and
with less disruption of the commissioned service?
Dr. STEINFELD. I think we can and, in addition, I think we can
assure a strong and continuing relationship, assuming the legisla-
tion passes.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Lanigan?
Mr. LANIGAN. I wanted to ask the same question of HEW. The
plan is to transfer out of HEW about 2,600 people. To what extent
do you plan to reduce the number of positions in your central
services, such as personnel offices and administrative services
offices, as a result of these transfers?
Dr. STEINFELD. We are currently reviewing the parts of the
Environmental Health Service which will remain behind in HEW
in order to determine whether we should organize a component
around those, moving elements of FDA, Health Service and Men-
-------
240 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tal Health Administration, and other organizations in HEW, into
it, or whether we should distribute the remaining portion of the
Environmental Health Service into the existing health components
of HEW.
We do propose to transfer proportionately the overhead and
managerial positions to the new Agency.
Mr. LANIGAN. Do you have any idea how many positions that
would be?
Dr. STEINPELD. I do not have the management positions, but I
would expect that we would be transferring the great majority of
the management positions of the Environmental Health Service
and the corresponding management positions at the Department
level, to the new Agency.
Mr. LANIGAN. Could you furnish us with more definite informa-
tion concerning that within the next week?
Dr. STEINFELD. We are undertaking an audit at the current
time, and we will be most pleased to provide you with the informa-
tion. The final determination will be worked out by the Office of
Management and Budget. We hope to provide them with the infor-
mation on which they will make the final decision.
Mr. BLATNIK. Doctor, what role does the Bureau of Water Hy-
giene play in the current mercury poisoning episode?
[p. 112]
Mr. JOHNSON. We have a responsibility for the Nation's domes-
tic water supply. As a result of that, when mercury became very
prominent we did an immediate survey.
Mr. BLATNIK. How did it become prominent? It didn't become a
problem just 2 weeks ago on Monday morning.
Mr. JOHNSON. If you would permit me to digress, I would like to
talk about that for a second.
Mercury, as well as a number of other highly toxic substances,
were never really recognized as being a very prominent problem in
the environment. It is only because of this recent interest in eco-
logical results of the things man is doing to himself that you begin
to get this kind of concern. People of all kinds, scientists particu-
larly, are beginning to probe now into many areas whose safety,
before, was previously more or less taken for granted.
As a result of this interest, we had, first, pesticides in their
various ramifications. We have had mercury, cyclamates, and a
number of other things. We are going to have more in the future.
Unfortunately, this country does not have at this time any kind
of national surveillance network that will give to us beforehand
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 241
some reading of various insults that might occur and become sig-
nificant in the environment. I believe the steps we are taking now
in the Environmental Protection Agency will be a step in the right
direction to help to establish this kind of surveillance network.
Instead of just picking something out of food or picking some-
thing out of air or water, we will be able to see what the total
body burden might be of certain insults that are just traces, al-
most inconsequential, when you look at them by themselves. It is
in this kind of situation that mercury emerges as a concern in the
environment.
As somebody pointed out, it is nothing new to us that mercury
is a highly toxic element to people. What is new is that it is
accumulating in the environment so as to pose a threat to man. We
will have to look at many elements because of this, both in the air
we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.
Mr. BLATNIK. Speaking as a layman, apparently you have been
aware of the levels of mercury in water, but I understood the
Bureau of Water Hygiene has set the levels of permissible expo-
sure for drinking purposes. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. This is about 5 parts per billion.
This is a very minute amount. It is also very difficult to measure.
Sophistication in instrumentation in the laboratory has only begun
to come into being. Many laboratories do not have the capacity to
measure down to this level in a very accurate way.
As we now look at it, it is being surveyed as a result
Mr. BLATNIK. Mercury poisoning results because of the cumula-
tive effect in plant life, fish life, and, then, in human beings. Is
that the cycle ?
Mr. JOHNSON. At the present time, our real concern has to be
with food, and, particularly, fish in this instance, or, as has been
pointed out, there were a couple of episodes of poisoning through
grain because of certain agricultural pesticide treatment proc-
esses. Basically, this current problem is the result of the accumula-
tion of mercury as a result of the eating habits of fish.
[p. H3]
Mr. BLATNIK. Has this happened before and has never been
detected ?
Mr. JOHNSON. It may or may not have. Certainly, it had never
been recognized.
Mr. BLATNIK. The mercury accumulated in the fish started in
the accumulation in algae and plant life at very low levels.
-------
242 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. JOHNSON. I think it has happened because of a renewed
awakening of man's interest in the environment, and we are
checking lots of things. Each thing that comes up may be new only
because we are now discovering that it is in the environment in
such a way that it can raise questions of whether it is healthy for
man or not.
Mr. BLATNIK. What is your background? Are you from the
chemical or medical field?
Mr. JOHNSON. I like to think I am an environmentalist. I am an
engineer by training. I have worked in the public health field for
25 years now. You pick up quite a bit of knowledge and experience
along the road.
Mr. BLATNIK. Would you be involved in this proposed transfer,
should it go into effect?
Mr. JOHNSON. I have been involved. I hope to be involved. I
support it in its entirety.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much.
Doctor, we have no further questions. I thank you, and I thank
both of the gentlemen with you.
We have our friend and colleague, who is very knowledgeable in
the field of conservation, and resource utilization, and preserva-
tion, and many aspects of environment. He has been a tireless
worker in this effort for many years, recognized so by people in
many different walks of life—our colleague and friend, Congress-
man John D. Dingell, from Detroit, Mich.
Congressman, we appreciate your standing by all day long to
make yourself available. We have just concluded the administra-
tion's case in behalf of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1970 proposing the establishment of an Environmental Protec-
, tion Agency.
In my conversations with you, I know you are very familiar
with the proposal, and we are interested in hearing your opinions
and judgment in response to this proposition.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
I want to express my particular appreciation to you for hearing
me. I know the committee is very busy. I know the labors you face
both here and on the floor and in your offices are very heavy,
because I happen to have not dissimilar experiences in my own
capacity.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 243
I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a most gracious recep-
tion and introduction to the committee. I wish to reciprocate by
having you know the high regard in which I hold you as one of the
leaders, one of the distinguished and great conservationists of this
Nation, and, indeed, I may say, one of my mentors in this field.
For the record, my name is John D. Dingell. I am a Member of
Congress from the 16th Congressional District of Michigan.
[p. 114]
Mr. Chairman, waiting around to appear in opposition to Reor-
ganization Plans Nos. 3 and 4 I do not regard as a burden but,
rather, as a duty and necessity. I am prepared to testify against
both today, but I understand it is your wish that I should testify
only on Reorganization Plan No. 3 since that is the matter which
is presently before the committee.
Mr. BLATNIK. If the gentleman will confine himself to Reorgani-
zation Plan No. 3, which all the witnesses have done, he may be
heard again next week, or shortly thereafter, when hearings are
held on Reorganization Plan No. 4.
Mr. DINGELL. I do wish to be heard on that one, also, Mr.
Chairman.
I would point out in the beginning, certain comments that one
makes with regard to plan No. 3 can be reversed in application to
plan No. 4.
Plan No. 3 ostensibly seeks to unite everything under an envi-
ronmental agency that is going to consider all aspects of environ-
mental problems. Plan No. 4, in setting up NOAA, seeks to bring
out the aspects of the environment—atmosphere, biosphere, eco-
system—which relate to the sea.
I might say strikingly, Mr. Chairman, it turns it over to the
exploiters and polluters as opposed to the agencies that have tradi-
tionally been conservation oriented.
So, we have here two very different sets of circumstances.
I might say these plans constitute a very admirable application
of one of the portions of the Peter Principle. If you have read the
book on the Peter Principle, you will recall a number of interest-
ing things, the most interesting of which is reference to what is
known as Peter's placebo. That is, if you have an enormously
difficult problem and have neither the means nor the inclination
nor the ability to address yourself at a particular time, you do
something else which looks like you are doing something and
which looks like you are doing something important, even though
-------
244 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
you might be doing something which is, in fact, counterproductive,
ineffective, or, indeed, totally useless.
I would point out, if the administration really seeks to do some-
thing in the field of the environment, there are far better ways in
which it may do so. I would say reorganization of the Government
is not only useless in this area, but it is generally recognized by
those who have studied the matter to be entirely counterpro-
ductive.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like just to set out some
of my interests in this matter.
As you recall, when I came to the Congress I had the privilege
of serving with you on the Public Works Committee, and I am
proud to say that I was able to work with and assist you in the
drafting of the first meaningful water pollution law enacted by the
Congress.
Since that time I have maintained an active interest in this
matter of water pollution and have been active in applying contin-
ued pressures, first to the Public Health Service, then the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and then the Department
of the Interior, to move aggressively in the field of water pollu-
tion.
Together with you, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to provide lead-
ership for adequate funding which really is the key to the prob-
lem.
Mr. Chairman, I have studied the agencies involved in Reorga-
[p. 115]
nization Plans Nos. 3 and 4 in connection with my responsibilities
as a member of a number of committess and subcommittees of the
House of Representatives. I have been a member of the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee for about 15 years and have
had an opportunity to study the Food and Drug Administration,
the Public Health Service, and most of the constituent agencies of
the Environmental Protection Agency which, with the exception
of the Federal Water Quality Administration, are responsive to
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
We have broad responsibilities over health administration
through the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, the Department of HEW, and the National Insti-
tutes of Health. So I have some familiarity in that area.
I am also chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wild-
life Conservation on the House side which conducted hearings
which resulted in passage of the Environmental Policy Act and,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 245
together with you, Mr. Chairman, cosponsored that legislation
which ultimately became law.
Also, together with you, I cosponsored the legislation which
established the Joint Committee on the Environment.
I have served on subcommittees on health and have been instru-
mental in the drafting of a number of pieces of legislation relating
to the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service,
constituent organizations of the EPA, and also have been respon-
sible for a number of amendments to the Food and Drug Act, and
have served on committees that reported out every major amend-
ment to the Food and Drug Act since 1956.
Reorganization acts probably should be matters that are han-
dled by statute. I really doubt very much whether we are wise in
permitting any administration, this administration or any other,
to submit to the Congress take-it-or-leave-it proposals which we
must swallow whole without chewing, or else reject whatever
small good might be present with whatever large evil might be
present.
I think these two reorganization plans tend to prove the unwis-
dom of allowing any executive department or any executive au-
thority completely to reorganize the executive branch of Govern-
ment with only a veto vote by the Congress of the United States.
As these proposals come up to extend the Reorganization Act, I
intend to oppose each and every one of them.
I believe my colleagues, as time carries forward, will come to
join me in recognizing the unwisdom of allowing the administra-
tion power to combine weird mishmashes of good and bad into the
kind of monstrosities that we see here before us.
It is my experience with reorganization acts that the practical
results of such acts have been to establish a definable and clearly
observable period of total inaction within the agencies concerned.
If you will recall, when a similar reorganization took place, mov-
ing the then Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
from HEW to the Interior Department, we witnessed a number of
peculiar phenomena take place. First of all was the period of
inaction preceding and following. Then a number of things tran-
spired. There were new offices to be selected by the bureaucrats.
There were new office secretaries to be hired. There were all of the
status symbols that must, necessarily, be acquired by bureaucrats,
including rugs, drapes, and the emoluments of office such as vehi-
[p. H6]
-------
246 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
cles and things of this sort. Until these important questions and
the occupants of the offices had been selected, absolutely nothing
transpired.
A passing strange thing transpired in that in an agency which
had been able to function quite effectively with limited numbers of
persons, all of a sudden became inundated with large numbers of
people and became absolutely swamped in time studies, effici-
ency-type citizenry who contributed very little to programs but a
great deal to waste of time and taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, that, you will recall, was the beginning of the
institutional ization of a long fight which you and I have made to
upgrade the abatement of water pollution within the Federal Gov-
ernment.
It is fair, I believe, to say that where EPA tends to combine,
NOAA tends to fragment. I would point out to you the question of
the Food and Drug Administration is a very excellent example.
The Food and Drug Administration, which is a well established,
well functioning, efficient agency, finds itself now not only with
authority to fix standards but authority to enforce. It is interest-
ing to note that Food and Drug retains a tremendous amount of
research capability in matters entirely related in the food additive
field, additives, which migrate in from packaging, additives which
come in by way of additions through industrial processing, addi-
tives which come in by way of deliberate addition.
It also has thoroughly skilled, highly competent staffs which will
have to continue to operate in precisely the same areas of food
additives in all of these areas. So, if we cut out a major portion of
the Food and Drug Administration's responsibility and capability
to do this, we probably will wind up with what will really be two
research operations which will more or less duplicate the present
capacity and capability of Food and Drug to engage in this partic-
ular research work.
Imagine, in connection with this, the confusion that reigns. Ev-
erything stops until the new leadership is appointed. Musical
chairs begin. Movements to new offices and new buildings occur.
New executives without experience are appointed and we lose
valuable time. As I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the important
emoluments of office—seals, appealing receptionists, secretaries,
limousines, desks, furniture, carpeting, drapes—all of the things
that go with being a properly constituted Federal executive must
be secured. Valuable time, obviously, will be lost. Old scores are
going to be settled. Rifts will occur. Patronage will be dispensed.
Policies that are unpopular with polluters will be modified and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 247
reviewed and dispensed with. Unpopular enforcers of law will be
disposed of. Polluters will be consulted in copious fashion and
progress will be halted while the reorganization steps are car-
ried out.
How much better would it be, Mr. Chairman, if we were to see
to it that the agencies had proper leadership, proper coordination,
proper funding, and determination from the top that the agency
should function.
Mr. Chairman, to say that the constitution of EPA and NOAA
will move all agencies having related matters into one particular
area is either to demonstrate remarkable ignorance or to deliber-
ately attempt to mislead, because the fact of the matter is that
[p. 117]
throughout the whole Government structure, such agencies as
NIH, Federal Trade Commission, and parts of Food and Drug, are
going to remain large parts of the responsibility of EPA.
The Fish and Wildlife Service traditionally has done some of
the best work that has been done in the field of protection to the
environment from pesticides by trying to protect fish and wildlife
from pesticides. It is a very modest program, consisting of 12
people, but it has done the major part of the work inside the
Federal Government on protection of fish and wildlife from pesti-
cides. We are going to find that no longer will the conservationists,
no longer will people like myself who have authority to consult
with that particular agency directly through committee responsi-
bilities, be able to go to them. As a matter of fact, if we are to
continue to protect wildlife from pesticides and matters of that
kind, we probably will have to reconstitute some kind of research
program within the Fish and Wildlife Service or find that that
very important aspect, protection of both human and wildlife re-
sources in this country, will be pretty much abandoned.
Another matter that should be forcibly brought to the attention
of this committee is that if we really seek to upgrade the agencies,
we are taking a passingly strange device to do it. I would point out
that no longer is it going to have a Cabinet rank spokesman who
will speak.
I have heard it said that this is analogous to NASA, or some-
thing of this kind. NASA has been successful, as every Member of
the House knows, because the White House said we were going to
the moon and we were going to do all things and spend all funds
necessary to accomplish that goal and necessary to achieve su-
premacy in space.
-------
248 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
I would commend to this committee's thought—I am satisfied
that it is correct—that if we are determined to have environmen-
tal protection, we can have it within the structure of the existing
governmental agencies, and not by going around and emasculating
existing agencies, putting together a group of bits and fragments,
totally disorganized, with entirely new leadership and with no
increase in budget.
In my opinion, under this set of circumstances, EPA will be at
least counterproductive, and I would say in all probability we are
in for a period of backward movement.
For example, in the field of water resources, the Bureau of
Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Office of Saline Water are
not removed and none of their functions are removed. It is fair to
say that the Department of Agricutlure has large numbers of
areas of responsibility dealing with water. The Federal Land
Management Agency has responsibilities in this area.
I would point out that none of their capacity to deal with the
problems of water pollution, which are closely related, are re-
moved.
Irrigation is one of the major sources of water pollution in the
country. None of these are being moved to EPA. Yet we are told
this is going to be an agency which will handle the whole problem.
One thing that I find particularly offensive, one thing that I
believe you, as one of the sponsors of the Environmental Policy
Act, should find particularly offensive, is the fact that this plan
[p. 118]
takes away from the Council on Environmental Quality the power
to study, to engage in ecological research, and research in ecologi-
cal questions.
I would think, having just passed that bill, the Congress would
be extremely chary of letting that kind of emasculation take place.
I would point out the President's comments in this area as to
how he intended to use the Council on Environmental Quality
would tend to indicate that he either is unaware or has been sold a
bill of goods with regard to this particular point.
I have served on a number of committees that have been con-
cerned with the problem of how to get the Government moving in
major questions of this sort. I would point out that in all instances
we found that constituting new departments and making new
governmental reorganizations was not the way, and that the way
that these matters should be tended to was by requiring and by
encouraging and by demanding that there be intelligent coordina-
tion of the sundry and different programs which are interrelated.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 249
It is absolutely impossible in a Government this size to put
everything that deals with any one thing in one place without
literally destroying or decimating or hazarding any number of
related other matters that deal closely with the same problem. It is
impossible to isolate one particular problem and say, "Put all your
attention on this and let all other problems that might exist be
totally ignored." That is one of the vices of Reorganization Plan 3
and Plan 4, which sets up NOAA.
If the administration has succeeded in transferring out these
ecological studies which I have alluded to and retained in the
Council on Environmental Quality the power to continue to do the
same thing, then that talent by all means should be devoted to the
management of the national debt and to the expenditure of the
public purse.
I would point out it is the first instance in my 1G years in the
Congress that I have ever seen a governmental agency involved in
a system whereby they may have their cake and eat it too. That is
essentially what they do. They either transfer that authority out
or retain it in the Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. Chairman, the Council on Environmental Quality was set
up for a very simple purpose. It was set up to see to it that for the
first time we had one entity in Government which would be able to
provide the President with the assistance he needs in coordinating
and bringing together all of the policies that exist with regard to
the environment, to carry out the reviews that are needed, to see
to it that the Government's policies are responsive and that they
meet the needs, and to see to it that there is a device within
Government for coordinating all of these disparate programs and
responsibilities and agencies.
The President recognized this by setting up a Cabinet-level com-
mittee. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that having been chairman
some years ago of the Subcommittee on Oceanography, I had a
similar problem with regard to oceanographic problems. Oceano-
graphic agencies are scattered and strung all over the structure of
Government. The Honorable George Miller, my predecessor as
chairman of that subcommittee and now the chairman of Science
and Astronautics Committee, came to the same conclusion.
[p. 119]
I inherited a bill from him and was able later to get it passed.
We set up as a result of this a council which would provide the
kind of coordination, integration of programs, clearinghouse and
-------
250 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
device for interrelating Government programs and' Govei nment
responsibilities in the field of oceanography. We came to the first
conclusion it would be extremely unwise to take a little bit from
the Navy, a little bit from Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries and merge them together. Rather, it would be
far better to provide an intelligent, effective functioning, high-
level device to give the coordination that is needed to provide the
proper interrelation and interaction of governmental programs in
all these areas. Each of the programs was going to continue to
have areas of responsibility which were peculiar unto a particular
department and which would be related to the ongoing programs
of that particular department.
Mr. Chairman, there is something else that I think we ought to
recognize in our consideration of this matter; that is, you and I
throughout the years have given thought to the problems of pollu-
tion. We recognize that there are similar problems with regard to
pollution, great similarities, and if you are not careful, if you
handle one kind of waste wrong, you are going to create another
pollution problem. Since the problem of pollution is really the
problem of misplaced resources, misuse of resources, it was our
conclusion, and it was certainly mine, that it served no useful
purpose to put air and water pollution, solid waste and all these
things together. It is my firm belief, and I think it is one which is
wise and based upon long observation of this matter, that it is not
necessary to put them all under one roof. There are still going to
be programs in other agencies which are going to deal with the
question of solid waste or air pollution or water pollution and
what should be done is that we should engage in a very careful
program of coordinating these so that they would work out.
I think it is important for this committee to have a clear under-
standing and for those who are concerning themselves with this
matter to have a clear understanding of how the Government does
coordinate programs. What happens is that they set up task forces
and committees. Every agency will set up and send representation
to it. These groups will meet and lay down the policies and decide
how the expenditures are going to be carried out and what will be
done. The respective agencies under the leadership of one agency,
selected as the lead agency, will proceed to carry out the govern-
mental policy and relate the different laws and Government re-
sponsibilities together so that there might be a unified or uniform
program.
I would point out that it does not change existing law. It simply
is a better way of administering legal responsibilities.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 251
I would point out that this reorganization plan, or these two
plans, 3 and 4, could not constitute a device for changing existing
law, unless I am gravely and grossly in error. As I understand the
reorganization act, it does not provide the basis whereunder there
can be a change in an existing law.
Mr. Chairman, the day before yesterday we had before our
committee a number of people from the administration, including
Mr. Siciliano, who will probably be here in connection with plan
No. 4, and also Dr. Tribus of the Department of Commerce. They
[p. 120]
had some interesting things to say. They said essentially in that
presentation something which I think is the answer to this. This is
what Mr. Siciliano said: "We are not talking about who partici-
pates. We are talking about who takes the lead. We can decide who
is going to take the lead. After all, what is important, who can
work together, and this I am sure that we can do. We may decide
to have an entire agency work on the atmospheric sciences. We
may decide from time to time to rotate the leadership responsibil-
ity. What is important is whether we get coordination. Isn't that
what you believe?"
What he is essentially saying is what I am telling you today,
Mr. Chairman. That going through vast reorganizations, which
are going to lead to more hiring and more waste and inefficiency,
more disorganization and a substantial period of inaction, is not
the way. The way to do it is to have an intelligent coordination
program.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out with regard to water pollution
something which I think is very important; that is, all of the
Government's activities in the field of water pollution are not
going to be moved evenly. I would point out there is a major
program in the Department of Agriculture which is going to re-
main there. They are going again to have the coordination
problem.
There is a major program of sewers and water collection in
HUD. I would point out both the Department of Agriculture and
HUD have enormous pollution problems.
Mr. BLATNIK. Which program in Agriculture? Are you refer-
ring to Agriculture which will not be included in the transfer?
Mr. DINGELL. You have the program of grants for water and
sewers.
Mr. BLATNIK. The Farm Home Administration program?
-------
252 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. DINGELL. Yes, sir; you have a similar thing in HUD. Nei-
ther would be moved. I don't know whether the administration
considered this and rejected it or whether it never was aware of
the fact these programs existed at all.
Mr. Chairman, I have had in for a number of years, and I am
certain that the administration must be aware of it, legislation
which would move all of these water pollution grant programs to
one agency, the Department of the Interior. I have brought con-
stituents down here to get assistance under these programs and
they go home firmly convinced this is a town inhabited only by
crazy men. They go from agency to agency and the only thing they
have to show for their trip is a canceled airplane ticket, considera-
ble exhaustion, great frustration, and considerable bitterness from
the Federal Government.
Here we have a very classical example. Mr. Chairman, EPA and
NOAA are matters that are of the gravest and most high impor-
tance to the American people. They are matters which should be
handled after careful consideration by the Congress. I know of no
Member of Congress who was consulted in advance to find out
what he thought should be in these different agencies. I would
point out, Mr. Chairman, I know of no committee that has been
working on these things where we have been called in and said,
"We are going to do these things." Certainly no such communica-
tion was made with me as a member of the Commerce Committee
where we deal daily with the major part of EPA. I would point
out
[p. 121]
Mr. BLATNIK. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
There is another very important point you stress again and
which was brought out in the course of testimony which caused a
great deal of concern. The witnesses were told that the staff cov-
ered practically all of the environmental programs in many, many
departments of the executive agencies—over 180-plus persons con-
sulted. Except few limited contacts, we found that none of the
people on the congressional staffs were involved in these different
conservation and environmental programs you speak of. Congress-
man Saylor and a whole list of other people we can name, know
about the problem and the history of these environmental pro-
grams we are talking about today. Only a small percentage of
these programs are being put under the so-called comprehensive
Environmental Protection Agency.
I am glad that you underscored that, too.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 253
Mr. DINGELL. This, I think, is a very important point. There is,
Mr. Chairman, something that is going to have to be recognized.
This legislation and the testimony of the departmental witnesses
that I have heard and read in the press—and a reading of it would
indicate this is so—are so totally incomplete and so totally inade-
quate it becomes very plain that further administrative changes
are necessarily going to have to be made before either EPA or
NOAA is going to find its proper home or achieve the place in
Government or a governmental structure which will be efficient in
reaching the problems for which they have addressed themselves.
Actually, EPA and NOAA should be two parts of the same
agency. Actually, I would point out that they should be two parts
of another agency which would be dealing with the entire question
of environment or the entire question of natural resources.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that EPA should really, by all
rights, be a part of the Department of Natural Resources. I am
satisfied that when history is written it will either be a part of a
Department of Natural Resources or a part of a Department of
Environment. I am well satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that it will be
absolutely necessary within the orderly course of history that
EPA will be transferred to some kind of agency or so constituted
as to be headed by a secretary and have full Cabinet status. It
simply cannot function and do what it is supposed to do with
present BOB budget restrictions, present support from the White
House and the present budgetary structure. There is no amount of
saying to the contrary that is going to change that fundamental
fact.
What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, we are wrenching, by these
two plans, two agencies out of departments. We are creating pro-
digious, fantastic, and totally intolerable levels of confusion and
disorganization in these important areas. We are faced, almost
certainly, with the absolute surety, Mr. Chairman, that these are
only interim steps. I, personally, believe very strongly, apart from
the other vices so clearly apparent in the creation of either EPA
or NOAA, that one fact alone should militate against these reor-
ganization plans; that is, the prodigious disorganization which will
take place is not going to be the final disorganization and misallo-
cation of time, energy, and resources and personnel, but, rather, it
is only going to be one step which will lead to a further traumatic
[p. 122]
experience of exactly the same kind inside the Federal Govern-
ment when we carry forward the next reorganization which is
-------
254 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
clearly demanded by the kind of orphan structure that we are
legislating with the establishment of EPA and NO A A.
It is my hope that you and your committee will recommend
disapproval of these two reorganization plans and that, at an early
time, you move to see that the House summarily rejects them, as
you should, since they are not in the public interest and do not
solve the problem. Then we can begin to move in concert with the
White House, if the White House wants to, toward a legislative
reorganization of the Government's affairs by enabling the Con-
gress to participate in that action through the establishment of a
Department of Natural Resources and a Department of Environ-
ment. In this way, appropriate opportunity will be afforded all
persons, and there are large numbers of persons, conservation
organizations, Members of Congress, Senate, people who have
been studying and working on these matters, people in the uni-
versities, to participate in the reorganization plans.
I would point out the only people that I know of involved in one
of the plans are the members of the Ash Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to read, if you wish, a little ad
hominem. I would be pleased to read some of the comments ap-
pearing in the press and in the financial world about Mr. Ash's
administration of Litton Industries which has fallen on rough
days of late. I would say if he has the talent he is supposed to have
he would direct his talent to the Litton Industries rather than
screwing up the affairs of the Federal Government which he has
so clearly done here.
With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would repeat that this
body, the House of Representatives and the Congress, should be
consulted in these matters. We should have legislation which
would enable everybody to participate, instead of disgruntled in-
dustrialists operating behind closed doors, so that we can come up
with programs which are really going to reflect national need and
which will conclude the reorganization of the Government instead
of setting up an interminable period of organization which will
accomplish nothing.
Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman, we thank you for a very impressive
statement which was very necessary to give us a full, rounded out
point of view from different angles on this proposition. You made
one of the finest presentations ad lib from a few penciled notes. It
was a very orderly, logical, and smooth flowing presentation. I
congratulate you and express appreciation of the entire subcom-
mittee for the most helpful contribution you made to this record.
Thank you very much.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 255
Mr. DlNGELL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Are there any further witnesses or persons desir-
ing to have statements put in the record?
Mr. John Kinney, sanitary engineering consultant, Ann Arbor,
Mich., appeared before us on water pollution matters and public
works. He had to catch a previously scheduled plane flight. His
statement will appear at this point in the record.
(Mr. Kinney's prepared statement follows:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN E. KINNEY, SANITARY ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT, ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: Pollution control was my major
for undergraduate and graduate academic degrees. Now, with nearly 30 years
of experience, I can report to you that those who suggest pollution control
[p. 123]
and environmental control are synonymous are seriously in error. Pollution
control, however, can exert control over the environment—so much so, in fact,
that unless the consequences of the proposed controls are anticipated, the re-
sulting environment will not be what we want.
Thus, my testimony before this committee is not directed toward the point
that there would be, by this reorganization, a combining of the policing
agencies dealing with violations of air, land, and water standards. That is
desirable, for obviously they are interrelated. My concern is with the poten-
tial of this agency under the title of environmental protection to actually
cause environmental damage since, as proposed, this agency is not designed
to appraise the total environment.
My appearance before this committee results from questions by members
of the staff who had been researching past Government Operations Commit-
tee records of hearings dealing with water management. The role of pollution
control in water management had pointed up how water management, in turn,
has a role in environmental management. I was asked whether this proposed
agency is properly constituted to provide environmental protection. As a wit-
ness in past hearings before this committee and others dealing with water
management and pollution control legislation, as well as having had exper-
ience in regulatory activity at county, state and interstate levels and as an
advisor to government, industry, conservation, and planning entities, I have
had opportunity to be intimately acquainted with the problems, the expecta-
tions of people and legislators and the failures of accomplishment.
Is this reorganization adequate to do what is proposed? I think not.
Perhaps the easiest way to explain my concerns would be by example. But
as a prelude, may I suggest how important I think your committee role is in
properly assessing the issues before you on this reorganization.
There are two major domestic concerns—the state of the economy and the
quality of the environment. These will be the issues before the voters this
fall. The difficulty comes in the public connotation of environment as being
synonymous with pollution; it is not. Nor is ecology—the other word we hear
so much. But there is a very definite and positive interrelationship.
-------
256 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Ecology and economics both have the same Greek root—eco, or household.
Ecology is involved with the interrelationships of the members of the
household.
Economics is involved with the supplying of the needs of the members of
the household.
The household can be considered as global, continental, regional, neigh-
borhood, or a small unit such as an aquarium. For whatever unit is selected,
the summation of all the factors involved is the environment. We may modify
or preserve an environment but we don't save or destroy it. The environment
continues to exist in one form or another.
The modification may be an improvement or a worsening and it can be in
one or more aspects- Considering the environment of man as paramount re-
quires that all his needs as well as his relationships must be considered, in
other words, his health, shelter, education, work, safety, recreation, transpor-
tation. When the Congress passes legislation to achieve a most desirable ob-
jective, it sometimes finds a quite unexpected situation develops. The same
thing occurs with programs proposed to control pollution. The objective can
be most noteworthy; the results can be anything but desirable by actually
adversely affecting the ecology of an area or the potential to supply the needs
of its members.
The Congress has recognized the complexity of economics and the serious
impact seemingly slight modifications can have on the economy of the environ-
ment by utilizing a Council of Economic Advisers. Let me offer three illustra-
tions of how similar attention to the physical environment—the ecology, if
you will, is essential.
LAKE ERIE
No body of water has been maligned more than Lake Erie. Called a dead
sea and a cesspool by national speakers this body of water is really a gem,
a national resource of the greatest value. William Pecora, Director of the
U.S. Geological Survey, the agency set up by Congress to learn the interre-
lationships of land and water, calls the statement that Lake Erie is a dead
lake "pure rubbish."
Lake Erie does have problems. Most water bodies do. But the massive pol-
lution control program now underway for Lake Erie won't solve the most
pressing problems of that lake. The algae problem in the western lake
[p. 124]
wouldn't be solved if you shut off all the sewers around the lake. The reason
is that the two controlling factors are land drainage and the physical
features of the lake which influence the flow.
The existing pollution control agency does not have the environmental as-
sessment capability to undertake the guidance of such a program. Placing it
in a new agency will not correct this deficiency.
ASPEN, COLO.
As proof of this assertion consider the Roaring Fork River above Aspen,
Colo. There are two ponds on that river which make the point. The first
was caused by a rockslide just downstream from Maroon Lake at the head-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 257
waters of the river. It is loaded with algae and is in an advanced state of
eutrophication. Lake Erie doesn't compare with it and yet there are no
sewers, no industry, no people living there. This is above 10,000 feet in
elevation.
Further down the river below the gorge there is a perfect miniature Lake
Erie—same silted-in shallow entrance, same types of algal problems in the
entrance end, same deep water and good fishery in the exit end.
The people in the Lake Erie basin have been promised that if they pay
for installing tertiary treatment of sewage and closed industrial water sys-
tems, the algal problems in that lake will be corrected. However, there are
no sewers in the Roaring Fork situation, just land and the manner of using
the land causing the same effect as in Lake Erie.
The pollution crimes in Colorado—in fact, there are illustrations in all the
Western States—are mostly committed as part of programs authorized to
promote recreation.
However, there is no independent environmental analysis agency to antici-
pate the effects of programs in order that detrimental effects can be avoided.
And these mistakes, though truly pollution, for they do cause interference
with usage by others, cannot be corrected by pollution control agencies. If
there is to be environmental protection, such problems must be included.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO PEOPLE
There is underway a multibillion dollar pollution control program in the
Lake Erie basin. Part of it is essential to correct some of the environmental
blights such as polluted beaches and decaying organic sludge deposits. But
part of the expenditure will cause harm rather than good.
Such programs also divert funds from other essential environmental needs
such as control of crime in the streets and education. Part of this wastage in
the Lake Erie basin will be by the city of Detroit which is having great
financial difficulty.
It is a peculiar environment where propagation of fish in the stream rates
priority over safety of humans to walk on the streets. But it is an even less
desirable environment in which money is expended on the promise of improv-
ing a fishery when there is real evidence the fishery problems need different
approaches.
Lake Erie now produces (as it has since 1879) about 50 million pounds of
fish a year—half the total for all the Great Lakes. If it is a dead lake, it is a
unique dead lake.
The fishery has changed in Lake Erie just as it has in all the other Great
Lakes. These changes started before many sewers were connected to the
lakes—before man-made pollution could possibly have been a cause. The
answers are not all in the sewers.
Incidentally, the water in Lake Erie away from the shore can be drunk
without treatment. This makes a lie of the assertion the lake is a cesspool.
LAKE MICHIGAN
The adverse effect on the economy in the Lake Erie basin due to the untrue
publicity about the condition of the lake has been real but is small, however,
compared to what will happen to the economy of the Lake Michigan basin
if the latest pollution control regulation is enforced.
-------
258 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The Assistant Secretary of Interior, head of the water pollution control
agency, issued a regulation that discharges to Lake Michigan cannot be more
than 1 ° warmer than the lake. No mixing zone is to be allowed.
[p-125]
Since cities discharge water warmer than that, all cities as well as indus-
tries will have to providing cooling towers. The combined municipal-industrial
usage for this area is now, according to PWQA, 5.72 billion gallons of water
a day.
Cooling towers evaporate water as part of the operation. With an evapora-
tion loss of 5 percent there would be 286 million gallons a day or 104 billion
gallons a year removed from the lake and discharged to the atmosphere.
Most of this water will not precipitate in the basin so the lake level could
drop. But this amount of water regularly discharged to the atmosphere could
cause weather modification. It will definitely cause fogging and icing.
Even more, pumping this amount of water over cooling towers will con-
sume electrical energy in large quantities. This means a faster depletion of
coal, gas, and oil, and there are finite limitations on these reserves.
But the added expenditure of energy also means there will be more par-
ticulates and carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds discharged to the
atmosphere as well as heat.
Also, inland cities which now suffer water shortages and which are pre-
vented from pumping water from Lake Michigan by court decree, will watch
this precious asset float uselessly overhead.
What Canada will say about the diversion as a violation of its treaty with
the United States can be anticipated.
All this started because some well meaning fishermen apparently convinced
a pollution control official that warm water discharges adversely affect the
fishery in the lake. So, in this era of emotional involvement over the environ-
ment when the magic word is enhancement, any suggestion of eliminating
a discharge is immediately considered enhancement and must be adopted at
all costs. Unfortunately, not all costs are considered. And neither are all
consequences on the environment.
In this instance while the people's environment will be changed and they
will be paying dearly for the changes, the fishery won't be improved unless
effective fishery management is instituted. This is not provided for in this
reorganization. And actually, the warm water discharges have no effect on
the temperature of Lake Michigan outside mixing zone areas. Much better
for the total environment if there were requirements limiting mixing zones.
The thermal pollution hysteria is resulting in many environmental errors.
STANDARDS AND POLICING
What it boils down to is that the EPA will be an agency independent of
other departments which will argue for the freedom to set standards as a
prerequisite to the policing of what it deems necessary in protecting the
environment.
If our environment is to be truly protected, there must first be a definition
of the environment we want and that includes the total environment of
man. So we need to answer his needs which include, but are not limited to,
quality of air, water, and land.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 259
Yet for every benefit a penalty must be exacted and for every regulation
or every development some effects will result. So if we are to have environ-
mental protection, both ecology and economics must be considered.
As an illustration, consider the complexity of the problem of providing suffi-
cient electrical energy. To some the issue is simply one of burning gas, low
sulfur coal or oil and then provision of cooling towers. But to others the
issue is seen in terms of availability of fuel now and, of even more importance,
availability 30 years from now. At that time according to the Academy of
Science report "Resources and Man" there will be critical shortages of
petroleum, gas and low sulfur coal and, unless breeder reactors are in use,
critically reduced sources of cheap radioactive uranium.
In fact, the report emphasizes that although pollution is a disgraceful
condition, it can be cured once we have defined specifically what should be
done and spend the money to do it. The report points up the true environ-
mental problems are population distribution, availability of food from land
and sea, availability of minerals from land and sea, and energy. Emphasis
on pollution distracts attention from these vital issues.
Also, emphasis on constructing waste treatment facilities leaves the impres-
sion the problem is simple and isolated from other aspects of the environment
and that a rapid expenditure of funds is all that is needed. Much has been
done in the last two decades to abate pollution; much more needs to be done.
[p. 126]
But if the environment is to be considered, the pollution control program
must be considered in terms of time and objective to determine cost and in
terms of relationship to other environmental needs to establish priorities.
But it must also be considered in relation to the manner in which other
environmental aspects can be affected.
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED
The objective in this reorganization is to get coordination and more effec-
tive implementation of programs. But will this do it?
The operating organizations will continue to be individual entities for at
least 120 days after date of effective consolidation. What guidelines are
established to achieve the integrating effect within that time, or is a longer
period to be anticipated?
Will this reorganization tend to halt all policymaking decisions and thus
impede pollution control rather than accelerate it? You may recall this was
the history of the two previous reorganizations of the water pollution con-
trol agency.
At present the pollution control agencies within the various departments
have varying degrees of cooperation with the other bureaus in the depart-
ments, which can and do supply data for decisionmaking. At present the
potential for data exceeds the utilization but at least the potential is there.
If this new agency is created apart from the departments, how will the
EPA get the data it should be using from such entities as Geological Survey
and Soil Conservation Service? Are arrangements made for such activity?
Or is it planned to drain personnel via Bureau of Budget adjustments from
these agencies for transfer to EPA?
Since an announced intention is to increase EPA power to set standards,
who shall review the impact of proposed standards?
-------
260 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
If EPA is to absorb some of the ecology research from the Quality of the
Environment Council, will not EPA have the authority to limit the studies
to those it deems essential to policing the standards it proposes?
Will EPA continue to be a loose conglomerate, despite the title, simply
because there will be a number of congressional committees and appropria-
tion subcommittees interested in certain aspects of the program?
A PROPOSAL
Until there is a separate factfinding and environmental analysis agency,
the Members of the Congress as well as the people have no place to go for an
independent appraisal of proposals or an unbiased evaluation of a situation.
If there were such an agency, the State and interstate regulatory officials
could have positive support in setting standards of quality which, if violated
and not enforced at that level, could be by the Federal Government.
Also, if there were such an agency, the many bureaus in Government deal-
ing with various aspects of the environment could have a counseling board
at which alternatives could be evaluated.
One might argue that if consolidation of the agencies for policing is desir-
able, why not do that via this reorganization and then proceed to add on to
this venture at a later date. One might also argue equally well that grouping
of such policing agencies should be under a program that would first organize
the separate mechanism for developing objectives and standards which would
then be policed by a policing organization.
In essence then the two issues before the voters this fall—the state of the
economy and pollution control—are actually both part of the same issue—the
state of the environment. In this sense the environment we want improved
and protected is cultural, social, economic and physical, and unless placed in
that perspective is cause for trouble, not benefit.
With a rapidly increasing population and a finite limitation on resources,
there must be an end to optimistic but blind reaction, a determination of what
is truly in the best interests of man, a forum for mutual agreement, an
encouragement for those who can interpret the facts and guide our getting
where we want to go.
Our deficiencies at present are facts and solutions. This reorganization,
unfortunately, guarantees neither. Unless the Congress can see the need, we
are apparently doomed to further airless wanderings, for as Carl Jung has
summarized our public attitude, the situation is not optimistic.
[p. 127]
"We rush impetuously into novelty, driven by a mounting sense of insuffi-
ciency, dissatisfaction, and restlessness. We no longer live on what we have,
but on promises, no longer in the light of the present day, but in the dark-
ness of the future, which, we expect, will at last bring the proper sunrise."
— (Memories, Dreams and Reflections.)
Mr. BLATNIK. Hearing no further requests for time, the hear-
ings on plan No. 3 are recessed and the subcommittee is ad-
journed, subject to the call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)
[p. 128]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 261
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970
(Environmental Protection Agency)
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1970
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES,
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House
Office Building, Hon. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, presiding.
Present: Representatives John A. Blatnik, Chet Holifield, and
Benjamin S. Rosenthal.
Staff members present: Elmer W. Henderson, subcommittee
counsel; James A. Lanigan, general counsel, and J. P. Carlson,
minority counsel, Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. The Subcommittee on Executive and Legisla-
tive Reorganization will come to order.
This morning we continue our hearings on Reorganization Plan
No. 3 to create an Environmental Protection Agency. You will
recall we considered this plan earlier, on July 22 and 23.
We will have testimony this morning from representatives of
the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Radiation Council
and other interested organizations. The plan transfers certain ra-
diation standard-setting functions from the AEC to the new
agency and gives to the new agency all of the functions of the
Federal Radiation Council.
This morning we are pleased to have with us Dr. Glenn Sea-
borg, Chairman of the AEC, accompanied by Commissioner James
T. Ramey. Also with them at the witness table is Paul C. Thomp-
kins, Executive Director of the Federal Radiation Council.
We will be very pleased to hear your statement in any order
that you gentlemen choose.
STATEMENTS OF DR. GLENN SEABORG, CHAIRMAN, AND JAMES T.
RAMEY, COMMISSIONER, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; AC-
COMPANIED BY HAROLD L. PRICE, DIRECTOR OF REGULATION; JO-
SEPH F. HENNESSEY, GENERAL COUNSEL; PAUL C. TOMPKINS, EX-
ECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL RADIATION COUNCIL ; AND CLAIRE C.
PALMITER
Dr. SEABORG. I am going to make the statement for the Atomic
Energy Commission.
-------
262 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. RosENTHAL. I might suggest that you identify those with
you at the table.
[p. 129]
Dr. SEABORG. Mr. Harold Price, Director of Regulation, on my
right, and Mr. Joseph Hennessey, the General Counsel of the
Atomic Energy Commission, on my left. You identified Mr. Ramey
and Mr. Tompkins.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. You may proceed.
Dr. SEABORG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to review with you certain
aspects of the administration's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
as it affects functions of the Atomic Energy Commission.
As you know, this plan fulfills the President's pledge of early
this year to recommend improved Federal administrative machi-
nery to control and abate pollution of all forms which pose an
increasing threat to the quality of our environment. The Commis-
sion supports the plan and the ultimate objective expressed by the
President in his message of July 9,1970, to the Congress:
To insure that the Nation's environmental and resource protection activities
are so organized as to maximize both the effective coordination of all and
the effective functioning of each.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 would bring together in a new agency
—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—pollution con-
trol programs now existing in four separate agencies and an inter-
agency council. In the field of radiation, the plan would transfer to
EPA all functions now vested in the interagency Federal Radia-
tion Council (FRC), which would be abolished, and the functions
of the AEC for setting generally applicable environmental radia-
tion standards as administered by its Division of Radiation Pro-
tection Standards. My testimony is related directly to the transfer
of these functions, the respective roles and relationships of the
FRC and AEC in this field, and our understanding of how these
activities will be carried out under the new reorganization plan.
Before discussing the transfer of the AEC function, I would like
first to discuss the work of the FRC and its transfer to the new
Environmental Protection Agency. For perspective, a little back-
ground in the field of radiation protection standards may be
helpful.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection, cre-
ated in 1928, and the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements, established in 1929, have provided the basic
radiation protection recommendations that have been used
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 263
throughout the world as the bases for national regulations to
control uses of atomic energy and radiation. Since 1959, the Fed-
eral Radiation Council has provided official guidance in the United
States to Federal agencies for control of exposures to radiation.
The basic guidance of the FRC and the basic recommendations of
the NCRP and the ICRP have been mutually compatible.
Specifically, the FRC was established by Executive order and
amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and directed to
". . . advise the President with respect to radiation matters di-
rectly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all
Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards. . . ."
The Council, which consists of the Secretaries of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare; Defense; Commerce; Interior; Agriculture;
Labor; and the Chairman of the AEC, was directed to consult
qualified scientists and experts in radiation matters, including the
president of the National Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of
the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,
[p. 130]
and qualified experts in the field of biology and medicine and in
the field of health physics.
The charter of the FRC provided for access to a wealth of
scientific experience and expertise which has been reflected in the
eight reports published by the Council to date. Its recommenda-
tions are in the form of radiation protection guides for occupa-
tional workers, for individual members of the public, and for the
population as a whole. These guides apply to all sources of expo-
sure from normal peacetime operations but exclude exposures
from natural background radiation and radiation from medical
procedures. Federal agencies having jurisdiction in radiation mat-
ters, including the AEC, have relied on this broad guidance devel-
oped by the FRC and approved by the President.
As noted in the Presidential message, the new agency will work
closely with and draw upon the expertise and assistance of other
agencies having experience in the environmental area; thus, we
would expect that in its radiation protection standards develop-
ment activities, as has been the case with FRC, it would bring to
bear the available scientific competence in such organizations as
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements. The facilities of the
Atomic Energy Commission and results of our ongoing research
would, of course, be readily available.
-------
264 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
All of the functions of the FRC, as described above, would be
transferred to the EPA.
I would now like to discuss the relationship which has existed
between AEC and the FRC and the transfer of certain AEG func-
tions to the new agency.
The Atomic Energy Commission, through its Division of Radia-
tion Protection Standards, has been responsible for the develop-
ment of standards for protection of public health and safety
against radiation in the regulation of the atomic energy industry.
The activities of this division have included participation in the
Commission's work with the FRC in formulating generally appli-
cable radiation protection guides for use by Federal agencies in
their development of safety requirements tailored to meet their
particular needs. The radiation protection guides developed and
recommended by the FRC have been implemented in AEC regula-
tions and in the licensing process as specific regulatory standards
and requirements applicable to such atomic-energy activities as
nuclear power reactors, chemical reprocessing plants, fuel fabrica-
tion plants, and the use of radioisotopes in medicine, industry, and
research.
That part of the AEC's authority, as administered by its
Division of Radiation Protection Standards, to develop and set
generally applicable environmental radiation standards for the
protection of the general environment would be transferred under
Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the Environmental Protection
Agency. The Division of Radiation Protection Standards presently
has a staff of 19 persons and less than half of the total manpower
available in this division is devoted to this function.
The AEC would continue to have the responsibility for the
implementation and enforcement through its licensing and regula-
tory authority of the environmental radiation standards which
would be developed by EPA. In implementing these standards the
[p. 131]
AEC would establish regulatory requirements which would be ap-
plied to persons who receive, possess, use or transfer byproduct,
source, or special nuclear material, or who conduct or operate
nuclear facilities. These requirements would include such items as
design criteria, operating procedures, limits on radioactivity in
the effluents released outside the boundaries of locations under the
control of the user and monitoring to develop data to demonstrate
compliance with AEC requirements.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 265
As part of its enforcement function, the AEC would require its
licensees to carry out such monitoring programs—both within and
outside the boundaries of locations under the control of the licen-
see—as may be necessary to demonstrate compliance with AEC
limits imposed on the licensee. These limits would, of course, be
compatible with the standards developed by EPA. The AEC would
carry out such independent monitoring programs as deemed neces-
sary to verify that AEC limits are met, and would collect, collate,
and publish monitoring data developed by its licensees in its regu-
latory programs and data developed by its contractors in its
operating program.
Our understanding is that the Environmental Protection
Agency would be responsible for carrying out such monitoring
programs as it deems necessary in the general environment out-
side the boundaries of locations under the control of persons pos-
sessing or using radioactive materials. EPA would also be respon-
sible for collecting, collating, and publishing monitoring data
gathered in its programs. If data developed by EPA should indi-
cate that its environmental quality standards are not baing met,
the matter would be referred to the AEC for appropriate enforce-
ment action.
The Atomic Energy Commission, in the conduct of activities not
subject to licensing by the AEC, will use the EPA environmental
standards in carrying out agency responsibilities for controlling
the release of radioactive effluents to the general environment.
Standard contractual provisions in all AEC contracts relating to
operations on AEC sites, require contractor adherence with AEC
radiation standards and reserve full control over such matters to
AEC. AEC policy requires not only that its operations be con-
ducted in compliance with radiation standards but that radiation
levels be held to levels as low as practicable below such standards.
AEC operating contractors establish conservative management
controls over each operation which are designed to assure that
these requirements are met. Contractor performance is regularly
appraised by AEC staff located in field offices throughout the coun-
try. Field office and contractor performance is reviewed by AEC
headquarters.
In summary, the Commission feels that the establishment of the
EPA is a desirable and workable aspect of the administration's
goal to coordinate and focus the Nation's efforts to protect our
environment.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you.
Mr. Ramey, I believe, has a statement at this point.
-------
266 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a formal statement,
but I am prepared to help answer questions that arise.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Tompkins, do you have some remarks you
want to give us the benefit of?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Would you like me to read my prepared state-
ment now, sir?
[p. 132]
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes; I think so.
Mr. TOMPKINS. Very well.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first I would like
to mention that I have with me Mr. Palmiter, my colleague on the
Federal Radiation Council staff. I have been asked to appear be-
fore you to testify regarding the effect of Reorganization Plan No.
3 on the work of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) which will
be abolished as an administrative entity by that plan.
In addition to the transfer of the function of the FRC, the
functions of the Division of Radiation Protection Standards
(AEC) that have to do with establishing generally applicable en-
vironmental standards and the Bureau of Radiological Health
(HEW)—except for those functions related to consumer product
regulation and medical and dental uses of radiation—will also be
transferred.
I expect the primary effect of the transfer of these functions to
be in the area of administrative procedures involved in the devel-
opment of radiation protection standards, since this responsibility
will be vested in the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), rather than in a Council involving seven
Federal agencies.
Second, the inclusion of certain functions from the AEC and
HEW into EPA should reduce the existing gap between the for-
mulation of basic standards as a matter of policy and the imple-
mentation of those standards by various Federal agencies.
A few specific examples should suffice to illustrate the proce-
dural differences. The statutory responsibility of the Council is to
"advise the President with respect to radiation matters, directly
or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all Federal
agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the
establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with
States."
The FRC has no regulatory authority, it establishes no legal
limits, it has promulgated no emission standards of any kind, and
its recommendations to the President are not processed through
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 267
the Administrative Procedures Act. The recommendations pro-
posed by the FRC are broad in nature and cover the general
philosophy of radiation protection, which it hopes will be carried
over and into the standards and regulations of Federal agencies.
FRC recommendations are encompassed in what is called dose
to tissue. These doses are expressed numerically in terms of expo-
sure to people, not in terms of conditions leading to exposure. FRC
guidance on contamination to the environment is in similar terms
and is directed at the point of intake, again, personal exposure.
Upon approval of FRC recommendations by the President and
publication in the Federal Register, the recommendations become
official guidance for Federal agencies in establishing their radia-
tion protection activities.
A Federal regulatory agency starts with the prescribed dose to
tissue, as recommended by the Council and the annual average
intake of certain nuclides that would be expected to result in this
dose and work backward to the point of emission as the basis for
promulgating limitations on allowed emissions. Such regulations
are the agency's responsibility. They are subject to the Adminis-
trative Procedures Act and have the force of law. Whereas such
[p. 133]
regulations must be compatible with the basic guidance of the
FRC, the resulting regulations are not FRC standards as such.
The Administrator of EPA, as I understand, will conduct activi-
ties similar to the FRC and provide for the establishment of broad
radiation protection guides. He will also develop secondary stand-
ards to be processed through the Administrative Procedures Act;
that is, among other things, formal public hearings.
I would expect that the appropriateness of criteria promulgated
by the EPA would be determined and continually reexamined as is
done now by the FRC by use of panels of scientists from inside
and outside the Federal Government to review and study data
produced by investigators in the scientific community and to rec-
ommend specific areas where existing guidance may not be appro-
priate.
The EPA will use these primary radiation protection guides in
setting general environmental standards. By standards we mean
limits on radiation exposures, or levels, or concentrations, or
quantities of radioactive material in the general environment out-
side the boundaries of locations under the control of persons pos-
sessing and/or using radioactive material.
To go from radiation protection guides to MFC's or other forms
-------
268 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of permitted emissions the EPA will make use of its own compe-
tence, as well as that of the staffs of the AEC, HEW and other
Government agencies and outside experts. It is expected that other
Government agencies, including the AEC, will use these standards
in both its own and regulated activities.
Like the FRC has in the past, EPA will continue to seek the
advice of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and
will make full use of reports and opinions published by such inter-
national groups as the International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP) and the United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
In closing, I see no basic reason to suppose that the transfer of
functions required by the reorganization plan will impede the de-
velopment of responsible programs of radiation protection by var-
ious agencies of the Federal Government and, in many respects,
may expedite the continuing improvement in development of such
programs.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Holifield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Dr. Seaborg and Dr. Tompkins, I am pleased to
have you before this committee. You are often before the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, and we are pleased to have people
with your background of scientific knowledge and your long expe-
rience in the field.
I have a few questions that I would like to ask which cause me
some concern about this transfer, notwithstanding the fact that
both of you have said that it could work out all right and maybe it
can.
On page 4 of your statement, Dr. Seaborg, you mentioned the
fact that we have 19 people doing this work in the Division of
Radiation Protection Standards in the AEC.
Your statement is that, "The Division of Radiation Protection
Standards presently has a staff of 19 persons and less than half of
the total manpower available in the division is devoted to this
[p. 134]
function." So if we cut that in two, we have eight or nine persons
who are directly functioning in the standard formulation.
This chart which you gave us on the Environmental Protection
Agency, shows the transfer of three positions. It does not show
any continuation in the budget. The budget is still recommended to
be between $75 and $67 million.
The thing that concerns me, if it is necessary to have 19 or nine
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 269
in the AEG with their long experience in this field, how can this
work be done efficiently by three people who would be transferred
over into an environmental agency, which has some 6,500
employees?
My real concern, No. 1, is that we are not transferring an
adequate number of people over into the agency. And, No. 2,
perhaps they will be lost in this tremendous agency whose basic
interest and scope and application is as wide as pure water and
pure air.
So it is all-embracing of those two factors in our economy and
goes into other things too, of course, like pesticides. But how can
three men do what you are now requiring nine to 19 men to do?
Do you have some comment on that? Does this concern you?
Dr. SEABORG. I might say first no final decision has been made as
to the exact number of people that will be transferred to the new
Environmental Protection Agency from the AEC's Division of
Radiation Protection Standards.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have your chart before us, which you have
probably seen, which shows there will be four from the Federal
Radiation Council and three from the AEG. Have you seen that
chart?
Dr. SEABORG. I have seen charts equivalent to it if I haven't seen
exactly that chart.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I will be glad to send one down to you.
Dr. SEABORG. It is contemplated that it will be of that order, but
whether it is three or four or five or six hasn't been definitely
decided.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. This is what concerns me; and the point of this
plan is that we have adequate people down there to do this job, if
it is transferred over. I must insist that there be enough people
moved over. And I would like to have your frank opinion.
Do you have too many on this in the AEG now to do the job ?
Dr. SEABORG. The second point that I was going to make is that
those 19 people have additional responsibilities beyond the setting
of the environmental protection standards guided by the guide-
lines that have been given us by the Federal Radiation Council.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. But you said at least half of those are directly
employed in the setting of standards?
Dr. SEABORG. Or a little less.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, half is eight and a half, so we will say
eight men instead of eight and a half.
Dr. SEABORG. Maybe five or six. The others are involved in the
implementation of the environmental standards.
-------
270 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, that will still remain with the AEC.
Dr. SEABORG. Yes, that is why they are not being transferred.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I understand that. But I want to be specific now
that the number of people that are now required are about half of
19, and the chart only shows transfer of three.
Dr. SEABORG. I think I should ask Mr. Price to give you precise
numbers on that.
[p. 135]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes, Mr. Price.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Holifield, the chart that you have is a break-
down, our best effort, of what those 19 people are now doing in the
Division of Radiation Protection Standards. It turns out that
about 3 or 4 man-years are devoted in that Division to develop-
ment of environmental standards.
That function is being transferred to the EPA.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The function of those people is to study the data
which is developed in the research program, biomedical and all
other types of research that you are doing in the AEC, which runs
up to around $97 million.
Mr. PRICE. That is right.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. And they study the end result of that research
and utilize that material in the establishment of standards which
are in conformity with the Federal Radiation Council's recommen-
dations ?
Mr. PRICE. That is right, and that $97 million worth of effort,
that information is also available to the NCPR, ICRP, and the
Federal Radiation Council and they fix the basic numbers that
people talk about when they talk about environmental standards.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Who fixes it?
Mr. PRICE. ICRP and NCRP recommend them, FRC adopts
them for guidance, and these people in AEC take those numbers
and put them into standards promulgated by the AEC.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. By the FRC ?
Mr. PRICE. Well, the FRC gives the guidelines, the basic num-
bers like permissible doses to the general public and individuals in
the public; numbers like the 500 MR and the 170 MR come
through that scientific chain to the FRC. They promulgate them as
guidance, and we in AEC, through these three or four people, 3 or
4 man-years of effort, put them into AEC standards that are
enforced against licensees of nuclear plants and other licensees.
To tell you about the rest of these 19 people, Mr. Holifield, they
are involved in the following additional functions which are not
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 271
being transferred to the new agency. First, implementation of the
environmental standards. For example, release limits from plants,
what ought to be the limit at the plant in order to be sure that you
meet these environmental standards.
In addition, some of these people are involved in working on
occupational standards promulgated by the AEG. That standard
setting function of the AEG was not transferred to this new
agency.
In addition, there is work on product standards. For example,
standards with respect to luminous dials on watches. So there is
this additional work in this division that is not being transferred.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I understand. I think we have made it clear that
the standards which have been set by the AEG are not a matter of
bureaucratic judgment alone; they are derived from recommenda-
tions made by the most knowledgeable bodies in the world, to wit,
the National Council on Radiation Protection Measurements and
the International Council on Radiation Protection, and the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences; is that right?
Mr. PRICE. That is right.
[P. 136]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. So the propaganda that is in the papers that
accuses the AEG of being beta promotional and an originator of
these scientific levels is fallacious; is it not?
Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir, and if these half a dozen people we are
talking about had to do all the experimental and research work
and the work of these national and international bodies, it
wouldn't be near enough, of course.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. There are 65 scientists on the National Council
on Radiation Protection.
Mr. PRICE. Yes; and these four or five people have been enough
to take the end product and put it into environmental standards.
And that is the function that is being transferred.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now I want to know if you can find three—and I
have a grave reservation about this three, and I recognize it for
that. I think when we get into the problem, we cannot have all of
the scientific disciplines that are necessary to do this job that
these eight and one-half men are doing wrapped up in three men.
Mr. PRICE. This may be so, Mr. Holifield because these four or
five or six or whatever it is are backed up by the total resources of
the Commission, and it just may be that this new agency will need
more in-house capability. Of course, they are getting a large num-
ber from the Bureau of Radiological Health and it is possible in
-------
272 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the course of the transfer that some additional people that are not
now in it
Dr. SEABORG. That is the point I wanted to make. We are con-
cerned as you are, Mr. Holifield, that this new agency have compe-
tence in this very important field.
And if in the course of the buildup of the agency there are
indications that additional people that the AEG has should be
transferred in order to give EPA this competency, we would cer-
tainly be inclined to look favorably on that transfer.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. In the last analysis, these people are lost in the
shuffle. If they are inadequate to do the job, or if they do not have
access and a flow of information between those people left in the
AEG, and particularly the laboratories and universities doing the
research work, you are going to have a dangerous gap between
research and discovery of facts which are necessary in the setting
of standards and implementation of standards, monitoring of
standards—you are going to have a tremendous gap there.
This is the thing that concerns me, because I am just afraid,
having seen a lot of these reorganizations take place, that three
men will be lost in the sea of 6,500 men. I recognize that also the
four transferees from the Federal Radiation Council are there.
Now, are we in effect talking about seven people that will be
charged with the same duties when we talk about three from AEG
and four from the Federal Radiation Council?
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Holifield, I think it is possible that the new
administration may decide they need more than that, and as
Chairman Seaborg said, the Commission would look with favor on
finding competent people in other parts of the Commission's pro-
gram.
Furthermore, there will be a large number of people that are
working in this area right now in the Bureau of Radiological
Health and I think
[p. 137]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, there are over 500 working there.
Mr. PRICE. So I think the Administrator might decide some of
those people would devote some effort to this work.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. There are 551 positions in Radiological Health
which are being transferred from HEW over there. Now will they
be in the area of amplification to the Federal Radiation Council
and AEG, working on radiation protection standards and func-
tions, or will they be auxiliary to it? How will this work out?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 273
Mr. PRICE. Most of those people are now engaged in various
monitoring programs and those programs will have to continue.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. They will continue, but they will be lost in the
sea of 6,500 men and will not be closely coordinated with the three
men that are transferred from AEG and the Federal Radiation
Council, as I understand it.
Dr. SEABORG. They might be lost. But the 551 positions would be
an additional source of competence, certainly.
Mr. PRICE. These half dozen people are not now lost in the AEG
where there are 6,000 employees.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I understand that, but they have a lot more
employees in the research and development field right in the same
agency. What we are doing is taking three people out of the
agencies that have all the backup work and all the years of experi-
ence and collection of data, based on laboratory experience run-
ning into hundreds of millions of dollars, and moving them over
here into a different agency. What I am concerned about is the
connection between the two.
Mr. PRICE. It is on account of that I think, as Chairman Seaborg
says, maybe some additional competent people in this area from
other parts of the AEC or someplace else may need to be found to
augment this staff.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You realize also, in the event this function isn't
carried out properly in this EPA, that news of anything they do
which is either too restrictive or not restrictive enough will come
right back on the AEC, which has the program of developing
peacetime uses of atomic energy. They can be absolutely choked to
death by unsympathetic action on the part of the Administrator of
EPA, by restricting these men or ignoring them or even giving
them administrative orders to do certain things.
Dr. SEABORG. We understand that and that is why we want to do
everything we can to cooperate in finding competent people for the
EPA to carry on this important function.
Mr. RAMEY. I think that in considering the small number of
standard-setting people going over to this agency that has 6,000
people, you would probably want to compare them with the stand-
ard-setting people in these other areas on water and air. The point
that Chairman Seaborg made, I believe, is that perhaps in the
water quality area and the air pollution area, they do not have
outside groups such as those that have essentially been laying the
basis for radiation standards, the National Council on Radiation
Protection and the International Commission on Radiological Pro-
tection. So they would have to have more in-house competence
-------
274 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
on their standards setting so the proportion may not be quite so
different as one might think.
The other point is
Mr. HOLIFIELD. On the other hand, the interest in clean air and
clean water is so pervasive throughout the Nation that there will
[p. 138]
be a great deal more attention given to those factors. The problem
is much bigger because the carrot has not been given to the crea-
tion of clean air and clean water in our economy that has been
given in the radiation field. The money hasn't been spent in exper-
imental research in the fields of water and air. The money has not
been spent in the protective procedures and codes and monitoring
and implementation and so forth that has been given in the radia-
tion department. Because these problems are big, for instance, the
pesticide problem affects maybe a million farmers, so you have
much bigger fields.
This is where I am concerned about the loss of attention that
may occur to this small group that is going over there.
Mr. RAMEY. I think it is a valid concern. I think the other point
that is being considered is how the Atomic Energy Commission
and its laboratories can assist in this.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You can only assist if they ask you for your
information. You may send it over there and it gathers dust on the
shelves.
Mr. RAMEY. We have had a rather good relationship with the
Federal Radiation Council and its staff on providing a continuing
flow and stream of information. They are not, of course, a part of
the Commission.
We also have arrangements between the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare and our laboratories whereby the depart-
ment actually provides funds for certain research and develop-
ment in which they are interested. We have memorandums of
agreement and a real mutual interchange between these agencies.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. If this plan goes through, I would hope there
would be a very close area of coordination and transfer of the
wealth of knowledge which has been obtained in some 24 years in
the AEC, and that it would be brought forcibly to the attention of
the Administrator of the EPA by the Chairman and the Commis-
sioners of the AEC. I am deeply concerned about this disruption
of what has been a successful system.
Now, I want to ask Mr. Tompkins, what do you conceive, re-
garding this transfer of four to the EPA, that there will be close
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 275
liaison between those four and the three from AEC or whatever
number there would be? Will there be a different function or will
there be a coordinated function at that time?
Mr. TOMPKINS. As I indicated, Mr. Holifield, there will have to
be a change of position. First for clarity of the record, I would like
to point out that of the four members of the FRC staff being
transferred, two of them are professional and two of them are
clerical. We are talking about the professional competence, we
should talk about two of them and not four.
Now, as to the resources of the Federal Government available to
the FRC, it is not at all disrupted by the staff of the two profes-
sional people from the FRC office. Each agency has appointed a
senior member of the technical staff and those that have multiple
interests. The Atomic Energy Commission has good liaison people
with us and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
and the Food and Drug Administration and others. So the work-
ing part of the Federal Radiation Council involves two people
from the staff and nine scientific people from the Federal agencies.
It is through those nine people that the FRC has been able to
tap
[p. 139]
Mr. HOUFIELD. Is it your understanding that the nine people
from the other agencies will also be transferred over there ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. No, they definitely will not. What I am saying is
that EPA has to set up some kind of procedure like that now being
carried on.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. We are going to watch this very closely from this
committee and from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy; so
you will, in effect, have a double-barreled shotgun looking at you. I
am not speaking about you, personally; I am talking about
whoever is the head of EPA. He is going to be called upon to
prove to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that these func-
tions are being transferred over there and are exercised with the
same care, attention, and coordination between research in our
laboratories and universities that have occurred in the past; be-
cause that is the one thing, as you know, that the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy has looked at for years and we have always
stressed the safety of people, populations, and workers as the
prime reference, notwithstanding some of the unwarranted criti-
cism we have had.
Mr. TOMPKINS. As indicated in my statement, I definitely ex-
pect the EPA to follow the same general procedure and that does
-------
276 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
require and imply close coordination and cooperation with the
technical staff, not only with the Atomic Energy Commission but
we have our problems that deal with atmospheric dispersion, we
have close contact with the ESSA group in the Department of
Commerce and this must continue. Whether or not the formal
arrangement in terms of letters of agreement have to be modified
in order to maintain it, I don't think makes any difference. But the
functional aspect simply is that EPA cannot set the standards in a
vacuum. It cannot do it as a simple in-house operation and if it
does it should fail.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. In connection with that statement, the possible
transfer over to EPA, and also the abolishment of the FRC, the
Federal Radiation Council, by the reorganization plan, the Joint
Committee reported out on July 28, section 11, subsection 274 h. of
the Atomic Energy Act as amended, which reads as follows:
"Any Government agency designated by the President is hereby author-
ized and directed to enter into and administer an arrangement with the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements for a compre-
hensive and continuing review of basic radiation protection standards, and
the scientific bases therefor, pertinent to the health and safety aspects of
exposure to radioactivity resulting from the development, use or control of
atomic energy, and an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences
for a comprehensive and continuing- review of the biological effects of radia-
tion on man and the ecology in order to provide information pertinent to
basic radiation protection standards. The respective scopes of the arrange-
ments may, in the discretion of the President or the designated Government
agency, also encompass exposure to the effects of radiation from sources
other than the development, use or control of atomic energy. The respective
arrangements shall require—
"(1) the conduct by the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements of a full-scale review of the radiation protection guides
presently in effect by virtue of the recommendations of the Federal
Radiation Council, and of all available scientific information;
"(2) the conduct by the National Academy of Sciences of a full-scale
review of the biological effects of radiation, including all available
scientific information;
"(3) consultations between the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements and the National Academy of Sciences to assure effec-
[p. 140]
tive coordination between these bodies to serve the objective of the
arrangements;
"(4) consultations by the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements and by the National Academy of Sciences, respectively,
with scientists outside and within the Government;
"(5) the preparation and submittal by the National Council on Radia-
tion Protection and Measurements to the President, or to the Government
agency administering the arrangements, and to the Congress, by Decem-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 277
ber 31, 1970, of its first complete report of its review activities, which
shall also set forth its recommendations respecting basic radiation pro-
tection standards and the reasons therefor;
"(6) the maintenance by the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements of reasonably thorough knowledge of scientific mat-
ters pertinent to basic radiation protection standards within the scope of
the arrangement, including studies and research previously performed,
currently in progress or being- planned;
"(7) such recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Pro-
tection and Measurements and the National Academy of Sciences respect-
ing the conduct of any studies or research directly or indirectly pertinent
to the basic radiation protection standards, or the biological effects of
radiation on man and the ecology, under the respective scope of each
arrangement, as either body deems advisable from time to time;
"(8) the furnishing of scientific information and advice by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and by the National
Academy of Sciences, within the respective scopes of the arrangements,
to the President, Government agencies, the States, and others, at the
request of the President or the Government agency administering the
arrangements;
"(9) the furnishing of scientific information and advice by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and by the National
Academy of Sciences, within the respective scopes of the arrangements,
to the Congress pursuant to the request of any committee of the Congress;
"(10) the preparation and transmittal to the President or to the Gov-
ernment agency administering the arrangements, and to the Congress,
by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and
by the National Academy of Sciences, at the end of each calendar year
subsequent to 1970, of a report covering their respective review activities
during the year; the report by the National Council on Radiation Protec-
tion and Measurements shall also set forth any significant scientific
developments relative to basic radiation protection standards, including
any recommendations; and the report by the National Academy of Sci-
ences shall set forth any significant scientific developments bearing on
the biological effects of radiation on man and the ecology, including
recommendations;
"(11) the preparation and transmittal to the President, or to the Gov-
ernment agency administering the arrangements, and to the Congress,
by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, of
a prompt report of any significant changes which it deems advisable to
recommend in regard to its previous recommendations respecting basic
radiation protection standards or the scientific bases therefor and not
theretofore identified in its reports; and
"(12) the conduct of the activities of the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements and of the National Academy of Sciences,
under the respective arrangements, in accordance with high substantive
and procedural standards of sound scientific investigation and findings.
"Reports received from the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements and the National Academy of Sciences under the arrange-
ments shall be promptly published by the Government agency administering
the arrangements. All recommendations, in such reports by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, respecting basic radia-
-------
278 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tion protection standards pertinent to the health and safety aspects of
exposure to radioactivity resulting from the development, use or control of
atomic energy, shall be carefully considered by any Government agency
having authority to establish such standards and, within a reasonable period
of time, such Government agency shall submit to the Joint Committee a
report setting forth in detail its determinations respecting the recommenda-
tions and the measures, revisions, or other actions it proposes to take, adopt,
or effect in relation to the recommendations."
[p. 141]
Then it goes on and ties in the statutes, the procedures which
we have had in the past, and goes a little beyond that. We provide
that the EPA, if this plan is successfully consummated in the
legislative body, will be authorized to make contact with the most
knowledgeable bodies that there are in the world for guidance,
because we don't want to see administrative and bureaucratic
judgment used in lieu of scientifically proven facts which have
been developed by disinterested objective scientists of many, many
disciplines.
So we are making it possible that this procedure be followed,
not in an informal way as it has been in the past, but under
specific contracts with the National Radiation Council and the
National Academy of Sciences. Then the people of the United
States can be sure of receiving rules, regulations, and standards
based on scientific knowledge and not upon emotions or propa-
ganda or hearsay.
Do you see anything wrong in continuing this arrangement in a
formal statutory way which has been more or less followed by the
AEC now for 24 years?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Certainly not. I would like to point out that the
obligation—it is felt that the National Academy of Sciences and
the NCRP is a formal charge
Mr. HOLIFIELD. To the AEC?
Mr. TOMPKINS. No, sir; to the FRC in section 274 h. of the
Atomic Energy Act. We do have contracts with the Academy and
have had for several years. We also have a contract with the
NCRP
Mr. HOLIFIELD. But that is being abolished now. That goes to the
authority of the FRC and the FRC is being abolished. While its
functions are being carried over, I am not sure statutes pertaining
to it are being carried over.
Mr. TOMPKINS. My indication is that the transfer of functions
would include the transfer of obligations as stipulated in existing
section 274 h.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 279
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is that your interpretation?
Mr. HENNESSEY. Yes, sir, Mr. Holifield; I think the transfer of
functions carries with it the duties imposed under the statute.
Mr. TOMPKINS. EPA is required to continue this.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. You don't see any reason why this new bill can-
not be passed, do you?
Mr. TOMPKINS. I really haven't had an opportunity to develop
what I would consider a considered opinion, Mr. Holifield.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. All right, Mr. Hennessey, I ask you to make a
study of this from a legal standpoint and furnish an opinion to
this committee and also to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
on the effects of this amendment as contained in this bill, and as to
whether it is already covered or whether this goes beyond the
present statutes and imposes upon the EPA Administrator these
additional obligations.
Mr. HENNESSEY. Of course, this will be affected by the timing,
Mr. Holifield. If this bill were to be enacted before the coming into
force of the reorganization plan, there would be no Federal Radia-
tion Council left after enactment of the Joint Committee bill.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I understand that. Will there be a FRC left after
the introduction of the plan? Both the plan and the bill would
[p. 142]
abolish the FRC. There is no controversy on that point. It hasn't,
in my opinion, fulfilled its purpose; and I say this with due respect
to Dr. Tompkins, whom I consider one of the most knowledgeable
scientists in the world in this field and for the benefit of the
members of this committee, Dr. Tompkins was in technical charge
of the Hunters Point Naval Laboratory established immediately
after World War II when he first came to the attention of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,-and he had 600 scientists
working under him analyzing and evaluating the effect of radia-
tion on people and materials.
That was his background when he first testified before the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy. It is a great comfort to me to
understand that you are also going over into EPA. I understand
that you are; is that right?
Mr. TOMPKINS. It is my understanding, yes.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, nothing is certain. But I did want to say a
word of encouragement to those who may not know you as some of
us know you, that there will be confidence in the operation on the
part of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, if you are trans-
ferred over there, because we always found you to be responsive
-------
280 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and objective in your appearances before the committee. It will
help us to swallow this questionable dose that we are faced with
here if we know you are going to be transferred over there.
Mr. TOMPKINS. Thank you, Mr. Holifield.
Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Chairman, in that language that you read, the
legislation certainly does go beyond the present statute in the
sense of the recommendations of the NCRP and the Academy. The
implication is that they are made public. So it is not just a consult-
ation, it is making these recommendations public, it makes any
changes from previous recommendations public and the reasons
for such changes have to be laid out.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. And if there are any deviations from the recom-
mendations, and support of these recommendations, they must
appear before the committee of Congress and justify those devia-
tions from the recommendations of the scientific bodies.
Mr. RAMEY. That is right. I think that is a desirable improve-
ment, personally.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. It is my opinion that Mr. Hennessey will come
up with that kind of evaluation.
Mr. RAMEY. He might be looking at it primarily from a legal
standpoint; I wanted to throw in the policy and programmatic
aspects of it.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes; we will clear that up.
Now, Dr. Tompkins, you said the inclusion of certain functions
from the agency and HEW and EPA should reduce the existing
gap in the formulation of basic standards as a matter of policy
and implementation of those standards by various Federal agen-
cies. Would you describe what you mean by the phrase, "existing
gap." Why is it present in the system under which you now func-
tion, and is this a procedural deficiency, or might it result in some
technical disadvantage?
Mr. TOMPKINS. What I have reference to there, Mr. Holifield,
just to give a specific example to illustrate the point, the basic
standards of FRC, as I indicated, are exposures to people. The
existing environmental standards such as regulating substances
[p. 143]
are predicated on the total intake from all sources—the nuclides
which include total exposure as well as various modes of transmis-
sion.
This has always caused something of an implementing problem
when one considers standards specifically for water or standards
specifically for air. I think by bringing them into the same agency,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 281
one must now deal with vector standards as well as the total
exposure standards. In many cases this can be very much closer
than I have succeeded in arranging so far on this particular mat-
ter.
That is what I made reference to.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Do you visualize working as a unit, combining
the functions of the Federal Radiation Council with the people
from AEG ? In other words, the three that are shown on this chart
here, would they work as a unit or would they be two separate
groups?
Mr. TOMPKINS. I haven't the slightest idea how it is going to be
organized at the present time.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. It seems like you are going to have joint respon-
sibilities, and rather than pairing off into separate compartments,
you should be working very closely together.
Mr. TOMPKINS. It is perfectly obvious that there should be a
maximum amount of working together. The people who have expe-
rience primarily, like in reactor effluent, they are now going to
examine it in terms of local concentration such as water or air
simultaneously. To answer your question, if the existing organiza-
tion, the 4 people from FRC and the three people from AEC, and
so on, are not consolidated, I think communication would be very
difficult.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, we are going to watch this very closely
from this committee and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
because there is too much at stake here, and jeopardizing the
health of the people of the United States is something we cannot
pass over lightly.
This doesn't relieve the Congress of the responsibility to see
that it works with no less efficiency and if possible greater
efficiency.
Mr. TOMPKINS. You hope it is greater.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Any further comments from the witness ?
Dr. SEABORG. No, other than I think this plan is a desirable step
because it does place all of the aspects of environmental pollution
in one agency and I think it can be made to work.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. This is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have one or two questions.
Dr. Thompkins, on page 1 of your statement you said:
In addition to the transfer of the function of the PRO, the functions of the
Division of Radiation Protection Standards (AEC) that have to do with
establishing generally applicable environmental standards, and the Bureau
of Radiological Health (HEW)—except for those functions related to con-
-------
282 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
sumer product regulation and medical and dental uses of radiation—will
also be transferred.
Can you tell us why those functions will not be transferred ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes; in the Bureau of Radiological Health, for
example, there is at least one specific program, which is not a
standard program. That is devoted to improving the effectiveness
of the use of isotopes in medical practice.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. That is one that will not be transferred ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. That is one that will not be transferred.
[p. 144]
Mr. ROSENTHAL. What about consumer product regulations ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. The Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare now has by law the responsibility for establishing regula-
tions for the emission of radiation from consumer products.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Do you mean products such as TV sets ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes, that was one of the first standards that
was put out. That particularly encompasses microwaves.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. You mean such as microwave ovens ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes, that is specifically regulatory and they are
emission standards and to that extent that regulatory function of
the HEW is exactly comparable to that part of the regulatory
function of the Atomic Energy Commission that applies to
reactors.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Let me see if I understand this.
The standard-setting function regarding consumer products,
that is, television sets and microwave ovens, will stay with HEW ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Insofar as emission is concerned.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. What is the logic to that? Why isn't that
transferred ? Isn't it part of the total environment?
Mr. TOMPKINS. The general pattern, if I understand it cor-
rectly, standard setting will all be concentrated in EPA. But many
of the regulatory functions now existing, for example, food and
drug, will stay with the Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I still don't understand the logic of why stand-
ard setting for radiation emission for television sets shouldn't also
go to EPA. I don't understand why not.
Mr. TOMPKINS. Well, I cannot really give you an example of
that, Mr. Rosenthal.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Also, where does the determination of radiation
foods, which is now in the Department of Agriculture, go? Is that
transferred over ? Pesticides were transferred over.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 283
Mr. TOMPKINS. I think those are not part of the material being
transferred to EPA.
Dr. SEABORG. The acceptability of irradiated foods. The stand-
ards there are under the aegis of the FDA. I believe it remains
there, as far as I know.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, we are finding a lot of things have been
left out.
Mr. TOMPKINS. In that particular case, Mr. Holifield, this is the
application of radiation to food for purposes of sterilization and so
forth. There is not an issue of radiation being emitted from the
food itself.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. But the radiation is emitted from the devices
that are used to sterilize the foods and that is the point, you see.
That goes into the environment.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think the point I tried to make is the point
Mr. Holifield is making. That is, those who work in the processing
plant are subject to radiation emission but in the television set the
general public is subject to radiation if it goes beyond excessive
limits and I do not understand why that was not included in EPA.
I am not satisfied with your explanation. I have a suspicion. I
am trying to see whether it is based on emotion or logic.
[p. 145]
Mr. TOMPKINS. I do not think I can tell you why the line of
demarcation was made as it was.
Mr. PRICE. I think we have the wrong witnesses from the wrong
agencies to answer that question.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Maybe we have the right witnesses. It depends
on whose ox is being radiated.
Mr. PRICE. I meant this involves functions that are now going
on in HEW and we are not as qualified to address ourselves to it.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. From the scientific point of view, am I correct
in the thesis that X-ray emission from television sets is as much a
part of the environment as some of the other functions that EPA
will consider?
Mr. TOMPKINS. I would certainly say so from that viewpoint. I
would simply comment that in the background of all of these
reorganization plans there is the process of consolidating stand-
ards specifically with relation to consumer products. Maybe it
would apply there and establish environmental protection.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. The point Mr. Holifield made that you seemed
to concur with was that the standards that you set within the
AEC and those standards that you will take with you to EPA were
-------
284 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
based on high level scientific experimentation and diagnosis and
were based on the profound opinion of well respected scientists;
isn't that correct?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. In the field of X-ray emission from television
sets, the benefit of industry should be taken into account in addi-
tion to scientific knowledge.
Mr. TOMPKINS. Well, let us back up a minute. In answer to your
first question, one implies that consideration of what you might
call feasibility was not also a part of the recommendation. There
was high level scientific consideration given to the basic standards.
Mr. RoSKNTHAL. In television radiation?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes. The first standard that came out for X-ray
emissions from the television sets was recommended by the Na-
tional Council on Radiation Protection.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think you are going beyond my question. We
both agreed that there was certainly a scientific ingredient that
went into those standards. But, in addition, wasn't there also
financial quotients of industry that fed into that decision?
Mr. TOMPKINS. I do not think so.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. In other words, the interest of the industry
and its ability to maintain that limitation was not any part of that
decision ?
Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes, eventually, but the main recommendation
for emissions from TV sets, which is 0.5 M rads per hour at 5
centimeters from the set, were conditioned very largely by the
characteristics of the emission, their energies, the fact that in
many cases there was a small beam, a very small beam instead of
a broad beam
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I do not doubt or a moment that there was
considerable scientific thought that went into this decision. My
question was a very narrow one, that the interest of the industry
was also fed into that decision. You say it is possible.
Mr. TOMPKINS. There is always a little risk-benefit.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Then, specifically, from what I gather from
your testimony, the regulation of consumer products will not go to
EPA.
[p. 146]
Mr. TOMPKINS. I could be misinformed on this, Mr. Rosenthal,
but it is my understanding that that is true. Now, do not take that
as an expert's reply.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think the gentleman is right. One of the things
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 285
that the public does not realize is that where scientific advice is
given to the AEC in relation to radiation emissions from nuclear
reactors, the AEC has an organization to impose those recommen-
dations and monitor them continuously. Where industry fre-
quently has asked for scientific advice, there has been no agency,
no consumer agency looking out for the people's interest to follow
through and measure the emissions of radiation from televisions
and other devices and to impose upon them the safety rules and
regulations.
This is the thing that you are talking about, and you are testify-
ing that advice was given to the television set manufacturers, but
there was nobody following up to measure those sets until there
were several very bad cases brought to light, and then there began
to be some scrutiny on the emissions and the correction of some of
the television sets that were emitting more than they should have
and more than the scientific advisers said they should have.
Mr. TOMPKINS. The follow-up mechanism that you indicated,
Mr. Holifield, is in fact now available in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right, but it was not before we passed
that act in the Congress. All along, you see, the AEC has had this
responsibility of continuous monitoring to see that compliance
with the recommendations of the scientists was followed; where,
in the consumer field, Mr. Rosenthal, there was not this close
continued scrutiny on whether these devices such as television sets
followed the safety recommendations of the scientists.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Dr. Tompkins, you are correct in your state-
ment. You did make a broad statement that the functions relating
to the consumer product regulations were not transferred; and I
read from the President's message on page 3, it says, "The follow-
ing functions of the Bureau of Radiation Health . . ." these func-
tions are not transferred :
Radiation from consumer products, including electronic product radiation;
radiation as used in the healing arts; occupation exposure to radiation and
research technical assistants and training relating to those three.
The point I was trying to make—and I may be shooting in the
dark—is that the three areas in which there are deep economic
interests involved are not being transferred to this high-level En-
vironmental Protection Agency, and I wonder if you have any
thoughts on it.
Mr. TOMPKINS. I do not think I can expand on anything more
than I have said.
-------
286 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Dr. SEABORG. Well, I am certainly not an expert on this, but I
doubt that the criterion was economic interest. I believe t,here is
enough flexibility in the organization, the EPA, so if it were
deemed advisable some time in the future to make such a transfer,
it could be made.
Mr. RosENTHAL. I am sure that is true.
[p. 147]
Mr. RAMEY. Certainly on radiation standards there are some
very large economic interests involved that were and are affected
by the transfer. Your whole nuclear power industry, for example.
It is the largest capital industry in this country.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. They may not be as well organized in Wash-
ington as some of these others are. Maybe I am just being overly
suspicious.
Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. We are very grateful for
your testimony this morning.
Our next witness is Mrs. Donald Clusen of the League of
Women Voters. Mrs. Clusen, are you here?
We are very pleased to have you with us this morning. Because
of the time problem involved and the number of other witnesses,
with your permission, we could include your statement in the
record. If there is anything specifically you want to bring to our
attention you might do that now or rely completely on the state-
ment.
STATEMENT OF MRS. DONALD E. CLUSEN, DIRECTOR, ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROGRAM AND PROJECTS, LEAGUE OP WOMEN VOTERS
OF THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. CLUSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. That is exactly
what I intended to ask: that you would insert the full text of the
statement into the hearing record. I should like to make a few
comments about the attitude of the league toward Reorganization
Plan No. 3.
We are glad of this opportunity to support the establishment of
this new and independent agency for a number of reasons. We
think having a single agency will reinforce the work of the com-
mittees of Congress who have been involved in pollution abate-
ment over the years.
We think that the experience of the past has shown that there is
a necessary degree of coordination required which Reorganization
Plan No. 3 makes possible.
We think establishing an institutional basis for pollution control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 287
is very important. The proposed Environmental Protection
Agency is a necessary first step toward the goal of a healthful
environment. Most of all, we are supporting this because we think
it is a good idea to separate the responsibilities for promoting or
developing a recourse from the responsibility for regulating the
effects.
We think that it is very wise to have an agency which can carry
on independent research in addition to that which will be contin-
ued in each of the transferred agencies. We agree with the view
that the new Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality
complement each other and that, taken together, they can provide
a more effective means than exists at the present time for a coor-
dinated pollution abatement campaign.
We were glad to see there are plans to protect the personnel
status in transferring of people to the new Agency. The experi-
ence and motivation of personnel in present agencies should be
given new impetus in the transfer.
I should like to say we hope that action already underway can
continue to move forward without delays due to reorganization.
[P. 148]
We hope that there will be no uncertainty about the authority of
the new administrator. We want him to have the authority to act
promptly, decisively, and effectively.
We should like to remind the committee that there is no ques-
tion but what the public is focused in on the dangers of pollution.
They see it. They feel it. They taste it and get sick from it.
In brief, we think the Environmental Protection Agency is an
important step in the right direction and we are confident that
bringing together present fragmented pollution control programs
will have a good effect on environmental programs, as a whole.
Most of all, we appreciate the hard work which has been done
by a good many members of this committee and other congres-
sional committees over the years to develop environmental pro-
grams. Thank you.
(Mrs. Clusen's prepared statement follows:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. DONALD E. CLUSEN, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM AND PROJECTS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before your subcom-
mittee to express the League of Women Voters' support for the President's
proposal to create an Environmental Protection Agency. I should also like to
express appreciation to the subcommittee for permitting public witnesses to
testify on a Presidential Reorganization Plan, a privilege sometimes limited
to Members of Congress and Government officials.
-------
288 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The League of Women Voters supports establishment of a new and inde-
pendent agency, an agency empowered to monitor pollution, set standards,
administer regulatory functions, coordinate and engage in research, and
consolidate administration of the many grants, technical assistance, and
manpower training programs related to pollution control. We urge the sub-
committee to report the measure favorably.
We think it is consistent with the extent and immediacy of the threat
from pollutants of many kinds that a single agency for pollution control
activities be established under Presidential reorganization powers. It seems
a proper use of authority so wisely granted by the Congress to the President.
Having a single agency for major pollution control activities should make
it easier for the committees of Congress to exercise their legislative responsi-
bilities to evaluate present agency programs and to determine the nature and
scope of future programs. No matter where the programs lie administra-
tively, Congress will still be the key force in directing the Nation's commit-
ment to the development of a healthful environment.
We in the league are very aware and appreciative of the contributions
you, Mr. Chairman, have made to the development of present water quality
control programs. We are confident you will continue to exercise this same
kind of leadership with regard to a new agency such as the one proposed.
Many of you gentlemen are already familiar with the long years of league
action in support of policies and legislation to promote long-range planning
for conservation and development of water resources and for improvement
in the quality of water. From the beginning of our studies in 1956, it was
quite clear that controls to prevent and clean up pollution of the Nation's ir-
replaceable water resources are inseparable from planning and action to
achieve sound water resource programs.
League members have found the same thing to be true as they considered
problems of air and solid waste. The longer members worked in their com-
munities, regions, and States to achieve sound water resource programs, the
more they saw that what happens with waste affects the air, affects the
water and so on in an endless, interwoven cycle. And while we have learned
that it is unrealistic to try to deal with one pollution problem at a time, our
work on water has shown us that efforts to attain sound administration
through coordinating committees in the executive branch are not successful.
All of this experience, Mr. Chairman, lies behind league support for the pro-
posed Environmental Protection Agency. And permit me to say too that we
feel it is your work as much as anything else which has led to the realization
[p. 149]
that uniform standards for pollution control must be developed; that the
major pollution abatement programs must be monitored jointly and ad-
ministered in a coordinated system; and that the regulatory functions must
be administered separately from the developmental and promotional programs.
Perhaps, then, you will let us join you in a feeling that this proposal to
establish an Environmental Protection Agency is a victory for you, as it is
for the principle of improved coordination on the Federal level which the
League of Women Voters has long supported.
We shall not burden you with any summary or analysis of the presidential
proposal. Several witnesses have already done that. We wish instead simply
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 289
to share with the subcommittees a few more reasons we think Reorganization
Plan No. 3 is an important first step to take now—as quickly as possible.
The League of Women Voters is convinced that we shall be able to achieve
a high quality environment for human life only if the Nation provides the
institutional basis through which unified, realistic programs can be ad-
ministered. Preventing as much pollution as possible is one aspect of
creating a better environment. The proposed agency, to which key pollution
control administrations would be transferred with all their present power
and authorities, seems a necessary and important step toward the goal.
The league is particularly pleased that the new agency would separate the
responsibilities for promoting1 or developing a resource from responsibilities
for regulating the environmental effects of a particular program or activity.
For example, many leagues have been studying the effects of nuclear powered
utility plants proposed or being built in their areas. They are convinced that
the agency charged with promoting the use of atomic power should not be
the one to set permissible radiation standards. This same kind of problem
applies to other resources, and the league is pleased that, although this
separation of developmental and regulatory powers is not completely achieved
for the Atomic Energy Commission or any other department in this re-
organization plan, major improvements will be made. Later, the Congress
can take legislative action to refine the distinctions between developmental
and regulatory powers in all areas of potential environmental damage.
The league believes it very wise to grant the Environmental Protection
Agency authority to carry on research independently from and in addition
to that which will be continued in each transferred agency. As we understand
it, such Environmental Protection Agency research will be directed specifically
toward determining the cumulative, total impact on people and environment
of pollution from many sources.
At present, no single department or agency has the mission of research, or
of monitoring and surveillance, to determine the total impact of pollutants.
Without the kind of information that should result from such study, neither
the Congress nor the executive branch can act with maximum effectiveness
to assure sound environmental programs.
The league supports the President's view that the new agency and the
Council on Environmental Quality are complementary, and that, taken to-
gether, they should provide the means to mount an effectively coordinated
campaign against environmental degradation in all of its many forms. The
Council on Environmental Quality is concerned with all aspects of the envi-
ronment, not just pollution abatement, and most assuredly should be retained
to perform top-level advisory and coordinating functions relative to all Fed-
eral environmental programs.
We are pleased to note plans to protect personnel status in the transfer
of people from existing authorities to the proposed agency. There is valuable
experience, knowledge, and high motivation which should be utilized and
given new impetus in the transfer.
Now, we should like to make a few comments of a more general nature.
First, we hope that administrative technicalities of transfer and reorganiza-
tion will not cause delay in pollution control programs already underway.
While the new weaving-together is underway, action must continue to move
forward.
-------
290 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
We note in the provisions of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 that, when the
agencies involved are transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency,
the functions of each respective administrator are transferred to the adminis-
trator of the new agency.
The league thinks there should be no uncertainty about the authority of
the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to take strong
action to enforce pollution control standards. We want the new agency to
have authority to act promptly, decisively, and effectively. We want its di-
rector to have powers commensurate with his responsibilities.
[p. 150]
In the press briefings and statements released upon announcement of Re-
organization Plan No. 3, emphasis was placed upon the value of a central
pollution agency as having "the great attraction of focusing public attention
on the highly important environmental programs."
I am sure you are aware from your mail, as we are from league mail from
all areas of the country, that large numbers of the people are already focused-
in, so to speak, on the dangers of pollution. They see it. They feel it. They
hear it. They get sick from it. They do not have to be told about it. What they
want is action to improve conditions before it is too late.
Thus, you have some idea of why the league supports the proposal for the
new Environmental Protection Agency. We think it is an important first step
in the right direction. We are confident that bringing together fragmented
programs will increase understanding of the cumulative effects of a variety
of pollutants and will hasten just, prompt, and pin-pointed remedial action.
One last plea. Let us not reduce this agency to a part of the alphabet soup.
Very few will remember what EPA means. Let us keep the pollution control
goal plainly before the people by calling the agency by its full name—the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much, Mrs. Clusen. We are
very grateful to you and the League of Women Voters.
Our next witness is Mr. T. E. Larson, president of the American
Water Works Association. Mr. Larson, considering the time and
the problems we have, I wonder if we could ask, with your permis-
sion, to insert your complete statement with the supporting mate-
rial into the record and perhaps you would choose to touch on
some of the highlights of your statement.
STATEMENT OF T. E. LARSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WATER
WORKS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ERIC JOHNSON, EXECU-
TIVE DIRECTOR
Mr. LARSON. Yes, sir; I would like to read one or two para-
graphs which are the main thrust of what we are asked about.
I have with me Mr. Eric Johnson, who is the executive director
of the American Water Works Association. We represent the
water industry across the country.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 291
Our concern over the change has to do with the danger of
having water supply matters completely submerged in the overrid-
ing concern with pollution control, for certainly a more efficient
pollution control effort rather than better water for people is the
major thrust of the reorganization. Recognizing this, the associa-
tion's board of directors has filed with the President and the
Council on Environmental Quality this resolution:
The American Water Works Association urges that the new Environmental
Protection Agency include a separate, identifiable, public water supply func-
tion with a budget adequate to provide leadership and assistance in research
and training to meet the new and complex problems facing the water utility
industry.
The association appreciates the fact that these details of struc-
ture within the Environmental Protection Agency are not the
direct concern of your committee. Nevertheless, it feels that the
record should show that the water supply industry views this
change with both hope and trepidation that what little Federal
water supply program is left will be channeled into and lost in the
pollution control effort. This is our concern.
Mr. RoSENTHAL. As you well know, the chairman of this sub-
committee, Mr. Blatnik, is also concerned about the same subject.
And I know he will read your statement and your proposal with
[p. 151]
great care, as will the rest of the committee.
We are very grateful for the opportunity of having you appear
before us and we thank you very much.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows :)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THURSTON E. LARSON, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN
WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
My name is Thurston E. Larson. I am president of the American Water
Works Association, a scientific and educational organization with a member-
ship of more than 21,000. Since 1932 I have worked with the Illinois State
Water Survey which I now serve as head of the chemistry section. Since 1962
I have held a post as professor of sanitary engineering at the University of
Illinois. And for many years I have served as a consultant to the U.S. Public
Health Service and the U.S. Army Environmental Health Agency. On behalf
of the association, I am pleased to accept your invitation to present its
views on the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.
The American Water Works Association represents an industry that pro-
vides public water service to 170 million Americans through 23,000 water
systems with facilities valued at more than $50 billion. Its purpose, since it
was founded in 1881, has been to improve the service that the water supply
industry provides to the public, by advancing knowledge of the design, con-
-------
292 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
struction, operation, and management of the water systems providing that
service.
At the present time, the only Federal agency directly concerned with the
quality of public water supplies is the Bureau of Water Hygiene in the En-
vironmental Control Administration of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. The Bureau was left behind in the 1966 reorganization that
transferred the water pollution control program from HEW to the Depart-
ment of the Interior. And its history since the change has been one of con-
stantly diminishing capability, until now with a proposed budget of only
$2.3 million for fiscal year 1971 and no funds to enlist the assistance of uni-
versities or private agencies in its research and training effort, it is clearly
inadequate to its task.
At the same time as the Bureau has been wasting away, burgeoning popu-
lation, urbanization, and pollution have been multiplying the problems that
it should be helping the public water supply industry to face. Although to-
day's water supply technology is adequate to handle the known contaminants
of today, it is important that research into the nature of new contaminants be
done now if we are to have time to develop the technology and train the
technologists to handle them when they begin to become significant to the
production of high quality drinking water.
For this reason, the association looks with hope at the proposal to move
the Bureau of Water Hygiene into the new Environmental Protection Agency.
Although a $2 million bureau may not loom very large in a $1.4 billion agency,
it should be an improvement over a $2 million bureau in a $50 billion depart-
ment. And it is our hope that an agency concerned solely with the environ-
ment will better recognize the high priority that water for people deserves.
Our concern over the change has to do with the danger of having water
supply matters completely submerged in the overriding concern with pollution
control, for certainly a more efficient pollution control effort rather than
better water for people is the major thrust of the reorganization. Recogniz-
ing this, the association's board of directors has filed with the President and
the Council on Environmental Quality this resolution:
"The American Water Works Association urges that the new Environ-
mental Protection Agency include a separate, identifiable, public water sup-
ply function with a budget adequate to provide leadership and assistance in
research and training to meet the new and complex problems facing the
water utility industry."
The association appreciates the fact that these details of structure within
the Environmental Protection Agency are not the direct concern of your
committee. Nevertheless, it feels that the record should show that the water
supply industry views this change with both hope and trepidation—hope that
the importance of its problems will be recognized, trepidation that what
little Federal water supply program is left will be channeled into and lost in
the pollution control effort.
In making its plea for a greatly augmented water supply program, the
association does want to point out that it urges this augmentation only in
the fields of research and training. The industry has a history of self-suffi-
ciency in the matter of building and operation of it;, facilities. But because
the industry is essentially a small-unit operation, with 85 percent of its
[p. 152]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 293
23,000 utilities serving fewer than 5,000 population, it is not able to perform
for itself the basic research and training that are required now to meet the
problems that will be facing it in the future.
The public water supply industry expects to deliver 50 billion gallons of
water per day by the year 2000, twice the volume provided today. It further
expects that this water will be of even better quality than today's. Although
it expects that great progress will be made in stream pollution control over
this period, the industry expects, too, that new contaminants will, neverthe-
less, reach our sources of drinking water and that research and training ef-
forts must grow now if we are to deal effectively with them. The association
reiterates, therefore, the urgency of maintaining the separate identity of the
public water supply program in the establishment of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, and of providing that program with greatly increased re-
sources for research, training, and technical assistance.
The association will be anxious to cooperate with the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in developing a water supply organization capable of giving
the industry the assistance it needs in protecting the quality of the Nation's
drinking water.
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION,
New York, N.Y., July 23, 1970.
The PRESIDENT
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
MR. PRESIDENT: The American Water Works Association, a scientific and
educational society representing the 23,000 water utilities that serve 170 mil-
lion Americans with safe drinking water, is deeply interested in your pro-
posed reorganization plan to establish an Environmental Protection Agency.
The association is particularly concerned with the fate of the public water
supply program that EPA will acquire through the transfer of the Bureau
of Water Hygiene from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
In expressing this concern, the association's board of directors has already
filed the following resolution with your Council on Environmental Protection:
"The American Water Works Association urges that the new Environ-
mental Protection Agency include a separate, identifiable public water supply
function with budget adequate to provide leadership and assistance in re-
search and training to meet the new and complex problems facing the water
utility industry."
The association believes that it is highly important that the new Adminis-
trator of EPA understand the difference between the problems of public
water supply and those of stream pollution and recognize the need to attack
these problems separately. It believes, too, that only an administrator who
is uncommitted and objective as far as the conservationist—water user con-
frontation is concerned, one who is experienced in local, State, and Federal
Government operations, and one who is capable of understanding and dealing
with the many technical disciplines involved will be able to handle this assign-
ment to the maximum benefit of the Nation.
These qualifications, the association feels, will help to assure that the Fed-
eral public water supply program will no longer be confused with nor over-
whelmed by the pollution control effort, that balanced rather than restricted
development of water resources will be fostered, and that the views of local,
-------
294 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
regional, and State agencies responsible for operating public water supply
facilities will be given their proper priority.
In recent years, budgetary support of the Federal Government's public
water supply program has declined steadily at a time when burgeoning pop-
ulation, urbanization, and pollution have been tremendously increasing the
problems to be faced. So today, the Public Health Service, which once was
looked to for leadership in research, technology, and training in the field, is
almost extinct as far as its service to the public, through water utilities, is
concerned.
It is on this basis that the association urges your appointment of an EPA
Administrator who not only recognizes the need for a separate water supply
function, but recognizes the importance of a greatly expanded water supply
training, research, and technical assistance effort within that function.
The association is anxious to cooperate in any way that it can toward the
cause of providing better water for Americans.
Sincerely yours,
ERIC P. JOHNSON,
Executive Director.
[p. 153]
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Our next witness is Mr. Charles H. Callison,
executive vice president of the National Audubon Society.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. CALLISON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI-
DENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, NEW YORK, N.Y.
Mr. CALLISON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles Callison. The
National Audubon Society enthusiastically supports Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 submitted to the Congress by the President on
July 9 and proposing the consolidation of a number of pollution
control bureaus and functions into a new independent agency, the
Environmental Protection Agency.
In our view, the EPA plan offers two compelling advantages.
First, it will coordinate defense of the environment, recognizing
the ecological principle that the land, the water, and the atmos-
phere are not separable but parts of the whole, and that all things
in nature, including man, are inescapably related. It recognizes
that air pollution control, water pollution control, and solid waste
management must be coordinated because any industrial processes
produce all three kinds of environmental degradation.
Secondly, pollution control and regulatory agencies within EPA
will be freed of certain restraints that inhibit them now from the
kind of vigorous and free-swinging action that is urgently needed
to avert and reverse the environmental crisis that threatens to
engulf us. Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel is a forceful
leader for water quality, as was Secretary Stewart L. Udall before
him. Nevertheless, the Federal Water Quality Administration now
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 295
has to compete with all the other bureaus in the Department of the
Interior for the Secretary's decisionmaking time; and in Interior,
pollution-control policies that start out sharp sometimes become
blunted from collisions with such development-minded giants as
the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Mines.
Similarly, pesticides registration and regulations can never
really protect the health and welfare of the whole public while
subservient to the more-bushels-per-acre mission of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
Political scientist and author Theodore H. White has recently
likened the proposal to the bold reforms which, in the early days
of the Franklin Roosevelt administration, established a whole new
panoply of crusading emergency agencies to reorganize a mori-
bund national economy.
This appeared in Life magazine on June 26, and I am sure
members of the subcommittee saw it. American Government has a
genius for creating such agencies when faced with a national
crisis. White noted, but he cautioned that their vitality depends
upon "their connection with the politics and forward thinking of
their times."
In other words, EPA will succeed only if the public supports it;
if the President gives it a strong chief and a free hand; and if
Congress provides the necessary laws and appropriations. The
National Audubon Society urges this committee to give the plan
its approval. We pledge our best in helping provide the public
support.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the chances are that someone
[p. 154]
else has submitted this Life article by Theodore H. White for the
record. But if not, I would like to present it to the committee for
this purpose, and also an editorial that appeared in the New York
Times entitled "Plan for the Environment" from the July 12 issue
of the Times.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Is that the same editorial that raised some
question about plan No. 4?
Mr. CALLISON. Yes; it did raise some questions about plan
No. 4.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. How do you feel about plan No. 4?
Mr. CALLISON. I think there are some questions that need to be
raised about plan No. 4. We are not prepared today to testify on
that.
-------
296 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much. We are very grateful
for your testimony.
Mr. CALLISON. Thank you.
(The magazine and newspaper articles referred to follow:)
[From the New York Times, July 12, 1970]
PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
President Nixon's proposed reorganization of environmental agencies is a
statesmanlike move which could prove to be almost as historic in its own way
as the great alphabetical upheavals of the early Roosevelt administration.
Basically the President's plan rests on two concepts. One, long nurtured by
conservationists of all shades, is that no agency entrusted with promoting the
development of an area'a natural resources—minerals, seafood, water
power—should be entrusted at the same time with protecting the environ-
ment against the consequences of that development. The two objectives often
conflict, and it is almost invariably the organized exploiters who win, the
unorganized public that loses.
The second concept of the plan is that problems posing current environ-
mental dangers, calling for quick solution or mitigation—air pollution from
automobiles, the pumping of raw waste into streams—are the province of one
type of agency; while those long-range problems, calling for study and re-
search—the impact of modern society on the plankton of the seas, the cumu-
lative effect of chemical discharges on the earth's climate—require different
treatment.
The President's approach would take into account the first of these broad
principles by assigning to a new Environmental Protection Agency those
functions that old-line Cabinet departments and independent commissions
have largely failed to perform because of their concentration on stimulating
production or aiding particular groups in the population.
Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration would yield to the new
agency their often reluctant and ineffective control over pesticides. The
Atomic Energy Commission, bent on producing energy, would lose its author-
ity to set radiation standards. Aspects of water-pollution control would be
brought together from Interior and the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, which would likewise lose its function in the field of air
pollution.
The second of the two principles would be satisfied by creation of a Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This agency, with an eye on
the distant future, would draw its components from old-line agencies where
they now exist, for the most part as disconnected bits and pieces of govern-
ment. But it will be incorporated, unfortunately, in the unimaginative
Department of Commerce.
Inevitably the plan will draw criticism—subdued and unofficial in the de-
partments whose empires will be reduced; loud and on the record in Congress
where so great a reorganization is bound to affect those committee chairmen
whose power derives from the hold they have on particular departments and
agencies. Conservationists in good standing will have questions of their own:
why should the Army Corps of Engineers retain any say in the matter of
industrial discharges into navigable waters, for example? And why should
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 297
aircraft noise levels be left to the Department of Transportation, which is
sold on the SST?
Everyone can play the game—but it can hardly be helpful. The President's
plan offers a major advance in drawing together a great many of the scat-
[p. 155]
tered concerns of some 84 Government departments, bureaus, administrations,
councils and the like. If nothing else, it would break up the bureaucratic pat-
tern of all too many entrenched, encrusted agencies—some clashing, some
overlapping, some moribund.
Congress has 60 days in which to veto the reorganization or let it take
place. Along with millions of others, we will watch hopefully for the triumph
of imagination over the politics of special interest.
[From Life magazine, June 26, 1970]
THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION HAS DRAWN UP ITS PLAN To UNTANGLE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUNGLE—BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS—How Do WE GET
FROM HERE TO THERE?
(By Theodore H. White)
(Out of today's mess, on the wings of new Federal agencies, the Government
hopes to bring us a future where environmental problems can be not only
anticipated but controlled)
In the dream, it works something like this: The huge hall of environment
control is lit from above. Operators below press controls and the translucent
dome glows with jet streams slashing the upper atmosphere, shaping the
world's weather. Other controls are pressed and the glow changes color. Now
it illuminates the middle atmosphere over America, showing regional smog-
bearing inversions that may lock over cities within hours. In and out of walls
glide panels on which river basins shine with flood-crest warnings or change
hue to show rise-and-fall of pollution. Central energy control occupies an
adjoining hall where lights wink on a giant map as gas, coal, water power
and nuclear fission pour their energy into the national electricity grid, swing-
ing from midnight lull to morning peak. At planning sessions energy control's
panels slide back to show the same grid 5, 10 or 20 years hence, marking
future power plants designed for maximum efficiency and safety. Nearby, in
the Surveillance Center of Environmental Health Services, pesticides, oxides,
nitrates, adulterants, all 30,000 chemicals used by industry or everyday life
are indexed, cross-referenced, computerized for interactions and contamina-
tions. Over in the Office of Land Use maps show America today and America
in 1980, 1990, 2000—open spaces preserved in a system of planned new cities,
new industries, new transport nets and free shorelines that must hold 100
million Americans to be added in the next generation. * * *
In Washington today men who nurse such dreams believe that some day
this ultimate National Center for Environment Control will be larger than
the Pentagon. The Pentagon protects America from foreign enemies; Envi-
ronment Control must protect America from Americans, which is more diffi-
cult.
-------
298 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
But between dream and reality falls politics. No one in Washington op-
poses the dream—it is only that no one agrees on how to get there from
here. For over a year congressmen and senators, clubwomen and fishermen,
flower-children and commuters, students and professors, editorialists and
TV commentators have joined to make environment the No. 1 issue on the
political fashion parade. The last defenders of smog, sewage, smoke, pollution
and noise have hushed. All that remains is for someone to give government
to the movement—which is most difficult of all.
"Gouverner," say the French, "c'est choisir"—to govern is to choose. And
what Richard Nixon has chosen in the past 2 months out of the cascade of
papers, reports and options before him are the emergency first steps in a
master plan for the American environment. What he is about to offer the
Nation for debate is a program which will raise hard questions: Which
committees of Congress must be outraged, which departments of government
ripped apart, how much of the political debris of the past is to be discarded
immediately? What traditional liberties of initiative and enterprise must be
given up to preserve the larger liberty of life for the Americans of tomor-
row?
There come rare moments in a President's term when politics and history
coincide. For Nixon, in midpassage of his troubled presidency, such a moment
is now. Politically, the last issue of fashion on which he still holds people,
[p. 156]
Congress and media with him lies in the great environment crusade. Histori-
cally, he must seize this moment before it goes the way of the cause of the
cities, the crusade for civil rights, the war on poverty. For if he does not
make the most of this crest of concern for America's ravaged environment,
then time and space may have closed over the Nation for good before the
next wave conies.
Time and space had been shrinking for almost 3 centuries before the first
ripple of concern began to make a wave in American politics. "Conservation"
was the phrase that Theodore Roosevelt used to call American attention to the
new condition. In 1890, the census had declared America was entirely settled,
it no longer had a frontier. Thus, on coming to the Presidency in 1901,
Roosevelt brought politics to bear to preserve for tomorrow the wilderness
wonders he had known in his youth. He would preserve, "conserve" it all—
unspoiled skies, clear streams, the wildlife resources that were vanishing,
from pigeon to buffalo. To this day the Department of the Interior, Roosevelt's
chosen agency for the job, bears as its emblem the buffalo.
It was more than saving buffaloes that stirred the next wave of concern a
generation later—it was man's own plight. When Franklin Roosevelt became
President, the winds of the mid-1980s were scouring the dust bowl, while the
Mississippi valley, stripped of trees and sod, was flooding uncontrollably.
Treebelt windbreaks, Soil Conservation Service, TVA and CCC all followed in
response—to be interrupted by war.
Then, with the war over, the cause of environment was stilled for another
generation, and, in a spasm of unplanned growth, Americans added half as
much again to their population, and as much new production to what they
already had as total Russian and German production combined. As auto-
mobiles tripled in number, a cocoon of poison fumes began to shimmer over
new highways. Cities draped their towers in acrid shawls of smog, lakes
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 299
bobbed with organic sewage and plastic refuse, blue-claw crabs were vanish-
ing from the coves of the Chesapeake to the Great South Bay, scientists
packaged chemicals in foods and poisons in spray cans. And the two natural
containers of the environment, the air and the water, finally vomited back
on Americans the filths they could no longer absorb. Man, said some con-
cerned observers, was beginning to emulate the gorilla, an animal which
defecates in its own sleeping place; but such people were dismissed as kooks.
"When we came in, in 1960" says Stewart Udall, former Secretary of the
Interior and the leading environmentalist of the Kennedy-Johnson Cabinet,
"not a single new national park had been set aside since 1947, and all but 5
percent of the country's free coastline was shut off. The Eisenhower ad-
ministration," continues Udall, "had thought pollution was a local matter.
So we'd all sat there like spectators and watched Los Angeles wrestling with
smog—it was their problem. I came in as a classic conservationist—you know,
preservation of nature and seashores, of birdlife and wildlife, of endangered
species. Then gradually it came over me that man himself was an endangered
species, that we were part of the same chain of life as the birds. Only in the
last 3 years I was in office did I see it as a whole piece. We'd erred in
thinking environment was simply a matter of managing natural resources.
What had to be managed was man himself. We had to have a concept that
considers man as the significant focus. We brought the country to an aware-
ness of the problem: Nixon's job is to give it management."
A JUMBLE OF LOBBIES AND FEUDS
In his first week in office Richard Nixon talked of a new environmental
agency he planned to set up to "think about the lakes, the mountains, the
seas." A small-town boy, he had seen Southern California overrun and fouled
by people, industry, cities. Now, he insisted, he would come to grips with the
problem.
But whenever any President tries to grip a problem, he must come to grips
first with the stubborn instruments of the Government he inherits. Trying to
find an overview of this problem, Nixon first deputized White House Aide
John Whitaker, a geologist, to come up with an environmental program by
early fall. But Whitaker could find general answers nowhere. "I finally had
to call up every Cabinet officer," says Whitaker, "and ask them to detach
one young man from their office to work with me as a task force to get any
kind of picture of what was going on." By fall Nixon had instructed the Ash
Council on Government Reorganization to unravel the tangle of overlapping.
contradictory agencies and bureaus dealing with environmental action—
and the Ash Council came up with a list of 44 major agencies in five major
[p. 157]
departments inextricably deadlocked in something called the environmental
game. In a few more months the Library of Congress, consulting its indexes,
expanded that list to 84 bureaus. And by fall, as politicians rushed to join
the environment crusade of 1969, as students clamored for answers, it was
quite obvious that there were no simple answers for their two great ques-
tions: Why don't they do something about the environment? How did we
get in such a mess?
To answer such questions, investigators would have required a three-
-------
300 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
dimensional chart, with at least seven different kinds of colored ribbons and a
stereoscopic viewer to make clear even the simpler relationships of the
players in the environmental game. Beyond this, there was the tangle of
lobbies, committees, pressure groups, ambitions and bureaucratic feuds which
had to be sorted before one could begin to see the mess clearly.
Almost each of the 80-odd agencies which shared management of the Ameri-
can environment had a history of its own, crusted over with an entrenched
lobby, an entrenched congressional committee, an entrenched bureauracy,
each ferociously defending its own prerogatives. Such bureaus had been born
variously of a national crisis, a public outrage, a scientist's insight or a
President's dream—but all reflected that hoary first principle of American
government: when something itches, scratch it.
Some of the scratch marks were over a century old: the Coast and Geo-
detic Survey dated back to Thomas Jefferson, the Coast Guard to Alexander
Hamilton. Each successive wave of concern had left behind, like flotsam on
a beach, a tidemark of new bureaus or expanded older bureaus. The Depart-
ment of Interior, Theodore Roosevelt's favorite tool, clustered the Geological
Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureaus of Mines, Fisheries,
Reclamation and still others. To the Department of Agriculture, with all its
traditional bureaus, Franklin D. Roosevelt had added Soil Conservation, Rural
Electrification Administration and others. Eisenhower had set up the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. It now held the Public Health
Service, the National Institutes of Health, Bureau of Radiological Health,
Occupational Safety, others. The Department of Army controlled the Corps
of Engineers. Beyond, freewheeling on their own, were, among others, TVA,
the Atomic Energy Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Federal Power Commission, the Federal Communications Commission.
On top of all these were even newer bureaus. It had been Congress, rather
than the press or the Executive, that had first rung the alarm in the 1960's.
A trio of outstanding senators—Muskie, Jackson, Nelson—had lobbed the
environment ball at the White House and the White House had reacted. Chief
among the newer agencies were the Air Pollution Control Administration
(located in HEW), and the Water Quality Administration (located in
Interior). A perhaps apocryphal story illustrates how the pattern was
shaped. Lyndon Johnson, so the story runs, had tried to reach Stewart Udall
on the telephone to talk about a water-pollution problem. Udall doesn't
control water, he was told. "Well, he should," said Johnson after a moment's
reflection. "Get water transferred to Stu."
Even while Richard Nixon, all through 1969 and early 1970, tried to make
sense of the apparatus he was trying to grip, it grew more complicated. As
the environment crusade accelerated, politicians wildly tried to stay abreast.
Congress, for example, told the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare to protect everyday life from the radiation of TV sets, microwave ovens,
or X-rays—but then it neglected to appropriate money for the task. En-
vironment was a Klondike of gilt-edged, risk-free political issues, and any
legislator could score by tacking his name on a bill. At one point, at the end
of 1969, an official of the Office of Economic Opportunity telephoned a White
House staffer to ask, "Can we get more money for our budget if we prove
poverty causes pollution?"
Without clear direction from the top the bureaucracies clashed as they had
for years, only more so. The National Park Service (Interior) feuded with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 301
the Forest Service (Agriculture). The latter's job was to serve timber and
grazing interests while the former sought to keep forests inviolate as nature
created them. Health experts at HEW were convinced that hard pesticides
like DDT were dangerous not only to birds and fish but also to man. Experts
of the Department of Agriculture, however, spoke for the interests of farmers
to whom pesticides promised high crop yields. A dam the Federal Power
[p. 158]
Commission might approve was, in the eyes of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
an atrocity. Federal agencies clashed not only in Washington with each other,
but with mayors, governors, city planners.
"THERE'S PLAIN GOLD IN GARBAGE"
Where agencies did not clash they overlapped or worse, underlapped. "You
can't say all problems fell between two stools," said an investigator of the Ash
Council. "Some fell between six stools." Rats, for example, are a menace to
slum dwellers in congested cities. Everyone hates rats, including the United
States Government. But trying to locate command of the Federal rodent
control program is as difficult as locating COSVN in Cambodia. The war on
rats involves Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service), Agriculture (Agricultural
Research), Health, Education, and Welfare (NIMH and FDA), the White
House (Office of Economic Opportunity) and, at last count, no less than six
other agencies.
Other larger problems fell nowhere. As early as 1950, Government scientists
knew Lake Erie was dying. Yet no one was responsible—not the fringe of
cities from Toledo through Cleveland to Buffalo which dumped sewage in the
water, not the steel industries which poured in acid pollution, not the farmers
whose manures and high-nitrate fertilizers drained off into streams that,
ultimately, eutrophied the lake. So Lake Erie died because, for 20 years,
while all watched and mourned, no controlling branch of government was
responsible for averting tragedy.
A traditional Government bureau, charged with a specific problem, might
attack it with good will and then find itself trapped in the revolving doors
of administration. The Bureau of Mines is usually cartooned as the tool of the
"interests." In actual fact it swings from decade to decade in response to
pressure, with no philosophical guidance whatsoever. BuMines was born in
1910 in response to public horror: almost 3,000 miners a year were being
killed by a brutal industry, and the bureau was created, initially, to protect
them. In World War II, however, as mineral after mineral after mineral
became critically short, BuMines became a prospecting agency to find uranium,
molybdenum, copper, nickel. After the war, with a glut of minerals, the
bureau became an outright marketing agent for the mining interests seeking
new outlets and uses for surplus metal. In the past 3 years Congress has
plunged it into the environment game to become involved in smoke control,
pollution of mountain streams by strip mines in Appalachia, junk automobile
disposal and garbage recycling. But each of these adventures tangles the
bureau with many other players. In Madison, Wis., for example, the bureau
jointly operates with the Forest Service and HEW an experimental garbage
disposal plant. The three agencies are trying to separate refuse: paper (a
forest product), from organic garbage (a health and rodent threat), from
-------
302 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
scrap metals (which the bureau sees as treasure trove). Bureau specialists
feel cities can make an actual profit out of refuse disposal. "There's just
plain gold in this garbage business," said one specialist. "Gold from lost
jewelry, silver by the ton from photographic products, metallic iron and
aluminum. Even tin cans are useful; we need them for copper processing."
But, he continued, even three agencies cooperating are not enough. The real
problem of garbage recycling begins with picking it up in city streets, and
that is the responsibility of HUD and HEW—who do not want it. "We'd
take it gladly, if someone told us to," he continued.
Until this summer, therefore, despite all public, philosophical and political
outcry, there has been no one overall managerial plan in America's much-
touted effort to pass on a livable environment to her children.
What is about to happen now is a first step in that direction.
"You have to take it step by step," says a White House aide, "and you have
to balance the dangers. If we don't do something now, the country is going
to hell. And if you try to do too much all at once, the whole apparatus could
break down. We could make a super-super Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, but that would have to absorb Agriculture and Interior,
as well as HEW, HUD and DOT. It would wind up as the 'department-of-
practically-everything1.' Then there's politics—not only what Congress and
the committies will stand for, but the reaction of business and farming and
scientific interest groups. Everyone thinks he can get hurt, or at least
squeezed, in a reorganization. So we're doing the maximum we think we can
manage, or get away with without throwing Congress into convulsion."
[p. 159]
Thus, the first step on the White House drawing boards, after 9 months of
study, is a new master body tentatively called the Environmental Protection
Authority, or EPA. Here will be gathered water control and air control, solid
wastes, pesticides, radiation hazards, all torn from present departments or
congressional committees and united as a national environmental police force.
"You can't separate these agencies," said Amory Bradford, former general
manager of the New York Times, who formulated the first recommendations
for the Ash Council. "They have to function together. We found that if Air
Pollution Control tells a powerplant to get fly-ash out of the air, the plant
dumps fly-ash in the water; and if Water Quality Control tells it to get the
fly-ash out of the water, the plant collects it and makes it a solid waste prob-
lem." How effective the new agency will be depends on its chief, for whom a
quiet search has begun. The new chief, who will report to the President
directly, would have almost dictatorial powers to set continental standards
and regulations, vertically and horizontally, conduct common research, bring
industries and cities to trial. A weakling could make the new agency another
reshuffle of paper boxes; an overbearing chief could aggravate to shock the
normal trauma of political surgery.
Bolder in imagination is NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency,
which will be set up simultaneously with EPA. Under NOAA's roof, in the
Department of Commerce, will be gathered the master sciences to explore the
entire fluid envelope of the globe, the throbbing, interacting drive wheels of
energy in ocean and atmosphere, which charge and recharge the fundamental
batteries of life for all organisms, from plankton and pupae to man and
mountain goat. Ripped away from the Navy would be its Oceanographic Data
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 303
and Instrument Centers; from Interior its marine mining, commercial fisheries
and anadromous fish; from the Army's Corps of Engineers its Great Lakes
survey; from the National Science Foundation its sea-grant program of re-
search. These would be joined to Commerce's ESSA (Environmental Science
Services Administration) which already clusters the U.S. Weather Bureau,
the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and radio propagation labs. The surveillance
of NOAA's scientists would run from the interior Great Lakes, through the
vast Continental Shelves with their minerals and oil, probably as far as Ant-
arctica.
The first of the new master bodies, the Environmental Protection Authority,
would monitor and regulate man's everyday life within the thin membrane of
activity scratched by our smokestacks and smirched by our leavings. The sec-
ond, NOAA, would monitor the global container, the entire hollow of sky and
inelastic surface of earth which holds us all from outer space to ocean depths.
It would try to learn how man's pollution has already harmed the oceans and
affected its life down to bottom ooze, or affected its atmosphere up to the
emptiness where NASA and the astronauts take over. EPA would tell men
how they must live within the weather and climate: NOAA's function would
be to explore, to predict long range and short range, what is happening to
that environment—and then go on to actually try to change that climate and
its weather.
Already in place on the administration's master plan is, of course, a third
body, the Council on Environmental Quality. Up to now the understaffed, six-
month-old Council has been a fire brigade, rushed in to pass judgment on a
project like the cross-Florida canal, or invited to give quick opinion on the
noise effects of the supersonic plane. In the new thinking the Council would
be the President's eyes and ears for his entire government. Every department
and bureau of Government—Defense and Transportation, Agriculture, In-
terior, Housing and Urban Development, and all the others—would have to
send their plans to the Council to be cleared for environmental impact as they
now send such plans to the Budget for clearance on costs.
Beyond these three organs are yet other fancies, not yet programed on
paper: a suggestion that America have a National Energy Council which
would absorb the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission,
and other agencies dealing with total energy needs; a suggestion that
America have a National Land Use Board which would absorb the Army's
Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, the National Parks and all others
who plan or regulate the use of land for parks, industries, towns, or expan-
sion. There is, finally, a suggestion from the Ash Council—rejected for the
moment by the White House—that all such resource-oriented agencies be
combined for long-range planning in a new Department of Natural Resources.
Thus, on the far horizon, would be a system where four major voices replace
the present cacophony of 84 bureaus.
[p. 160]
For the moment, however, it appears that the administration will be content
if it can master the managerial and political questions its immediate proposals
raise. How, for example, can one be sure that one is breaking off "the bureau-
cratic joints" along the proper cleavage line: Will the farm lobby let all
pesticide control be transferred from the friendly Department of Agriculture
to the austere new EPA? Can one satisfy the sports fisherman by leaving
trout under Fish and Wildlife in Interior and giving all other fish to NOAA?
-------
304 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Or another set of questions: How can one find or train the proper people to
staff even present schemes? By 1974, we will need 28,000 air-quality analysts
to man planned controls, and today we count only 2,700. Money can be found
for training, but training cannot be speeded. "We can get money," says John
Ehrlichman, Nixon's chief domestic counselor, "but making the money useful
is like squeezing bread through a keyhole."
NIXON WANTS TO BITE THE NAIL NOW
Beyond, rise questions of law and philosophy: Should the Department of
Justice create a new division, like its present Anti-Trust Division, to prosecute
environmental offenders brought to court by the EPA? Or do we need an
entirely new system of courts, like the tax court of the Internal Revenue
Service, specializing in the jurisprudence of environment? Or in the name
of the safety of a larger mass of citizens, an entirely new philosophy of law,
curtailing men's right to move, build, discard as they will.
No one, not even the architects of the present planning, are satisfied with
what they must present and debate in the next few months. "In the business
of government," says Murray Comarow of the Ash Council, "any movement
from hideous to bad is progress, from hideous to fair is spectacular. Some of
the ideas we've served up could move things from hideous to somewhere
between bad to fair." John Whitaker, the President's man on environment,
puts it more bluntly: "We could sit here for 3 more years and still not come
up with a perfect plan. But the job of government is to act. This is our
chance to line up the silent majority and the underprivileged on the same
side. Nixon wants to bite on the nail now. Politically, this is the time to go."
This administration is faced with the most difficult problem of domestic
government since the New Deal reorganized the economy 40 years ago. No
one then could tell what might happen as the bureaucratic gamesmen of that
time doodled boxes on paper, drew lines between them, talked trade-offs,
lopped off agencies and added bureaus in a contraption no one was ever quite
sure would work. What was at stake was too important for simple administra-
tive patterns to solve: It depended on the politics and spirit with which
Franklin Roosevelt could infuse a revolution.
Since then, Americans have seen some great patterns of government thrive
and others wither, their vitality dependent always on their connection with
the politics and forward thinking of the times. Many once powerful regulatory
agencies of government have been strangled by the simple technical narrow-
ness of their thinking. Divorced from the wellsprings of science or public
philosophy, they have become anachronisms or become prisoners of interests
they were supposed to control.
Emergency agencies, however, masterpieces of American administrative
genius, have flourished. Over and over again, when faced with a national
crisis, American government has been able to spawn single-purpose agencies
which override all bureaucratic entrapments. The Marshall Plan, which
revived Europe, was one such agency; NASA, which reached the moon in
its allotted decade, was another; the Atomic Energy Commission was a third
spectacular of this genre. But such crisis agencies opeiate best over a limited
time span, reaching a peak of brilliance when the best civilian talent of the
nation is recruited by the urgency. Then they fade as the best men depart,
and urgency degenerates into housekeeping1.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 305
Now, American politics must entertain Richard Nixon's first major orig-
inal approach to government in an adventure that must combine both emer-
gency action and long-range housekeeping. Promising to decentralize Wash-
ington and return power to local government, he will now propose a system
that will enlarge the authority of the Federal Government even more than did
Roosevelt's New Deal. Over the long run, if this new system is to be effective,
it must control not only General Motors, but the local garagemen who spill
crankcase oil in sewers. It must control not only oceangoing tankers and
offshore drilling, but beach buggies that ravage sand dunes and pleasure
boats that flush toilets in lakes.
The echoes in the White House give one the sense of a political buffeted
President, gingerly but stubbornly balancing inevitable political controversy
[p- 161]
against options that define real needs. One senses a firming of presidential
thinking—his recognition of the inescapable need to impose absolute national
standards of control so that no industry can escape its costs by shifting plants
and jobs from stern States to lenient States. One senses a groping as he
attempts to strike a balance between the zero-limit fanatics on the one hand,
those who advocate zero radiation, zero smog, zero pollution, zero population
increase in a static future America and, on the other hand, what remains
valid in the robust older tradition of growth. There is also the increasing
echo of his favorite, personal idea, the new cities program. "You have to see
Nixon," said one of his closest aides, "as a man who knows that villages like
Whittier, where he grew up, are dead. And as a man who lived in New York
for 5 years, traveling between Wall Street and Fifth Avenue in his limousine,
and not liking what he saw. Somewhere in between he has this dream of
spreading America out and planting it with entirely new medium-sized cities,
not suburbs but planned cities. But that gets you to a national land-use
policy, which is a whole other can of worms."
No cool rearrangement of bureaucratic boxes on paper will solve the
problem by itself; only a presidential presence and sense of direction can
translate today's concern into tomorrow's reality. The game being played is
being played on a world scene; in Europe, in Asia, in Russia, men wrestle
with the same problem of man's growth in limited space. What must emerge
in the next few weeks is not only the first large glimpse of the President's
feeling for the Nation's future, but also his resiliency in offering the world
a style of American leadership it has forgotten.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Our next witness is Mr. Parke C. Brinkley,
president of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association.
Mr. Brinkley, you have a well thought-out statement. I wonder
if we, with your permission, could insert the complete statement in
the record and perhaps you could pick up a few points that you
think are highly significant and new, and also at the same time
introduce your colleagues.
STATEMENT OF PARKE C. BRINKLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AGRI-
CULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION ; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT L.
-------
306 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ACKERLY OF SELLERS, CONNER & CUNEO, WASHINGTON, D.C.; DR.
C. BOYD SHAFFER, AMERICAN CYANAMID Co.; DR. E. M. SWISHER ;
AND DR. DONALD A. SPENCER
Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that would be entirely satis-
factory with us. We do appreciate the opportunity of being here.
I have with me on my right Mr. Robert L. Ackerly of the law
firm of Sellers, Conner & Cuneo of this city; on his right, Dr. C.
Boyd Shaffer of the American Cyanamid Co.; on my immediate
right, Dr. E. M. Swisher of Rhom & Haas Co.; and on my far left,
Dr. Donald A. Spencer, Consulting Ecologist to our association.
We are pleased to be here this morning. We have presented in
our statement our position at the moment and we endeavored to
get this into your hands prior to today that you might have an
opportunity to see it, if you so desire.
Maybe the best thing to do is to see if you have any questions on
it.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Well, I am just trying to read the statement
pretty quickly. I think it would be good to have it in the record if
and when the plan comes up on the floor.
Mr. BRINKLEY. We have no position on Plan No. 4, Mr. Chair-
man ; our interest lies in Plan 3. We do not think that—well, our
thinking has changed, as we have indicated here. At first we did
[p. 162]
oppose the plan and after thinking about it a great deal, discuss-
ing it a great deal, we have accepted the plan because we think
that it does have advantages to offer to the public in general and
we think it has advantages to offer to the industry that we repre-
sent.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Originally, you had opposition to the plan and
then at some point you asked that all pesticide functions be put
into one division, and I am told under the proposed table of orga-
nization that is going to happen that way.
Mr. BRINKLEY. That is fine.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. So now you are not opposed to the plan ?
Mr. BRINKLEY. That is right.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. In other words, you had some success with the
efforts you made in structuring a new environmental protection
agency.
Mr. BRINKLEY. We had some success, I guess, in our own minds
in thinking it out and talking it out. I know of no effect we had on
the structuring of the agency.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 307
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Originally did they have all the pesticides
within one division in EPA?
Mr. BRINKLEY. To the best of my knowledge and belief, yes, sir.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. What changed your initial opposition to the
plan?
Mr. BRINKLEY. We originally objected to the thought of taking a
single commodity such as pesticides and putting it into this new
agency which was designed entirely to—or designed primarily, I
should say—for the control of pollution. Our reaction was that
pesticides were being considered strictly as pollutants of the envi-
ronment rather than as an antipollutant force as well.
We think pesticides contribute a great deal more to cleaning the
environment than they do to polluting the environment.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. There are some people who have a different
view, I suspect.
Mr. BRINKLEY. I suspect so.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I knew you were familiar—because I remem-
ber we met 6 or 8 years ago on the Agricultural Committee, and
the enthusiasm at that time was about the same degree of support
that we have now.
Mr. BRINKLEY. I am sorry. I did not understand that.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. It is not worth repeating.
Mr. BRINKLEY. I thought we had very good discussions at that
time and, as you will remember, we supported the bill.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes, I remember that well.
Let me be candid with you. You know, you read the papers and
that is why you are here in platoon formation. You know the
charge is made that pesticides are not all they are cracked up to
be. The witness who represented the Audubon Society had a very
good quote in his statement. He said that similarly, pesticide regu-
lations can never really protect the health and welfare of the
whole public while subservient to the more agricultural concept of
bushels per acre.
In other words, maybe the negative value outweighed the posi-
tive value. Is there some truth to that contention?
Mr. BRINKLEY. There is truth to a contention that pesticides
have both benefits and risk. This is the thing that I guess gave us
some concern, that they were being put in an environmental pollu-
tion control group and we had the feeling that being put there,
[p. 163]
emphasis was being put on the risk rather than the benefits. We
wanted to be real sure that it would be put on both the benefits
and the risks and that they be weighed together.
-------
308 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Did you get that assurance?
Mr. BRINKLEY. In our own mind, yes.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Did anybody in the administration give you
that assurance?
Mr. BRINKLEY. No.
Mr. RoSENTHAL. The point I was trying to make is: What is the
industry doing? If there is some question of risk-benefit, what is
the industry doing voluntarily to correct the risks or to eliminate
them?
Mr. BRINKLEY. We are doing a great deal. As you know so well,
we have to do a great deal of research and testing on a product
before it is ever put on the market. It takes a longer period of
time, you know, an average, according to a survey that was made
last year, of 60 months. In many instances it runs considerably
longer than that. An expenditure averaging about $4 million to
bring out a new product, and again the many—there are many
instances in which the costs exceed this by a great deal.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. What is the annual gross volume of the
industry?
Mr. BRINKLEY. I would guess $8 or $900 million at the manufac-
turing level. We put about 10 percent of that back into research
which is one of the highest research-gross sale ratios of any indus-
try.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Are there three or four large companies that
make up the industry like Gulf or Shell ?
Mr. BRINKLEY. No, sir; it is not dominated by any one company.
They are part of the industry. Our association has a membership
of approximately 140 at the present time, all of which are not
manufacturers of basic materials. There are probably 40 or so
manufacturers of basic materials.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Is it true that about four or five companies
produce 40 or 50 percent of the gross volume?
Mr. BRINKLEY. No, sir; I do not believe that is right. I am really
not that sure. There is no feeling in the industry that any one or
three or four companies dominate the industry.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I see in the pesticide division of EPA a trans-
fer of people from USDA and HEW. Do you have any notion
about how many people will be transferred from HEW or USDA?
Mr. BRINKLEY. I do not have the number; no, sir. They are
planning to transfer in total the pesticide regulation division from
the Department of Agriculture and transferring in total the pesti-
cide tolerance setting provisions of the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 309
Mr. ROSENTHAL. According to the proposal submitted by the
administration, 272 people are being transferred from FDA and
435 from the Agricultural Research Service.
Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I notice in the Interior Department they are
transferring nine people from Label Review and 20 from the Gulf
Breeze Laboratory. Do you think you will be able to live with this
new agency ?
[p. 164]
Mr. BRINKLEY. We certainly hope so. If we don't, the food sup-
ply and the public health of this country is going to be in trouble.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. I would imagine my own guess is that your
organization will be kept a little busier.
Mr. BRINKLEY. It will have to get larger, then, sir. We are fully
utilized at the moment.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. You know seriously the climate has changed in
this country; 20 years ago we were willing to accept pesticides
because we felt there was a need to increase the food and fiber
production. But the climate of the country is changed; people are
as much interested in preserving the environment of this country.
If we let you fellows run wild altogether there might not be a
country in 20 years, so the extra food will not do any good.
Is there any truth to that serious accusation?
Mr. BRINKLEY. Let me call your attention to a statement in here
on the bottom of page 2, that while many of these insect vectors
and diseases are not a problem in this country because these insect
vectors have been well controlled, it is still a tremendous problem
in a lot of places and it could blow up in this country. I tell you
that malaria is one of the great environmental contaminants, and
I will tell you that in many of these cities, one of the greatest
groups of environmental pollutants are rats and roaches and bed-
bugs and body lice and flies and mosquitoes and things of this sort.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Are you talking about the United States?
Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, sir, I am talking about the city of Washing-
ton or your city of New York and many of the others. Without the
benefits of these pesticides to control these environmental contami-
nants, you would find the people of this country really breathing
down your neck about the condition of the environment.
Yes, sir, for every unit that pesticides contribute to pollution,
they contribute about a thousand units to cleaning up the environ-
ment. This is the thing that we are anxious that these new agen-
-------
310 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ties understand and realize and really realize that they are taking
upon themselves so much of the responsibility to the American
public to help in the control of pests.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Do you not doubt there has been a flow over
from the agricultural use of pesticides to the rivers and streams in
this country that create a problem ?
Mr. BRINKLBY. There is no question in my mind that there has
been some runoff of pesticide materials from time to time into the
rivers and streams. Now, in most cases I think that these are
insignificant and when weighed in the benefit-risk ratio, the bene-
fits of the pesticides in their use far exceed the risks involved by
the contamination of the waters.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Who should have the decisionmaking power in
finally deciding the benefit determinant, the industry that pro-
duces or the general public?
Mr. BRINKLEY. The general public-
Mr. ROSENTHAL. And presumably that will be the role of this
new agency ?
Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, sir.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Brinkley follows:)
[p. 165]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PARKE C. BRINKLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION
My name is Parke C. Brinkley. I am president of the National Agricultural
Chemicals Association, a nonprofit trade association which represents the
agricultural pesticide industry in the United States.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee this morn-
ing to discuss the implications of Reorganization Plan No. 3. This plan, which
establishes the Environmental Protection Agency, has as its principal goal
the control of pollution in our environment. A number of existing programs
related to environmental protection will be transferred to the new agency.
The only complete regulatory and enforcement program for a particular class
of commodity transferred to the new agency is the registration of pesticides
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the estab-
lishment of permissible residues of pesticides on raw agricultural commodities
under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Enforcement of these residue limits
remains with the Food and Drug Administration. Enforcement of pesticide
registration moves to the new agency.
When this plan was first brought to our attention, our reaction was nega-
tive. After careful reflection, however, we accept the plan becau-e we think
it can bring benefits to the American public. We hope it will create a less
emotionally charged atmosphere within which Government scientists can more
objectively appraise the benefits and attendant risks in the use of pesticides.
I suppose we all mean by the word pollution, the despoiling and befouling of
our environment—air, water, and soil—with resulting harm to human health
and our wildlife resources. With this definition in mind, we say that though
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 311
there have been instances where pesticides have contributed to environmental
problems, pesticides have done far more to clean the environment than to
despoil it.
To recite the accomplishment of pesticide use is no longer exciting and
commands no space in the press because we accept these benefits as if they
were a part of our life charter. The emotion stems from the discovery of
pesticide residues in nontarget species but without regard to the benefits
achieved when these calculated risks are taken. We are no longer concerned
with malaria, yellow fever, and a host of insect-borne diseases because they
are not a health factor in this country. They do remain a major health factor
in other areas of the world, however. Mr. M. A. Farid, director of Program
Planning- for the Malaria Eradication Section of the World Health Organi-
zation, advises that in 1936 there were 200,000,000 cases of malaria in India
alone resulting in 2,000,000 deaths. In 1968, only 156,000 cases were reported
in India with approximately 750 cases resulting in death.
Last month in New Mexico several cases of bubonic plague were reported.
This is worthy of little attention as the disease is now readily controllable
with penicillin. Yet these disease vectors are controlled only by pesticides.
Flies, mosquitoes, rats, roaches, body lice—perhaps we can live with these
environmental contaminants but we must not forget that they continue to
spread a host of diseases including encephalitis, of which there have been
three or four outbreaks in the last 15 years.
We will not make an effort this morning to review the pesticide record. We
are aware of the criticism that has been leveled at the Federal agencies and
their enforcement of pesticide programs. We feel that a careful objective
review of the record will bear out the fact that these agencies have done an
outstanding job with the few failures or inadequacies that have been reported
testifying more to the dimension of the problem than to the failures of the
dedicated personnel in these agencies. Transferring these programs may ap-
pear to reflect a lack of confidence in the ability of these agencies to do their
job. We trust this is not so and that the record will be clear that transferring
these funtions to EPA is to bring together the variety of disciplines necessary
to regulate the sale and use of pesticides and to render more efficient this
continuing effort.
We view optimistically the bringing together of all relevant scientific disci-
plines into one agency to improve interdisciplinary communication, evaluation
of data and measurement of the significance of the information that is col-
lected by Government and industry. Prior to sale a pesticide must be regis-
tered by the Department of Agriculture. The burden is upon the applicant
to establish safety and efficacy. No agricultural use is permitted until a toler-
ance for any residue of the pesticide on raw foods is established. Preregistra-
[p. 166]
tion review includes the Departments of the Interior and Health, Education,
and Welfare, After registration each pesticide is subjected to a comprehen-
sive monitoring program designed to point out unanticipated effects. As you
know, the fish and wildlife resources of this country, including- shellfish and
our water and air resources are subject to careful monitoring, the results of
which are reported regularly in the Federal Pesticide Monitoring Journal.
USDI laboratories at Patuxent, Md., Gulf Breeze, Fla., Denver, Colo., and
Columbia, Mo., report on studies of invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. Other
-------
312 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
agencies make important contributions—the community health profiles of
the Public Health Service, the market basket surveys of the Food and Drug
Administration—every phase of our environment is studied under the coor-
dination of the Working Party, Subcommittee on Pesticides of the President's
Cabinet Committee on the Environment. These programs provide a continuous
source of data to measure the input of pesticides into our environment.
As more agencies became more involved in recent years with the regulation
of pesticides, we faced a proliferation of regulators which ultimately required
the development of the Interag-ency Review Agreement of January 29, 1970.
This is perhaps the most elaborate interagency review program in the execu-
tive branch of the Government. One result, at least, was to add an indefinite
amount of time to the evaluation of new products and new uses for old prod-
ucts. We found ourselves dealing with second- and third-hand information and
experienced great frustration in attempting to locate the source of the infor-
mation as problems arose. Thus we were extremely hampered in bringing to
bear the implication of the scientific data relevant to the problem area.
We then look forward to the opportunity to deal principally with one agency
where there will be an opportunity for prompt communication between the
regulators and the regulated. We anticipate that this increased efficiency will
result in more prompt and relevant responses, and a more effective and
efficient handling and resolution of problem areas.
From the testimony already presented to this committee, we anticipate that
there will be a unified division of pesticides in EPA, hopefully headed by a
deputy director of the Agency. In this manner, the Agency can function most
efficiently and, we believe, the benefits of this reorganization can be more
fully realized.
The Agency must accept a premise that is not particularly popular at the
moment and that is, that there is a desperate need to continue pesticide use
for the protection of food, the protection of the public health, and for improve-
ment in the quality of the environment.
Pesticides, like drugs, present a host of benefits but there are risks which
can be calculated and measured, and accepted to achieve the benefits. The
validity of the benefit-risk equation was soundly endorsed by Senator Ribicoff
in Senate Report No. 1379, 89th Congress, 2d session, following a 3-year re-
view of pesticides by the Subcommittee on Reorganization of the Committee
on Government Operations.
Senator Ribicoff underscored the need to mitigate confusion and anxiety in
the public mind and the need to evaluate pesticides in an objective atmosphere.
The report points out:
The reservoir of apprehension in the public mind evolves from three
signs of our time: (1) The lack of understanding of science leading to
distrust and actual dislike; (2) nostalgia for a simpler life, the good old
days, and the "peaceable kingdom;" and (3) a feeling of individual in-
competence to avoid the threats of technological side effects (e.g., help-
lessness against community aerial spraying, unknown source of food
stuffs, and total reliance on governmental control and regulation). This
anxiety (amounting to fear) is a barrier to facts and presents a bad
climate for decisionmaking (ibid., p. 50).
The results of the emotional approach to pesticides have been significant.
The pesticide industry historically committed a relatively high percentage of
gross sales to research. Recently, several chemical companies have completely
abandoned their research and development programs on pesticides. Others
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 313
have sharply reduced their efforts in insecticides while continuing to go for-
ward with other types such as herbicides. The mounting cost of research and
development, the unreceptive mood of State and Federal regulators, and the
extremely poor image of the industry in the public mind, were major contribu-
ting factors. Corporate executives find little comfort in outstanding achieve-
[p. 167]
ments in the pesticide field when they are constantly harangued and barraged
by stockholders and others as despoilers of our environment through the de-
velopment of effective insect control techniques.
We look forward then to the formation of the Environmental Protection
Agency. We look forward to cooperating and working with this Agency to
bring to the public the maximum benefits pesticides offer with the minimum
risks attendant upon pest control programs. We look forward to a continua-
tion of the elaborate Federal monitoring systems of pesticide residues in our
environment, to the opportunity to work cooperatively to improve pesticide
effectiveness and minimize the exposure of nontarget organisms to these
materials.
We are not completely persuaded that establishing a new agency will result
in better regulatory programs, except to the extent that they will be more
efficient and thus more effective. This alone may be of sufficient value to
justify the creation of the new Agency.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 does not deal with the structure of the Agency
though the indications are that a Pesticide Division will be designed to put
all pesticide activities in the New Agency under one top level executive who
will have the ultimate authority and the concurrent responsibility for these
programs.
An integrated pesticide program in one division of the Agency could be the
key to an effective regulatory program.
Mr. RoSENTHAL. Thank you very much; your testimony has
been very helpful and significant. Our next witness will be Dr.
Spencer Smith, executive secretary, Citizens Committee for Natu-
ral Resources.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome an old
friend of many years back. Dr. Spencer Smith, known throughout
the country, is one of the great leaders of the conservation move-
ment and one of the original early people who advocated an envi-
ronmental program, called at that time the Water Pollution Con-
trol Act.
Dr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. BLATNIK (presiding). Doctor, proceed at will.
STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Dr. SMITH. I will simply submit my statement for the record
and speak briefly from it, because I know the committee is pressed
for time.
-------
314 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
I have received one rather interesting shock this morning; that
is the information that the chemical industry had changed its
position and now support EPA. If I had some reservations about
EPA before, I must confess they are deepened a bit.
At the present time the basic problem facing the establishment
of the Environmental Protection Agency is what functions do you
include and what functions do you exclude and what is your cri-
teria for doing either. The earlier discussion with the AEC was
indicative of this. It occurs to me that there are many more prob-
lems that should concern us.
The legislative justification has indicated that certain agencies
of Government have the responsibility of promoting a certain
resource use and being responsible for regulating the environmen-
tal effects of such use. If these functions are incompatible and
hence the reason for EPA, then it seems we have to go further
than we have gone in carrying such reasoning to what appears to
be a logical conclusion.
There is no greater impact upon environment than the construc-
tion of highways—their placement, the problem of beautification,
safety, rivers, streams, air, noise, and a number of further effects.
I think one who crosses a bridge or who happens to be in
Washington any length of time and peers up in the sky has to be
[p. 168]
aware of both the noise and pollution caused by aircraft. Presuma-
bly, the function of air pollution control would be transferred to
the new agency of EPA, but the noise pollution is not so trans-
ferred and I have heard previous witnesses indicate that the rea-
son is that we do not know enough about it.
It is my understanding that EPA is to have a research capacity
and in-house capability. If this is true, we ought to find out about
it and find out what effect noise has on the society and the envi-
ronment in general.
Another major consideration, and I say this, because of the
knowledgeability of the chairman as to the Corps of Engineers, is
the relation of the corps to EPA. Justification for corps projects,
to my knowledge, put forth in great detail functions with an
impact on the environment. Sometimes they are set down as costs,
sometimes as benefits, but in any event it is usually evident in the
benefit-cost ratio. It would be impossible to analyze completely the
many agencies and bureaus that could be brought under EPA by
using the same criteria that the administration suggested.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 315
I think even the most eclectic recommendations have found that
many scenic values have been excluded and probably because the
bureaucracies have had too much muscle to negotiate the change.
It is also obvious to me that the establishment of EPA will
cause considerable interruption of ongoing programs.
I recall many meetings with the chairman of this committee and
his supporters in the early days of water pollution control and we
could have held that meeting in a phone booth, to upgrade the
administration of water pollution abatement. During that particu-
lar time many of us were in the vanguard in urging transfer of
the Water Pollution Abatement Control Agency from HEW to the
Department of Interior.
The chairman will well remember the arguments we made in
behalf of this transfer and I was one of them that made them.
We had hoped to bring and elevate the whole status of water
pollution control. It was finally transferred to the Interior Depart-
ment under the most friendly terms. There was a Democratic
Congress, a Democratic Executive and the Secretaries of HEW
and Interior were quite good friends. It couldn't have been accom-
plished under better auspices.
I would say and this is a guess, I would put it at no more than
that, that it took 18 months for this program to begin to really
function again. At that time it was a far smaller organization
than it is at the present time.
It disturbs me that if we are going to have the kind of adminis-
trative interruption in the ongoing programs that are transferred
to EPA, then we had better do an awfully good job and make it
count for something. We should not have this new organization as
a delaying action where money isn't available, where the man-
power isn't available, and where we haven't sorted out the internal
operation and internal administrative workings of this organiza-
tion.
These things concern me. If I hadn't been a former bureaucrat
maybe they would concern me less.
Another major concern, Mr. Chairman, is that I hope we do not
fall into the delusion that the Director of EPA would be similar to
[p. 169]
that of NASA or the AEC. I have no doubt that we can write into
the statute or into the Executive order that they would each re-
ceive the same money or each have the same rating in the execu-
tive hierarchy. But I think one would have to conclude that NASA
was in a different climate and established for a different purpose.
-------
316 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
It was highly promotional, it had the unification of the country
behind it, and it suffered an almost embarrassment of riches.
AEC was similar in character.
We are establishing EPA, however, in part, to confront and
watchdog other agencies. I feel, therefore, the fact that this is
going to be less than Cabinet rank is going to present a significant
problem.
As much as I appreciate the fact that we are trying to gather
together a number of these environmental agencies under one
roof, the logical step would be to see them combined at the Cabinet
level. At the present time it has been suggested that we have in
the Department of the Interior good people but because of the
many and detailed duties of the Secretary of Interior it is quite
difficult for the Water Quality Agency to receive its just due. This
may well be true but it is also going to be difficult in the new
agency because they have a number of environmental problems.
There is one thing lacking, the lack of a Cabinet officer to come
before the Congress, to present themselves to the President, and to
be before the American people. I think the loss of Cabinet rank is
significant. I am not suggesting that the program will be immuta-
ble, but I am suggesting that it could be more immutable than it is
at the present time. It would be my hope that some of these other
areas which could well be included in the area of EPA would also
be included.
Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have any programs that you could suggest
this morning?
Dr. SMITH. Yes. For example, the highway beautification pro-
gram which is a restraining activity and following the criteria the
administration set down, certainly qualifies to be in EPA.
It would seem that certain functions of the river basin planning
would also qualify. The Corps could build the dam but also there
would be other activities involved.
What about the ecology? The other program I suggested was
noise abatement. Scientists have argued at great length to the
effect that noise probably reduces our life anywhere from 5 to 10
years. In a town where much construction is going on, such as
Washington, I am sure that will be accelerated by at least 25
percent. The noise aspect has not been transferred from the De-
partment of Transportation, yet this fits the classic role that the
administration has set down for either inclusion or exclusion into
EPA. I think that the serious problem about EPA is not that its
idea is incorrect or that trying to marshal the restraints and
concern for environment is incorrect, I think that is highly admi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 317
rable. The administration indicates this is a start. I would hope
that the start would be a little more expanded. I would hope that it
would be a Cabinet ranking department and I would hope that
some of the details of internal administration would be spelled out
more clearly than they are.
I will be very candid before this committee. I happen to be a
witness who is extremely concerned about pesticides. I don't know
that we will ever overcome the effects of DDT to the extent that
[p. 170]
we think we might. If, under EPA, the internal management of
the pesticides program is going to be again highly influenced by
the industry that makes chemicals and pesticides, then I am going
to be just as concerned as if they were in Agriculture. I have no
objection to taking pesticide controls from Agriculture but in this
transfer we want to make sure that the flies do not capture the
flypaper again.
Despite our problems in establishing EPA, they are far less
awesome than we feel will occur in NOAA. Mr. Chairman, I have
detailed this in my statement, I don't want to go into it at length
today, since this committee is primarily concentrating on EPA.
We would hope that this committee would prevail upon the admin-
istration to withdraw NOAA or Reorganization Plan No. 4. If
they don't withdraw it, we would hope the House will disapprove
it.
It took us something like 28 years to get a good bit of the
marine research out of the Department of Commerce. The reason
we wanted to get it out of there is that it was in the hands of the
promoters. The very thing people were being concerned about in
the establishment of EPA was the reason why many of these
functions were transferred from Commerce to Interior originally.
To turn around and put them back in Commerce makes no
sense. If the criteria for the establishment of EPA is sound we
shouldn't be plagued with NOAA and if it isn't we shouldn't have
EPA. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you shouldn't
have an agency with a regulatory and promotional aspect engen-
dered within it and establish an organization such as EPA on that
basis and do exactly the opposite in the establishment of another
organization such as NOAA.
Mr. Chairman, if we could have our wishes fulfilled we would
like to see a Department of Environment with full Cabinet rank,
despite some skepticism at another major department. But, if en-
-------
318 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
vironment is as important as we say it is, it is deserving of
Cabinet rank.
In proposing such a Department, the Congress should have the
opportunity to consider it and go through the usual legislative
processes. I know compromises will be made and I know a lot of
people say we can't take time for that. I think the mood of the
public at the present time and the mood of the Congress is such
that they would expeditiously render a judgment on a Cabinet
level department for the environment.
Mr. Rosenthal, who preceded you this morning as acting chair-
man, indicated this to be the mood of the country and I think he
properly stated it. I don't think we are going to achieve what we
want to achieve by these reorganization plans. We might be able
to live with EPA maybe better than a poke in the eye with a sharp
stick, but I don't know how we are going to live with NOAA if we
are going to say this is the realm of environmental preservation or
environmental concern.
Mr. Chairman, I don't often have the opportunity to do this but
I simply want to say in closing a lot of people think that pollution
control, water pollution control, especially, started sometime in the
mid-sixties and a lot of people forget the first Blatnik Act. I know
you didn't think much of it in 1948, and this was a precursor to
cleaning up the Nation's water. As I indicated that a number of us
were concerned in the early fifties and one of the people who
testified this morning, Mr. Callison, was one of those; he can
testify further that there were very few of us. But those who
[P. 171]
discovered the environmental crisis in the last few years are wel-
come, for it is superior to no discovery at all. We do wish to
commend you for, however, your foresight in seeing this well over
a decade ago.
I have kept one thing that I hope someday to put in the record
and I didn't this morning; a bill that the chairman of this subcom-
mittee wrote in the fifties which I think is a stronger and tougher
bill than we have at this time. So I can testify further that you
were interested in the environment and have been for a long
period of time and we certainly want to commend you for it.
Mr. BLATNIK. As usual, Doctor, you put your finger on some of
the main things that worry us.
We didn't quite understand why we should have a separate
agency in the case of EPA. We are actually taking one major
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 319
program out of Interior and adding parts of small programs
around it.
In the other case, you take several programs and put them into
a Cabinet department.
Perhaps we should have a separate oceanographic and atmo-
spheric agency. That would be closer to the concept of NASA. We
raised the question earlier that you now raise about why there are
so many directly related environmental programs, intertwined and
interwoven in this hodge-podge, and why they weren't extracted
and placed into EPA.
We are having a list made up by the Bureau of Budget to see
how many relevant programs were omitted and if they were omit-
ted why they were omitted, and why they are not being included in
EPA.
Dr. SMITH. I know, Mr. Chairman, some of these programs in
EPA have been starved financially, but if you take the total num-
ber of programs that are there and figure up what the appropria-
tions have been historically, the water pollution program amounts
to 75 or 85 percent of the total amount. Therefore it would appear
this is going to be either highly dominant or some enormous ex-
penditure of money about which I don't feel too sanguine for some
of the other programs.
Mr. BLATNIK. Your other recommendation or suggestion that
we consider the possibility of a new Cabinet level department and
call it the Environmental Resources Department or the National
Resources and Environment Department is a very interesting one.
We know a lot more than we have known before and we are going
to give that very serious consideration. We are beginning to find
out, as you point out, not only the importance of the program but
more about mercury poisoning, which appears in large areas—re-
gional, northeast and southwest—and it has also appeared in other
countries.
Suddenly, we are acting like it happened 3 weeks ago, 8:30 on
Monday morning. It has been in process for a long, long time.
Mercury is one of the most easily identifiable and manageable of
compounds. The same thing with the recent smog appearance that
we just had. That didn't just happen and it is going to happen
again on the entire east coast; and the industrial sprawl along the
whole east coast, which was one great big mountainous ridge of
stagnant air where the chemicals are trapped and contained and
held there and the chemical processes continue to feed upon them-
selves.
-------
320 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
We know a lot more now about where we come from and if we
ever get back to the mid-fifties we would have all the data that is
[P. 172]
available and much more. As we said last week, we can project
what is going to be the environmental situation and the population
situation of the United States 10 years from now, in 1980. It is
quite clear. Concerning the water pollution program which is 15
years old, what is going to be the situation in the year 2000? I
think these are quite measurable and much more predictable. So
you do raise, as usual, some very valid points with great substance
and merit.
We want to take a good hard look and come up with a proposi-
tion that is a good one. This business of saying the Environmental
Protection Agency would be only a minimum protection, excludes
practically all of solid waste. When we speak of the hydrogen
bomb that would destroy a city like New York, we realize that all
that is needed in New York to tie that city up is a big garbage
strike for about 10 days; and that will bring the rats out, too.
I am shocked, as I said before, at the little attention we have
paid to solid waste and how far behind we are in the poisoning of
the atmosphere. I didn't mean to give any lecture and try to add
anything to your testimony, Doctor.
We appreciate having you here and, as usual, we hope we can
get our groups to exchange thinking, just as we did before, with
industry groups, conservation groups, with responsible, knowl-
edgeable leaders of local governmental subdivisions, particularly
the cities and counties, and the State associations, to see if we can
get all the thinking we can to combine the best judgment.
I am particularly going to ask for serious and independent con-
sideration in order to come up with a new department, and make
it visible, instead of submerging it for 2 years. We had no idea
what was going on and suddenly this little program emerges. Let's
come up with a good program and move it forward and make it
subject to form, modification, alterations or additions. Having one
head is a lot better than two.
Thank you again, Dr. Smith.
Dr. SMITH. Thank you.
(The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 321
Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national
conservation organization with offices in Washington, B.C.
In considering these two programs for executive reorganization to enhance
the environment, we should like to first invite the committee's attention to
Presidential Order No. 3, establishing an Environmental Protection Agency.
Briefly stated the functions of the proposed Environmental Protection Agency
would be comprised by the transfer of the Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion from the Department of Interior ; pesticides studies and related activities
within the Department of Interior, HEW, and the Department of Agriculture;
the National Air Pollution Control Administration in HEW; solid waste man-
agement, Bureau of Water Hygiene, certain functions of the Bureau of
Radiological Health, from the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare; and the Resource Authority relative to ecological systems now contained
in the Council on Environmental Quality.
The effort to improve our ability to deal with problems of the environment
is evident to all. There are few who have any specific recommendations that
would not encounter opposition. The basic problem facing the establishment
of the Environmental Protection Agency is what functions do you include and
what functions do you exclude and what is your criteria for doing either. The
[p. 173]
legislation and its justification for the program have indicated that certain
agencies of Government have the responsibility for promoting a particular
resource use and concomitantly being- held responsible for regulating the
environmental effects of such activity. The proposal reasons therefore that
the investing of promotional and regulatory functions regarding a particular
resource use in the same agency is inappropriate, if the quality of the
environment is to be enhanced.
Carrying such reasoning to what appears logical conclusions, a number of
inquiries appears obvious. There is no greater confrontation over resource use
and the quality of the environment that has manifested itself in recent years
regarding the highways—their placement, the problem of beautification,
safety, and the impact in general upon the environment. By the same token
the Department of Transportation is directly involved in promoting highway
construction and utilization yet at the same time it's charged with the
responsibility of highway safety, scenic beauty, plus the coordination with
other forms of transportation.
Another major consideration is that of the Corps of Engineers. Seldom
is there put forth any justification for a Corps project that does not detail
the consideration to be given to fish and wildlife, in fact the benefits account
in some detail the enhancement to fish and wildlife, recreation, and other
values as a result of the project.
It would not be possible to analyze completely the many agencies or bureaus
that could be brought into an Environmental Protection Agency by using
precisely the same criteria the administration has suggested for those that
they now recommend to comprise this new Agency. Even the most eclectic
recommendation finds scenic values excluded for apparently no other reason
that particular bureaucracies have more political muscle in negotiating
changes.
-------
322 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
It also should be obvious that the establishment of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency will cause considerable interruption in ter;ns of ongoing pro-
grams. Mr. Chairman, we were in the vanguard of those who recommended a
transfer of the Federal Water Quality Administration from the Department
of HEW to the Department of Interior. I would like to offer the suggestion
that the committee review the experiences of this transfer. The climate was
one of cooperation. There was a Democratic Congress and a Democratic
Executive. The agency was smaller than it is at the present time. The fact of
the matter, however, is that the actual physical transfer, the realinement of
responsibilities, the integration of administrative activity took, at a bare
minimum, 18 months for the program to be fully effective. We are saying,
therefore, that we understand that EPA is neither perfect nor immutable,
but we are saying that we wish the program were more perfect and less
immutable than the proposal the committee is now considering.
Another major concern, and it would occur to me a delusion, is that the
director of EPA would be similar to NASA or the AEC. One would hope
that this parallel would not be pursued to any degree, as a justification for
the Agency. The NASA program had almost undivided support and as a
consequence significant funds. In fact, there was almost an embarrassment of
riches. This was not a regulatory organization but a promotional one. It was
not one that spurred or encouraged conflict and confrontation but one that
achieved cooperation readily because of general agreement upon goals and
purposes. It is incorrect in our opinion to assume therefore that the director
of EPA will have essentially the same prestige as the Director of NASA or
the AEC has had in the past.
What is more likely to happen is that as these organizations withdraw from
the various departments, they will have less muscle not more. For example,
now that water pollution control is passed from the Department of Interior
is it therefore the presumption that the Department of Interior will be less
fettered or concerned in promoting the program of the Bureau of Reclama-
tion? In short, the water pollution control program will have lost a sponsor
of Cabinet rank and it has been our experience that irrespective of rhetoric
involved in establishing new agencies with less than Cabinet rank, their
prestige and political support is not the equivalent.
It is important, however, to commend the Executive for tackling this
extremely difficult problem of environmental organization. It is suggested,
however, that if the program is as viable as presented, then it would be even
more so if a separate Department on the Environment with Cabinet rank
would be established. If this were done additional responsibilities and func-
tions could be assigned to it. It would have Cabinet status. It would achieve
the kind of prestige necessary and be on a comparable level with other depart-
[p. 174]
ments of the Government in order to effect the necessary cooperation that
control of certain activities will undoubtedly require. We would hope that
the committee could discuss further with the administration the possibility of
such an approach. It has been suggested that this is a start. If we are
going to disrupt the continuity of our present programs in order to achieve
a lasting and significant improvement, it would appear prudent to us to make
the change more sweeping and to give the matter further consideration.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 323
Mr. Chairman, while we have been concerned with some pitfalls regarding
Reorganization Plan No. 3, we nevertheless have been sympathetic as to the
aims and purposes involved. We cannot offer the same opinion of Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 4, however, which would create a National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration.
Under the terms of Reorganization Plan No. 4, transfers of Environmental
Science Services Administration from the Department of Commerce; import-
ant elements of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries from the Department
of Interior; the marine sport fish program of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries
and Wildlife from the Department of Interior; the Marine Mineral Tech-
nology Center of Bureau of Mines from the Department of Interior; the
Office of Sea Grant programs from the National Science Foundation; a por-
tion of the U.S. Lake Survey with the Department of Army; and certain
programs from the Navy, involving the National Oceanographic Data Center
and the National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center and from the De-
partment of Transportation the National Data Buoy project to the newly
conceived NOAA would be effected.
The recommendation to place NOAA in the Department of Commerce would
appear to us completely irrational and without justification by the administra-
tion's own criteria.
If the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency is to be ac-
complished because of the lack of prudence in investing both the promo-
tional and regulatory powers in the same agency, then such a criteria is
completely vitiated in the establishment of NOAA. It is very difficult for
conservationists to rationalize why the transfer of the Bureau of Commer-
cial Fisheries and the marine sport fish program of the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife from the Department of Interior to the tender mercies
of the Department of Commerce. How is conservation to be enhanced by
placing these restraints and research capabilities in the hands of the de-
velopers and promoters—and in the past, the exploiters? If this is to be the
case, then the rationale for the organization of EPA is improper and should
be withdrawn.
There has been a concerted effort in the protection of estuaries and coastal
zones. The study and analyses, and hopefully the implementation of programs
for effective coastal zone management as a means of improving the environ-
ment and saving these most fragile and precious areas, has been a serious
undertaking. It would appear that ultimately this function would be trans-
ferred to NOAA. This observation we make is founded on both the functions
described in the reorganization plan and the interpretation given it by
Senator Rollings on July 9, 1970, page S 10963 of the Congressional Record
for that date, in which he states:
"No mention is made in the Presidential message of coastal zone manage-
ment, for that is new legislation and not subject to the reorganization. The
administration has previously assigned that responsibility to the Department
of Interior, and requested introduction of a bill amending the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to assist the States in developing coastal zone manage-
ment plans and programs. Coastal zone management would more appropri-
ately fit in the new NOAA, and I solicit support of the administration in
placing that responsibility in the new NOAA."
Mr. Chairman, we sincerely hope that the administration will withdraw
NOAA as a reorganization recommendation and give further considerations
-------
324 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
to it or failing this, that this committee will recommend against the adoption
of this program.
Mr. Chairman, in further reflection, we want to compliment you and a
number of your colleagues for the longtime interest that you have had in
the environment. Few people remember the Thye-Blatnik Act of 1948, which
was the precursor to cleaning up the Nation's water. A few of us remember
the early days of the fifties in which you and a number of your colleagues
labored mightily to awaken the country to the necessity of a Federal pro-
[p. 175]
gram dealing with water pollution control and abatement. I simply suggest
to you there are those who have discovered the environmental crisis within
the last few years, which is superior to no discovery at all, but we wish to
commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your foresight and your understanding of
it well over a decade ago.
We thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today.
Mr. BLATNIK. We have with us Mr. John Kinney who also has
testified as a private consultant. I am glad to see him this morn-
ing. I want the record to show that he was available here 2 weeks
ago and we got caught in a bind between legislative action on the
House floor which delayed our hearing testimony from all the
scheduled witnesses. We appreciate the gentleman's patience and
understanding as well as his coming back to be available at the
convenience of the subcommittee.
Mr. Kinney, we have your statement. Do you want to proceed to
read it or call attention to those aspects which have not been
covered and which you want to direct your attention to?
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. KINNEY, SANITARY ENGINEERING CON-
SULTANT
Mr. KINNEY. I submitted it for the record 2 weeks ago when I
had to leave. But I think a couple of points in there might summa-
rize the concerns that I have listened to you and Mr. Holifield
express.
Very frankly, I must publicly admit my admiration for your
guts in being able to say that something offered in the name of
environment might have a deficiency in it, because these days
when the scare is on and any promise to help protect the environ-
ment has great public appeal, it takes nerve to suggest that it is
not all it might be cracked up to be.
This is particularly so in an election year. But the points that
you make in terms of the deficiencies in this proposal, I think,
would be well summarized in the point you were just making; that
is, by using the term "environment" it would seem to be all encom-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 325
passing, when actually the proposal suggests that environment
and pollution are interchangeable. They are not.
The adverse effects and various aspects of the physical environ-
ment is covered by pollution, but environment as a whole covers
the whole gamut of full impact on man.
The other day when Mr. Ash and representatives of the Office of
Management and Budget were talking, they were proposing that
there should be an increased authority to this agency to establish
standards; that the agency should have the responsibility for mon-
itoring and then for policing.
The questions from the subcommittee in terms of what would be
covered in these various areas were answered with a good many
words such as "expect that," "would be surprised if," "would hope
that."
It would seem as though there are many deficiencies in the
proposal, many areas that have yet to be tied down, and once the
agency is established the recommending crew would no longer be
around. So I do not know how the tie-in would take place.
But I notice, in terms of the increased authority to set stand-
ards, it was mentioned as the highest significance and it really is,
because while pollution is only part of the environmental picture
the control over standards can really control the environment.
[P. 176]
In reference to these 80 or so agency programs that you were
referring to that have to do with environmental activity, you could
find out that eight or nine that are in this group could be making
decisions that would control them. The control may be right and it
might be wrong. But in terms of the setup, there seems to be no
basis by which we can in advance anticipate effects.
If monitoring is to be a total part of it, eventually the NOAA
operation must be transferred over to the new agency, because
this will be monitoring the atmosphere. So also must the U.S.
Geological Survey be transferred over. Otherwise, the monitoring
will not be total or noncompetitive with other agencies. By having
this as a separate agency it could be in competition with each of
them.
These concerns I raise because I think they should be antici-
pated before rather than to listen to a hassle afterward, because,
to me, placing the environment in perspective soon is our most
important project. If it is to be total, then it must not only be
population distribution, availability of food from land and sea,
-------
326 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
availability of minerals from land and sea, but energy. All of those
must be placed in perspective.
Now, in all of the discussion by the Government in proposing
this, I heard no references to the existing faults that are occasion-
ing the new proposal. Obviously, there must be some faults or
there would not be a need for reorganization. But taking the
existing agencies and putting them together under a new title
seems to be a bit shortsighted. I doubt whether it will answer
those deficiencies as they now exist.
Mr. BLATNIK. I think the witnesses for the Government were
stating that efficiency for the program is to eliminate fragmenta-
tion. I think they felt that putting those programs into one agency
would make it more effective. That was the contention. They did
not answer why they left so many other environmental programs
out of the agency.
Mr. KINNEY. The integration of land, air, and water I totally
concur with. Separating them into different facets, answering the
one problem causes a new one. I think they should be together. But
in terms of solving the individual problems, there must be some
kind of a deficiency in there or we would not be making a proposal
for some of the changes that are now being set up.
One of the concerns Mr. Holifield raised I would like to use as
an illustration. We can set a limit, as was proposed, for a 1° limit
on the discharges and temperature in Lake Michigan. No dis-
charge can be more than 1 ° above the existing water level.
It was proposed as a means for protecting the fishery. It
sounded like a reasonable proposal. But we have no agency in
Government that would suggest that maybe there might be some
other consequences on the environment. The cities could not meet
the 1° as well as the industries. That means all cities and indus-
tries must provide cooling towers and recycling.
In Lake Michigan we are pumping 5.7 billion gallons of water a
day. To recycle that means 286 million gallons of water per day
put into the atmosphere. Put that much up there continuously and
we are not only going to have fogging and icing, but we could have
weather modification. We could have more than that, though. That
means 100 billion gallons of water a year taken out of Lake Michi-
gan.
[P. 177]
This could mean a drop in water level. This could have interna-
tional effects. We have a Supreme Court decree that prohibits this.
We have cities inland short of water. Under a Supreme Court
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 327
decree they could get the water. They could watch the water float-
ing uselessly overhead. That water will not come down in the same
area, the precipitation will not be there.
The reason I raise this is the necessity to have a separation of
the fact-finding from the policing. If all of the monitoring and the
standards and policing are placed in a single agency—if, as Mr.
Train suggested, this new UEC and EPA are to be mutually sup-
portive, I wonder how many proposals will be before the Congress
for their review.
It would sound like we are going to have one proposal coming
before you at a time and it is accepted or rejected just as this
proposed reorganization is. We are not going to have two chances
with some of these consequences with our growing population.
There is also the suggestion that under this program it is to
provide for the conservation of natural resources. We do not have
a basis for a definition, particularly in terms of pollution control.
Now, what would be missing, in addition to a lack of facts, is
that it does not-cover the whole environmental picture. You men-
tioned land. We have had great concern through the press over
Lake Erie. Our big problem in western Lake Erie is algae. If we
were to close off all the sewers we would still have the algae
problem.
It reflects the land drainage, it reflects the fact that they used to
drain this out and made this a swamp.
In my statement I have added support for this small lake up in
the Rockies above Aspen, Colo., which is identically the same pic-
ture as Lake Erie. There are no sewers above it. It is simply the
matter of the land. There it is the matter in which the land has
been opened up for recreation.
One other concern that I have in the proposal as offered, and
one of the questions that the subcommittee should ask for answers
is the role of the Office of Management and Budget in the transfer
of personnel.
While I do not argue about the necessity for maintaining a
strong policing action in pollution control, I would object to hav-
ing the FBI, with the authority to set all the rules and regulations
all the way from traffic standards up to wiretapping or seize,
search and what have you, doing the policing.
I think it is going to be pretty much the same thing here. I
think it is going to depend an awful lot upon the individuals, the
leadership, and it is going to depend even more than that. There
will be no court of partial review—no place where the Congress
-------
328 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
can go and ask if there is an alternative. As time goes on I think
we are going to need more and more of these alternatives.
We also need to answer such questions as you have raised as to
the significance of the program in HUD and Agriculture that are
not going to be transferred over. If the title of this agency were
pollution policing I would have a lot less reluctance to accept it.
But with the idea that it is environmental protection, I think
perhaps it is suggesting things that just will not come to be.
If we are going to live in this hoped-for world, coming up with
the facts to prove the point, I think we are going to be coming
[P. 178]
back to Congress 2 years from now and saying that we need
another reorganization. Rather than to suggest that the failure is
on the part of Congress for having to provide appropriate legisla-
tion, could we have a third person group that could offer to the
Congress the alternatives so we could determine the true role of
the administration in the program? These are my concerns, Mr.
Chairman, the environment, protecting it, designing the treatment
facilities, and making them work.
It has been my business for 30 years, and I know from your
history of activity in this field, the concerns that you raise really
attest to your background and knowledge, and I am hoping mine
are offered in the same spirit.
Mr. BLATNIK. You raise some good points and I will assure you
that they will be given full consideration as we keep them in mind
and review the additional testimony that we expect will be coming
from the Ash Council and from the Office of Management and
Budget.
There were some programs that were not included, and we have
some questions regarding so many blank spots. This is just the
beginning. We can do much better than start out with a poor
beginning with the body of knowledge and experience that we
have before us now, what has happened in the past, and what
faces us in the immediate future.
The monumental proportions and complexities of this total
thing—it is just an enormous problem and that is the nibbling
process as I see it.
Mr. KINNEY. I agree with you and I think with the emotional
and political climate, undoubtedly this reorganization will go
through as something which is a step in the right direction.
I am reminded of the old remark that if you do not know where
you are going it does not make any difference which road you take.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 329
Sooner or later, I think, the definition of the route must be made,
but we must know first where we are headed.
So it would seem to me with a number of congressional commit-
tees involved in substantive legislation, a number of appropriation
subcommittees that will be involved and the resolution of those
issues, unless they are resolved will mean instead of having one
agency we will still have a number of other agencies all under one
title.
It would appear then that the one group in the Congress to ride
herd on this will be the Government Operations Committee, simply
because this will continue to go across many lines and the one
agency or congressional committee that would have that kind of
responsibility would be yours.
Part of it is the concern over the lack of fully developing the
program; the other part of it is the expressed hope that your
committee will stay with it so we can try to coordinate these
multiple choices.
Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Kinney.
The subcommittee has received for insertion in the record a
statement by Congressman G. William Whitehurst, who was
scheduled to testify in person but could not be with us today; and
a statement by Congressman Rogers C. B. Morton. Without objec-
tion, these two statements will appear at this point in the record.
(The statements referred to follow:)
[p. 179]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G. WILLIAM WHITEHURST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity
you have given me to appear before you on a subject of such national im-
portance as the fight against the pollution of our environment. I wish to in-
dicate my support for the President's Environmental Protection Agency.
You would think from all the attention it is now receiving that the fight
to preserve our ecology is new, and that we had just discovered the problems
of pollution. The news media have devoted a great deal of time and space to
the subject, time and space that I feel are long overdue. They have been
joined by many groups across the Nation, and together they have called for
some rather drastic and immediate action by the private sector of the econ-
omy. They have also called for action by the Federal Government and asked
that we get into the thick of this fight to eliminate, or at least abate, the
ever-increasing danger of pollution.
It occurs to me that the very fact that such a great deal is being asked
of the Government is a sad commentary on the efforts that have been put forth
for almost 15 years.
The Federal Government's efforts began in earnest during the 84th Con-
gress, with the passage of air and water pollution control legislation. It is
-------
330 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
evident today that this effort has not been as successful as we had hoped, nor
apparently as it was needed to be, for today the human race is faced with the
dubious distinction of achieving what no other animal has been able to
accomplish: destroying itself in its own waste.
At present, it is estimated that more than 80 Government agencies are in-
volved in fighting pollution, and herein lies the problem. There is no doubt
that pollution control is needed, and we all know the end results we want:
clean air, clean water, clean landscape, control of our wastes, and a substan-
tial reduction of all pollutants. The main item lacking in the pollution abate-
ment effort is the machinery to direct the attack. It is not enough to pass new
laws and appropriate more money in the scramble to find the right combina-
tion to end pollution.
Of course, in this time of inflation, high taxes, and tight spending, every
dollar must accomplish the absolute maximum. All of this calls for leadership,
planning, and coordination.
Under the present condition of pollution control agencies scattered across
the Government, it is too easy for the left hand to not know what the right
hand is doing, and inefficiencies in administration develop. This may be one
reason why the pollution control effort has not been effective so far.
If we are to meet the President's concern as expressed in his special mes-
sage to Congress on pollution, and if we are to develop an orderly system of
doing business, a centralized agency must be established to lead the fight
against pollution.
It is easy for me to support such an agency. I proposed in my bill, H.R.
15969, the Pollution Abatement Act of 1970, a centralized independent agency
to head the pollution abatement program, fund research, and establish stand-
ards. This Agency and its operations are very similar to the administration's
program, except that my bill would not have located the Agency in the Ex-
ecutive Office of the White House.
Mr. Chairman, concentrating the pollution control effort in one agency,
whether independent or not, will enable more efficient use of tax dollars being
spent to restore, renew, and reform the abatement program. Central manage-
ment in one agency to solve problems and work with the States and public will
speed the effort to eliminate this blight over our Nation. In our desire for
quick action we must not waste the funds expended. A single agency would
oversee the operations to eliminate the duplicated efforts now underway, and
it would insure the largest return for the dollars spent.
President Nixon stated in his Midwest meeting with several Governors in-
vestigating the pollution problem that a "total mobilization" of the Nation's
resources is needed to fight pollution, and he called for reform of govern-
mental institutions, bringing them up to date and into the 20th century. I
believe a central agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency could
most effectively and efficiently utilize the resources made available in the
pollution fight. I support it.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to appear before you.
[p. 180]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROGERS C. B. MORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MARYLAND
Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 331
address my comments to this distinguished subcommittee of the Committed on
Government Operations.
The subject under discussion here today—Reorganization Plan No. 3—is of
great interest to me primarily because it marks a great step forward toward
logical governmental organization and assignment of tasks. All of us here have
long witnessed the organized confusion present in much of the executive
branch structure. Now President Nixon has taken the initiative and has pro-
posed the first necessary step if the Federal Government is effectively going to
carry out its responsibility in the protection of our environment.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 will establish the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) which will include the environmental authority and responsi-
bilities now exercised by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Federal
Water Quality Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the
Food and Drug Administration. These many agencies are presently working
separately for the achievement of one goal—environmental protection.
I know you are all aware that this Nation has finally become alerted to
the scars of devastation which we have inflicted upon our environment and
ourselves. With this expanded public attention, and with the spoiling of our
environment which continues to increase, we, as responsible public servants,
can no longer ignore this foreboding issue.
Evidence of our spoilage abounds. Streams and waterways are now thick
with sewage and industrial wastes; roads are strewn with carelessly dis-
carded beer cans and other trash, and are dotted with a disgusting panorama
of billboards; our skies are darkened and made noxious from the exhaust of
automobile engines and the billowing smokestacks of our factories. The con-
sequences of this tragedy which we have inflicted upon ourselves are paid
not only by our fellow human being, but also by the fish and wildlife who
are better conservationists than we.
At long last, the citizens of our Nation have realized the acts which have
been perpetrated upon our environment for too long. They have begun to
seek ways to improve the situation. There are community action roadside
litter cleanups, river cleanouts, and the circulation of petitions to urge
companies to apply pollution-preventive measures.
At present, our governmental agencies are diverse and often appear to
overlap one another in their goals. It must be remembered that pollution
generally is not the result of only one factor—but of many. Under the
existing structure, a myriad of agencies have jurisdiction over their own
individual areas but are unable to address themselves to the problem of pollu-
tion as a whole. That these varying spheres of authority and regulation
overlap is not an incomprehensible result of the hodgepodge manner in which
programs were developed to cope, and only cope, with the problems as they
became apparent.
Contrary to the popular axiom that the whole is equal to the sum of all its
parts, in this case, the whole will be greater than the sum of all its parts.
The EPA, as outlined by President Nixon in his July 9 statement to the
Congress of the United States, would effectively consolidate the agencies
which are concerned with our environment and would provide the basis upon
which a comprehensive environmental policy could be formulated to begin
the arduous task of rectifying that which we have devastated.
-------
332 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The establishment of the EPA would also provide our Nation with a
forum for the innovative concepts which are developing to assuage the
problems of pollution. The Standards which the EPA would establish and
enforce with respect to environmental protection are essential if the worli
in which we live is to survive with any habitants. The world may exist long
after the last human or wildlife creature has vanished if action is not taken
now to end further spoilage.
EPA, as outlined and proposed, would transcend the bounds with which
any one agency now in existence would be encumbered. By incorporating the
many diverse agencies listed above and by retaining a contact with those
agencies still related to the field, EPA will serve in a capacity long envisioned
by conservationists. I can only urge that you give a favorable decision to
this proposal and support its implementation in the immediate future.
[p. 181]
Mr. BLATNIK. Are there any other witnesses or persons who
wish to have statements placed in the record? The record will be
open for at least 5 days.
Hearing no further questions or witnesses, the hearings are
adjourned and the subcommittee is adjourned subject to the call of
the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject
to the call of the Chair.)
[p. 182]
APPENDIX
LETTERS, TELEGRAMS AND STATEMENTS RECEIVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE
COLORADO HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL,
Boulder, Colo., April 3,1970.
President RICHARD M. NIXON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT NIXON: The Colorado Health and Environmental Council
of Local Health Departments and Boards of Health strongly recommends the
establishment of a separate Federal Department of Health and Environment
with Presidential Cabinet rank to properly coordinate all man's health and
environmental activities.
Man's physical, mental and social health is directly related to his environ-
ment in the following aspects: air that he breathes; water that he drinks; food
that he eats; alcohol and drugs that he uses or abuses; medical, hospital and
home health care he receives; recreation facilities that he uses; housing con-
ditions that he lives in; working conditions he is exposed to; and to social,
psychological and economic influences of neighborhood, community and school
activities.
Sincerely,
CHARLES H. DOWDING, Jr., M.D.,
Chairman of the Colorado Health and Environmental Council.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 333
cc: Senator Gordon Allot; Senator Peter H. Dominick; Representative
Byron G. Rogers; Representative Donald G. Brotzman; Representative
Frank E. Evans, Representative Wayne N. Aspinall; Paul Comely, M.D.,
president, American Public Health Association, Howard University Medical
School, Washington, D.C.; Berwyn F. Mattison, M.D., executive director, Am-
erican Public Health Association, New York, N.Y.
[Telegram]
BOULDER, COLO., May 15,1970.
Representative DONALD G. BROTZMAN,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
On May 6, OUP, the Colorado Public Health Association and the Colorado
Environmental Health Association took the following action:
"Therefore, favors the placing of all health and environmental programs
under one agency at each appropriate governmental level, that is, Federal
State, local; to be a focal point of action resulting in a total and maximum
interdisciplinary coordinating effort to provide the optimum health and en-
vironment for all citizens." '
The Colorado Health and Environmental Council took similar action this
month.
The May 12, 1970, Denver Post "Health Care" issue presented the following
headlines: "All encompassing health department foreseen." Mr. Glen E. Keller,
Jr., president, State board of health states: envisions a "gigantic" health
department in the not-so-distant future which would consolidate a number of
"duplicitous services" now scattered among departments of health, institu-
tions, social services, agriculture and natural resources.
A separate Federal department of health and environment committed to
medical care, preventive community health, and cleaning our environment,
would provide the most efficient method to lower the personal, medical and
hospital cost while at the same time would provide a total community health
service on the local level through a partnership between private medical
practice and public health.
[p. 183]
Also a separate Federal department of health and environment would pro-
vide the most effective method of preventing and controlling air pollution,
water pollution, solid waste disposal, recreational sanitation, and all other
environmental health problems. It would utilize all expertise of professional
health and environmental fields, scientists and conservationists.
SUMMARY
1. Community, personal, and environmental health concerns presently are
not receiving the attention they deserve at the Federal level because of the
fragmentation of authority among many agencies.
-------
334 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
2. Environmental health services are a vital component of a total health
program.
3. Local health departments provide community, personal, and environ-
mental health services and enforce State and local health laws, ordinances,
standards, rules, and regulations pertaining to these services on the local
level where people live.
4. As long as man's health and survival are dependent on improving per-
sonal health service as well as improving the conditions of the environment,
we need a separate Federal agency primarily concerned with personal health
environment to protect us from hazards that surround us in every setting
today.
Sincerely,
CHARLES H. DOWDING, Jr., M.D.,
Chairman of the Colorado Health and Environmental Council.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., July 17,1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Executive and Legislative Reorganization Subcommittee, Commit-
tee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington,
B.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that your subcommittee plans
to conduct hearings next week on Reorganization Plan No. 3 to create an
Environmental Protective Agency.
For your consideration in connection with these hearings, I am enclosing
a letter I have received from Mr. Robert B. Delano, president of the Virginia
Farm Bureau Federation.
Any consideration you can give to the comments contained in Mr. Delano's
letter will be greatly appreciated.
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, M.C.
VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Richmond, Va., July 10,1970.
Congressman WILLIAM L. SCOTT,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR BILL: Tt is our understanding that in the proposed reorganization of
the executive branch of the Government it has been recommended that the
presticide registration, now located in the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
be transferred to the newly created Environmental Protective Agency.
This is to notify you of our opposition to such a transfer. We feel such a
transfer would remove the regulation of these vital materials from adminis-
tration by a department whose officials understand better than others, the
importance of these chemicals as tools in a productive agriculture.
Farm Bureau policy for 1970 states: "We strongly recommend that the total
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 335
responsibility for registration of agricultural chemicals be retained by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture."
Trusting that this matter will receive your consideration, I am
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT B. DELANO,
President.
[p. 184]
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, B.C., July 20,1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, U.S.
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. George Doup, president, Indiana Farm Bureau,
has requested that I bring his attached letter concerning responsibility for the
registration of agricultural pesticides to your attention.
If you will include his letter in the record of your July 22 scheduled hear-
ing on the President's proposed Reorganization Plan No. 3, I know Mr. Doup
will be most appreciative.
Thank you again for your past consideration of my requests.
With warm regards.
Sincerely,
LEE H. HAMILTON, M.C.
INDIANA FARM BUREAU, INC.,
Indianapolis, Ind., July 15,1970.
Hon. LEE H. HAMILTON,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR LEE: The present abundance and reasonable cost of the food supply
of our Nation could be very seriously threatened if the responsibility for the
registration of (agricultural) pesticides is removed from the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
The Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc., with a current family farm and rural
membership of 184,958, is joined by Farm Bureau members throughout the
Nation in urging that, "the total responsibility for registration of agricul-
tural chemicals be retained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
The Ash Commission plan to reorganize certain executive agencies of the
Federal Government and to create a new independent agency, to be known
as the Evironmental Protective Agency, has been submitted fay the President
to the Congress for their consideration.
Farm Bureau firmly believes that the present Federal interagency program
for checking on the safety and use recommendations of pesticides is fully
protecting the health of the people and the quality of the environment. These
chemicals are basic production tools of agriculture and the U.S.D.A. has been
operating efficiently in carrying out their responsibilities to agriculture and
the public in this area.
-------
336 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Our Farm Bureau members would appreciate your placing these views
before the appropriate legislative committees of the Congress that may be
involved in considering such reorganization plans.
Cordially,
GEORGE DOUP, President.
COLORADO FARM BUREAU,
Denver, Colo., January 29, 1970.
Hon. DONALD BROTZMAN,
U.S. Representative, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DON: We understand that serious consideration is being given to
reorganization proposals relative to the executive agencies of Government
that relate to soil and water management, public lands, pesticides, farm
chemicals, wildlife management, forest resources, and other areas that might
be considered within the terms of conservation and environment.
Agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service whose objectives are better
soil and water management, we feel should remain in the United States
Department of Agriculture.
We feel, too, that the Pesticide Registration should not be removed from
administration by the Department of Agriculture as recommended by the
Ash Commission.
We also feel that responsibility for the registration of agricultural chemi-
cals should be retained by the United States Department of Agriculture and
not transferred to another agency as recommended by the Ash Commission.
[p. 185]
We believe the officials in the Department of Agriculture understand, better
than others, the importance of these chemicals as valuable to the production
of food and fiber for our Nation.
Your consideration of these recommendations will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
LLOYD SOMMERVILLE, President.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., July 29,1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Ray-
burn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed for your possible interest is a resolution
passed by the Maryland Agricultural Commission is regard to a portion of
the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3.
In connection with your present hearings on this proposal, Mr. Johnson
and his associates would be pleased to appear before the committee to detail
their concerns over this plan. If this is possible, Mr. Johnson may be con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 337
tacted at the Maryland Agricultural Commission, Parole Office Center, 2220
Sommerville Road, Annapolis, Md. 21401, phone 267-6385.
Sincerely,
LARRY J. HOGAN,
Member of Congress.
Enclosure.
Whereas, The Pesticide Regulation Division of USD A is concerned with the
regulation of pesticides used primarily in agriculture; and
Whereas, This Division benefits from association with other USDA agencies
regarding technical information on agricultural production; and
Whereas, There is a need for proper and effective use of agricultural chemi-
cals to produce the food and fiber needed by this country and the world; and
Whereas, The Pesticide Regulation Division recognizes the needs of Agri-
culture as well as the need for protecting our environment and has done an
outstanding job to date; and
Whereas, Research relating to agricultural chemicals is conducted within
USDA; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Maryland Agricultural Commission encourages Mem-
bers of Congress to oppose transferring the Pesticide Regulation Division to
the proposed Environmental Protection Administration; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to President Nixon and to
each Member of Congress representing Maryland.
By The Maryland Agricultural Commission, July 16,1970.
RONALD L. JOHNSON,
Executive Secretary.
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
St. Paul, Minn., July 14, 1970.
Hon. L. H. FOUNTAIN,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN FOUNTAIN: The Minnesota Department of Agricul-
ture recognizes the need for the strengthening of pesticide regulatory pro-
grams at all levels of government. The best and most practical manner by
which this may be accomplished, is to build from the present program bases
within the departments already knowledgeable and functioning in this area,
rather than to create any new agency which would result, in our opinion,
in expensive duplication of effort and which would decrease the effectiveness
of the present programs.
For these reasons the Minnesota Department of Agriculture strongly sup-
ports and endorses the attached resolution adopted by the National Asso-
ciation of State Departments of Agriculture Board of Directors, and respect-
fully, but earnestly request your active support of this resolution.
Sincerely,
ROBERT W. CARLSON,
Commissioner.
[p. 186]
Enclosure.
Whereas, for many years the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
State Departments of Agriculture have been intimately associated with regu-
-------
338 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
latory programs that protect the environment while producing an abundance
of high-quality food for the consuming public of this Nation and foreign
countries; and
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the professional experi-
ence and expertise developed after years of experience in the registration of
pesticides, the monitoring of their use, and the enforcement of regulations;
and
Whereas, the tolerance of various pesticides have been developed after
exhaustive research and study by the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare; and are now being continuously evaluated and re-established by
that agency.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the National Association of State Depart-
ments of Agriculture in its board of directors meeting, at Williamsburg, Va.,
June 16, 1970, urges the responsibility for the registration, enforcement, and
monitoring of pesticides remain in the USDA, the agency of Government that
possesses the laboratory facilities and technically trained personnel and which
presently is responsible for pesticide use and regulatory programs and which
is now providing adequate safeguards for the consuming public and their
environment; and be it further
Resolved, That the National Association of State Departments of Agricul-
ture also urges that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
because of the professional experience and expertise in the establishment of
pesticide tolerances retain this area of responsibility as well; and be it further
Resolved, That the National Association of State Departments of Agricul-
ture recognizes the need for strengthening pesticide regulatory programs at
the Federal and State level within these agencies now responsible for these
activities so as not to create expensive duplication which would tend to
proliferate and decrease the effectiveness of present pesticide management
programs, and ba it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to: The President of
the United States, John D. Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President, Secretary
Hardin, Secretary Richardson, Secretary Hickel, Senators George Aiken,
Allen Ellender, Everett Jordan, and Sam Ervin, Representatives W. R. Poage,
Page Belcher, John L. McClellan, William L. Dawson, Guy Vander Jagt,
L. H. Fountain, Wilmer Mizell, Walter Jones.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES,
Washington, D. C., July 16, 1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR MR. BLATNIK: We wish to comment on the proposal, under the
Reorganization Act, which would establish an Environmental Protection
Administration. We understand that included in the proposal is a recommen-
dation to transfer to this new agency the pesticide registration and regulation
activities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the pesticide stand-
ard-setting programs from the Food and Drug Administration.
We favor establishing programs which will improve our environment.
Nevertheless, we believe it is essential to determine the policy direction and
the emphasis pesticides will receive under this new agency.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 339
There are several questions we have concerning1 pesticides and hope a
legislative record may be built on them. The questions are as follows:
1. Does placing pesticides registration and standard-setting activities
under the Environmental Protection Administration classify pesticides as
principally "pollutants of the environment" rather than "tools in the pro-
duction of food?"
2. Do the proponents of the Environmental Protection Administration
visualize the termination of the use of pesticides in the control of rodents,
funguses, insects, and weeds? If the answer to this question is "yes," what
proposed substitutes do they see available currently which would control such
pests, or do those who propose the new Agency consider rodents, insects,
funguses, and weeds as pests in food production?
[p. 187]
3. What impact on the production of food do the proponents of the reorga-
nization plan believe will occur if the use of pesticides is terminated?
4. Do the proponents of reorganization believe that food imported from
other countries should meet the same tolerance standards on pesticide residues
as those produced in this country?
We respectfully request this letter be made part of the record on the hear-
ings on the proposed Environmental Protection Administration.
Sincerely,
RICHARD T. O'CONNELL,
Secretary.
SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE,
Washington, D.C., July 30,1970,
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: This will advise that the Sport Fishing
Institute supports President Nixon's Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970 (H. Doc. 91-364) to establish an Environmental Protection Agency.
We believe that the gravity of environmental degradation and the related
urgency for concentrated coordination of Government efforts to abate pollu-
tion of all kinds are so great as to override all counter considerations.
At the same time, we firmly believe that Reorganization Plan No. 3 will
come to naught, and prove to have been useless paper shuffling, unless sub-
stantial new funds are also pumped into the pollution abatement programs
after they are collected together in the new agency.
It will be appreciated if you will include this letter in support of plan
No. 3 in the record of public hearings. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
RICHARD H. STROUD,
Executive Vice President.
-------
340 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA,
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
July SS, 1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Hnuse of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. BLATNIK: T understand that the Subcommittee1 on Executive and
Legislative Reorganization of the Committee on Government Operations •will
hold hearings on the President's reorganization plan pertaining to Environ-
mental Protection Administration starting July 22. I am very concerned about
one area of major deficiency which I would like to call to your attention. This
deals with the need for a greatly accelerated effort in the realm of public
water supplies.
While the public water supply agencies and utilities in the United States
have done quite well in meeting rapidly expanding water needs, there are
many deficiencies which need to be openly discussed. These are multifaceted in
nature encompassing important institutional, economic, and technical as well
as health considerations.
The very fact that we have an American Water Works Association repre-
senting public water supplies on the one hand and a Water Pollution Control
Federation representing the used water systems on the other is a case in
point. We have a single system which should be dealt with as such. Even the
most casual observation of municipal water and waste schedules amply de-
monstrates the interdependency of these two phases of the same system. One
of the most difficult problems is the proliferation of thousands of small water
and sewage systems throughout the countryside—aided and abetted, of course,
by such Federal agencies as the Farmers Home Administration. We must look
to areawide water-waste systems in order to make best use of available
ground and surface water resources. We are rapidly entering a period in
which water supply and waste disposal as separate entities are no longer
valid concepts. We need to be increasingly concerned with management of
the overall hydrologic system so as to recycle used waters in such a way as
to assure an adequate supply of good quality for all beneficial purposes. Our
principal deficiency in this area is lack of comprehensive planning and the
institutional means to encourage areawide or regional systems.
[p. 188]
I sincerely hope that you will consider the advantages of bringing together
in this new administration all Federal grant and aid programs dealing with
public water supply and sewerage systems. This is an important omission in
the President's proposal.
Our methodology for prediction of future water needs is primitive at best
and simply extends current experience into the future. For generations, the
water resources agencies and utilities have been preaching the gospel of
"cheap" water. The fact is that water pricing (this carries the same impli-
cations for the waste end of the system) has been such as to encourage
waste and discourage the efficient utilization of the water supply. Our plumb-
ing systems and household appliances were developed without regard to water
use. While pricing offers a very effective means for extending the available
supply and internalizing the adverse effects of waste waters, there is very
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 341
little interest among the water works people in this alternative. This is a
serious mistake. Economic incentives are our most powerful potential tool
for management of urban water—waste systems.
While water borne disease outbreaks have been comparatively infrequent
in this country, we still experience them and there is no basis for complac-
ency. Our conventional water treatment technology is not nearly as good as
is often implied. In general, it does not remove dissolved organics and inor-
ganics to say nothing of its questionable effectiveness for the removal of
virus. There is a strong parallel between a citizen consuming dissolved ma-
terials of unknown toxicity over a prolonged period of time and the much-cited
oyster concentrating dilute amounts of toxic materials from its aquatic envi-
ronment until debilitating levels are reached. This is a vast submerged ice-
berg of potential peril to the public health. The fact that our epidemiological
techniques are inadequate to define the problem is no indication that it does
not exist. Nothing can be done about cumulative hazards of this type once
demonstrated, except to take steps to prevent similar damage to the pre-
viously unexposed population.
The attention being given to public water supply problems in this country
is totally inadequate. Our major problem is the false sense of security borne
out of past experience in a far less troubled environment. Crisis planning
is no proper basis for dealing with this matter. I strongly urge increased
support of the operating and research programs administered by the Bureau
of Water Hygiene, Public Health Service, and a strong relative position for
this mission of this Bureau in the new administration.
Sincerely yours,
DAVID H. HOWELLS,
Director.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE,
Washington, D.C., July 24,1970
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, House
Committee on Government Operations, House Office Building, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: While the institute raises no serious objec-
tions to the proposed reorganization, we do believe that the new agency's
effectiveness will depend largely on the coordination maintained with exist-
ing agencies having responsibility for allied environmental components;—
fish, wildlife, forests, parks, and so forth. We believe it is important to obtain
answers to the following questions from administration spokesmen:
1. What lines of consultation and communication are planned between EPA
and conservation, fish, and wildlife agencies?
2. What mechanisms are contemplated to permit an input to EPA from
conservation, fish and wildlife organizations?
We also are concerned about the individuals who may be appointed to head
the new agency. From your personal involvement, you will recall that the
Federal water pollution control program was transferred from the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare because of the inability of the medi-
cal profession to view water pollution in anything but a public health con-
-------
342 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
text. The broader environmental ramifications of the problem were lost upon
them.
We now are beginning to see a resurgence of the medical profession in the
environmental field, manifested most lately by the new health and environ-
[p. 189]
ment office established in the Department of Defense. We are apprehensive
that the men chosen to head EPA might reflect and continue this unfortunate
trend.
We believe, of course, that public health considerations have a logical place
in the new agency, but we strongly believe that the responsibility for direct-
ing the program should be trusted to individuals who possess a deep under
standing of (1) the interlocking environmental aspects of the programs that
are proposed to be grouped in EPA, and (2) the many other environmentally
related programs administered in other agencies of the State and Federal
Governments.
I would appreciate having this letter made a part of the hearing record.
Sincerely,
DANIEL A. POOLE.
President.
FOTH & VAN DYKE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
July 27,1970.
Congressman JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Raiiburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JOHN: I saw in the Green Bay paper the other night that you are
holding hearings in connection with the proposed administration EPA organ-
ization. You were quoted as saying that the proposal was not of great merit
as it was doing only the job in a partial way.
I am enclosing a copy of an editorial from the July 16th Engineering News
Record which bears out your contention. In fact, the proposal would not ac-
complish as much as H.R. 2133, which at least would place all of the respon-
sibility for liquid waste handling into FWQA.
From the information that I have been able to get, the new proposal would
not do anything for the small communities in northern Minnesota and Wiscon-
sin, as many of those, who have no water system as well as sewers, would be
in the same boat as before. In our State, the FHA still insists that, unless
the community agrees to construct a lagoon or aerated lagoon, even though
the State and FWQA have approved plans for a high grade treatment plant,
they refuse to provide not even a loan to the community. For this reason, we
hope that, whatever legislation passes, it will contain provisions for the Fed-
eral Government to purchase the needed revenue bonds from the municipal-
ities, who are unable to sell them otherwise.
Hoping that you and your family are well and can take the Washington
summer heat once again, I remain
Sincerely yours,
HERBERT S. FOTH.
Enclosure.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 343
HALF A STEP
The idea of consolidating all Federal environmental programs in one
agency is an old one and a good one. Too often these fragmented programs
have been lost within large departments, and all too frequently the parent
departments' role as a developer of resources has been in direct conflict with
environmental questions.
Also, the bewildering array of overlapping, duplicating, and occasionally
competing programs for pollution control has always been a time consuming
and frustrating puzzle to the applicant for Federal aid who isn't sure what
Federal agency to approach with hat in hand.
Consolidation would solve all that. But in announcing his plan to reorgan-
ize the Federal environment effort (see p. 15), President Nixon has taken
only a half step.
Almost all Federal agencies these days have environmental programs. To
put them all into new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would create
a, monster agency that would probably strangle on its own complexity. But
the President's decision to bow to congressional pressure and leave three of
the four major water pollution control programs out of EPA is a mistake.
The water pollution control grant programs of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Agriculture Department and the Department of
Commerce should be in EPA with the Federal Water Quality Administration.
To leave them in their present departments does nothing to solve the problems
the reorganization was supposed to solve.
[p. 190]
The decision is not a final one. The Council on Executive Reorganization,
which advised the Nixon administration on the consolidation, will consider
it again. When it does, it should keep in mind the goals of reorganization and
recommend that the HUD, Agriculture and Commerce programs be moved
to EPA where they belong.
MIDLAND COOPERATIVES, INC.,
July SS, 1970
Representative JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. BLATNIK : The President's Advisory Council on Executive Organi-
zation has recommended the establishment of the "Environmental Protection
Administration," which will assume jurisdiction over the registration, label-
ing, and efficacy of pesticides.
It is our concern that this would not be in the best interests of the farmer
in that the use of pesticides would be regulated by people who are not knowl-
edgeable in the field of agriculture. In view of this situation, we would urge
you to have the Environmental Protection Administration brought up for a
vote and pesticides left in the Department of Agriculture.
We certainly feel that all pesticides should be used only in a manner that
is safe to the general public and to our environment. The present method of
-------
344 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
pesticide registration review by USDA, FDA, and the Department of Inter-
ior gives more than adequate consumer and environmental protection.
Sincerely,
DAVID 0. ALBFRG,
Merchandise-Buyer, Agricultural Chemicals.
OHIO WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Columbus, Ohio, July 29, 1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
U.S. Congressman,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: I noticed in a news letter that you were
holding public hearings on President Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 3.
While the President's plan on EPA certainly is a step in the right direction,
it is disappointing to note that the funding capacities of HUD, FHA, EDA
and other Federal agencies are not included in the new organization.
It would ease the burden of the States considerably if they could deal with
one agency on the financing of sewer collections and sewage treatment rather
than to continue to deal with a number of Federal agencies.
We realize that the larger Federal agencies can exert considerable influence
when it comes to giving up parts of their organization, but it does not appear
too feasible to have FWQA, which finances the sewage treatment plants, in
the new organization and not include the rest of the agencies involved in the
same or similar types of financing. If they cannot be included in the original
transfer, it is certainly hoped that they might be added at some later date.
We greatly appreciate the help you have given us in the past with Federal
legislation and I am sure you will give serious consideration to the above.
Sincerely,
NED E. WILLIAMS,
Executive Director.
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Harrisburg, Pa., July SO, 1970.
Hon. JOHN BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, House
Government Operations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR MR. BLATNIK : In connection with the President's reorganization pro-
posal for the establishment of the Environmental Protection Administration
to administer the Federal Government's pollution control and related activi-
[p. 191]
ties, I wish to urge your support of this important step. As chairman of the
Committee on Environment of the American Public Health Association, I
know that you will be interested to know that this group has long advocated
such a move and specifically recommended consolidation and coordination of
antipollution activities of the Federal Government.
In addition to the backing and endorsement of APHA's Committee on En-
vironment, I feel, as an administrator of the environmental protection pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 345
gram in Pennsylvania, that the reorganization plan will improve Federal-State
cooperation by establishing the framework for more uniform policies and
elimination of gaps and overlaps.
I sincerely hope that your committee will approve the EPA reorganization
plan.
Sincerely yours,
WESLEY E. GILBEBTSON, P.E.,
Chairman, Committee on Environment.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Denver, Colo., July SI, 1970.
Congressman JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, Rayburn House Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK : At a recent meeting, the board of directors
of the National Environmental Health Association reviewed "Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970," prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate
and the House of Representatives in Congress establishing the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The board agrees that with the 80 odd Federal agencies that now share in
the management of the American environment, nobody really manages the
environment, or shall we say perhaps everybody. While everyone has his fin-
ger in the pie, no one is really managing the environment in the true sense
from the standpoint of overall protection of it and of those who must live
in it.
We must also agree that each agency or unit is bulging with instant jeal-
ousy of its right to take independent action.
Much of the inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and cost of many programs of en-
vironmental management and consumer protection at all levels of Govern-
ment have been related to:
(1) fragmentation of responsibility and activities among a number of agen-
cies, and
(2) the fact that many such programs and organizations are not basically
oriented to a mission of consumer protection and public service, but, rather,
owe their allegiance to a specific industry having a vested interest in the pro-
gram.
We feel that this new agency is making only the first step toward estab-
lishing a total organization for environmental management and consumer
protection at the Federal level. The Environmental Protection Administration
is pulling together into one agency a variety of research, monitoring, stand-
ard setting and enforcement activities now scattered through several depart-
ments and agencies; however the activities are primarily pollution control
and are not total environment oriented as presently planned.
We believe the reorganization should include noise control activities now
being handled in the Federal Aeronautics Administration, sewer and water
grants now being administered by Housing and Urban Development and the
Farmers Home Administration, environmental health activities of the Atomic
Energy Commission, and possibly other activities for total environmental
management.
-------
346 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Speaking for the largest environmental health association in the Nation,
we endorse Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 and urge its expansion to in-
clude all Federal environmental activities.
If this office can be of any help to your subcommittee at any time, please
feel free to call us.
Sincerely,
NICHOLAS POHLIT, M.P.H., R.S.,
Executive Director.
[p. 192]
NATIONAL GRANGE,
Washington, D.C., July 81,1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK : The National Grange is quite concerned over
the Reorganization Act which would establish an Environmental Protection
Administration. It is our understanding that the act would include a
transfer to this new agency the pesticide registration and regulation activi-
ties from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the pesticide standard-
setting programs from the Food and Drug Administration.
It is also our understanding that Congress has 60 days either to accept or
reject the President's recommendations on establishing the new Environ-
mental Protection Administration, which is our primary concern. "We under-
stand that you cannot amend the President's recommendations, but we would
like to offer the following suggestion: that your committee send the plan
back to the executive branch along with this recommendation.
The main function of the Environmental Protection Administration is, as
the name implies, the protection of the environment. We therefore recom-
mend that only that portion of the pesticide program that protects the en-
vironment be transferred to the new agency. At the present time this portion
of the Pesticide-Rodenticide Act is administered by the Food and Drug
Administration, under the agency that administers the pesticide research
and setting of standards program. It is this portion of the pesticide program
that protects the environment and therefore we can see the logic in trans-
ferring this agency's functions.
However, the pesticide registration and licensing of pesticides should
remain in the Department of Agriculture, for it is only here that the im-
portance of pesticide chemicals as essential tools of production can be judged.
This must be high on the list of priority in determining what chemical can
be used on what crops and in what dilution.
We believe that the Department of Agriculture has managed its responsi-
bilities in the pesticide chemical field well. Leaving the pesticide registration
program in the Department would permit producers, formulators and manu-
facturers to maintain their relationship with USDA and the USDA then, in
turn, would deal directly with the EPA, the same as they now do with FDA.
Our primary concern can best be summed up by this question: Who will
have control over agricultural production—a high level, integrated super-
agency, easily influenced by public opinion through the various news media,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 347
or the Department of Agriculture that has a mandate from Congress to see
to the efficient production of food and fiber and control over the inputs to
bring about such production?
It was because we feel so strongly that pesticides, their use and control
are so important to the economic production of the food and fiber for our
great Nation that the National Grange, at its 103d Annual Session, held in
Daytona Beach, Fla., adopted the following resolution:
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
"Because of the vital importance of insecticides, pesticides, herbicides and
other similar chemicals to the efficient production of agricultural products
the regulation and control of these substances for the protection of the public
should be continued in the Department of Agriculture and the Department
should be provided with any additional authority and funds required to carry
on the necessary research for the safe and effective use of these substances."
Pesticides are often considered as entirely unnecessary, pollutants, food
toxicants, or an economic crutch for farmers. It should be obvious to all that
by the nature of statements expressed in opposition that they are too often
based on happenstance or conjecture, not on existing scientific information,
and all too often arise in emotional concern—by scientists and lay groups
alike—for special interests.
The new Interdepartmental Agreement for Protection of the Public Health
and the Quality of the Environment in Relation to Pesticides provides for a
sound, scientific review of pesticide registration and regulation, assuring that
none of the three Departments can ignore the needs and responsibilities of
the others.
The National Grange cannot, after serious consideration of the proposal,
[p. 193]
see any benefit in changing the triple responsibility of the Departments of
Agriculture, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Interior for the mono-
lithic administration of a single agency. In fact, in our judgment, the single
agency will be subject to so much pressure from public opinion that it will
be unable to function properly, either in the interest of the public or the
producers.
However, we could support such an agency if the interest of pesticides as a
tool of production is protected by having the pesticide registration remain in
the Department of Agriculture as we have suggested.
We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the hearings on
the proposed Environmental Protetion Administration.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. SCOTT, Master.
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 2, 1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
House of Representatives,
Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BLATNIK: With my penchant for consolidation in
order to expedite appropriate and needed communications, research, action,
and evaluation—I wonder, as others might (but admittedly do not have
-------
348 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
enough facts about these agencies), if it might not be desirable for the pro-
posed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the proposed
Environmental Protection Agency to be combined in some meaningful and
effective way.
Enclosed you will find further correspondence which states some of my
basic attitudes and thoughts about ecological balance, and environmental
control and health matters; describes about how far I have gotten; and
raises a number of questions other than those previously asked. Also en-
closed is a piece titled, "A clarification," which is self-explanatory and which
I felt in all fairness should be part of any file of our correspondence.
I still feel a need exists to pull together into some sort of a loose confedera-
tion of a super umbrella voluntary organization the representatives of the
appropriate Government agencies, industry groups, labor unions, ecological
action organizations, wildlife and conservation people, voluntary health
agencies, population control groups, scientific bodies, civic and service organi-
zations, youth groups, as well as others—so that differences can be more
directly and rapidly discussed and appropriate and needed research and
action can be taken and evaluated.
Whether it is feasible or not, my feeling is that it is worth a try.
At this stage, I need and welcome feedback to these ideas from every
possible source, at whatever level of discussion, and about whatever aspects—
so, again, whatever comments, suggestions, information, or advice, you or
your colleagues may choose to give now or in the future shall be gratefully
received and most appreciated.
Thank you for whatever help you can give in these matters, and best
wishes.
Sincerely yours,
SELWYN M. WAINGROW.
WASHINGTON, B.C., July 16, 1970.
Mr. RUSSELL TRAIN,
Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. TRAIN: A number of people that I have written to in a wide
variety of organizations in our society, including Members of Congress, have
suggested I write to you. Enclosed you will find correspondence which gives
partial answers to the questions of who I am, what I am trying to do, why,
and where it is now.
The creation of a new Environmental Protection Agency within govern-
ment is to be applauded. In my opinion, however, another kind of structure
will be needed to bring together for more effective planning and cooperative
action the broad spectrum of our society that has both a legitimate interest
and responsibility in these areas. And to be done without any member giving
up its autonomy as an organization, with all that this implies. Such an
organization, in short, has to go way beyond but include Government agencies
and industry involvement. In my opinion, we are dealing with that kind of
problem.
There are many questions to be raised revolving around such issues as the
[p- 194]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 349
advantages of centralization versus decentralization; unification versus
plurality of effort; recruitment and caliber of leadership, membership com-
position, obligations, and rights, substructures and their functions and inter-
relationships, channels and frequency of communications, and, of course,
funding and staffing, as well as others. But these are secondary to the
main issues of whether something needed and unique would be contributed
by any new super volunteer umbrella organization.
My bias is obvious. If "form follows function" then it is also probably true
that function is facilitated by form or foiled by it. There are many other
factors, too. I have no illusions about the enormous complexity and difficulty
that forming such an organization entails but, again, it is the kind of
problem that needs a structure that can reflect the inherent difficulties in-
volved and synthesize the complexities into a more manageable form. All of
us are both consumers and polluters.
Certain problems in our society, indeed the world, are above politics—or
should be—and this is one of them. There will be no winners and losers in
this game—only winners or losers. If we do not solve the problem of eco-
logical balance and environmental control it is possible that we shall have
ironically and tragically found the solution to all other human problems. And
if the only rebuttals offered are that it is impractical or not possible politi-
cally then it is my private concern, intellectual perception, and slightly
sardonic fear that—if and when the world ends, it will not be with a roar—
but with a rationalization. I think we can do it.
Whatever comments, suggestions, information, or advice you would care to
give on these matters—now or in the future—would be gratefully received
and appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
SELWYN M. WAINGROW.
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 8, 1970.
Dr. LUTHER L. TERRY,
Vice President for Medical Affairs,
University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pa.
DEAR DR. TERRY: Enclosed you will find material I have been mailing out
for a number of weeks to a wide variety of organizations throughout the
Nation, including Members of Congress, and counselors to the President.
In the latter case, one of the mailings was at the suggestion of the chair-
man of the national committee of one of the major political parties.
This effort is both a reflection of deep concern and an attempt on my part
as a private citizen to offer what, hopefully, will be considered and actually
become some constructive suggestions with regard to a rather complex, diffi-
cult, and increasingly threatening problem area—ecology and environmental
health.
The action I have taken is currently a one-man embryonic effort to extend
some of the pertinent notions implicit in the Horn-Waingrow model of be-
havior change in cigarette smoking to this wider arena.
In doing so, the case of the National Interagency Council on Smoking and
Health has been cited as a positive example of how diverse organizations
with different mandates can join together for a common goal and achieve
-------
350 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
constructive results which they might not have achieved even if they had
all acted individually.
Since there is this reference, and the inclusion of an old copy of a
brochure about the NIC, you and the other members of that organization may
be getting inquiries as to what role, if any, the NIC has or will have in all
of this, as well as inquiries about who I am and my motives.
You answer, of course, as you see fit.
It is obvious from the enclosed material that my bias is that a total systems
approach is as necessary in this area of ecology and environmental health as
it is in smoking and health, perhaps even more so, and that some sort of
organizational structure that reflects that function is vital.
It should also be obvious that another bias, and indeed another hope, is
that even in a competitive society we learn to, at some level and for certain
problems, cooperate and effectively mobilize the individuals as well as the
institutions (indeed, in the latter case, create new ones if necessary), within
that society.
The challenge is to keep the competitiveness and the diversity stimulating,
creative, and constructive without letting it become self, institutionally, or
soeietally destructive.
[p. 195]
It has been my hope that a constructive facing and solution of the cigarette
smoking and health problem would have served in some small way as a
paradigm for the facing and solution of a wide variety of other problems
that have and will beset our society now and in the future.
The format and style of presentation of the proposals in the enclosures are
somewhat crude, if not impertinent, but I do believe, and again hope, that
some of the substantive suggestions relating to the main topic, ecology and
environmental health, are worth people's time and attention even if they do
not accurately reflect my personal concern or professional expertise.
There is a fine line between a far-out and a far-ahead concept. As you
well know, there is an even greater gap between such a concept and its
actualization.
My immediate interest at this early and critical stage is that men of
integrity, skill, and dedication will get together from a wide spectrum of
our society and either form such an organization as is suggested in the
enclosure or otherwise fulfill its function.
If you have the interest and the time I would, of course, be delighted to
receive your thoughts as a private individual on the questions that I raised.
Thank you for whatever thoughts you may wish to express or help you
may wish to give on these matters.
Sincerely yours,
SELWYN M. WAINGROW.
Enclosures.
A CLARIFICATION
In looking over the correspondence I have sent out it seems to me that a
clarification is in order in terms of the tone and implications of my June 4
and May 20 letters to Mr. Denis Hayes of Environmental Action.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 351
I have already (July 11) apologized to Mr. Hayes for the slightly flippant
tone of the former letter and the somewhat strident tone of the latter listed
one, which does, however, contain a number of points I wanted to make
about a number of things.
The criticisms in the May 20 letter are still valid, in my opinion, for that
particular speech, on the night mentioned, before that audience; but what my
letter did not make clear enough was that it was Mr. Hayes' excellent, in-
formative, and wide-ranging but well-integrated talk that galvanized me into
action (and, hopefully, others who were there, too).
Before, like many people, I had been aware of the problem and had some
notion of its seriousness; but, like many, I was too busy, I thought, with my
own professional and personal life to get directly involved.
Besides, there were, it seemed to me, plenty of experts in the field and,
since I was not one, I did not quite see what I had to offer that others could
not do, and indeed were not doing, better.
Listening to Mr. Hayes, however, moved me and got me moving. As he
talked, and as I thought things, later, certain ideas began to fall into place
within my own mind and I felt that as an individual citizen and as a social
scientist that there was, indeed, something constructive that I might be able
to offer formally or informally, for consideration.
In that sense, the talk given by Mr. Hayes was truly inspirational and I
would like and appreciate it if this were kept in mind as one reads my June
4 and May 20 letters to him.
SELWYN M. WAINGBOW.
CONFERENCE OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATORS,
August 3,1970.
Representative JOHN BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, House
Committee on Government Operations, House Office Building, Washing-
ton, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: Our conference, whose members are engaged
in the direct delivery of environmental quality services to well over one-third
of this Nation's population, is deeply concerned over the apparent tug of war
going on now relative to the Federal environmental quality control pro-
grams.
We are deeply concerned over the possible additional fragmentation of the
[p. 196]
attack on our environment and feel most strongly that further splintering of
Federal activities is bound to slow down pollution control. We believe that
the environment must be seen as a system because each segment of our
environment contributes to the degradation of each other segment. Fighting
a segmented war on pollution is like fighting a military war allowing only
Army to fight Army, Air Force to fight Air Force, and Navy to fight Navy.
We believe that the control of our air, water, land, shelter, food, and trans-
portation environments must be coordinated, with health aspects of man
being the highest priority. As experienced governmental administrators, we
do not believe that the coordination of effort necessary for a successful war
on environmental degradation can come through the scattering of functions
-------
352 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
in a myriad oi agencies. Intradepartmental coordination is difficult enough,
interdepartmental coordination is apparently impossible.
We most strongly urge that reorganization of Federal Government environ-
mental control activities take into account the need for single agency co-
ordination of all environmental quality control programs. We also urge that
any such agency be so organized and oriented that human health will be the
chief concern of the agency.
Very truly yours,
DAVID E. BARRY,
Chairman.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL,
Chapel Hill, August 5, 1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Executive and Legislative Reorganization Subcommittee, Rayburn
Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: As an engineer who has spent his entire
professional life, some 33 years, in dealing with problems of the environment,
I have a considerable interest in the proposal to create an Environmental
Protection Administration as an independent agency concerned with manage-
ment of the environment. I have been head of the department of environ-
mental sciences and engineering at the University of North Carolina since
1955, and have also served as director for the institute for environmental
health studies at the University of North Carolina since its creation some
6 years ago. In addition, this year I am serving as president of the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers. Testimony on behalf of the academy
is being provided separately by Mr. James G. Terrill, Jr., executive director.
I, and many of my colleagues in the educational field, support the creation
of an independent agency to deal with the environment. For too long, prob-
lems of the environment have been fragmented throughout government with
the result that only special interests have been served. As an educator, I am
particularly conscious of the fact that these separate agencies establish
separate constituencies with the result that resources have not been avail-
able for education or research on problems that affect the environment as a
whole. Programs have existed in water pollution control, in air pollution
control, in the management of solid wastes, problems of radiation, etc., but
the interrelationships among these environmental problems, and the fact that
contaminants may move from one sphere to another, have left large gaps in
environmental research and in the recruiting and education of engineers and
scientists for environmental management. The Environmental Protection
Administration can be an important beginning, particularly if it receives
authorization and appropriations for programs in the environment which
will permit it to encourage educational institutions and their faculty and
students to examine the larger problems of the environment.
WATER SUPPLY
While the greatest impact of the EPA can be in establishing a holistic
view of the environment, it also has an opportunity to address some grievous
omissions in dealing with current problems. One in particular is the virtual
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 353
absence of support for activities in the field of water supply. We have had a
long and proud history in the creation of safe water supplies in the United
States, with the public health drinking- water standards providing the guide-
lines for water supply enterprises throughout the world. However, support
for this activity has not keep pace with the problems of water supply created
[p. 197]
by burgeoning populations, the increased pressures of urbanization, and the
decreasing volumes of pure waters from which to draw our water supplies.
More than half of the population that utilize public water supply systems
draw from systems that are contaminated with wastewaters from municipali-
ties and industries. Neither wastewater treatment systems nor water purifica-
tion plants remove many of the toxic substances that now find their way into
our water resources, such as heavy metals like mercury, synthetic organic
chemicals such as pesticides and detergents, as well as many esoteric chemi-
cals whose significance for public health has not yet been established. It has
been well demonstrated that small community systems do not have the
resources in funds or manpower to deal with this type of problem, with the
result that many small systems have gross deficiencies in the quality of water
made available to their customers.
In addition, more than 50 million people, about 25 percent of our citizenry,
have no access to public water supply systems, which means that the quality
of their supplies is suspect as well as that the utilitarian values of water
are not available to them.
Considerable research needs to be done to assess the significance of our
deteriorating water supplies and to come up with methods that will assure
safe water supplies for all communities over the next decades. In addition,
our State regulatory agencies need guidance from the Federal Government
as to approaches that might be used to improve water supply service. There
need to be incentives toward regionalization to help us get away from the
thousands of small suppliers that provide inadequate water service.
Among the units to be brought into the Environmental Protection Ad-
ministration, the Bureau of Water Hygiene needs strong categorical sup-
port. Its identification within the superstructure of EPA is vital if it is to
be permitted to meet its proper obligations in helping provide safe water for
communities throughout the United States.
Sincerely yours,
DANIEL A. OKUN,
Professor of Environmental Engineering, Head.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS,
August 5,1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization,
Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BLATNIK: I am writing at this time to support the
principal concepts in the President's plan of July 9, 1970, to reorganize
Federal activities related to the environment and to emphasize the need to
give special attention to public water supplies.
-------
354 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The American Academy of Environmental Engineers is an organization of
licensed professional engineers who have been selected by examination for
their competence in environmental engineering. During the past few years
many of our leaders have been giving special attention to public water
supply needs because it has seemed that this basic environmental program
had been given a low priority, largely through reliance upon the low level of
detectable waterborne disease.
Until the turn of the century when the understanding of bacteriology
developed, the water treatment for the cities and towns of this country were
plagued with recurrent epidemics of typhoid, cholera, and dysentery. By the
1930's, the state-of-the-art in municipal drinking water treatment advanced
to a point where waterborne infectious disease was difficult to identify. Dur-
ing ensuing decades, particularly 1950's and 1960's, Federal and State and
local program emphasis shifted from stressing the treatment and protection
of drinking water systems to reducing the discharge of degradable organic
pollutants at the source.
A recent Public Health Service report notes that significant numbers of
Americans are not getting high quality drinking water today. Further, the
report notes that many Americans are drinking potentially dangerous water
containing bacterial indicators of waterborne disease.
[p. 198]
The Summary report highlights the future needs for research, planning,
technical assistance and modernized surveillance if our society is to continue
to be blessed with the benefit of adequate quantities of safe drinking water.
It should be noted that a 1967 General Counsel's opinion has held that
inclusion of chemical criteria in the drinking water standards since 1925 is
illegal since the authorizing legislation only sanctions constituents involved
in communicable disease. This, at a time when industrial technology currently
uses over 10,000 potentially dangerous chemicals, is developing 500 new
compounds each year and includes pesticides specifically developed to ad-
versely affect target organisms. This is complicated by:
(1) The population of this country is expected to increase to 300 million
people by the year 2000.
(2) Numerous point sources of human waste will not be checked for years
to come.
(3) Chemical wastes can be expected to increase faster than the population.
(4) Uncontrolled-runoff from our forests and farm lands will undoubtedly
continue with an increasing quantity of manmade contaminants, while our
water resource remains essentially fixed.
Possibly much of the backsliding in local, county, State, and Federal water
hygiene programs can be traced to lack of balanced Federal leadership. Aided
and abetted by quiet public health professionals who also saw the compelling
need to begin to identify, gain support, and to start correcting the pollution
of our air, water, and land, the public has been led to believe that water pol-
lution control efforts are a panacea which will not only restore and enhance
the quality of our lakes, streams, and coasts to the benefit of fish and aquatic
life and recreational pursuits but also guarantee delivery of healthful quali-
ties of safe drinking water to the consumer's tap. As beneficial as these efforts
are, present technology will require a joint waste treatment and water treat-
ment program to provide adequate supplies of potable drinking water.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 355
The proposed consolidation provides a new opportunity to look at the en-
vironment as a system and then launch coordinated and integrated attack. .
It should assist State and local programs both to fulfill their responsibili-
ties and to call attention of Congress to the voids in current Federal pro-
grams. While public health officials have been among the staunchest advocates
of water pollution control, they have not clearly identified certain basic tech-
nical principles involved:
(1) Water pollution control efforts can assist, but only assist, the delivery
of safe water to the consumer's tap. A cleanup of our ground and surface
waters will improve the efficiency and dependability of community water sup-
ply efforts, but the community drinking water supply must be treated in any
event.
(2) Both naturally pure water, and the polluted waters in many segments
of the country, can be collected, treated and delivered to individual homes and
through community water systems, only by well planned, constructed, and
operated systems under the close scrutiny of competent local, State, and
Federal programs.
(3) These programs must receive the needed resources to conduct necessary
planning and research to provide drinking waters free of infectious organ-
isms with a proper chemical balance, and virtually free of hazardous chem-
icals. Training and technical assistance must be provided to assure full appli-
cation of existing technology and to conduct active, constructive surveillance,
and enforcement programs.
A program of this type does not exist today. This reorganization provides
the opportunity to both highlight and rectify past mistakes and to begin plan-
ning and implementing the necessary action program.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Congress study comprehensive
legislation, including authorizations and appropriations warranted by this
vitally important environment program. Furthermore, within the scope of
these hearings on reorganization, we strongly recommend that the estab-
lishment of a suitably visible organizational entity within EPA to be charged
with responsibility for the principal legitimate water use—adequate quanti-
ties of safe drinking water for all Americans now and in the future. This
unit should have sufficient stature so the multibillion dollar organization
which supplies water to the public can relate effectively to the Federal Gov-
ernment.
A definite congressional position on this issue is necessary to strengthen
the will of the Government to create an organizational entity within the
EPA with sufficient resources to assure proper development of water supplies.
[p. 199]
On behalf of the president of the academy, Prof. Daniel A. Okun, and the
officers and directors of the academy, I wish to thank you for this opportunity
to bring this important matter to your attention.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES G. TERRILL, Jr.,
Executive Director.
-------
356 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, B.C., July 31, 1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, House
Committee on Government Operations, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JOHN: In connection with your subcommittee's current consideration
of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3, I thought that you might be
interested in seeing the enclosed telegram on this subject which I have just
received. You will note that Dr. Myers, Alabama State Health Officer, directs
his comments to the proposed transfer of certain functions of the Bureau of
Radiological Health (HEW) to the new Environmental Protection Agency.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
JOHN H. BUCHANAN, Jr.,
Member of Congress.
[Telegram]
MONTGOMERY, ALA., July 28,1970.
Representative JOHN BUCHANAN,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
Under President Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, certain func-
tions of the Bureau of Radiological Health of the Department of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare are being transferred to the Environmental Protection
Agency. We have no objection to the proposed transfer under Plan No. 3,
however we are concerned that the functions of the Bureau of Radiological
Health which remain in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
might lose their identity. We strongly recommend that the Bureau of Radio-
logical Health retain an identity in Health, Education, and Welfare so prob-
lems relating to radiation from consumer products, radiation used in the
healing arts, occupational exposures to radiation and technical assistance in
these areas might have a common focus.
C. L. MYERS, M.D.,
State Health Officer, Alabama Department of Health.
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE,
New York, N.Y., August fi, 1970.
Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,
Chairman of House Government Operations Committee,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. DAWSON: The American Paper Institute, which represents
some 200 member companies, comprising 90 percent of the pulp, paper and
paperboard industry, fully supports Government Reorganization Plan No. 3
to create an Environmental Protection Agency.
The country has long needed a fully coordinated attack on environmental
problems. The fragmentation of executive powers in this field, on both Fed-
eral and State levels, is today a serious obstacle to the vigorous progress that
our national situation requires. As a case in point, industrial enterprises must
deal with a number of agencies, depending upon the nature of their pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 357
problems, and commonly find themselves up against conflicting, inconsistent
or uncoordinated decisions. Pollution in one media can often be cured at the
expense of causing pollution in another, and yet the vital interests of society
call for the improvement of the total environment. Only through the consis-
tent and coordinated development and enforcement of quality standards can
we expect to achieve the results required.
[p. 200]
Many of the States are in a comparable position to that of the Federal
Government, with a multiplicity of departments working piecemeal on en-
vironmental problems. We believe that the establishment of the new Environ-
mental Protection Agency will encourage those States which have not yet
done so to emulate the Federal Government in creating a single organization
where all key aspects of waste disposal and pollution will be handled.
Although President Nixon's message of July 9 to the Congress states the
overall case for the new agency with great clarity and effectiveness, we stand
ready, if your committee so desires, to testify in favor of Plan No. 3 from
the point of view of the benefits we believe it will bring to the paper indus-
try's long and steadily growing efforts to improve the environment.
Most sincerely,
EDWIN A. LOCKE, Jr.,
President.
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, House
Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, B.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK: The American Farm Bureau Federation is
very much interested in Reorganization Plan No. 3 submitted to Congress by
President Nixon under date of July 9, 1970, a plan which proposes to estab-
lish an Environmental Protection Agency.
While we are interested in all aspects of this proposed new Agency, our
particular concern relates to the transfer of functions relating to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act was established by law June 25, 1947, to regulate the marketing of
these products and related devices. This act was amended in 1959 and in
1964. Congress placed this act under the administration of the Secretary of
Agriculture and it has effectively been administered by that office since en-
actment.
The elected voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus to the
51st annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation in Washing-
ton, D.C., in December 1969, adopted the following policy concerning agri-
cultural chemicals:
"Agricultural chemicals"
"The continued use of agricultural chemicals is important to both farmers
and consumers. Any curtailment of the safe and proper use of these products
would result in higher food prices to consumers.
-------
358 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"Modern agriculture cannot provide adequate quantities of high-quality
food and fiber without the continued safe use of agricultural chemicals.
"However, consumers do have a vital interest in being certain that their
health and welfare are protected by the safe use of these products. A contin-
uing educational program among all users, with emphasis'on the reading of
labels and proper usage of chemicals is essential.
"In recent months there has baen a stepped-up campaign against the use
of many agricultural chemicals. We believe that every effort must be made
to inform the general public that usage of agricultural chemicals is subject
to stringent Federal and State regulation and that farmers are using these
chemicals in accordance with Federal and State laws.
"We strongly recommend that the total responsibility for registration of
agricultural chemicals be retained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We
urge the Secretary of Agriculture to emphasize to the general public the im-
portance of the continued use of these products to farmers and consumers in
providing adequate high quality food and fiber.
"We oppose a complete ban on the use of any agricultural chemical and
recommend that continued use be determined on a product-by-product and
use-by-use basis. The continued use of these products should be based on re-
search and scientific data. The fact that some of these products may be per-
sistent is not in itself sufficient reason for rejecting their continued use.
"We recognize that there may be problems in the use of agricultural chem-
icals as they relate to our environment. However, we strongly urge that their
importance to food production and human nutrition be given proper recogni-
tion and consideration.
[p. 201]
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative Extension Service,
and the State departments of agriculture should assist farmers and the
public in obtaining a better understanding of the role of agricultural chem-
icals and the laws and regulations covering their usage.
"Farm Bureau should increase its leadership in this area so that the in-
terests of farmers and the general public are adequately protected.
"We recommend that imported agricultural products be subject to the
same restrictions on the use of agricultural chemicals and other standards as
those which apply to domestically produced commodities.
"We support expanded biological pest control research to determine where
biological pest control measures can be used as a practical and feasible sub-
stitute for chemical controls."
I call your attention particularly to the following paragraph in this policy
statement: "We strongly recommend that the total responsibility for regis-
tration of agricultural chemicals be retained by the U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture."
Reorganization Plan No. 3 proposed to transfer registration responsibility
to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of prod-
ucts which are not registered, or are adulterated or misbranded. Under the
act, no pesticide chemical may be legally shipped in interstate commerce
for general use until it is shown to be safe when used as directed and effective
for the purpose claimed on the label. All labeling must be approved and any
residues that may remain on food or feed must not exceed the safe tolerance
level established by the Food and Drug Administration.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 359
During the period that Reorganization Plan No. 3 was under study and
development by the executive staff at the White House the policy position of
Farm Bureau was presented to them in conferences and by written commu-
nication.
Farm Bureau members and farmers generally have a long and commend-
able record in soil and water conservation, wildlife, and other practices that
protect the environment. The question in the proposed reorganization plan,
particularly as it relates to farm chemicals, is not one of who favors the
protection of the environment but how Federal agencies can best be related
one to the other for administering existing law in the best interest of all con-
cerned, incuding a knowledgeable relationship with a modern productive agri-
culture increasingly important as the food and fiber demands are equated to
the 21st century both at home and abroad.
The Secretaries of Agriculture; Health, Education, and Welfare; and In-
terior each have responsibilities under law that relate to the use of materials
used to control insects, fungi, rodents, plant and animal diseases, and for veg-
etable control, and each has extensive and competent research for scientific
guidance in making decisions. The incumbent Secretaries have established an
interagency agreement to effect cooperative decisions developed by close coor-
dination of information from competent scientists including the National
Academy of Science. We believe this has been a sound approach to construc-
tive decisions avoiding unilateral action as experienced in the past. In regard
to farm chemical registration the interagency agreement will be eliminated
under Reorganization Plan No. 3 and we have sincere reservations that a more
constructive procedure will take its place.
We are concerned also relative to the viewpoint that will be taken under
the reorganization as to the importance of agricultural chemicals as a vital
productive tool in modern agriculture. Farmers and ranchers have long had
relationship with scientists, extension educators, and others in USDA. This
experience had led both to have confidence in each other and a mutual under-
standing of the essential need of pest, fungus, weed and disease control, and
the need for care in use of the materials. There is also an understanding of
the importance of the manufacturer of these materials and a realization that
the American consumer cannot be served unless effective materials are avail-
able.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 proposes to bring together numerous existing
agencies. We have serious concern that agricultural chemicals will be viewed
by those responsible for decisions in the new Environmental Protection
Agency as pollutants with a low concern for these materials as tools in a
productive agriculture. Unwise decisions can greatly restrict the ability of
farmers and ranchers to continue a safe, abundant supply of high quality food
and fiber.
In consideration of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 we trust you will
give careful study to the interest and concern of farmers and ranchers in re-
[p. 202]
moving the authority of the Department of Agriculture to administer the
registration of agricultural chemicals and place this authority into hands
that have far less knowledge and interest in a productive agriculture.
-------
360 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
We would appreciate your making this letter a part of the hearing record
of your committee.
Sincerely,
MARVIN L. MCLAIN,
Legislative Director.
[Telegram]
WASHINGTON, B.C., July 23,1970.
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C.:
There is no problem among the many confronting the American people
today which is greater or in such desperate need of solution as that of en-
vironmental pollution. The magnitude of the problem demands that the cur-
rently fragmented and scattered pollution control activities within the Gov-
ernment be brought together at the earliest moment into one agency in order
that a concerted attack may be made on our immense pollution problems. The
General Federation of Women's Clubs strongly urges your subcommittee on
Executive and Legislative Reorganization to approve and recommend to the
House the President's plan for establishing an Environmental Protection
Agency.
Mrs. EARLE A. BROWN,
President, General Federation of Women's Clubs.
STATEMENT OF Louis S. CLAPPER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION
Mr. Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, director of conservation for the
National Wildlife Federation which has its national headquarters at 1412
16th Street, NW., here in Washington, D.C.
Ours is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation goals
through educational means. The Federation has independent affiliates in all
50 States and the Virgin Islands. These affiliates, in turn, are made up of local
groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other
supporters of the National Wildlife Federation number an estimated 2%
million persons.
We welcome the invitation and opportunity to comment upon proposed
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, providing for the establishment of an
Environmental Protection Agency (H. Doc. 91-364). I regret that a conflict
is preventing our executive director, Thomas L. Kimball, from being here
personally to accept the invitation to submit testimony on this proposed re-
organization. We are hopeful, however, that he will return in time to testify
upon proposed Reorganization Plan No. 4 (H. Doc. 91-365).
Mr. Chairman, we support the principles outlined in Reorganisation Plan
No. 3, even though it has deficiencies which we hope can be corrected at an
early date. We believe it is in accord with current law and will "promote the
better execution of the laws, the more effective management of the executive
branch and of its agencies and functions, and the expeditious administration
of the public business." We also feel it will "increase the efficiency of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 361
operations of the Government to the fullest extent practicable," even though
we would recommend other changes as well.
We support Reorganization Plan No. 3 because it hopefully will correct one
major problem of long and deep concern to us. For years now, we have called
attention to conflicts of interest within the Federal Government wherein
agencies are charged with both the promotion and regulation of programs.
This difficulty, perhaps, is best illustrated with chemical pesticides. The
Department of Agriculture has been involved with improving the quality and
quantity of foodstuffs and fibers produced on American farms. And, the Am-
erican farmer, aided by Federal and State agencies, has chalked up a produc-
tion record which is the envy of the entire world. At least part of this success
[p. 203]
can be attributed to the efficiency of pesticide poisons, which have elimi-
nated or curtailed losses from a wide variety of pests. As a consequence,
USD A has been promoting the use of pesticides. However, we also now know
that some pesticide chemicals can have harmful side effects, not only on fish
and wildlife but one the entire ecology as well, including man himself.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we do not think it is wise for the same agency of Gov-
ernment that is promoting the use of pesticides to also have the responsi-
bility for regulating this use. Refusal of the Secretary of Agriculture to
prohibit the use of DDT, even though the Secretaries of the Interior and
Defense have taken this action, and some other chemicals leads us to conclude
that regulations on registration of pesticides should be promulgated and
enforced by some other agency. Further, we long have felt that pest control
can be achieved through means less harmful than some of the lethal and
long-lasting chemicals now in use and we doubt if these efforts are being
given the proper emphasis as long as the research program remains in
USDA.
We believe the same principle also should apply to other units of govern-
ment. Consequently, we are pleased that the functions relating to radiation
criteria should be diverted from the Atomic Energy Commission and the
Federal Radiation Council. As things now stand, the AEC and FRC consider
themselves as the only agencies with sufficient expertise to determine the safe
limits on radiation, even though some States want zero tolerances. Again, it
is a case of an agency both promoting and regulating, in this instance the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy developed with tax moneys contributed by
taxpayers. Again, we do not think it is wise for one agency to have such a
monopoly and, therefore, we agree on the desirability and advisability of in-
corporating this function into the proposed new Environmental Protection
Agency.
There are other valid reasons why EPA should be created. To put it most
charitably, the Federal approach to environmental pollution has been frag-
mented. Harmful gtases and poisons emitted into the air or spread upon the
ground may become pollutants of surface waters. Owners or operators of
power generating plants may make plans to avoid thermal pollution of water
only to contaminate the air instead. Solid wastes, including garbage, may re-
sult in accelerated eutrophication of water or pollution of the air by foul
odors. In all, many problems are interrelated and the solutions to them can
be most easily approached through one agency.
Other similarities exist. Local governments and States could go to one
Federal agency for financial grants and technical assistance in the areas of
-------
362 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
water pollution, air pollution, and solid waste disposal. Industries can look
to one agency for enforcement of water and air pollution standards. We hope
that EPA can provide a point of focus for all pollution-related activities of
the Federal Government.
Some of us can recall when the Federal water pollution control effort was
located in the "seventh subbasement" as a branch within a division within a
bureau within a service within the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. At that time, the agency did not even rate line items in the budget
and funds secured for the program were diverted into other activities. We
certainly hope tfhat this move will constitute an "upgrading" for water pollu-
tion control, as executive branch spokesmen contend, and that the separate
budget items will be continued.
Early in this statement I qualified our approval of Reorganization Plan No.
3 by observing that it has deficiencies. Frankly, we believe that EPA also
should contain the program in Housing and Urban Development relating to
basic water and sewer facilities as well as the grants of rural water and
waste disposal under the Farmers Home Administration in USDA. We also
feel that EPA should include the Federal efforts to curb noise pollution.
While we realize that the scope of the subcommittee's consideration is lim-
ited, it can be pointed out that we urge the adoption of a recorganization
plan to combine water development construction agencies—Corps of Engi-
neers, Bureau of Reclamation, the small watershed program in USDA, and
TVA—with the responsibility for planning projects and for developing bene-
fit-cost ratio evaluations lodged elsewhere in the Federal Establishment. We
al?o think that the Federal effort would be more efficient and effective if the
public land management agencies—Forest Service, Bureau of Land Man-
agement, Park Service, and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife—were
pulled together into one unit.
[p. 204]
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we hope the subcommittee will not take action
to disapprove of the proposed Reorganization Plan No. 3. I make this ex-
pression as a staff member of the National Wildlife Federation and not as a
member of the Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, which would
also be transferred.
Thank you again for the opportunity of making these remarks.
STATEMENT OF EDGAR M. CLEAVER, M.D., DIRECTOR, WBLD COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, AND MEMBER, COLORADO HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COUN-
CIL; AND ANDREW GURTNER, CHAIRMAN, WELD COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH,
AND MEMBER, COLORADO HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
We would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity of having a
statement placed in the records of the hearings regarding Reorganization
Plan No. 3.
We represent a local governmental agency and a statewide health and
environmental organization. We are vitally concerned about the implementa-
tion of health and environmental control measures at the State and local
level. While it is with trepidation that we go on record as opposing policies
recommended by both the President of the United States and his advisers
and policies recommended by a leading political figure of the Senate majority;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 363
namely, Senator Muskie of Maine, we nevertheless feel that our position of
strategic importance in implementing environmental health measures at the
local level allows us to reasonably proceed with critical remarks and alter-
native suggestions.
Frankly, we feel that Reorganization Plan No. 3, while it does pull together
a number of environmental concerns into a more coordinated agency, never-
theless does not pull all concerns together and does fragment what we con-
ceive to be the vital health aspects of the environment even further. This
occurs in that the largest reorganizational change perhaps comes in the
removal of a number of important functions from the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. We feel that the President was more nearly right
in his first inclination of not forming additional administrative agencies, but
of consolidating programs under existing agencies. Many of us here in
Colorado feel that the only answer to both the pressing personal health
problems with their economic implications and our environmental health
crisis (and it is a health crisis as well as an environmental crisis) is the
development of a comprehensive department of health at the Cabinet level.
Conversely, we feel that it would have been more appropriate to have
placed the environmental functions of other agencies in the Department of
HEW, if a new department of health were not to be formed. We feel that
much of the concern about the environment today is entirely justified. How-
ever, there is an element of radicalism, extremism and political exploitation
involved. We hate to see Members of Congress from either party or the
President responding to these extremist elements, rather than to the
attitudes of experienced men from schools of public health and State and
local health departments. I would refer you to two additional sources as
representing attitudes which should not be overlooked by those considering
health and environmental reorganization or legislation. One source is that
of the article "The Rise of Antiecology," noted on page 42 of the August 3,
1970, issue of Time magazine. The second source is that of Issue Paper No.
4 on ecology and administration published by Community Health, Inc., of
New York.
Our interpretation of Reorganization Plan No. 3 is that while attempting
to provide better standard setting and control of the entire environmental
problem, there is indeed a definite possibility that health aspects of the
environment per se will be given less attention. If there is truly an environ-
mental crisis this cannot be allowed to happen. We from Colorado would
strongly recommend that a resolution be introduced in the Congress to post-
pone the adoption of Reorganization Plan No. 3 until alternative possibili-
ties of environmental coordination and reorganization can be considered. We
would suggest that among these alternate possibilities is the development of
a Cabinet level department of health, with a division of environmental pro-
tection. We would recommend the retention of the Council on Environmental
Quality as an advisory and coordinating body. We would also suggest the
formation of a joint legislative council to coordinate legislative action on
environmental programing.
[p. 205]
We feel that these measures would give the environmental health crisis the
attention that it needs at this time without fragmenting and disorganizing
-------
364 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Federal, State and local relationships necessary for cooperative action in
enforcing laws, rules and regulations for environmental control and improve-
ment. We greatly fear that we on the local level will have too many agencies
and commissions to relate to, and that we ourselves will be eventually frag-
mented and will be unable to coordinate our own efforts because of the need
to communicate with and receive directives and information from a myriad
of agencies and commissions above us. In short, increasing the number of
administrate agencies and personnel at higher levels of Government is not
the answer to more effective elimination of environmental hazards at the
local level.
We appreciate the attention of congress'onal committees to the point of
view of local people working in the field of environmental health as we
attempt to protect the American people at the vital local level.
STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL,
BOULDER, COLO.
Immediate modification of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 91st Con-
gress, 2d session, is strongly recommended by Colorado and many other State
and local health and environmental officials.
On August 4, 1970, a Colorado delegation presented this modi^ cation to all
Colorado Congressmen, which consists of the establishment of a separate Fed-
eral Department of Health with Presidential Cabinet rank encompassing a
strong environmental component.
The delegation consisted of: Glen E. Keller, Jr., of Lakewood, president of
the Colorado Board of Health; Andrew Gurtner, of Greeley, president of the
Weld County Board of Health; and Dr. Edgar M. Cleaver, director of the
Weld Countv Health Department, and myself as chairman of the Colorado
Health and Environmental Council.
Health of the Nation is facing two major crises: (1) Pollution of air and
•water, as well as radiation and noise pollution; (2) soaring cost of health
care, leading to bankruptcy, because of lack of any overall health policy and
bureaucratic fragmentation of health programs.
We applaud the recent statement of the American Medical Association that
a Federal Health Department should be established. Other organizations sup-
porting a separate Federal Department of Health are as follows: American
Public Health Association, Community Health Inc., State and Territorial
Health Officers Association, American Association of Public Health Physi-
cians, and many others.
The Colorado's 5x5 plan toward comprehensive health has been adopted
by the Governor's appointed 40-member comprehensive health planning
council according to Public Law 89-749. The Denver Areawide Health Plan-
ning Organization has also adopted the 5x5 plan with task forces for each of
the components—prevention, environment, education, chronic care, and acute
care. All five components are closely interrelated and should not be sepa-
rated.
A telegram sent to President Nixon from Colorado Health and Environ-
mental Council states: "Man's physical, mental and social health is directly
related to his environment in the following aspects: Air that he breathes;
water that he drinks; food that he eats; alcohol and drugs that he uses or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 365
abuses; medical hospital and home health care he receives; recreation facili-
ties that he uses; housing conditions that he lives in; working conditions he
is exposed to; and to social, psychological, and economic influences of neigh-
borhood, community, and school activities."
American Public Health Association conducted a statewide study of State
and local health services in Colorado during 1969 and 1970. The study was
conducted by Malcolm H. Merrill, M.D., M.P.H.
The study recommends the following scope of local community public health
services:
Objectives of study.—(1) Delivery of local community health service state-
wide in a more effective and efficient manner, at a lower cost; (2) Coordi-
nating local community health services statewide; (3) Developing local
comparable health services statewide; (4) Eliminating duplication of health
services; (5) Full utilization of health mnnnowe*-: tK\ T*"\fortn enforcement
of health laws, standards, rules, and regulations statewide.
[p. 206]
I. PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES
These services embrace those directed toward promotion of positive good
health, prevention of contagious and chronic debilitating diseases, early
detection of diseases; home health care of acute and chronic illnesses; as well
as physical, mental, and social rehabilitation. Program encompass: Com-
municable disease control; tuberculosis control; veneral disease control;
alcohol and drug dependence control; chronic disease control; nutritional
services; dental health services; multiphase screening program; and other
services as medical care, mental health, mental retardation, and rehabilita-
tion as may be assigned to the department.
The public health nurse is a keymember of the community health team
providing services in the above programs as well as in the following fields:
Bedside home nursing care; maternal and child health services; handi-
capped and crippled children's program; prevention of congenital defects;
evaluation services for delayed development; family planning; school health;
cooperative aftercare services for mental health; migratory labor health
services; vision and hearing conservation program; well-oldster clinic service.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Optimum health can be fostered bv prospective planning and management
of comprehensive environmental health services. Man's physical, mental, and
social health is directly related to the air that he breathes; water that he
drinks; trash and garbage he accumulates; food that he eats; recreational
facilities that he uses; housing conditions that he lives in; and working
conditions he is exposed to. The 125 registered environmentalists, sanitarians
in the 13 organized local health departments, as key members of the com-
munity health team, encompass the following programs: Water pollution
control; air pollut-'on control; solid waste disposal; drinking water quality
surveillance; restaurant inspection; food sanitation and consumer protection;
milk sanitation; rabies control; occupational health; radiological health;
noise control; accident prevention; housing sanitation; vector control; and
swimming pool sanitation.
-------
366 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
III. SUPPORTIVE HEALTH SERVICE
A. Public health laboratory.
B. Health education.
C. Vital statistics.
D. Business administration.
At present the above services through 13 organized local health depart-
ments serving 85 percent of the State population; utilizing 10 local health
departments' laboratories; physicians, 150 registered environmentalists;
sanitarians, engineers, chemists, and microbiologists, and 450 community
nurses in the field of public health, school health, home health care, and
clinic services.
Local community providers and consumers of health care feel that Govern-
ment should preserve and strengthen the voluntary aspect of our health
care provider system while placing top priority on developing neighborhood
clinics for the poor, group practice, and home health care services as a sub-
stitute for some hospital care.
Over two-thirds of the 2,300 home health care agencies in the United States
are either in local health departments or a combination of visiting nurse
association and local health department services. Most home health care
services report less than 1 percent of hospital admission are referred for
home health care, while recent studies reveal that between 3 and 5 percent of
hospital admission can benefit from early hospital discharge to home health
care. Also home care prevents hospital and nursing home admission and
readmissions, as well as providing a continuity of health care from hospital
to home which greatly enhances recovery. The average referral to home
health care results in the saving of 10 to 20 hospital days.
Local health departments have the trained personnel and capability of
providing neighborhood health clinic services for the purpose of preventing
disease and disability; as well as providing personal health care for the
poor. Home visitation by the community public health nurse represents the
liaison personal contact between the home and the neighborhood clinic
services. This represents family health care to the poor.
[p. 207]
Three Colorado health officials on July 7, 1970 sent to all 535 Congressmen
a signed letter of appeal under the auspices of the Colorado Health and
Environmental Council (CHEC), asking the support of the creation of a
separate Federal Department of Health, with Presidential Cabinet rank,
encompassing a strong environmental component. The letter states: "More
than 50 Federal agencies presently are delegated the authority for com-
munity and personal health programs. This has resulted in the duplication
and overlapping of health services, a lack of coordination of health pro-
grams, continued soaring costs in health care, failure to meet the health
needs of the medically indigent, and rivalry for personnel and programs. The
only solution to these problems is the creation of a separate Federal Depart-
ment of Health with Presidential Cabinet rank.
"Separating the control of the environment from its traditional relation-
ship to health cannot be done except at the cost of man's physical, mental,
and social well-being and at the risk of continuing the administratively
costly overlapping that presently exists.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 367
"If health is extricated from education and welfare and all programs of
health significance are consolidated in a Federal Department of Health, the
result should be a viable, manageable agency capable of providing for all
Americans the concerned sort of attention their personal and environmental
health demands."
A separate Federal Department of Health committed to medical care; pre-
vention and early detection of disease and handicapping conditions; environ-
mental health; home health care; outpatient care; community health educa-
tion; full utilization of all community health service; medical group practice;
health insurance; community health centers would provide the most effective
method of delivery of health service at a lower cost through a partnership
between private practice and public health.
CHARLES H. DOWDING, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.,
Chairman, Colorado Health and Environmental Council.
[p. 208]
[Illustration omitted.]
[p. 209]
Lie HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
H.R. REP. No. 91-1464, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
APPROVING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1970
SEPTEMBER 23,1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIELD, from the Committee on Government Operations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. Res. 1209]
The Committee on Government Operations, to whom was re-
ferred the resolution (H. Res. 1209) to disapprove Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970, having considered the same, report unfavora-
bly thereon without amendment and recommend that the resolu-
tion do not pass.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE PLAN
The purpose of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 is to bring
together certain environmental activities of the Federal Govern-
ment and to form a new Environmental Protection Agency. The
Agency would be composed of or carry out the following organiza-
-------
368 LEGAL COMPILATION— GENERAL
tions and functions now located in various departments and agen-
cies:
1. The Federal Water Quality Administration (until recently,
known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration),
now in the Department of the Interior ;
2. The National Air Pollution Control Administration, now in
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ;
3. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management, the Bureau of
Water Hygiene, and portions of the Bureau of Radiological
Health, all three now in the Environmental Control Administra-
tion of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ;
4. The pesticides research and standard-setting program of the
Food and Drug Administration in the Department of HEW ;
5. The pesticides registration authority of the Department of
Agriculture ;
6. The authority to perform general ecological research, from
the Council on Environmental Quality ;
7. The environmental radiation protection standard-setting
functions of the Atomic Energy Commission ; and
8. The functions of the Federal Radiation Council.
In submitting the plan to Congress President Nixon said, "Our
National Government today is not structured to make a coordi-
nated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe,
the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the
present governmental structure for dealing with environmental
pollution often defies effective and concerted action."
The President asserted that the reorganization would permit
response to environmental problems in a manner beyond the pre-
vious capability of our pollution control programs. The new EPA
would have the capacity to do research on important pollutants
irrespective of the media in which they appear, and on the impact
of these pollutants on the total environment. He said EPA would
"monitor the condition of the environment — biological as well as
physical" and then establish quantitative "environmental base-
lines" to measure the success or failure of our pollution abatement
efforts. The new Agency would, in concert with the States, set and
enforce standards for air and water quality and for individual
pollutants. (See appendix for text of President's message.)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 369
TEXT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 1209
RESOLUTION
Resolved that the House of Representatives does not favor the
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transmitted to the Congress by
the President on July 9,1970.
PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION
The purpose of House Resolution 1209 is to disapprove Reorg-
anization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transmitted to the Congress by the
President on July 9, 1970. Unless the resolution is adopted by the
House (or a similar one by the Senate) within 60 calendar days,
excluding adjournment for more than 3 days, the reorganization
plan will go into effect pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949
(5 U.S.C. 901-913). This committee believes that Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970 should be allowed to become law and, therefore,
recommends that House Resolution 1209 not be approved.
ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN1
Section 1 of the plan establishes an Environmental Protection
Agency to be headed by an Administrator to be appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Adminis-
trator will be compensated at executive level 2 ($42,500 per
annum). The President will also appoint a Deputy Administrator
at level 3 ($40,000) to perform such duties as are assigned him by
1 For text of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 see app., p. 18.
[p. 2]
the Administrator and who shall act in the place of the Adminis-
trator in the event of his absence. There will also be five Assistant
Administrators at level 4 ($38,000).
Section 2 transfers to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency the functions now vested by law in the follow-
ing offices and agencies as stated:
(1) All functions vested by law in the Secretary of the
Interior and the Department of the Interior which are admin-
istered through the Federal Water Quality Administration,
all functions which were transferred to the Secretary of the
Interior by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966 (80 Stat.
1608), and all functions vested in the Secretary of the Inte-
rior or the Department of the Interior by the Federal Water
-------
370 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Pollution Control Act or by provisions 6f law amendatory or
supplementary thereof.
(2) (i) The functions vested in the Secretary of the Inte-
rior by the act of August 1, 1958, 72 Stat. 479, 16 U.S.C.
742d-l (being an act relating to studies on the effects of
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides upon the
fish and wildlife resources of the United States), and (ii) the
functions vested by law in the Secretary of the Interior and
the Department of the Interior which are administered by the
Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commer-
cial Fisheries at Gulf Breeze, Fla.
(3) The functions vested by law in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare or in the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare which are administered through the En-
vironmental Health Service, including the functions exercised
by the following components thereof:
(i) The National Air Pollution Control Administration,
(ii) The Environmental Control Administration:
(A) Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
(B) Bureau of Water Hygiene,
(C) Bureau of Radiological Health,
except that functions carried out by the following components
of the Environmental Control Administration of the Environ-
mental Health Service are not transferred: (i) Bureau of
Community Environmental Management, (ii) Bureau of Oc-
cupational Safety and Health, and (iii) Bureau of Radiologi-
cal Heath, insofar as the functions carried out by the latter
Bureau pertain to (A) regulation of radiation from consumer
products, including electronic product radiation, (B) radia-
tion as used in the healing arts, (C) occupational exposures
to radiation, and (D) research, technical assistance, and
training related to clauses (A), (B), and (C).
(4) The functions vested in the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare of establishing tolerances for pesticide
chemicals under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
as amended, 21 U.S.C. 346, 346a, and 348, together with au-
thority, in connection with the functions transferred, (i) to
monitor compliance with the tolerances and the effectiveness
of surveillance and enforcement, and (ii) to provide technical
assistance to the States and conduct research under the Fed-
eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended and the Pub-
lic Health Service Act, as amended.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 371
(5) So much of the functions of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality under section 204 (5) of the National Environ-
[p.3]
mental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, approved Jan.
1,1970, 83 Stat. 855), as pertains to ecological systems.
(6) The functions of the Atomic Energy Commission under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, administered
through its Division of Radiation Protection Standards, to
the extent that such functions of the Commission consist of
establishing generally applicable environmental standards for
the protection of the general environment from radioactive
material. As used herein, standards mean limits on radiation
exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioac-
tive material, in the general environment outside the bounda-
ries of locations under the control of persons possessing or
using radioactive material.
(7) All functions of the Federal Radiation Council (42
U.S.C. 2021(h)).
(8) (i) The functions of the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Department of Agriculture under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.
135-135k), (ii) the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Department of Agriculture under section 408(1) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21
U.S.C. 346a(l)), and (iii) the functions vested by law in the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture
which are administered through the Environmental Quality
Branch of the Plant Protection Division of the Agricultural
Research Service.
(9) So much of the functions of the transferor officers and
agencies referred to in or affected by the foregoing provisions
of this section as is incidental to or necessary for the per-
formance by or under the Administrator of the functions
transferred by those provisions or relates primarily to those
functions. The transfers to the Administrator made by this
section shall be deemed to include the transfer of (1) author-
ity, provided by law, to prescribe regulations relating primar-
ily to the transferred functions, and (2) the functions vested
in the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare by section 169(d) (1) (B) and (3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (as enacted by section 704
of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 668) ; but shall be
-------
372 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
deemed to exclude the transfer of the functions of the Bureau
of Reclamation under section 3(b) (1) of the Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466a(b) (1)).
There are also transferred to the Agency:
(1) From the Department of the Interior, (i) the Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board (33 U.S.C. 466f), together
with its functions, and (ii) the hearing boards provided for
in sections 10 (c) (4) and 10 (f) of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466g(c) (4);
466g (f)). The functions of the Secretary of the Interior with
respect to being or designating the Chairman of the Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board are hereby transferred to
the Administrator.
(2) From the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, the Air Quality Advisory Board (42 U.S.C. 1857e), to-
gether with its functions. The functions of the Secretary of
[p. 4]
Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to being a mem-
ber and the Chairman of that Board are hereby transferred
to the Administrator.
Section 3 gives to the Administrator the power to delegate his
functions to others within the Agency.
Section 4. gives to the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget the determination of the personnel, property, and funds to
be transferred to the new Agency and requires these determina-
tions and such other measures and dispositions as he sees fit to be
carried out.
Section 5 empowers the President to make interim appoint-
ments of major officials of the Agency until the Office of Adminis-
trator has been filled. The President may also assign to the interim
officers the compensation that goes with the office.
Section 6 abolishes the Federal Water Quality Administration
and the Federal Radiation Council and provides for the termina-
tion of their respective affairs.
Section 7 postpones the effective date of the reorganization plan
to 60 days after it becomes law.
HEARINGS
Hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 were held by the Sub-
committee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization.2 Wit-
nesses included Members of Congress, representatives of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 373
Nixon administration, heads of affected departments and agencies,
officials of public interest organizations and trade associations,
among others. Statements in support of and in opposition to the
plan were presented.
COMMITTEE POSITION
This committee recognizes that environmental protection has
become a prime source of public concern and the role of Govern-
ment, both local and national, should and will increase in order to
prevent the environmental deterioration that we all deplore. The
form that Federal executive branch organization should take to
provide the most effective attack on the problem is still unsettled.
This plan does bring together certain scattered environmental and
pollution control functions but it leaves many others outside of the
umbrella here provided (see hearings, p. 68). Serious questions
were raised during the hearings as to whether or not a grouping
of this limited extent will really enable a greater focus on the
problem of the environment. (See accompanying table on person-
nel and funding for the new Agency. Note also that the bulk of the
funds are assigned to water pollution efforts.)
Another problem still unclear is the relationship between the
new Environmental Protection Agency here created and the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality established less than a year ago by
the Congress—Public Law 90-190. The broad mandate for coordi-
nation of "Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources"
given to the Council would seem to overlap the purposes of the
new Agency.
In his message the President distinguished the Council as a
"top-level advisory group" while EPA would be "an operating
'line' organization." He said: "It is my intention and expectation
that the two will work in close harmony, reinforcing each other's
2 Hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 by the Executive and Legislative Reorgani-
zation Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, July 22, 23 and
August 4, 1970.
[p. 5]
mission." Past experience has taught us, however, that this is
much easier said than done and we can well anticipate some confu-
sion between policymaking and the implementation of policy,
when two or more organizations are involved.
During the hearings we attempted to ascertain from the Admin-
istration witnesses what type of internal organization the new
EPA would have. We were told that this was not clearly deter-
-------
374 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
mined and should await the appointment of the Administrator.
Some members observed that it seemed preferable to provide the
Congress with some idea, in advance, of what arrangements will
be made for the transferred functions. We were subsequently
given a draft of an organizational chart which presumably repre-
sents some preliminary thinking on this subject.
This committee will closely follow the organization and opera-
tion of the new agency and its relationship to the Council on
Environmental Quality and will be prepared to make recommenda-
tions to the Congress on such further reorganizations of environ-
mental functions as may seem necessary. We call attention to the
fact that there are pending before the committee bills recently
introduced to create a Department of Environmental Quality
(H.R. 19195) and to create a Department of Natural Resources
(H.R. 19194), both of which contain more extensive lists of func-
tions than the Reorganization Plan.
The committee was concerned about what plans were being
made for the completion of certain study projects and other activi-
ties of the Federal Radiation Council whose functions are being
transferred to EPA. A letter was addressed by Acting Chairman
Holifield to Director Shultz of the Office of Management and
Budget on this matter. The letter dated August 5, 1970, and the
reply dated September 15,1970, will be found in the appendix.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY i-SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONNEL AND FUNDING
[Dollars in thousands]
1970 1971 President's request
Agency and current function
Positions! Obligations Outlays Positions Obligations Outlays
HEW: (Departmental totals for HEW).
NAPCA
FDA (pesticides)
Solid waste management
Water hygiene. ... ._ ...
Radiological health.
Office of the Commissioner
(ECA)s
Office of the Administrator
(EHS)<
Interior:
FWQA
Pesticides:
Label review.. _
Gulf Breeze Laboratory
USDA
Agriculture Research Service
Pesticides Regulation (PRO).
Monitoring (PPD)
AEC: Radiation protection standards..
(2,565)
1,055
265
206
160
551
129
199
2,421
9
20
294
26
3
($146,785)
102,662
8 443
15 275
2,701
12,277
1,920
3,507
615,600
188
551
4,286
714
75
($127,030)
81,357
7 599
14 502
2,431
11,049
1,728
8,364
258,000
175
551
3,857
571
67
(2,625)
1,141
272
206
160
508
127
211
2,669
9
20
435
26
3
($157,602)
112,118
10 733
15 336
2,344
11,051
1,913
4,107
1,233,300
216
551
6,668
714
75
($151,372)
107,400
9,660
15 305
2,110
9,946
1,722
5,229
650,000
200
551
6,001
571
67
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 375
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY "—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONNEL AND FUNDING—Continued
[Dollars in thousands]
1970 1971 President's request
Agency and current function
Positions2 Obligations Outlays Positions Obligations Outlays
Federal Radiation Council: All
functions 4 132 119 4 144 130
Total 5,322 768,331 390,370 5,791 1,399,270 808,892
1 These are preliminary estimates and are subject to change. These estimates do not include portions of "Buildings
and facilities" accounts which may be subject to transfer, for instance
' Full-time permanent positions authorized.
5 59 percent of the former personnel and dollars of the Office of the Commissioner (ECA).
' 86 percent of the former personnel and dollars of the Office of the Administrator (EHS).
[p. 6]
CONFORMITY WITH REORGANIZATION ACT
All reorganization plans submitted to the Congress must be in
conformity with the terms of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (5
U.S.C. 901-913). The President is called upon to make a determi-
nation that the plan is necessary to accomplish one or more of the
purposes set forth in section 901 (a). In this instance he declared
that Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, is responsive to section
901 (a) (1) "to promote the better execution of the laws, the more
effective management of the executive branch and of its agencies
and functions, and the expeditious administration of the public
business," and to section 901 (a) (3), "to increase the efficiency of
the operations of the Government to the fullest extent practica-
ble." The President states his belief that these purposes will be
accomplished, but does not say with particularity how they will be
brought about.
The President makes the further general statement that "The
reorganization plan should result in the more efficient operation of
the Government," but he does not specify "the reduction of ex-
penditures (itemized so far as practicable) that it is probable will
be brought about by taking effect of the reorganization included in
the plan," as directed by section 903 (b).
Two of the major purposes of the Reorganization Act are to
produce economy and efficiency in Government and to reduce ex-
penditures. This committee is hopeful that Plan No. 3 will improve
-------
376 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
economy and efficiency, but there is little likelihood of any reduc-
t;on in expenditures. Although the plan does not itself call for
larger appropriations for the functions involved, it does create
new, high-level jobs, and the environment is an expanding field of
governmental interest. The technical abolition of the Federal
Water Quality Administration and the Federal Radiation Council
will hardly produce savings as such.
On the whole, the committee believes that the creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency will be a forward step in the
Federal Government's effort to improve our environment and that
while the plan is subject to some criticism, on balance it should be
allowed to go into effect. The committee recommends, therefore,
that House Resolution 1209, disapproving Plan No. 3, be not ap-
proved.
[p. 8]
APPENDIX C
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C., August 5,1970.
Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SHULTZ: During the past several weeks of our subcommittee
hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3, there has been testimony and discus-
sion relating to the proposed transfer of all Federal Radiation Council
functions to the Environmental Protection Agency. I do not believe that
there has been adequate coverage concerning what the administration pro-
poses with respect to present ongoing study projects being conducted by
the FRC.
Specifically, this committee would like to know what is planned concerning
completion of the FRC study and report on radon exposures in the uranium
mining industry, and the comprehensive review of the radiation protection
guides which I, in my capacity as chairman of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, requested in my March 20 letter to Chairman Finch (copy
attached). Please indicate the expected schedule for the completion of these
FRC efforts.
The committee would also like to know how similar multidiscipline studies
concerning guides or standards for radiation exposure would be carried out
under the newly proposed organization.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
CHET HOLIFIELD, Acting Chairman.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 377
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., September 15,1970.
Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD,
Acting Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MB. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of August 5 asking
for further information about the administration's plans with respect to on-
going projects being conducted by the Federal Radiation Council after the
transfer of its functions to the Environmental Protection Agency proposed
under Reorganization Plan No. 3.
The overall intent of the administration under the plan was described by
Russell Train, Roy Ash, and other executive branch witnesses when they
appeared before Mr. Blatnik's subcommittee on July 22 and 23. With regard
to your specific questions:
(1) The review of radon daughter exposures in uranium mining w'll be
completed under the supervision of the Interagency Review Group on
Uranium Mining, which was set up by Secretary Finch, acting as Chairman
of the FRC. The Surgeon General, USPHS, was directed to chair the group.
The conclusions and recommendations of this Interagency Review Group are
expected to be available in time for the administration to act on the change
of the standard previously recommended before the effective date of January
1, 1971.
[p. 23]
(2) The plan for review of FRC basic guidelines recommended by Chair-
man Finch is attached for your information. The projected time for the
review of approximately 2 years was proposed by the National Academy of
Sciences and supported by the FRC staff and working group. The FRC
accepted the recommendations, and instructed the staff and working group to
plan the Council's program accordingly.
(3) The administration has acted to insure that the ongoing programs in
the funtions and organizations being transferred to EPA are continued with-
out interruption. The review of basic guidelines is already underway. The
contracts with NAS and NCRP shown in the plan are in the process of
being executed for fiscal year 1971. The transfer of functions will not affect
the orderly progress of completing the study.
As to future multidiscipline studies concerning guides or standards for
radiation exposure, we believe EPA will utilize the pattern and operational
procedures already established under the FRC, and will use basically the
same sources of expert advice, including critical non-Federal sources. Thus,
EPA will be:
(1) Making full use of expertise available in other Government agencies;
(2) Utilizing NAS for advice on the biological effects of radiation;
(3) Utilizing the expertise in the NCRP for advice in respect to basic
standards as well as advice on the most appropriate dosimetry models to be
used in connection with the development of secondary standards; and
(4) Creating special task forces including experts from the Government
and non-Government sectors as needed in special cases.
With the transfer of FRC to EPA under the Reorganization Plan, EPA
will, of course, be bound by the existing statutory requirements to consult
-------
378
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
with the NAS, NCRP, and other qualified experts in the fields of biology,
medicine, and health physics.
Sincerely,
GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Director.
[p. 24]
l.lf CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
l.lf(l) July 9: House Discussion, pp. 23532-23533
PRESIDENT NIXON'S REORGANIZATION
PLANS
(Mr. GERALD R. FORD asked and
was given permission to extend his re-
marks at this point in the Record.)
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speak-
er, the President has sent the Con-
gress reorganization plans aimed at
coordinating the Federal role in the
nationwide effort to restore our en-
vironment.
I congratulate the President. There
is no question that we need a strong
independent agency to oversee the
protection of our total environment.
I strongly endorse the President's
proposal to create the new Environ-
mental Protection Agency, and I also
favor his new National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
As I view the deficiencies in the ex-
isting situation, the most compelling
reasons for creating an Environ-
mental Protection Agency are the
need to provide clear-cut consistent
standards for enforcement in the area
of industrial pollution and a single
Federal agency to which State and
local pollution control officials can
go for financial support and technical
help.
In my view the creation of an inde-
pendent agency heading up an overall
effort to restore our environment is
one of the most pressing needs of our
time.
I would anticipate widespread sup-
port for the President's environmen-
tal reorganization plans in the Con-
gress and throughout the country.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, today
President Nixon has announced plans
for a reorganization in the executive
branch in order to establish a new
independent agency, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, and to es-
tablish the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration in the De-
partment of Commerce.
These are two monumental steps
forward in the mounting campaign for
environmental planning. EPA will
bring together the existing govern-
mental activities concerned with the
environment into one house. This will
work toward eliminating the tremen-
dous overlap and duplication of ac-
tivity that presently exists with the
fragmentation of duties among the
many Government agencies.
The establishment of NOAA has
been long awaited, and now we can
move in the direction of unifying our
approach to the problems of the oceans
and the atmosphere. NOAA will elimi-
nate duplication of activity and create
a center of strength within the civilian
sector of the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, the President has
taken two timely and much needed
steps. The efficiency of housing all
related responsibilities under one roof
will make far more effective each
dollar spent in research and develop-
ment, and facilitate the needed com-
munication for faster progress in
cleaning up our environment. I ap-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
379
plaud President Nixon for his action,
and I look forward with hope to the
results of a comprehensive examina-
tion of the total effects of pollution.
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the President's announce-
ment of his intention to create a
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration within the Commerce
Department.
What has been a piecemeal effort,
scattered far and wide, has been re-
organized into a viable, effective plan
which will enable the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration to
serve the Nation far better than has
been possible in the past.
This combining of atmospheric and
oceanic effort under the direction of
the Secretary of Commerce is the
product of the determination and
know-how of an administration ded-
icated to providing the best possible
service for the taxpayer's dollar.
The combining of several projects
and programs now being pursued by
different agencies of the Government
leads to duplication of research effort,
and inefficient administration prac-
tices. Persons engaged in research
often are not aware of findings made
by others that could either add to the
sum of knowledge in a field of concen-
tration, or could directly relate to it,
thereby eliminating unnecessary steps
and speeding the effort. Often re-
searchers are faced by a Federal maze
in attempting to determine if any in-
vestigation has been made on the
subject. Knowledge in all areas has
been expanding at such a fantastic
pace it is difficult for many scientists
to keep informed of their own special-
ty, let alone to stay abreast of devel-
opments in closely related fields. Raise
this problem to the level of a Federal
agency controlling several projects
and programs entirely unrelated, ex-
cept for the fact they are under one
department, and one can easily under-
stand the nearly impossible task of
easily obtaining information from sev-
eral different departments.
This is the current status of many
projects relating to the environment.
One of the main problems is that ad-
ministration has not kept up with
technology.
The creation of NOAA is a step in
the right direction, and I find it easy
to support it. The combining of the
programs directly relates to similar
efforts I have made in legislation I
have sponsored.
H.R. 715 will amend the rules of
the House of Representatives to create
a standing committee to which all
pollution bills can be referred. It will
bring to an end the current situation
of almost every committee in the
House handling pollution legislation.
Leadership and a streamlined method
of the legislative
[p. 23532]
process will make more efficient con-
gressional action on the pollution
problem.
I believe the Nation can expect im-
portant achievement from the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration. Its creation helps ad-
ministration catch up with expanding
technology.
I am pleased that another reorgani-
zation plan announced by the Presi-
dent also provides leadership, plan-
ning, and coordination in combating
pollution. Reorganization Plan No.
3 establishes the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The Agency would be
structured similar to NASA in that
it is directly responsible to the Presi-
dent. It is encouraging that the ad-
ministration has taken the route of a
central agency. The Environmental
Protection Agency is similar to an
organization proposed in a bill I in-
troduced early this year. H.R. 16414,
the Pollution Abatement Act of 1970,
establishes the National Environment
Control Commission which would have
-------
380
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
authority to generate and enforce pol-
lution standards, have full power to
promulgate all actions involved with
the attack, incorporate all future and
present pollution programs, and have
jurisdiction over more than $10 bil-
lion in Federal funds.
I support the President's two reor-
ganization plans. They will clear the
way for efficiencies in Agency expen-
ditures and for more efficient re-
search.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speak-
er, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days
in which to revise and extend their
remarks on the subject of the Presi-
dent's reorganization plans.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
[p. 23533]
l.lf(2) Sept. 28: House approves Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970 to establish Environmental Protection Agency as an inde-
pendent entity of Government, pp. 33871-33876; 33879-33884;
34015
DISAPPROVING REORGANIZATION PLAN
NO. 3 OF 1970—TO ESTABLISH AN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY OF GOV-
ERNMENT
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of House Resolu-
tion 1209, to disapprove Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3; and pending that
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that general debate on
the resolution may continue, not to
exceed 1 hour, the time to be equally
divided and controlled by the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN)
and myself.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from California.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of House Resolution
1209, with Mr. Andrews of Ala-
bama in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the
resolution.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the resolution was dis-
pensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani-
mous-consent agreement the gentle-
man from California (Mr. HOLIFIELD)
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
ERLENBORN) will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. HOLIFIELD).
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to try to
explain this resolution in as brief
time as possible, the President's Re-
organization Plan No. 3.
Mr. Chairman, House Resolution
1209 would disapprove Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970 submitted to Con-
gress by President Nixon on July 9.
The plan will create an Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
381
In accordance with the Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1949, if a disapproval reso-
lution is voted favorably by either the
House or the Senate within 60 days,
barring adjournments for more than
3 days, a reorganization plan will not
go into effect. Under the rules of the
House, reorganization plans and dis-
approval resolutions thereon are re-
ferred to the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations. In this instance
Reorganization Plan No. 3 was
assigned to the subcommittee chaired
by the gentleman from Minnesota who
held extensive hearings. Subsequently,
when the disapproval resolution was
filed the full committee voted to re-
port it to the House with the recom-
mendation that the resolution not be
agreed to, thereby supporting the re-
organization plan. I might say this
action was by a near-unanimous vote.
The committee report and the printed
hearings have been sent to every Mem-
ber of the House.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Reorganization Plan No. 3 would
establish an Environmental Protec-
tion Agency as a new independent
entity in the Government. It would
have a status comparable to other
independent units such as the Atomic
Energy Commission, General Services
Administration, and Veterans' Ad-
ministration which are not parts of a
department.
The EPA will bring together the
following agencies and functions now
located elsewhere in the Government:
First, the Federal Water Quality
Administration, now in the Depart-
ment of the Interior—you will recall
we transferred this agency to Interior
from HEW by reorganization plan in
1966;
Second, the National Air Pollution
Control Administration, now in the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare; parts of the Environmental
Control Administration—Bureaus of
Solid Waste Management, Water Hy-
giene, and a portion of the Bureau of
Radiological Health—also from HEW.
Third, the pesticides research and
standard-setting program of the Food
and Drug Administration, HEW;
Fourth, the pesticides registration
authority of the Department of Agri-
culture ;
Fifth, authority to perform general
ecological research, from the Council
on Environmental Quality; certain
pesticide research authorities of the
Department of the Interior;
Sixth, the environmental radiation
protection standard-setting function
of the Atomic Energy Commission;
and
Seventh, the functions of the Fed-
eral Radiation Council.
The Environmental Protection
Agency will have a budget for fiscal
1971 of approximately $1.4 billion,
mostly for water pollution efforts and
over 5,600 personnel.
STATED ADVANTAGES
The President tells us the creation
of the new agency will have the fol-
lowing advantages:
It will upgrade the effectiveness of
the Federal Government's major pol-
lution control programs.
It will provide a central focus for
an evaluation of all pollution-related
activities of the Government.
It will serve to upgrade the impor-
tance of environmental consideration
and pollution programs within the
Federal Government, and over a pe-
riod of time tend to have a similar
effect on program priorities within
state and local governments.
It will clarify industry responsibil-
ity by providing consistent standards
and a. single enforcement agency.
State and local pollution control
agencies will be able to look to one
Federal agency for all their financial
support and technical assistance.
It will insulate pollution abatement
-------
382
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
standard-setting from the promotional
interests of other departments.
Since no new program or funding
is proposed, I would conclude that the
essence of this plan is to bring these
scattered functions together under one
roof for whatever benefits such coor-
dination will produce in the overall
environmental effort.
This idea apparently originated
with the President's Advisory Coun-
cil on Executive Organization, headed
by Roy L. Ash and other well-known
businessmen. The plan was supported
by most of the witnesses who ap-
peared. It was opposed by Congress-
man JOHN DINGELL and reservations
were expressed by a number of farm
organizations who prefer that pesti-
cide resgistration remain in the De-
partment of Agriculture. Mr. DINGELL
will state his objections to you dur-
ing this debate.
As you will note from our report,
we took cognizance of the criticisms
that were made. We recognized that
this was a rather small step for-
ward in the needed coordination of
our many environmental programs.
Also, the distinction between the work
of the new Environmental Protection
Agency and the Council on Environ-
mental Quality was not made very
clear.
Furthermore, the plan does set up
a superstructure of high-level, high-
salaried administrators in the agency
even though we hear much talk from
the administration about the need for
economy. The President only recently
undertook to lecture the Congress
about spending.
Nevertheless, the environment is a
matter of great public concern now
and the committee felt that this plan,
even though subject to some criticism
should be allowed to become law.
That concludes my explanatory
statement, Mr. Chairman.
I might say that in view of the fact
that we have before us a resolution of
disapproval that if you are in favor
of the plan your vote should be "no"
on the resolution of t disapproval. If
you are against the plan, your vote
should be "yes" on the resolution of
disapproval.
The committee with almost unani-
mous action advises that a "no" vote
be given on the resolution of disap-
proval.
Mr. GROSS, Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Will the gentleman state how many
employees will be transferred out of
other agencies to this new Environ-
mental Protection Agency?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The estimate
given to us by the administration was
5,600.
Mr. GROSS. It was 5,600?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. Do I understand cor-
rectly that about 2,500 of these will
come from the Department of the
Interior?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I believe that is
about the breakdown. You see, we
put the water and air pollution acts
in the Department of the Interior, and
they have many employees working on
these programs. Their functions will
be transferred over into this environ-
mental agency, and along with the
functions will go the personnel rec-
ords of this agency pertaining to
these subject matters.
Mr. GROSS. And this requires the
establishment of an Environmental
Protection Agency?
[p. 33871]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency is estab-
lished by the President's plan. This,
of course, is a procedure authorized by
the Reorganization Act, and he may
group together related functions into
a new agency. He cannot abolish func-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
383
tions and he cannot expand functions.
That has to be done by statute. But
he can move them over, like moving
checkers over on a checkerboard into
one group.
Mr. GROSS. Who is going to ad-
minister this new agency?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That will be the
President's decision, of course—and
the gentleman may have some control
over that—but I do not.
Mr. GROSS. Not very much, I will
say to the gentleman, if any.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The President
has not announced who the Adminis-
trator will be.
Mr. GROSS. But there will be an
Administrator; is that correct?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. There will be one
Administrator. These are administra-
tive positions. There will be one Ad-
ministrator, a Deputy Administrator
and five Assistant Administrators.
The Administrator is at level No. 2
which is $42,500 annual salary. The
Deputy Administrator is at level No.
3 which is $40,000 annually and the
five Assistant Administrators are at
level No. 4 which is $38,000 each.
Mr. GROSS. That is five Assistant
Administrators at $38,000 each?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right.
May I say that the total, the way
I figure it, is $357,000 annually for
these new administrative positions.
Mr. GROSS. There are these new
administrative positions—but that
does not include clerical help, office
space, and so on and so forth?
Will this require a new building?
They are going up so fast around here
that I am led to believe that all of
these new creations require new
buildings.
" Mr. HOLIFIELD. I cannot answer
that question. The bodies that are
going to be in this new agency now
occupy office space so that I would
not see the necessity for additional
office space. They may be grouped
differently in different buildings. But
the increase in personnel that is con-
templated at this time, so far as I
can tell, only seven people.
Mr. GROSS. I call the gentleman's
attention to page 102 of the hearings
of the subcommittee where Mr. Lani-
gan of the committee staff, the gen-
eral counsel, pointed out that the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, which transferred from
HEW to the Department of Interior,
provided for an additional Assistant
Secretary of the Interior.
Then Mr. Lanigan said that he saw
no provision in Reorganization Plan
No. 3 either for the transfer of this
Assiistant Secretary to the new agency
or for the abolition of his job.
Mr. Lanigan asked:
Was it contemplated that this additional As-
sistant Secretary will remain in the Interior
Department?
The result of this questioning added
up to the answer that this question
would be disposed of in hearings on
Reorganization Plan No. 4; that is
the fate of this Assistant Secretary.
I have read as carefully as I could
the hearings on Reorganization Plan
No. 4 and I can find no disposition of
this Assistant Secretary. I wonder
where he is going to go?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I suppose that
following former procedure, if a sec-
retarial function in Interior is trans-
ferred over to the new agency, that
any person who takes that place would
be appointed and that the old Sec-
retary would either be dismissed or
appointed to a new agency somewhere
else.
Mr. GROSS. But no evidence was
submitted to your committee as to
whether he was going to be used as
an administrator on any other job?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The only evi-
dence submitted to our committee was
that there were going to be seven new
places.
Mr. GROSS. I am sure the gentle-
man knows the question that is in
my mind and that is, Will this re-
-------
384
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
organization plan merely result in
more empire building?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think it will
result in the concentration of the
different functions into one entity.
The President says that this is the
way to do it and the committee has
decided to go along.
I will reserve the balance of my
time and let our colleague, the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN)
further expiate on that problem.
Mr. Chairman, I include the follow-
ing letters referring to Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3:
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C.. August 5, 1970.
Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ,
Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Executive Office of the President, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SHULTZ: During the past several
weeks of our subcommittee hearings on Re-
organization Plan No. 3, there has been testi-
mony and discussion relating to the proposed
transfer of all Federal Radiation Council func-
tions to the Environmental Protection Agency.
I do not believe that there has been adequate
coverage concerning what the administration
proposes with respect to present ongoing study
projects being conducted by the FRC.
Specifically, this committee would like to
know what is planned concerning completion
of the FRC study and report on radon expo-
sures in the uranium mining industry, and the
comprehensive review of the radiation protec-
tion guides which I, in my capacity as chair-
man of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
requested in my March 20 letter to Chairman
Finch (copy attached). Please indicate the
expected schedule for the completion of these
FRC efforts.
The committee would also like to know how
similar multidiscipline studies concerning guides
or standards for radiation exposure would be
carried out under the newly proposed organi-
zation.
Your cooperation in this matter is appre-
ciated.
Sincerely yours.
CHET HOLIFIELD,
Acting Chairman.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., September 15, 1970.
Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD,
Acting Chairman, Committee on Government
Operations, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C,
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to
your letter of August 5 asking for further in-
formation about the administration's plans
with respect to ongoing projects being con-
ducted by the Federal Radiation Council after
the transfer of its functions to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency proposed under Re-
organization Plan No. 3.
The overall intent of the administration un-
der the plan was described by Russell Train,
Roy Ash, and other executive branch witnesses
when they appeared before Mr. Blatnik's sub-
committee on July 22 and 23. With regard to
your specific Questions:
(1) The review of radon daughter exposures
in uranium mining will be completed under the
supervision of the Interagency Review Group
on Uranium Mining, which was set up by
Secretary Finch, acting as Chairman of the
FRC. The Surgeon General, USPHS, was di-
rected to chair the group. The conclusions and
recommendations of this Interagency Review
Group are expected to be available in time for
the administration to act on the change of the
standard previously recommended before the
effective date of January 1, 1971.
(2) The plan for review of FRC basic guide-
lines recommended by Chairman Finch is at-
tached for your information. The projected
time for the review of approximately 2 years
was proposed by the National Academy of Sci-
ences and supported by the FRC staff and
working group. The FRC accepted the recom-
mendations, and instructed the staff and work-
ing group to plan the Council's program
accordingly.
(3) The administration has acted to insure
that the ongoing programs in the functions
and organizations being transferred to EPA
are continued without interruption. The review
of basic guidelines is already underway. The
contracts with NAS and NCRP shown in the
plan are in the process of being executed for
fiscal year 1971. The transfer of functions will
not affect the orderly progress of completing
the study.
As to future multidiscipline studies concern-
ing guides or standards for radiation exposure,
we believe EPA will utilize the pattern and
operational procedures already established un-
der the FRC, and will use basically the same
sources of expert advice, including critical
non-Federal sources. Thus, EPA will be:
(1) Making full use of expertise available in
other Government agencies;
(2) Utilizing NAS for advice on the biolog-
ical effects of radiation;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
385
(3) Utilizing the expertise in the NCRP for
advice in respect to basic standards as well as
advice on the most appropriate dosimetry mod-
els to be used in connection with the develop-
ment of secondary standards; and
(4) Creating special task forces including
experts from the Government and non-Govern-
ment sectors as needed in special cases.
With the transfer of FRC to EPA under the
Reorganization Plan, EPA will, of course, be
bound by the existing statutory requirements
to consult with the NAS, NCRP, and other
qualified experts in the fields of biology, medi-
cine, and health physics.
Sincerely,
GEORGE P. SHULTZ,
Director.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from New Jer-
sey (Mrs. DWYER).
Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to House Resolution
1209 and urge that Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970 be allowed to be-
come effective.
The net result of our Federal en-
vironmental protection effort to date
is a structure incapable of coordi-
nated and effective action in dealing
with pollution. Having developed
piecemeal, the environmentally re-
lated activities of Government are
now scattered among a number
[p. 33872]
of departments and agencies and are
incapable of a concerted attack upon
our pollution problems.
I have long crusaded for a more
effective allocation of the resources
of Government and I know of no
area where reorganization is more
essential than in pollution control.
Many agency missions for environ-
mental protection have been designed
without regard to the interrelatedness
of the sources of air, water, and land
pollution.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 would
not only make possible comprehensive
research, standard setting, and con-
sistent and effective policy formula-
tion, but would simplify intergovern-
mental relations. State and local gov-
ernments, as well as industry, should
thereby be spared some of the frus-
trations of dealing with a number of
different agencies.
Overhauling the cumbrous machin-
ery of Government is a task of awe-
some proportions and cannot be ac-
complished in one fell swoop. The
President has redeemed his campaign
pledge "to set in motion a searching,
fundamental reappraisal of our whole
structure of government" and is pro-
ceeding systematically and thoroughly.
The President has es-tab'ished en-
vironmental quality as a priority ob-
jective of this administration; Con-
gress has long been committed to the
same goal; and the public shares the
same commitment. In such a climate,
and in face of the need it would be
unthinkable to reject this reorganiza-
tion plan.
The President must be permitted
not only to gain economy and effi-
ciency in Government, but to give
Government the ability to meet pri-
ority needs and thus restore the
quality of life.
Admittedly, Reorganization Plan
No. 3 is not the last word, nor is it
intended to be. But I agree with the
President that it is a sound and sig-
nificant beginning toward the ulti-
mate objective of maximizing the
effective coordination and functioning
of the Nation's environmental and
resource protection activities.
Therefore, I urge this body to vote
"no" on House Resolution 1209 and
thus allow Reorganization Plan No.
3 of 1970 to become effective.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, of the many reor-
ganization plans that have been re-
ferred to the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations and debated in this
body since I became a Member of
Congress, none has been more in keep-
ing with the letter and the spirit of
-------
386
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the Reorganization Act of 1949, as
amended and now codified at 5 U.S.C.
901-913, than Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970.
Not only is it needed to promote the
better execution of the laws, the more
effective management of the executive
branch and of its agencies and func-
tions, and the expeditious administra-
tion of the public business, but it is
deliberately designed to increase the
efficiency of the operations of the
Government to the fullest extent
practicable.
The present fragmentation of pol-
lution control programs among sev-
eral agencies of Government no longer
serves the public interest. The unified
system that is the environment must
be matched by a corresponding inter-
relatedness of governmental responsi-
bilities to protect that environment.
No matter how much additional
funds we appropriate to restore and
preserve the quality of our environ-
ment much of our investment will be
wasted unless we remedy the frac-
tured structure that currently inhibits
effective use of funds and people.
No single agency is presently re-
sponsible for developing the integrated
research, standard setting, and as-
sistance necessary to develop and carry
out a comprehensive program of pol-
lution control.
The President has made a compel-
ling case for proposing a separate new
agency, rather than placing environ-
mental protection activities in an
existing department. Because each de-
partment's view of environmental
questions is affected by its own pri-
mary mission, its objectivity as an
impartial standard setter for other
departments could be called into ques-
tion. A strong independent agency is
needed.
The Environmental Protection
Agency would bring together in a
single organization the major Federal
pollution control programs now exist-
ing in four separate agencies and one
interagency council.
The plan would combine functions
carried out by the Federal Water
Quality Administration—FWQA—
now in the Department of the In-
terior; the National Air Pollution
Control Administration — NAPCA —.
parts of the Environmental Control
Administration—EGA—and the pes-
ticides research and regulatory pro-
grams of the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, all presently located in
HEW; the pesticides registration and
related authority of the Department
of Agriculture; the environmental
radiation protection standard-setting
function of the AEC; the functions of
the Federal Radiation Council; some
of the pesticides research conducted
by the Bureau of Commercial Fish-
eries; and authority to conduct eco-
logical systems research, now vested
in the Council on Environmental
Quality.
Thus, the new agency would in-
clude only those programs or func-
tions necessary for it to carry out its
mission of integrated policymaking
and pollution control. The standard-
setting function is a critical one and
although only a handful of programs
are being transferred, they represent
an authority that can exert a great
deal of leverage in improving en-
vironmental quality.
Tn view of this carefully worked out
answer to a demonstrated need, it is
difficult to understand the opposition
to the plan culminating in the reso-
lution of disapproval before us today.
Nevertheless, opposition has been ex-
pressed and it deserves an answer.
The arguments that I have heard
advanced against this plan are basi-
cally three in number, first, that it
does not go far enough in coordinat-
ing the environmental protection ac-
tivities of Government; second, that
it goes too far in coordinating the
environmental protection activities of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
387
Government, and finally, that the co-
ordination of the environmental ac-
tivities of Government should have
been accomplished in some other place
and under some other name.
The first two arguments tend to
cancel each other out and are a trib-
ute to the balance with which the
proposed organizational structure is
designed, the third defies argument
because there is no profit in disputing
differences concerning tastes.
Substantial or not, these arguments
merit examination in somewhat more
detail. As to the argument that the
plan does not go far enough in co-
ordinating the environmental protec-
tion activities of Government there is
no question but what environmental
factors exist in practically all operat-
ing programs of the Federal Govern-
ment. Some of them should probably
be included in this new agency and
undoubtedly, at some later time, will
be. That fact, however, should not
militate against this very meaning-
ful and significant plan to consolidate
basic efforts to determine tolerance
levels and standards for major forms
of pollution affecting the general en-
vironment, to enforce those standards
and to provide assistance in alleviat-
ing pollution problems.
Resistance to the separation of re-
sponsibilities for regulating the en-
vironmental effects of a particular
activity from the responsibilities for
promoting or developing a particular
resource or activity gives rise to the
second argument I mentioned earlier
that the plan goes too far. While the
problem is one of Federal organiza-
tion subject to more than one solution,
there is a growing public concern
over the vesting of promotional and
regulatory powers in the same agency
of Government. The Department of
Agriculture's regulation of pesticides
and the Atomic Energy Commission's
regulation of radiation levels were
cited as examples having a potential
for conflict of interest. Vesting these
regulatory functions in an independ-
ent Environmental Protection Agency
should allay any fears that special
interests will prevail over the interest
of the public at large.
Moreover, it should be noted that
pursuant to the reorganization pro-
visions of 5 U.S.C. 901-913, a reor-
ganization plan cannot create any new
authorities or functions. The functions
of the new Environmental Protection
Agency, at the outset, will be those
of its constituent parts. However,
those functions will be better coordi-
nated and performed.
Finally, a word about the view that
the coordination of the environmental
activities of Government should have
been accomplished in some other place
and under some other name. Alterna-
tive proposals have ranged from main-
taining the status quo to a super De-
partment of Environment and Natu-
ral Resources. However, the vast,
overwhelming majority feel that re-
organization is needed and the pulling
together of environmental protection
functions of the Federal Government
in one agency is needed if we are to
get the job done that has to be done.
The only question is what sort of
reorganization? What the administra-
tion has done in this case is to
pursue the right and only politi-
[p. 33873]
cally feasible course. Politics is often
the art of the possible. Perhaps this
plan does not go as far as it should,
but I believe it goes as far as it can.
Logically, a case could be made for
including, for example, the civil func-
tions of the Corps of Engineers, the
Forest Service, and other entrenched
bureaucracies in a Department of En-
vironment and Natural Resources,
but how far would such a reorganiza-
tion plan get in this Congress? While
Reorganization Plan No. 3 may be
only a first step in a direction that
-------
388
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
has to be traveled, it is the maximum j
that can be accomplished now. It is
the optimum compromise between dis-
cretion and bold imaginativeness and
I commend the administration for its
genius in devising a plan to increase
the efficiency of the operations of the
Government to the fullest extent
practicable.
Therefore, I urge this body to vote
"no" on House Resolution 1209 and
thus allow Reorganization Plan No.
3 of 1970 to become effective.
One last comment. I would like to
repeat what the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. HOLIFIELD) has said about
the double negative aspect of the
vote on this proposition. The Presi-
dent's Reorganization Plan No. 3
will become law unless a resolution
of disapproval is adopted. The Com-
mittee on Government Operations al-
most unanimously has recommended
this resolution of disapproval, which
we are considering today, not be
adopted. So to allow this plan to go
into effect and to allow the environ-
mental protection agency to become
law, we are recommending that Mem-
bers vote "no" on the resolution of
disapproval.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I appre-
ciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I only have two
questions. First, is it not true that if
we simply had failed to bring the
resolution up, with almost unanimous
agreement of the committee that it be
defeated and a "no" vote be cast in
order to allow the Presidential re-
organization plan to go through, the
reorganization plan within 60 to 90
days would have gone through and
have had the effect of law anyway,
under the existing Reorganization
Act?
Mr. ERLENBORN. The gentleman
is correct. If no action is taken on the
resolution of disapproval, the reorgani-
ation plan becomes law automatically
at the expiration of 60 days as pro-
vided in the statute, so I think it is
testimony to the fairmindedness of the
acting chairman of our committee,
the gentleman from California (Mr.
HOLIFIELD) that he saw that this
matter was scheduled, so the House
could have an opportunity to vote
one way or the other. If we had done
nothing, the plan would have become
law just by operation of the law.
Mr. HALL. My comment was to-
ward avoiding another double nega-
tive situation.
But, Mr. Chairman, my second ques-
tion and what I originally rose for
was to ask the gentleman if he would
care to expound a little further on
just how this new consolidated agency
would interfere with the new As-
sistant Secretary of Defense for
Health and Environmental Measures
which was created by this body.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Illinois has expired.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
Mr. HALL. As the gentleman may
know, this body created the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for health mat-
ters and, presumably by Presidential
agreement with the Secretary of De-
fense, "environmental affairs," was
added. I believe it is a very excellent
thing.
Would this agency have any control
over that function of the Department
of Defense on which so much has been
expended in order to clear up pollu-
tion of the air and waters and solid
waste and everything else so recently
in various posts, camps, and stations,
under the military construction au-
thorization and appropriations?
Mr. ERLENBORN. To answer the
gentleman in the context he asked the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
389
question, the answer is "No," that this
agency would have no control over
the Department of Defense or the As-
sistant Secretary, because the reor-
ganization plan by law cannot create
any new functions. We can only
transfer to a newly created agency
functions already existing. But it will
provide a place where the major pol-
lution control activities of the Gov-
ernment will be administered under
one head, and, therefore, will provide
better liaison with the Department of
Defense and other departments of
Government.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, knowing
the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for health and environmental matters,
I am sure he will coordinate with this
agency. I intend to vote "no" for this
resolution and allow the reorganiza-
tion to proceed, even though in prin-
ciple I disapprove of vetoes in reverse.
It is my understanding that the U.S.
House of Representatives will today
be asked to disapprove President
Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 3,
establishing an Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. This Member will be
happy to give his full support to a
bringing together of the many Fed-
eral programs into an independent
agency. My constituency in the
beautiful Ozarks of Missouri is pop-
ulated by Americans who deplore
pollution and other attacks on our
natural resources and our recreational
areas. They have trouble knowing
where to turn in their desire to solve
their problems at the proper local
levels.
Being one of only three physicians
in the U.S. Congress, I am especially
aware of the health hazards that are
presenting themselves as the pollution
problem grows in size. I am pleased
to know that my own medical associa-
tion, the American Medical Associa-
tion, has pledged its support to the
President's program.
There follows a letter addressed to
the President and signed by Walter
C. Bornemeier, M.D., president of the
American Medical Association:
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
Chicago, 111.. July 27, 1970.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We in the medical pro-
fession have long been concerned about the
health problems generated by man's interaction
with his environment. The need for affirmative
action by all segments of our society is im-
mediate and great. We are extremely pleased
to see that you are continuing to put the Fed-
eral House in order so that the government's
environmentally-related activities can be orga-
nized rationally and systematically.
We wish to lend our fullest support to your
recent reorganization plan establishing the en-
vironmental protection agency. We applaud
your decision to bring together previously scat-
tered Federal programs into one coherent and
independent agency. This action will undoubt-
edly impart to the programs concerned a degree
of public visibility that is so necessary for
adequate funding and responsive administra-
tion. Then, too, this major step forward will
enhance the status of these programs by pro-
viding that the head of the agency will report
directly to you.
We are fully aware of the many and difficult
problems that the country faces in attempting
to control and to reduce environmental pollu-
tion. We, therefore, congratulate you on this
progressive action which will rationalize these
governmental research and enforcement pro-
grams. Please be assured that the medical pro-
fession—always active in the fight against
environmental pollution—will continue to do its
share.
Respectfully yours,
WALTER C. BORNEMEIER, M.D.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the
gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KYL. Of course, there is an
overwhelming temptation to vote for
the establishment of anything that
will coordinate efforts in the field of
environmental control, but did the
committee contemplate the possible
results, for instance, on item No. 4,
the pesticides research and standard-
setting program of the Food and Drug
Administration in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare? It
-------
390
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
occurs to me if we set up a new
bureau in a new department to do
this kind of work we are going to have
to buy all of the equipment which
exists in the other agency, and hire
an additional set of people to do this
work, because HEW now does work
of many different kinds in chemical
research and toxic research and so on.
Are we merely creating a whole
new office to do the same job that this
other office has been doing but at the
same time leaving the old office suffi-
cient work to keep all of its personnel
and all the equipment.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I believe the
only way I could answer the gentle-
man would be to say that those people
who are identified with this particular
program—that is, the standard setting
and pesticides research—are now in
HEW, and the facilities and equip-
ment utilized in that program will
be physically transferred to the new
agency. To what extent they may be
physically interrelated with other re-
search I cannot answer offhand.
[p. 33874]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. On page 103 of
the hearings, I will say to my col-
league, there is testimony by the
Honorable J. Phil Campbell, Under
Secretary of the Department of Agri-
culture, who was accompanied by Dr.
George W. Irving, Administrator of
the Agricultural Research Service. He
appeared and he did testify on this
matter, and testified in favor of this
transfer.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the
gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I hope that this re-
organization will work, but very
frankly, I am dubious, I will say to
the gentleman, for the reason that I
was here when the Department of
Defense was created. Others were here
at that time and they will recall that
we were told the Department of De-
fense would be lean and hungry. It
seems to me that we were told there
would be about 150 additional employ-
ees over there.
I suspect that there are 10,000 to
20,000 now in the Department of De-
fense. Just another layer of fat, in
my opinion, has been added to the ad-
ministration of the military establish-
ment of this country. After all these
years there is still little commonality
of information on purchasing. There
are secretaries, assistant secretaries,
and deputy secretaries all over the
place. I do not have the faintest idea
of what the administration of the De-
partment of Defense is costing. I am
sure it is the biggest one of the re-
organizations in terms of personnel
and in terms of cost to the public. It
would be fine if these reorganization
plans did what you say they will do
in these hearings and in the report;
that is, create efficiency and economy,
but they just do not do it. I hope, if
this resolution is approved, that this
will be the first one that will provide
for commonality in the matter of in-
formation and efficiency and economy
in Government. If it does, it will be
the first since I have been a Member
of Congress.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the
gentleman, and I join in his hope.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. DlNGELL).
Mr. DlNGELL. Mr. Chairman, a few
years ago my colleague, JOHN Moss,
and I came into to the well to speak
against a proposal to create an Air-
ways Modernization Board. We point-
ed out at that time that bill created
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
391
an out-house, a shed, a temporary
structure, where a major edifice was
needed. Within 2 years of that time,
my colleagues who were here then
will recall, the Congress responded
by unanimously passing the legisla-
tion that created the Federal Aero-
nautics Administration. In the pas-
sage of the legislation which created
the PAA the very arguments were
used that we had made against the
Airways Modernization Board.
Today we have a similar situation
before us. The administration would
have you believe that this proposal
combines all of the environmental
protection activities in the Federal
Government in one agency. Let me
tell you that is not so. Programs in
the Department of Agriculture deal-
ing with water and sewerage, pro-
grams in the Department of HUD
making major grants to cities for the
construction of water and sewage
facilities are not transferred, and
none of the environmentally directed
activities in the Department of De-
fense or the Department of Transpor-
tation are transferred to the new
agency. As a matter of fact, they are
immune and exempt from this re-
organization plan. One must ask why
agencies which have so much to do
with environmental protection of the
quality of our environment have been
completely passed over. The answer is
that it was probably just too big and
too much of a political question for
the Administration to take over. It is
said that this is going to result in
efficiency. As a matter of fact, let me
tell my colleagues that there is noth-
ing further from the truth than that.
The answer is that this proposal is
going to give us first of all better than
a year and probably at least 2 years
wherein practically nothing will be
done about environmental protection
by the agencies.
My friend from Iowa pointed out
some of the circumstances. First of
all, they have to select the bureau-
crats; second of all, they have to re-
view all of the policies; third of all,
they have to get themselves an ap-
propriation so that they can get the
proper building and properly deco-
rated offices, and then they have to
get good-looking secretaries and fol-
low that up by kicking out all of the
people who made life hard for the
polluters, so that they can satisfy the
polluters and their big campaign con-
tributors. That is what will happen.
You have 2 years when nothing will
happen while the Nation is riven by
concern over the pollution of our en-
vironment and the destruction of en-
vironmental quality in this Nation.
After they have their limousines and
their secretaries, their draperies and
their rugs and their new offices and
office furniture selected, they will be-
gin to settle down and produce effi-
ciency experts in their agency. They
will have to bring in all of these
people from the agencies where they
are, and they will move them around
in order to try to get matters going
forward again. This will go on until
a new administration comes in and
starts the reorganization all over
again.
So that you do not think I am be-
ing partisan, I want you to know that
I intend to oppose this if another ad-
ministration tries to do the same
thing.
We have gone this route before
when we have moved water pollution
from the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to the Depart-
ment of the Interior, and if any of
you watched what transpired at that
time, you will know that these delays
and wastes are exactly what takes
place.
And, what you wind up with really
is not less people doing more effective
work, but more people doing a great
deal less. That is what is going to
transpire here. There will be a lot
-------
392
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
more bureaucrats drawing higher
salaries, with more secretaries anfl
limousines and fancy office furniture,
but doing less work. While the so-
called efficiency experts who will b:
around the Department having re-
sponsibility for this program, there
will be two, three, four, or five
people doing the work that can be
done by one person.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I shall be happy to
yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KYL. I will say, first, that the
gentleman from Michigan puts him-
self in jeopardy, because there will
be those who will be quick to pounce
upon his words as indicating that he
is an enemy of environmental con-
trol.
Mr. DINGELL. Well, of course, I
am not. I am very much in favor of
workable programs which will
strengthen our laws against environ-
mental pollution. I would point out
that I have worked hard to make our
antipollution and environmental pro-
grams effective devices.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I agree
with the gentleman to this extent: If
we are going to reorganize all of our
resources into one agency or depart-
ment, we should go all the way.
Mr. DINGELL. The distinguished
gentleman from Iowa is entirely cor-
rect.
Mr. KYL. It is like having one
agency running one part of a pro-
gram under one set of rules and
another handling a different part of
the program under another set of
rules.
We ought to also take the military
portions of this problem and put them
under a broad heading if we are to
have total environmental control.
Mr. Chairman, I would feel better
about Reorganization Plan No. 3 if
we could pull together all of these
agencies because I believe we might
!>e fragmenting as the gentleman in-
licates.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank my friend
''or his valuable contribution.
Mr. Chairman, what is needed is
a program of a major emphasis, a
major edifice. Also, so that my col-
leagues will know—and I will insert
it in the RECORD at the proper time
—there is legislation pending to create
a Department Of Natural Resources
and Environmental Quality so that
we will know that the affairs of Gov-
ernment are being upgraded and not
downgraded and that a large number
of agencies having direct standard-
making responsibility will not be to-
tally ignored.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan has ex-
pired.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 3 additional min-
utes.
Mr. DINGELL. But I think it has
to be recognized that they could be
totally or easily ignoring many agen-
cies having responsibility in this area
but we are effectively discrediting the
old agencies and we will have Assist-
ant Secretaries and Under Secretaries
speaking on behalf of pollution abate-
ment which will be carried out by
an Administrator.
[p. 33875]
Mr. Chairman, we are told that
this is going to be like NASA. But
there is a difference. NASA has been
successful for two reasons. They have
had the strongest kind of policy sup-
port from the Hill and the adminis-
tration and we have given them the
funds with which to do the job. We
have supported them completely so
that they could do the job. That is
the reason that NASA has been suc-
cessful.
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt but
what within a very short period of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
393
time this issue will be back before us
and we will be called upon to recog-
nize the warning I give you today
that the program is not going to
work because a major attack upon
environmental pollution is required
by an independent agency with the
necessary funds and with the ability
to do the job. If this reorganization
plan goes into effect we have only
today set up something temporarily
which in my opinion will be clearly
and plainly counterproductive.
Mr. Chairman, in my remarks be-
fore the Committee on Government
Operations I cited the book "Peter
Principle." One of the things dis-
cussed there was the situation where
you have a major problem which
outrages everyone. But for good or
bad reasons, it is inexpedient to at-
tack the problem directly. We have
here such a nasty problem and a
highly political one. In this case, we
will be utilizing the Peter's Placebo,
appearing to do something when in
fact we are really going after an
altogether different problem, attack-
ing something else and not in fact
doing anything at all about the main
problem. But it just looks like you are
doing something. That is what the
Reorganization Plan No. 3 is all
about today.
It is something which is going to
accomplish nothing and which will
not work, but it gives the appear-
ance of doing, so that the malcontents
in the audience may be convinced
there is something that is going to
happen. But I will promise my col-
leagues one thing, and that is that this
is not going to make progress, it is
counterproductive. I would urge my
colleagues that this program should
be rejected. I believe we should do
something about this area, but not
on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, or swal-
low-it-whole-or-nothing basis, as un-
der this kind of a proceeding, but
rather this should be done through
legislation where together, all the
people of the Nation, the persons
interested in conservation as well as
even the polluters, would be permitted
to come forward and to make sugges-
tions so that we could have a careful
study and review of the whole situa-
tion which would in the end answer
a lot of unanswered questions that
are before us. Although there is not
enough time, I would simply point
out to my colleagues that this piece
of legislation is so fraught with un-
answered questions that on that basis
alone, apart from the lack of wisdom
and apart from the lack of effective-
ness it should be summarily rejected.
The legislation to which I referred
earlier is H.R. 19195, to establish a
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity, which I cosponsored wit*h my
friend the gentleman from California
(Mr. Moss) the text of which follows:
*****
[set forth on 33880-33883]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding me the additional
time.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. KYL. Since the gentleman has
commented on the other side of this
coin, I would like to ask this question:
What legislative committee of the
Congress will now be responsible for
the authorization to cover the acts
contemplated in this measure?
Mr. DINGELL. I would say this,
that the different statutes and the dif-
ferent functions which are transferred
over to administer the new agency
will probably remain in the existing
-------
394
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
committee structure of the Congress.
I doubt very much if that would be
particularly impaired. But I would
urge on my colleagues that we would
be far better off to do this by legis-
lation which would come out of the
same committee that has given us this
outrage, and this abomination, and
give to the Members who oppose it an
opportunity to amend it in a calm,
serene, and deliberate fashion.
Mr. KYL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DINGELL, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. DON H. CLAU-
SEN).
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr.
Chairman, I wonder if I could have
the attention of the gentleman from
California (Mr. HOLIPIELD), the chair-
man of the committee, to further dis-
cuss the comments that have been
made by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. DINGELL), since this relates to
the question of committee jurisdiction
over the legislation.
Does the gentleman see any changes
in the jurisdictional control by the
committees that now handle environ-
mental quality programs as proposed
by the Executive and/or our col-
leagues?
For instance, in our case, in the
Rivers and Harbors Committee, we
have been handling, routinely, the
water pollution and water quality
legislation. Will this remain under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on
Rivers and Harbors?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, in
my opinion the statutes that have cre-
ated these entities will remain in the
jurisdictional control of the commit-
tees that created them. There is no
place that I know of in the plan where
the statutes are transferred, the
functions under the statutes are trans-
ferred.
I would also like to answer a ques-
tion here that was asked me by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
HANSEN) who unfortunately cannot
be here today, but who asked me by
phone. She was particularly concerned
about the control of the appropriations
for the Bureau of Commercial Fish-
eries being taken away from her sub-
committee on appropriations. My an-
swer to her was that in my opinion
the control of the assignment of ap-
propriations jurisdictions would still
remain in the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations, and I can
see nothing in this plan that would
cause her jurisdictional control on
appropriations for the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries to be trans-
ferred. And that would apply to all
other statutes and all other com-
missions.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. I thank
the gentleman for his response be-
cause I think it is important to make
this legislative history at this point,
because there will be lots of people
asking that question.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that that
is a good question, and I have an-
swered it to the best of my knowledge
on the subject matter. Previous re-
organization plans did not transfer
statutory control out of the juris-
diction of the committees, nor the ap-
propriation committees or committee
chairmen.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. I think
that by and large most people tend to
agree that a committee that works in
a given field tends to develop sub-
stantially more expertise than would
other committees, so that is quite
natural and understandable, and is
the reason for my concern in this
matter, and the reason for the ques-
tion.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The establish-
ment of a new department, like the
Department of Transportation, for
instance, is by regular statute. That
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
395
is a different situation than obtains
in a reorganization plan.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. I thank
the gentleman for his response.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to House Resolution 1209 to disap-
prove Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970. This bold and sweeping reform
plan advanced by President Nixon
would bring under the roof of a new
Environmental Protection Agency a
myriad of Government activities for
the purpose of waging an all-out co-
ordinated attack on air, land, and
water pollution.
In his message to the Congress on
July 9, 1970, President Nixon ex-
plained the need for a new central
agency to deal with the environment
in these terms:
Our National Government today is not struc-
tured to make a coordinated attack on the pol-
lutants which debase the air we breathe, the
water we drink, and the land that grows our
food. Indeed, the present governmental struc-
ture for dealing with environmental pollution
often defies effective and concerted action.
Despite its complexity, for pollution control
purposes the environment must be perceived as
a single, interrelated system. Present assign-
ments of departmental responsibilities do not
reflect this interrelatedness.
Simply speaking, Reorganization
Plan No. 3 reorganizes the inadequa-
cies o f the current proliferation of pol-
lution functions within the Federal
Government, and seeks to rectify
them by bringing together these
scattered components under the um-
brella of a new Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The principal roles
and functions of this new agency,
EPA, would include the establishment
and enforcement of environmental pro-
tection standards, conducting research
on the adverse effects of pollution and
methods and equipment for controlling
it, assisting others in combatting pol-
lution through grants and technical
assistance, and working closely with
the Council on Environmental Quality
in formulating new policies for en-
vironmental protection.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that there
is some opposition to this new reor-
ganization plan for various reasons.
There are those who question the need
for both an Environmental Protection
Agency and a Council on Environ-
mental Quality, suggesting that there
might be a duplication of responsibili-
ties and functions. I think the Presi-
dent handled this question quite well
in his message by pointing out that
the Council will continue to serve in
an advisory capacity to the President
on broad policy questions, while the
Agency will serve as the actual operat-
ing arm of the Federal Government
in our overall efforts to combat pol-
lution and protect the environment.
There are others who criticize this
plan on the grounds that it is not as
comprehensive or all-inclusive as it
should be. Many of these critics favor
instead a Department of the Environ-
ment or a Department of Natural
Resources, or a combination of the
two. While this proposal may have
some merit and should not be rejected
out of hand, I firmly believe that we
should think twice before creating a
new super-bureaucracy along the lines
of HEW which every Secretary to
date has, in frustration, referred to
as an unmanageable monster. Such a
proposal could well prove to be coun-
ter-productive if it turned out that we
had assigned the vital mission of man-
aging the environment to an unman-
ageable monster.
For these reasons, I strongly sup-
port the creation of an Environmental
Protection Agency as embodied in
Reorganization Plan No. 3. In this
proposal we have a realistic and
manageable approach to environmen-
tal protection. In this proposal we have
an agency with clearly delineated
duties, responsibilities, and authority.
And in this proposal we have what I
feel is the best possible approach to
-------
396
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
waging the type of coordinated attack
on pollution which is so necessary if
we are to preserve, protect, and re-
store our environment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in this pro-
posal I think we have the embodiment
of what we are striving for in both
a decade of reform and a decade of
the environment.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman,
it is elementary commonsense to co-
ordinate all Federal programs related
to curbing pollution and its causes.
Therefore, I support Reorganization
Plan No. 3, which would form a new
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I personally assign
extremely high priority to the battle
[p. 33879]
against pollution and believe that we
are taking a constructive step this
afternoon in supporting Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I
think it is important that we take
note of certain aspects of Reorgani-
zation Plan No. 3, which, to my mind,
causes it to be found wanting. The
plan sets up an Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, a very high sounding
title that I am afraid may give a
misleading impression to the public
of just what this new agency can do.
There is no doubt that we need a
greater focus within the Government
on the problems of our environment.
This is one of the most important
issues of the times. I favor a mean-
ingful reorganization of environmen-
tal activities—but this plan does not
provide it.
First of all the plan is extremely
limited in scope. It takes the largest
and most effective program that we
have—water pollution abatement—
and adds to it air pollution and a few
other less significant activities—in
terms of dollars being spent—and im-
plies that this agency will control the
environment. We all know that there
n much more involved in the environ-
ment than this.
Meaningful environmental protec-
t;on surely includes the water and
=ewer programs now in the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment. But they should be in this
plan. Unfortunately, EPA, as consti-
tuted is not adequate even to ad-
minister the water program which
itself is underfunded and barely hold-
ing the line in relationship to the
need.
How about aircraft noise? This is
a major problem of the environment;
but it is not in the plan. It is still in
the Department of Transportation.
What about oil spills? What about
the management of our public lands
and forests? What about the environ-
mental pollution caused by the numer-
ous Federal installations spread
throughout the land?
Why are all of these important and
pertinent programs left out of this
widely heralded Environmental Pro-
tection Agency? Frankly, I cannot
understand why a so-called reorgani-
zation to improve our attack on en-
^ironmental problems would take just
the minimum step, as this does, in-
stead of bringing together a signifi-
cant number of these activities.
Could it be in the way this plan
was developed? As I understand it,
the plan was prepared by the Presi-
dent's Advisory Council. But I have
not been able to find out who was
consulted in its drafting. Certainly,
those of us in the House who have
labored for so many years to develop
environmental programs, and who
have gained considerable experience
in this field were not consulted. If we
had been, I think a far better re-
organization plan than plan No. 3
could have been put together. I do not
wish to criticize the Advisory Council
but there must have been poor staff
work along the line.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
397
Even this limited plan could well
cause confusion in its administration.
We have not been given a clear un-
derstanding of the distinction between
the new EPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality. We were told
that the Council makes government-
wide policy and EPA will be an op-
erating agency for the programs
which will be assigned to it. But I
must say this is rather unusual in the
Government for one agency to make
policy and for another to carry it out.
I suspect that considerable confusion
will arise over the respective roles of
these two groups.
The task of a proper reorganizatio i
is so great that it should be under-
taken by legislation rather than by a
reorganization plan. To follow through
on this, a bill has already been intro-
dued by several of my colleagues Con-
gressmen Moss, DINGELL, REUSS and
myself—H.R. 19195—which provides
a basis for our work. This is prelimi-
nary effort and the subcommittee will
begin a detailed consideration of this
legislation, obtaining all of the neces-
sary background materials and in-
formation. I have directed our staff
to draw upon all sources and accu-
mulate a complete study of knowledge.
I believe, in this way, that an or-
ganization which will truly contribute
to the solution of our environmental
problem can be produced.
I have tried to make my criticism
of plan No. 3 in a positive manner
and call upon all Members, industry
groups, and interested citizens for
their thoughts and suggestions.
The text of H.R. 19195, which cre-
ates a Department of Environmental
Quality, follows:
H.R. 19195
A bill to establish a Department of Environ-
mental Quality, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer-
ica in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as the "Department of Environmental
Quality Act".
DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
SEC 2. (a) The Congress hereby declares
that—
(1) the public health, general welfare, and
economic growth and stability of the Nation
is dependent on the continued availability of
unpolluted air and water—our irreplaceable
resources; and
(2) high-density urbanization, industrial de-
velopment and expansion, population growth
and concentrations, resource exploitation, and
new and expanding technological advances, to-
gether with the lack of adequate consideration
given by public and private agencies and in-
dividuals to the impact of these activities on
the total environment, has resulted in mount-
ing dangers to the public health and welfare
and our environment.
(b) (1) The Congress therefore fi nds that
the establishment of a Depai tment of Envi-
lonmental Quality is necessaiy in the public
nterest and to piotect the public health; to
assure the cooidinated, effective protection and
enhancement of the quality of the environ-
ment, to facilitate a coordinated, effective at-
tack on the pollutants which debase the air
we breathe, the water we drink and use
for recreation and agricultural purposes, and'
the land that supplies our food and sup-
ports our wildlife; to encourage and foster
cooperation of Federal, State, and local agen-
cies and foreign governments and private or-
ganizations and agencies and individuals to-
ward the prompt achievement of the national
environmental quality protection and enhance-
ment objectives set forth in this Act and many
other statutes; to stimulate technological ad-
vances in pollution control and prevention and
environmental protection and enhancement; to
provide general leadership nationally and in-
ternationally in the identification and solution
of environmental problems; and to develop, fur-
ther define, and to recommend to the President
and the Congress new and improved programs,
including the adequate financing of such pro-
grams and existing programs, and to accom-
plish these objectives with full and appropri-
ate consideration of the need to encourage the
growth and development of the Nation, to im-
prove the daily lives of all of the people of the
Nation, and to preserve our national security.
(2) It is hereby declared to be the national
policy that the prevention of air and water
pollution and the protection and enhancement
of the total environment in productive har-
mony with the social, economic, and other
requirements of present and future generations
of Americans is in the paramount interest of
the United States.
ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT
SEC. 3. (a) There is hereby established at
the seat of Government an executive depart-
ment to be known as the Department of
-------
398
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Environmental Quality (hereafter referred to '
in this Act as the "Department"). There shall j
be at the head of the Department a Secretary
of Environmental Quality (hereafter referred \
to in this Act as the "Secretary"), who shall
be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
(b) There shall be in the Department an
Under Secretary, who shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The Under Secretary
(or, during the absence or disability of the
Under Secretary, or in the event of a vacancy
in the office of Under Secietary, an Assistant
Secretary or the General Counsel, determined
according to such order as the Secretary shall
prescribe) shall act for, and exercise the pow-
ers of the Secretary, during the absence or
disability of the Secretary or in the event of
a vacancy in the office of Secretary. The
Under Secretary shall perform such func-
tions, powers, and duties as the Secretary shall
prescribe from time to time.
(c) There shall be in the Department three
Assistant Secretaries and a General Counsel
who shall be appointed by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Sen-
ate, and who shall perform such functions,
powers, and duties as the Secietary shall pre-
scribe from time to time. The Assistant Sec-
retaries shall be: for air and water pollution
control; for environmental protection; and for
international affairs.
(d) There shall be in the Department an
Assistant Secretary for Administration, who
shall be appointed, with the approval of the
President, by the Secretary under the classi-
fied civil service who shall perform such func-
tions, powers, and duties as the Secretary shall
prescribe from time to time.
(e) There is hereby established within the
Department a Federal Water Quality Control
Administration; a National Air Quality Con-
trol Administration; and an Environmental
Protection Administration. Each of these com-
ponents shall be headed by an Administrator.
In the case of each Administration, there shall
be five Deputy Administrators appointed by the
Secretary: for Research and Development; for
Loans and Grants, for Standards and Regu-
lations Development and Intergovernmental
Coordination; for Enforcement; and for Ad-
ministration and Public Information. The
Administrators shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate.
(f) In addition to such functions, powers,
and duties specified in this Act to be carried
out by the Administrators, they shall carry
out such other functions, powers, and duties
as the Secretary may prescribe. The Adminis-
trators shall report to the Secretary through
the applicable Assistant Secretary and- the
Under Secretary. Each Deputy Administrator
(according to such order as the appropriate
Administrator shall prescribe) shall act for,
and exercise the duties of, the
[p. 33880]
appropriate Administrator during his absence
or disability. Each Administrator shall prescribe
the functions, powers, and duties of each of
his Deputy Administrators.
(g) The functions, powers, and duties as
are specified in this Act to be carried out by
an Administrator shall not be transferred
elsewhere in the Department unless specifi-
cally provided for by leorganization plan sub-
mitted pursuant to provisions of chapter 9
of title 5, United States Code, or by Act of
Congress enacted after the effective date of
this Act.
TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT
SEC. 4. There are hereby transferred to the
Secretary to be administered by him through
the Administrator of the Federal Water
Quality Control Administration all func-
tions, powers, and duties of the Secretary of
the Intei'ior and other offices and officers of
the Department of the Interior administered:
(1) by him or by the Federal Water Qual-
ity Administration pursuant to (A) the Fed-
eral Watei Pollution Control Act, as amended,
(B) Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of
1966 (80 Stat. 1608), and (C) section 169(d)
(1) (B) and (3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended, but shall not in-
clude the functions of the Bureau of Recla-
mation under section 3(b) (1) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; and
(2) by the Water Resources Division of the
Geological Survey, including, but not limited
to, the water monitoring functions of the
Geological Survey.
(b) There are hereby transferred to the
Secretary to be administered by him through
such Administrator all functions, powers, and
duties of the:
(1) Secretary of Agriculture administered
by him through the Farmers Home Admin-
istiation insofar as such functions, powers,
and duties relate to water and sewer facilities;
and
(2) Secretary of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment, the Secretary of Commerce, and the
Appalachian Regional Commission insofar as
such functions, powers, and duties relate to
water and sewer facilities.
(c) (1) There are hereby transferred to the
Secretary to be administered by him through
the Administrator of the National Air Quality
Control Administration all functions, powers,
and duties of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare under the Clean Air Act,
as amended, and section 169(d) (1) (B) and
(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
399
(2) Theie aie heieby transfeired to the Sec-
ret 'iy to be administered by him the Air
Quality Advisory Board established by section
110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
{d) There are hereby transferred to the
Secretary to be administered by him through
the Administi atnr of the Envii onmental Pi o-
tection Administration all functions, powers,
and duties of the:
(1) Secretary of the Interior (A) under
the Act of August 1, 1958, as amended (16
U.S.C. 742d-l), relating to studies of effects
of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and
pesticides, (B) which are administered by
him through the Gulf Breeze Biological Lab-
oratory, and (C) which are administered by
him through the Bureau of Mines insofar
as such functions, powers, and duties relate
to solid waste management;
(2) Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare which are administered by him
through the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment, the Bureau of Water Hygiene, and the
Bureau of Radiological Health and which are
rested in him for establishing tolerances for
pesticide chemicals under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21
U S.C 346, 346a, and 349) together with au-
thority, in connection with the functions
transferred, (A) to monitor compliance with
the tolerances and the effectiveness of sur-
veillance and enforcement, and (B) to pro-
vide technical assistance to the States and
conduct research under the Federal Food,
Di ug, and Cosmetic Act. as amended, and
the Public Health Service Act, as amended,
except that those functions, powers, and
duties cai ried out by the Environmental
Control Administration of the Environmental
Health Service through the Bureau of Com-
munity Envii onmental Management, the Bu-
reau of Occupational Safety and Health, and
the Bureau of Radiological Health, are not
so transferred insofar as those functions,
powers, and duties carried out by the latter
Bureau pertain solely to (A) regulation of
radiation from consumer products, including
electronic product radiation, (B) radiation
as used in the healing arts, (C) occupational
exposures to ladiation, and (D) reseaich, tech-
nical assistance, and training related to such
clauses (A), (B), and (C);
(3) Secretary of Agriculture (A) under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 135-135k),
under section 408 (1) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21
U.S.C. 346a (1)), and (B) which are ad-
ministered through the Environmental Qual-
ity Branch of the Plant Protection Division
of the Agricultural Research Service;
(4) Secretary of Transportation with re-
spect to, and being administered by him,
through the Office of Noise Abatement;
(5) Federal Radiation Council under sec-
tion 274 of the Act of August 1, 1946, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2021 (h»; and
(6) Atomic Energy Commission under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
which are administered through the Divi-
sion of Radiation Protection Standards, to
the extent that such functions, powers, and
duties consist of establishing and enforcing
en viron mental standards and safeguards for
the protection of the geneial environment
f i om radioactive material which standards are
defined to mean : limits on radiation exposures
or levels, or concentrations of or quantities of
ladioactive material, in the general environ-
ment outside the boundaries of locations under
the control of persons possessing or using
radioactive matei ial.
(e) The Seci etary, in administering the
piogiams tiansferred under this section, shall
coordinate his activities with those of the
departments and agencies which administer
such programs pnor to the effective date of
this Act.
(f) Within one hundred and eighty days
aftei the effective date of this Act, the Pres-
ident may transfer to the Secretary any func-
tion of any other agency or office or part
theieof if the President determines that such
function relates to functions transferred to
the Secretaiy under this section.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 5. (a) In addition to the authority
contained in any other Act which is trans-
ferred tov and vested in, the Secretary, he or
any other officer of the Department may, sub-
ject to the civil service and classification laws,
select, appoint, employ, and fix the compensa-
tion of such officers and employees, including
investigators, attorneys, and heaiing exam-
iners, as are necessaiy to carry out the pro-
visions of this Act and to prescribe their
authority and duties.
(b) The Secretary may obtain services as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5 of the
United States Code, but at rates not to ex-
ceed $100 per diem for individuals unless
otherwise specified in an appropriation Act.
(c) (1) Except where this Act vests in any
administration, agency, or board, specific func-
tions, powers, and duties, the Secretary may,
i n addition to the authority to delegate and
redelegate contained in any other Act in the
exercise of the functions transferred to or
vested in the Sect etary in this Act, delegate
any of his residual functions, powers, and
duties to such officers and employees of the
Department as he may designate, may author-
ize such successive redelegations of such furic-
tions, powers, and duties as he may deem
desirable, and may make such rules and regu-
lations as may be necessary to carry out his
functions, powers, and duties.
-------
400
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(2) In addition to the authority to dele- |
Eate and redelegate contained in any other ,
Act, in the exercise of the functions trans- '
ferred to or specified by this Act to be car-
ried out by any officer in the Department,
such officer may delegate any of such func-
tions, powers, and duties to such other offi-
cers and employees of the Department as he
may designate; may authorize such succes-
sive redele^ations of such functions, powers,
and duties as he deems desirable; and may
make such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out such functions, powers,
and duties.
(d) The Secretary is authorized to estab-
lish a working capital fund, to be available
without fiscal year limitation, for expenses
necessary for the maintenance and opera-
tion of such common administrative services
as he shall find desirable in the interest of
economy and efficiency in the Department, in-
cluding such services as a central supply serv-
ice for stationery and other supplies and
equipment for which adequate stocks may be
maintained to meet in whole or in part the
requirements of the Department and its
agencies; central messenger, mail, telephone,
and other communications services; office
space, central services for document repro-
duction, and for graphics and visual aids;
and a central library service. The capital of
the fund shall consist of any appropriations
made for the purpose of providing capital
(which appropriations are hereby authorized)
and the fair and reasonable value of such
stocks of supplies, equipment, and other
assets and inventories on order as the Secre~
tary may transfer to the fund, less the related
liabilities and unpaid obligations. Such funds
shall be reimbursed in advance from available
funds of agencies and offices in the Depart-
ment, or from other sources, for supplies and
services at rates which will approximate the
expense of operation, including the accrual of
annual leave and the depreciation of equip-
ment. The fund shall also be credited with
receipts from sale or exchange of property and
receipts in payment for loss or damage to
property owned by the fund. There shall be
covered into the United States Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts any surplus found in
the fund (all assets, liabilities, and prior losses
considered) above the amounts transferred or
appropriated to establish and maintain saic
fund.
(e) The Secretary shall cause a seal of
office to be made for the Department of such
device as he shall approve, and judicial notice
shall be taken of such seal.
(f) In addition to the authority containet
in any other Act which is transferred am
vested in the Secretary, he or any other offi
cer of the Department, as necessary and when
not otherwise available, is authorized to pro-
vide for, construct, or maintain the following
*or employees and their dependents stationed
at remote localities :
(1) emergency medical services and sup-
plies;
(2) food and other subsistence supplies;
(3) messing facilities;
(4) motion picture equipment and film for
recreation and training,
(5) reimbursement for food, clothing, medi-
cine, and other supplies furnished by such em-
ployees in emergencies for the temporary relief
of distressed persons; and
(6) living and working quarters and fa-
cilities.
The furnishing of medical treatment under
clause (1) and the furnishing of services and
supplies under clauses (2) and (3) of this
subsection shall be at prices reflecting rea-
[p. 33881]
sonable value, as determined by the Secretary,
and the proceeds therefrom shall be credited to
the appropriation from which the expenditure
was made.
(g) (1) The Secretary is authorized to ac-
cept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts and
bequests of property, both real and personal,
for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the
work of the Department. Gifts and bequests
of money and the proceeds from sales of other
property received as gifts or bequests shall be
deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund
and shall be disbursed upon order of the Sec-
retary for carrying out the missions of the
Department. Property accepted pursuant to
this paragraph, and the proceeds thereof, shall
be used as nearly as possible in accordance
with the terms of the gift or bequest.
(2) For the purpose of Federal income, es-
tate, and gift taxes, property accepted under
paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or
bequest to or for use of the United States.
(h) The Secretary is authorized to appoint.
without regard to the civil service laws,
such advisory committees as shall be appro-
priate for the purpose of consultation with,
and advice to, the Department in perform-
ance of its functions. Such committees shall
include members who are drawn from the
general public and environmental organiza-
tions. Members of such committees, other than
those regularly employed by the Federal Gov-
ernment, while attending meetings of such
committees or otherwise serving at the re-
quest of the Secretary, may be paid compen-
sation at rates not exceeding those authorized
for individuals under subsection (b) of this
section, and wl:ile so serving away from their
homes or regular places of business, may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in
lieu of subsistence as authorized by section
5703- of title 5, United States Code, for per-
sons in the Government service employed in-
termittently.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
401
(i) (1) The Secretary is authorized to enter
into contracts with educational institutions,
public or private agencies or organizations, or
persons for the conduct of scientific or techno-
logical research into any aspect of the prob-
lems related to the programs of the Department
which are authorized by statute.
(2) The Secretary shall require a showing
that the institutions, agencies, organizations,
or persons with which he expects to enter into
contracts pursuant to this subsection have the
capability of doing effective work. He shall
furnish such advice and assistance as he be-
lieves will best carry out the mission of the
Department, participate in coordinating all re-
search initiated under this subsection, indicate
the lines of inquiry which seems to him most
important, and encourage and assist in the
establishment and maintenance of cooperation
by and between the institutions, agencies, or-
ganizations, or persons and between them and
other research organizations, the Department,
and other Federal agencies.
(3) The Secretary may from time to time
disseminate in the form of reports or publica-
tions to public or private agencies or organiza-
tions, or individuals, such information as he
deems pertinent on the research carried out
pursuant to this section.
(4) Nothing contained in this subsection is
intended to amend, modify, or repeal any pro-
visions of law administered by the Department
which authorize the making of contracts for
research.
(j) No research, demonstrations, or experi-
ments shall, after the effective date of this
Act, be carried out, contracted for, sponsored,
cosponsored or authorized under authority of
the Act or any other law transferred to, and
vested in, the Secretary, unless all information,
uses, products, processes, patents and other
developments resulting from such research,
demonstrations, or experiments will (with such
exception and limitation, if any, as the Secre-
tary may find to be necessary in the public in-
terest) be available to the general public.
(k) (1) So much of the personnel, property,
records, and unexpended balances of appropri-
ations, allocations, and other funds employed,
used, held, available, or to be made available in
connection with the functions transferred to
the Secretary of the department by this Act as
the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall determine shall be transferred to
the agency at such time or times as the Direc-
tor shall direct.
(2) Such further measures and dispositions
as the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall deem to be necessary in order
to effectuate the transfers referred to in para-
graph (1) of this subsection shall be carried
out in such manner as he shall direct and by
such agencies as he shall designate.
(1) The Administrators appointed under this
Act shall be compensated at the rate now or
hereafter provided for level V of the Execu-
tive Schedule pay rates (5 U.S.C. 5314) and the
Deputy Administrator appointed under this
Act shall be compensated at the rate now or
hereafter provided for level V of the Execu-
tive Schedule pay rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).
ANNUAL REPORT
SEC. 6. The Secretary shall, as soon as prac-
ticable after the end of each fiscal year, make
a report in writing to the President and to
the Congress on the activities of the Depart-
ment during the preceding fiscal year.
SAVINGS PROVISION
SEC. 7. (a) All orders, determinations, rules,
regulations, permits, contracts, certificates,
licenses, and privileges—
(1) which have been issued, made, granted,
or allowed to become effective—
(A) under any provision of law amended by
this Act, or
(B) in the exercise of duties, powers, or
functions which are transferred under this Act,
by (i) any department or agency, any func-
tions of which are transferred by this Act, or
(ii) any court of competent jurisdiction, and
(2) which are in effect at the time this Act
takes effect, shall continue in effect according
to their terms until modified, terminated, su-
perseded, set aside, or repealed by the Secretary,
Administrators, Board, or General Counsel (in
the exercise if any authority respectively
vested in them by this Act, by any court of
competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(b) The provisions of this Act shall not af-
fect any proceedings pending at the time this
section takes effect before any department or
agency (or component thereof), functions of
which are transferred by this Act; but such
proceedings, to the extent that they relate to
functions so transferred, shall be continued
before the Department. Such proceedings to the
extent they do not relate to functions so trans-
ferred, shall be continued before the Depart-
ment or agency before which they were pend-
ing at the time of such transfer. In either case
orders shall be issued in such proceedings, ap-
peals shall be taken therefrom, and payments
shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if
this Act had not been enacted; and orders is-
sued in any such proceedings shall continue in
effect until modified, terminated, superseded,
or repealed by the Secretary, Administrators,
Board, or General Counsel (in the exercise of
any authority respectively vested in them by
this Act), by a court of competent jurisdic-
tion, or by operation of law.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2) —
(A) the provisions of this Act shall not af-
fect suits commenced prior to the date this
section takes effect, and
-------
402
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(B) in all such suits proceedings shall be
had, appeals taken, and judgments rendered, in
the same manner and effect as if this Act had
not been enacted.
No suit, action, or other proceeding commenced
by or against any officer in his official capacity
as an officer of any department or agency,
functions of which are transferred by this Act,
shall abate by reason of the enactment of this
Act. No cause of action by or against any
department or agency, functions of which are
transferred by this Act, or by or against any
officer thereof in his official capacity shall
abate by reason of the enactment of this Act.
Causes of actions, suits, actions, or other pro-
ceedings may be asserted by or against the
United States or such official of the Departs
ment as may be appropriate and, in any liti-
gation pending when this section takes effect,
the court may at any time, on its own motion
or that of any party, enter an order which
will give effect to the provisions of this sub-
section.
(2) If before the date on which this Act
takes effect, any department or agency, or
officer thereof in his official capacity, is a
party to a suit, and under this Act—
(A) Such department or agency is trans-
ferred to the Secretary,, or
(B) any function of such department, agency,
or officer is transferred to the Secretary,
then such suit shall be continued by the Secre-
tary (except in the case of a suit not involv-
ing functions transferred to the Secretary, in
which case the suit shall bi continued by the
department, agency, or officer which was a
party to the suit prior to the effective date of
this Act).
(d) With respect to any function, power, or
duty transferred by this Act and exercised
after the effective date of this Act, reference
in any other Federal law to any department or
agency, officer or office so transferred or func-
tions of which are so transferred shall be
deemed to mean the officer or agency in which
this Act vests such function after such trans-
fer.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 8. If any provision of this Act or the
application thereof to any person or circum-
stances is held invalid, the remainder of this
Act, and the application of such provision to
other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.
CODIFICATION
SEC. 9. The Secretary is directed to submit
to the Congress within two years from the
effective date of this Act, a proposed codifica-
tion of all laws that contain the powers, duties,
and functions transferred to or vested in the
Secretary or the Department by this Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE; INITIAL APPOINTMENT OF
OFFICERS
SEC. 10. (a) This Act shall take effect ninety
days after the Secretary first takes office, or
on such prior date after enactment of this Act
as the President shall prescribe and publish in
the Federal Register.
(b) Any of the officers provided for in this
Act may (notwithstanding subsection (a)) be
appointed in the manner provided for in this
Act, at any time after the date of enactment
of this Act. Such officers shall be compensated
from the date they first take office, at the rates
provided for in this Act. Such compensation
and- related expenses of their offices shall be
paid from funds available for the functions to
be transferred to the Department pursuant to
this Act.
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS
SEC. 11. (a) Section 19{d) (1) of title 3,
United States Code, as amended, is hereby
amended by striking out the period at the end
thereof and inserting a comma and the follow-
ing: "Secretary of Environmental Quality.".
(b) Section 101 of title 5 of the United
[p. 33882]
States Code, as amended, is amended by insert-
ing at the end the following:
"The Department of Environmental Quality."
(c) The amendment made by subsection (b)
of this section shall not be construed to make
applicable to the Department any provision of
law inconsistent with this Act.
(d) Subchapter II (relating to Executive
Schedule pay rates) of chapter 53 of title 5
of the United States Code, as amended, is
amended as follows:
(1) Section 5312 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
"(13) Secretary of Environmental Quality."
(2) Section 5313 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
" (21) Under Secretary of Environmental
Quality."
(3) Section 5314 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
"(55) Administrator, Federal Water Quality
Control Administration.
" (56) Administrator, National Air Quality
Control Administration.
"(57) Administrator, Environmental Protec-
tion Administration."
(4) Section 5315 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
"(93) Assistant Secretaries of Environmental
Quality (3)."
(5) Section 5316 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
"(130) Assistant Secretary for Administra-
tion, Department of Environmental Quality.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
403
"(131) General Counsel, Department of En-
vironmental Quality.
"(132) Deputy Administrators, Department
of Environmental Quality (15)."
(6) Section 5317 is amended by striking out
in the note thereunder "Commissioner, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, De-
partment of the Interior."
ABOLITIONS
SEC. 12. Suhject to the provisions of section
10 of this Act, the following, exclusive of any
functions, are hereby abolished:
(1) The Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion in the Department of the Interior (33
U.S.C. 466-1); and
(2) The Federal Radiation Council (73 Stat.
690; 42 U.S.C. 2021 (h)).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, current executive branch assign-
ments relating to Federal environ-
mental activities are now scattered
among a number of departments and
agencies and their assignments bear
no resemblance to the interrelated
problems of the environment which
must be perceived as an interlocked
challenge. Having developed piece-
meal, responsibility for pollution con-
trol is divided primarily according to
the medium in which the contaminant
occurs although pollution from a sin-
gle source may be present in them all.
I have looked at this problem from
several different directions and from
my own observation know that re-
search, standard setting, and policy
formulation do not occur on a compre-
hensive basis.
Water, air, solid waste disposal,
and atomic powerplant pollution
should be considered together.
In the enforcement area under the
Clean Air Act, there is authority
vested in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to set stand-
ards and engage in enforcement. As a
member of the Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee where this au-
thority originated, I am very much
interested in seeing it transferred to
an agency where more concentrated
administration and coordinated re-
search can be conducted in associa-
tion with the more sophisticated re-
search and standard setting already
developed by the Water Quality Ad-
ministration.
As a member of the Intergovern-
mental Relations Subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Operations,
I participated in a study of the Agri-
cultural Research Service which dis-
closed the inability of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
get information out of the Agricul-
tural Research Service that related
the use of pesticides in which the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare was interested and over
which the Agricultural Research Serv-
ice had the licensing authority.
I have seen the frustrations experi-
enced by industry and State and local
governments who have had to deal
with a fragmented Federal structure.
Therefore, I am delighted to see
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
which would create a nucleus of re-
search, standard setting and enforce-
ment responsibilities in a single agen-
cy which will not be able to pass the
buck to other agencies.
The standard-setting function is a
critical factor in efforts to improve
environmental quality and one should
not underestimate its leverage. And
standards must be based on sound
research.
Others may question my terminolo-
gy, but I look upon the Environmental
Protection Agency as the beginning of
a strong regulatory agency which
should be expanded and strengthened
with the inclusion of other environ-
mental protection functions as time
goes on. In some instances new legis-
lation will be required and other laws
will need revision since, pursuant to
the reorganization provisions of 5
U.S.C. 901-913, a reorganization plan
cannot create any new authorities or
functions.
At the outset, the plan would com-
bine the functions carried out by the
-------
404
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion—FWQA—now in the Department
of the Interior; the National Air
Pollution Control Administration—
NAPCA—parts of the Environmental
Control Administration—EGA—and
the pesticides research and regulatory
programs of the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, all presently located in
HEW; the pesticides registration and
related authority of the Department
of Agriculture; the environmental
radiation protection standard-setting
function of the AEC; the functions of
the Federal Radiation Council; some
of the pesticides research conducted
by the Bureau of Commercial Fish-
eries; and authority to conduct eco-
logical systems research, now vested
in the Council on Environmental
Quality.
One of the advantages that will
accrue both to industry and to State
and local governments, will be the
ability to come to one place in the
Federal Government concerned with
most of the standard setting that re-
lates to pollution control. It is im-
portant that State and local govern-
ments, too, deal with the environment
as an entity.
The Environmental Protection
Agency will enable us to develop
much more effective knowledge as to
how to deal with pollution in the
future. I believe it will be much more
effective than what we have had in
the past and I view the prospect with
enthusiasm.
Therefore, I urge a vote "no" on
House Resolution 1209 in order that
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
may become law.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to have the opportunity today
to cast my vote for Mr. Nixon's En-
vironmental Protection Agency, EPA,
which I regard as an important step
toward making protection of our
environment and the elimination oJ
pollution a high priority Federal mat-
•?r. There are those who criticize
^e EPA as not going far enough;
owever, in their zeal to have total
'immediate reform, they miss the
ositive aspects of the President's
oroposal, and they forget that this
represents the first administrative
reorganization aimed at zeroing-in
Federal efforts to improve the en-
vironment. The testimony before the
House Committee on Government
Operations clearly indicates that
EPA is just the first of what is an-
ticipated to be a series of steps in
eventually bringing all environmental
efforts together under one roof.
Rather than being negative—an
attitude which we have used all too
often in considering protection of the
environment—let us look on the posi-
tive side of EPA and see what chang-
es it makes. A most important step
in the area of radiation standards is
moving the Federal Radiation Coun-
cil's present authority to set maximum
permissible radiation-absorption stand-
ards to the administrator of the EPA.
As a result, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission will no longer have authority
to determine at what levels a nuclear
plant would operate, but rather that
decision will be vested in the EPA.
Certainly this is a needed change,
given the difficult dual role hereto-
"ore occupied by the AEC—that of
both promoting and regulating the
use of atomic energy.
In the area of water quality, the
Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion will be shifted intact from the
Department of Interior to the EPA;
thereby allowing another pollution
control agency to be located within
the EPA. Although this is the second
move in a relatively short period of
time for this key water agency,
nevertheless I believe the move is
justified in order to better focus all
of our attention on pollution and
pollution control.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
405
Similarly, the National Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration, the Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Management, the
Bureau of Water Hygiene, part of the
Bureau of Radiological Health, and
much of the research on and controls
over pesticides would be moved to
the EPA.
In short, the President has taken
important and innovative steps in
focusing the attention and energies of
one agency on the major environmen-
tal questions of our time.
There are some who would have
preferred a department as opposed
to an agency; there are some who
would have suggested additional
transfers to EPA; there are some who
would have wished all of these pollu-
tion control efforts to he placed under
Secretary Hickel's juris-
[p. 33883]
diction—indeed, I might have pre-
ferred such a move. But since this
plan is an executive reorganization
proposal we can either approve it or
disapprove it—we do not have the
ability to amend it.
I think that there can he little doubt
that on balance—and by a significant
margin—the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is a wise and much
needed reorganization of Federal
efforts, and I am pleased to have the
opportunity to vote for it.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman,
I have no further requests for time.
Mr. HOLIPIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time
and, therefore, ask for a vote of "no"
on the resolution. A vote of "no"
would defeat the resolution of disap-
oroval and allow the reorganization
olan to go into effect. I, therefore, ask
'or a "no" vote on the resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no
'urther requests for time, the Clerk
nil read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 1209
Resolved, That the House of Representa-
tives does not favor the Reorganization Plan
Numbered 3 of 1970 transmitted to the Con-
gress by the President on July 9, 1970.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise
and report the resolution back to the
House, with the recommendation that
the resolution be rejected.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
SISK) having assumed the Chair,
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had un-
der consideration House Resolution
1209, to disapprove Reorganization
Plan No. 3, had directed him to re-
port the resolution back to the House
with the recommendation that the
resolution be rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the resolution.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the
opinion of the Chair, the resolution,
not having the affirmative vote of a
majority of the authorized member-
ship of the House, is not agreed to.
So the resolution was rejected.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that all Mem-
bers may have 5 legislative days in
which to extend their remarks on the
resolution just voted upon and include
extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[p. 33884]
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, while
most Members of Congress are as-
signed to only one legislative commit-
-------
406
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tee, it is my good fortune to serve on
two committees—Foreign Affairs and
Government Operations. The Execu-
tive and Legislative Reorganization
Subcommittee, of which I am a mem-
ber, has jurisdiction over all proposals
to reorganize the executive branch of
Government.
Public concern over air and water
pollution and the general state of
the environment was reflected in
hearings on President Nixon's pro-
posal to consolidate all related func-
tions in an Environmental Protection
Agency. The reorganization plan was
accepted by Congress on September
28. It should provide farmers and city
dwellers alike greatly needed protec-
tion of cropland, air, and water.
[p. 34015]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 407
1.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
42 U.S.C. §§4332(2) (c), 4344(5) (1970)
Sec.
4321. Congressional declaration of purpose.
SUBCHAPTER I.—POLICIES AND GOALS
4331. Congressional declaration of national environmental policy.
4432. Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recom-
mendations; international and national coordination of efforts.
4333. Conformity of administrative procedures to national environmental
policy.
4334. Other statutory obligations of agencies.
4335. Efforts supplemental to existing authorizations.
SUBCHAPTER II.—COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
4341. Reports to Congress; recommendations for legislation.
4342. Establishment; membership; Chairman; appointments.
4343. Employment of personnel, experts and consultants.
4344. Duties and functions.
4345. Consultation with the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Environmental
Quality and other representatives.
4346. Tenure and compensation of members.
4347. Authorization of appropriations.
§ 4321. Congressional declaration of purpose
The purposes of this chapter are: To declare a national policy
which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between
man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent
or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimu-
late the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of
the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Na-
tion ; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.
Pub.L. 91-190, § 2, Jan. 1,1970, 83 Stat. 852.
SUBCHAPTER I.—POLICIES AND GOALS
§ 4331. Congressional declaration of national environmental
policy
(a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's
activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural
environment, particularly the profound influences of population
growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and
recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and main-
taining environmental quality to the overall welfare and develop-
ment of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Fed-
-------
408 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
eral Government, in cooperation with State and local governments,
and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all
practicable means and measures, including financial and technical
assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the gen-
eral welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man
and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future genera-
tions of Americans.
(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it
is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use
all practicable means, consistent with other essential considera-
tions of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans,
functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation
may—
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
of the environment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the envi-
ronment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural as-
pects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possi-
ble, an environment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing
of life's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and ap-
proach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable re-
sources.
(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to
contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the envir-
ronment.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title I, § 101, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852.
§ 4332. Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of infor-
mation; recommendations; international and national coordination
of efforts
The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent
possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the Un-
ited States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance
with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agencies of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 409
the Federal Government shall—
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sci-
ences and the environmental design arts in planning and in
decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environ-
ment;
(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in con-
sultation with the Council on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by subchapter II of this chapter, which will insure that
presently unquantified environmental amenities and values
may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking
along with economic and technical considerations;
(C) include in every recommendation or report on propor-
als for legislation and other major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a de-
tailed statement by the responsible official on—
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed action
should it be implemented.
Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Fed-
eral official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any
Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special ex-
pertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are au-
thorized to develop and enforce environmental standards,
shall be made available to the President, the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality and to the public as provided by section
552 of Title 5, and shall accompany the proposal through the
existing agency review processes;
(D) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives
to recommended courses of action in any proposal which in-
volves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources;
(E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of
environmental problems and, where consistent with the for-
eign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to
-------
410 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize
international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a
decline in the quality of mankind's world environment;
(F) make available to States, counties, municipalities, in-
stitutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in
restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the envi-
ronment ;
(G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the plan-
ning and development of resource-oriented projects; and
(H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by subchapter II of this chapter.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title I, § 102, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 853.
§ 4333. Conformity of administrative procedures to national
environmental policy
All agencies of the Federal Government shall review their pres-
ent statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current
policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether
there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit
full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this chapter
and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971, such
measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies
into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set
forth in this chapter.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title I, § 103, Jan. 1,1970, 83 Stat. 854.
§ 4334. Other statutory obligations of agencies
Nothing in section 4332 or 4333 of this title shall in any way
affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1)
to comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2)
to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State agency,
or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recom-
mendations or certification of any other Federal or State agency.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title I,§ 104, Jan. 1,1970, 83 Stat. 854.
§ 4335. Efforts supplemental to existing authorizatons
The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplemen-
tary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal agen-
cies.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title I, § 105, Jan. 1,1970,83 Stat. 854.
SUBCHAPTER II.—COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
§ 4341. Reports to Congress; recommendations for legislation
The President shall transmit to the Congress annually begin-
ning July 1, 1970, an Environmental Quality Report (hereinafter
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 411
referred to as the "report") which shall set forth (1) the status
and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered environ-
mental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to, the air,
the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water, and the
terrestrial environment, including, but not limited to, the forest,
dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural environment;
(2) current and foreseeable trends in the quality, management
and utilization of such environments and the effects of those
trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Na-
tion; (3) the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling
human and economic requirements of the Nation in the light of
expected population pressures; (4) a review of the programs and
activities (including regulatory activities) of the Federal Govern-
ment, the State and local governments, and nongovernmental enti-
ties or individuals, with particular reference to their effect on the
environment and on the conservation, development and utilization
of natural resources; and (5) a program for remedying the defi-
ciencies of existing programs and activities, together with recom-
mendations for legislation.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title II, § 201, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 854.
§ 4342. Establishment; membership; Chairman; appointments
There is created in the Executive Office of the President a Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to as the
"Council"). The Council shall be composed of three members who
shall be appointed by the President to serve at his pleasure, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President shall
designate one of the members of the Council to serve as Chairman.
Each member shall be a person who, as a result of his training,
experience, and attainments, is exceptionally well qualified to ana-
lyze and interpret environmental trends and information of all
kinds; to appraise programs and activities of the Federal Govern-
ment in the light of the policy set forth in subchapter I of this
chapter; to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, eco-
nomic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of the
Nation; and to formulate and recommend national policies to pro-
mote the improvement of the quality of the environment.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title II, § 202, Jan. 1,1970, 83 Stat. 854.
§ 4343. Employment of personnel, experts and consultants
The Council may employ such officers and employees as may be
necessary to carry out its functions under this chapter. In addi-
tion, the Council may employ and fix the compensation of such
experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying out
of its functions under this chapter, in accordance with section
-------
412 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
3109 of Title 5 (but without regard to the last sentence thereof).
Pub.L. 91-190, Title II, § 203, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 855.
§ 4344. Duties and functions
It shall be the duty and function of the Council—
(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of
the Environmental Quality Report required by section 4341 of
this title;
(2) to gather timely and authoritative information con-
cerning the conditions and trends in the quality of the envi-
ronment both current and prospective, to analyze and inter-
pret such information for the purpose of determining
whether such conditions and trends are interfering, or are
likely to interfere, with the achievement of the policy set
forth in subchapter I of this chapter, and to compile and
submit to the President studies relating to such conditions
and trends;
(3) to review and appraise the various programs and activ-
ities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set
forth in subchapter I of this chapter for the purpose of deter-
mining the extent to which such programs and activities are
contributing to the achievement of such policy, and to make
recommendations to the President with respect thereto;
(4) to develop and recommend to the President national
policies to foster and promote the improvement of environ-
mental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic,
health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation;
(5) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research,
and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental
quality;
(6) to document and define changes in the natural environ-
ment, including the plant and animal systems, and to accumu-
late necessary data and other information for a continuing
analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of
their underlying causes;
(7) to report at least once each year to the President on the.
state and condition of the environment; and
(8) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and
recommendations with respect to matters of policy and legis-
lation as the President may request.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title II, § 204, Jan. 1,1970, 83 Stat. 855.
§ 4345. Consultation with the Citizen's Advisory Committee on
Environmental Quality and other representatives
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 413
In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this chap-
ter, the Council shall—
(1) consult with the Citizens' Advisory Committee on En-
vironmental Quality established by Executive Order num-
bered 11472, dated May 29, 1969, and with such representa-
tives of science, industry, agriculture, labor, conservation or-
ganizations, State and local governments and other groups, as
it deems advisable; and
(2) utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facili-
ties, and information (including statistical information) of
public and private agencies and organizations, and individu-
als, in order that duplication of effort and expense may be
avoided, thus assuring that the Council's activities will not
unnecessarily overlap or conflict with similar activities au-
thorized by law and performed by established agencies.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title II, § 205, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 855.
§ 4346. Tenure and compensation of members
Members of the Council shall serve full time and the Chairman
of the Council shall be compensated at the rate provided for Level
II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates. The other members of the
Council shall be compensated at the rate provided for Level IV or
the Executive Schedule Pay Rates.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title II, § 206, Jan. 1,1970, 83 Stat. 856.
§ 4347. Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provi-
sions of this chapter not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year 1970,
$700,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 for each fiscal year
thereafter.
Pub.L. 91-190, Title II, § 207, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 856.
-------
414 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.2a NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
January 1, 1970, P.L. 91-190, §§102(2)(c), 204(5), 83 Stat. 853, 855
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national
policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere
and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the under-
standing of the ecological systems and natural resources impor-
tant to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental
Quality.
TITLE I
DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of
man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natu-
ral environment, particularly the profound influences of popula-
tion growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion,
resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological ad-
vances and recognizing further the critical importance of restor-
ing and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare
and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy
of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local
governments, and other concerned public and private organiza-
tions, to use all practicable means and measures, including finan-
cial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and
promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions
under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and
fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and
future generations of Americans.
(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is
the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all
practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations
of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, func-
tions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
of the environment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the envi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 415
ronment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural as-
pects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possi-
ble, an environment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing
of life's amenities; and
[p. 852]
(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and ap-
proach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable re-
sources.
(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to
contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environ-
ment.
SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest
extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of
the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accord-
ance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all agencies of
the Federal Government shall—
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sci-
ences and the environmental design arts in planning and in
decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environ-
ment;
(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in con-
sultation with the Council on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by title II of this Act, which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values may be
given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with
economic and technical considerations ;
(C) include in every recommendation or report on propos-
als for legislation and other major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a de-
tailed statement by the responsible official on—
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
-------
416 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed action
should it be implemented.
Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Fed-
eral official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any
Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are
authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards,
shall be made available to the President, the Council on
Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by sec-
tion 552 of title 5, United States Code, and shall accompany
the proposal through the existing agency review processes:
(D) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives
to recommended courses of action in any proposal which in-
volves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources;
(E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of
environmental problems and, where consistent with the for-
eign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to
initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize
international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a
decline in the quality of mankind's world environment;
(F) make available to States, counties, municipalities, in-
stitutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in
restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the envi-
ronment ;
[p. 853]
(G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the plan-
ning and development of resource-oriented projects; and
(H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by title II of this Act.
SEC. 103. All agencies of the Federal Government shall review
their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and
current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining
whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which
prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this
Act and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 417
such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and
policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures
set forth in this Act.
SEC. 104. Nothing in Section 102 or 103 shall in any way affect
the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to
comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to
coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State agency, or
(3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommen-
dations or certification of any other Federal or State agency.
SEC. 105. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are supple-
mentary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal
agencies.
TITLE II
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SEC. 201. The President shall transmit to the Congress annually
beginning July 1, 1970, an Environmental Quality Report (herein-
after referred to as the "report") which shall set forth (1) the
status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered
environmental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to,
the air, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water,
and the terrestrial environment, including, but not limited to, the
forest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural envi-
ronment; (2) current and foreseeable trends in the quality, man-
agement and utilization of such environments and the effects of
these trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the
Nation; (3) the adequacy of available natural resources for ful-
filling human and economic requirements of the Nation in the
light of expected population pressures; (4) a review of the pro-
grams and activities (including regulatory activities) of the Fed-
eral Government, the State and local governments, and nongovern-
mental entities or individuals, with particular reference to their
effect on the environment and on the conservation, development
and utilization of natural resources; and (5) a program for reme-
dying the deficiencies of existing programs and activities, together
with recommendations for legislation.
SEC. 202. There is created in the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent a Council on Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to
as the "Council"). The Council shall be composed of three mem-
bers who shall be appointed by the President to serve at his pleas-
ure, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Presi-
dent shall designate one of the members of the Council to serve as
-------
418 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Chairman. Each member shall be a person who, as a result of his
training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally well quali-
fied to analyze and interpret environmental trends and informa-
tion of all kinds; to appraise programs and activities of the Fed-
eral Government in the light of the policy set forth in title I of
this Act; to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, eco-
nomic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of the
Nation; and to formulate and recommend national policies to pro-
mote the improvement of the quality of the environment.
[p. 854]
SEC. 203. The Council may employ such officers and employees as
may be necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. In
addition, the Council may employ and fix the compensation of such
experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying out
of its functions under this Act, in accordance with section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code (but without regard to the last sen-
tence thereof).
SEC. 204. It shall be the duty and function of the Council—
(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of
the Environmental Quality Report required by section 201;
(2) to gather timely and authoritative information con-
cerning the conditions and trends in the quality of the envi-
ronment both current and prospective, to analyze and inter-
pret such information for the purpose of determining
whether such conditions and trends are interfering, or are
likely to interfere, with the achievement of the policy set
forth in title I of this Act, and to compile and submit to the
President studies relating to such conditions and trends;
(3) to review and appraise the various programs and activ-
ities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set
forth in title I of this Act for the purpose of determining the
extent to which such programs and activities are contributing
to the achievement of such policy, and to make recommenda-
tions to the President with respect thereto;
(4) to develop and recommend to the President national
policies to foster and promote the improvement of environ-
mental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic,
health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation;
(5) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research,
and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental
quality;
(6) to document and define changes in the natural environ-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 419
ment, including the plant and animal systems, and to accumu-
late necessary data and other information for a continuing
analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of
their underlying causes;
(7) to report at least once each year to the President on the
state and condition of the environment; and
(8) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and
recommendations with respect to matters of policy and legis-
lation as the President may request.
SEC. 205. In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under
this Act, the Council shall—
(1) consult with the Citizens' Advisory Committee on En-
vironmental Quality established by Executive Order num-
bered 11472, dated May 29, 1969, and with such representa-
tives of science, industry, agriculture, labor, conservation or-
ganizations, State and local governments and other groups, as
it deems advisable; and
(2) utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facili-
ties, and information (including statistical information) of
public and private agencies and organizations, and individu-
als, in order that duplication of effort and expense may be
avoided, thus assuring that the Council's activities will not
necessarily overlap or conflict with similar activities author-
ized by law and performed by established agencies.
[p. 855]
SEC. 206. Members of the Council shall serve full time and the
Chairman of the Council shall be compensated at the rate provided
for Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313).
The other members of the Council shall be compensated at the rate
provided for Level IV or the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5
U.S.C. 5315).
SEC. 207. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
the provisions of this Act not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year
1970, $700,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 for each fiscal
year thereafter.
Approved January 1,1970.
[p. 856]
-------
420 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.2a(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
S. REP. No. 91-296, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
JULY 9, 1969.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 1075]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1075) to authorize the Secretary of the Inte-
rior to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, and research relat-
ing to the Nation's ecological systems, natural resources, and envi-
ronmental quality, and to establish a Council on Environmental
Quality, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following
language:
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 1. That this Act may be cited as the "National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969".
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national policy which
will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his
environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to
the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man;
to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation; and to establish a Board of Environmental Quality
Advisers.
TITLE I
DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing that man depends on his biological
and physical surroundings for food, shelter, and other needs, and for cultural
enrichment as well; and recognizing further the profound influences of popu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 421
lation growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource ex-
ploitation, and new and expanding technological advances on our physical
and biological surroundings and on the quality of life available to the
American people; hereby declares that it is the continuing policy and respon- _
sibility of the Federal Govern-
[p.l]
ment to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considera-
tions of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions,
programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
environment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and estheti-
cally and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment with-
out degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unin-
tended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will
permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities;
and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
(b) The Congress recognizes that each person has a fundamental and
inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a
responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment.
SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that the policies, regulations,
and public laws of the United States to the fullest extent possible, be inter-
preted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act,
and that all agencies of the Federal Government—
(a) utilize to the fullest extent possible a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision-
making which may have an impact on man's environment;
(b) identify and develop methods and procedures which will insure
that presently unquantifed environmental amenities and values may be
given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic
and technical considerations;
(c) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legis-
lation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment, a finding by the responsible official that—
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action has been
studied and considered;
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided by
following reasonable alternatives are justified by other stated con-
siderations of national policy;
(iii) local short-term uses of man's environment are consistent
with maintaining and enhancing long-term productivity; and that
-------
422 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(iv) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
are warranted.
(d) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recom-
mended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved con-
flicts concerning alternative uses of land, water, or air;
(e) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environ-
mental problems and lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions,
and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in antic-
ipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind's world
environment; and
(f) review present statutory authority, administrative regulations,
and current policies and procedures for conformity to the purposes and
provisions of this Act and propose to the President'and to the Congress
such measures as may be necessary to make their authority consistent
with this Act.
SEC. 103. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are supplementary to,
but shall not be considered to repeal the existing mandates and authoriza-
tions of Federal agencies.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. To carry out the purposes of this Act, all agencies of the Federal
Government in conjunction with their existing programs and authorities, are
hereby authorized—
(a) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research, and analyses
relating to ecological systems and environmental quality;
(b) to document and define changes in the natural environment, in-
cluding the plant and animal systems, and to accumulate necessary data
and other
[p. 2]
information for a continuing analysis of these changes or trends and
an interpretation of their underlying causes;
(c) to evaluate and disseminate information of an ecological nature to
public and private agencies or organizations, or individuals in the form
of reports, publications, atlases, and maps;
(d) to make available to States, counties, municipalities, institutions,
and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining,
and enhancing the quality of the environment;
(e) to initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and
development of resource-oriented projects;
(f) to conduct research and studies within natural areas under Federal
ownership which are under the jurisdiction of the Federal agencies; and
(g) to assist the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers established
under title III of this Act and any council or committee established by
the President to deal with environmental problems.
SEC. 202. (a) In carrying out the provisions of this title, the President is
authorized to designate an agency or agencies to—
(1) make grants, including training grants, and enter into contracts
or cooperative agreements with public or private agencies or organiza-
tions, or individuals, and to accept and use donations of funds, property,
personal services, or facilities to carry out the purposes of this Act;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 423
(2) develop and maintain an inventory of existing and future natural
resource development projects, engineering works, and other major
projects and programs contemplated or planned by public or private
agencies or organizations which make significant modifications in the
natural environment;
(3) establish a system of collecting and receiving information and
data on ecological research and evaluations which are in progress or
are planned by other public or private agencies or organizations, or
individuals; and
(4) assist and advise State and local government, and private enter-
prise in bringing their activities into conformity with the purposes of
this Act and other Acts designed to enhance the quality of the environ-
ment.
(b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $500,000 annually for
fiscal years 1971 and 1972, and $1,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
SEC. 203. In recognition of the additional duties which the President may
assign to the Office of Science and Technology to support any council or
committee established by the President to deal with environmental problems
and in furtherance of the policies established by this Act, there is hereby
established in the Office of Science and Technology an additional office with
the title "Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology." The
Deputy Director shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, shall perform such duties as the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology shall from time to time direct, and shall be
compensated at the rate provided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay
Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).
TITLE III
SEC. 301. (a) There is created in the Executive Office of the President a
Board of Environmental Quality Advisers (hereinafter referred to as the
"Board"). The Board shall be composed of three members who shall be ap-
pointed by the President to serve at his pleasure, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. Each member shall, as a result of training, experience,
or attainments, be professionally qualified to analyze and interpret environ-
mental trends of all kinds and descriptions and shall be conscious of and
responsive to the scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs
and interest of this Nation. The President shall designate the Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the Board from such members.
(b) Members of the Board shall serve full time and the Chairman of the
Board shall be compensated at the rate provided for Level II of the Executive
Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313). The other members of the Board shall
be compensated at the rate provided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule
Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).
SEC. 302. (a) The primary function of the Board shall be to study and
analyze environmental trends and the factors that affect these trends, relat-
ing each area of study and analysis to the conservation, social, economic,
and health goals of this Nation. In carrying out this function, the Board
shall—
[p. 3]
-------
424 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(1) report at least once each year to the President on the state and
condition of the environment;
(2) provide advice, assistance, and staff support to the President on
the formulation of national policies to foster and promote the improve-
ment of environmental quality; and
(3) obtain information using- existing sources, to the greatest extent
practicable, concerning the quality of the environment and make such
information available to the public.
(b) The Board shall periodically review and appraise Federal programs,
projects, activities, and policies which affect the quality of the environment
and make recommendations thereon to the President.
(c) It shall be the duty and function of the Board to assist and advise the
President in the preparation of the annual environmental quality report
required under section 303.
(d) The Board and the Office of Science and Technology shall carry out
their duties under the provisions of this Act at the direction of the President
and shall perform whatever additional duties he may from time to time
direct.
SEC. 303. The President shall transmit to the Congress, beginning June 30,
1970, an annual environmental quality report which shall set forth: (a) the
status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered environmental
classes of the Nation; and (b) current and foreseeable trends in quality,
management, and utilization of such environments and the affects of those
trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Nation.
SEC. 304. The Board may employ such officers and employees as may be
necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. In addition, the Board
may employ and fix the compensation of such experts and consultants as may
be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under this Act in accord-
ance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code (but without regard to
the last sentence thereof).
SEC. 305. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 annu-
ally to carry out the purposes of this title.
Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to establish a national policy for the
environment; to authorize studies, surveys, and research relating to ecologi-
cal systems, natural resources, and the quality of the human environment;
and to establish a Board of Environmental Quality Advisers."
INTRODUCTION
It is the unanimous view of the members of the Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee that our Nation's present state of
knowledge, our established public policies, and our existing gov-
ernmental institutions are not adequate to deal with the growing
environmental problems and crises the Nation faces.
The inadequacy of present knowledge, policies, and institutions
is reflected in our Nation's history, in our national attitudes, and
in our contemporary life. We see increasing evidence of this inade-
quacy all around us: haphazard urban and suburban growth;
crowding, congestion, and conditions within our central cities
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 425
which result in civil unrest and detract from man's social and
psychological well-being; the loss of valuable open spaces; incon-
sistent and, often, incoherent rural and urban land-use policies;
critical air and water pollution problems; diminishing recreational
opportunity; continuing soil erosion; the degradation of unique
ecosystems; needless deforestation; the decline and extinction of
fish and wildlife species; faltering and poorly designed transporta-
tion systems; poor architectural design and ugliness in public and
private structures; rising levels of noise; the continued prolifera-
tion of pesticides and chemicals without adequate consideration of
the consequences; radiation hazards; thermal pollution; and in-
creasingly ugly landscape cluttered with billboards, powerlines,
and junkyards; and many, many other environmental quality
problems.
[P. 4]
Traditional national policies and programs were not designed to
achieve these conditions. But they were not designed to avoid them
either. And, as a result, they were not avoided in the past. They
are not being avoided today.
Traditional policies were primarily designed to enhance the pro-
duction of goods and to increase the gross national product. As a
nation, we have been very successful at these endeavors. Our gross
national product is approaching $900 billion a year. The American
people enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Our
technological ability is unrivaled. But, as a nation, we have paid a
price for our material well-being. That price may be seen today in
the declining quality of the American environment.
As the evidence of environmental decay and degradation
mounts, it becomes clearer each day that the Nation cannot con-
tinue to pay the price of past abuse. The costs of air and water
pollution, poor land-use policies and urban decay can no longer be
deferred for payment by future generations. These problems must
be faced while they are still of manageable proportions and while
alternative solutions are still available.
If the United States is to create and maintain a balanced and
healthful environment, new means and procedures to preserve en-
vironmental values in the larger public interest, to coordinate
Government activities that shape our future environment, and to
provide guidance and incentives for State and local government
and for private enterprise must be devised.
In spite of the growing public recognition of the urgency of
many environmental problems and the need to reorder national
-------
426 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
goals and priorities to deal with these problems, there is still no
comprehensive national policy on environmental management.
There are limited policies directed to some areas where specific
problems are recognized to exist, but we do not have a considered
statement of overall national goals and purposes.
As a result of this failure to formulate a comprehensive na-
tional policy, environmental decisionmaking largely continues to
proceed as it has in the past. Policy is established by default and
inaction. Environmental problems are only dealt with when they
reach crisis proportions. Public desires and aspirations are seldom
consulted. Important decisions concerning the use and the shape of
man's future environment continue to be made in small but steady
increments which perpetuate rather than avoid the recognized
mistakes of previous decades.
Today it is clear that we cannot continue on this course. Our
natural resources—our air, water, and land—are not unlimited.1
We no longer have the margins for error that we once enjoyed.
The ultimate issue posed by shortsighted, conflicting, and often
selfish demands and pressures upon the finite resources of the
earth are clear. As a nation, and as a world, we face these condi-
tions :
A population which is doubling at increasingly shorter in-
tervals ;
Demands for resources which are growing at a far greater
rate than population; and
1 An excellent up-to-date assessment of our present resource posture has been prepared by the
Committee on Resources and Man, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.
The summary of findings and recommendations is presented as appendix 1 oi the hearings
before the Senate Interior Committee, "National Environmental Policy," Apr. 16, 1969.
[p. 5]
A growing technological power which is far outstripping
man's capacity to understand and ability to control its impact
on the environment.
The committee believes that America's capacity as a nation to
confront these conditions and deal more effectively with the grow-
ing list of environmental hazards and problems resulting from
these conditions can be improved and broadened if the Congress
clarifies the goals, concepts, and procedures which determine and
guide the programs and the activities of Federal agencies. More-
over, this can be done with the reasonable prospect that State,
local, and private action will also be favorably influenced.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 427
The committee is aware, as are other committees of both Houses
which handle environmental legislation, that it is extremely diffi-
cult in our increasingly complex Government to achieve coordi-
nated responses among the numerous Federal agencies2 (aside
from private enterprise and State and local agencies) involved in
the multiple uses of our Nation's natural resources unless there
are established common approaches to determine what actions are
necessary to advance the public interest in healthful and quality
surroundings. To provide a basis for advancing the public interest,
a congressional statement is required of the evolving national
objectives of managing our physical surroundings, our land, air,
water, open space, and other natural resources and environmental
amenities.
In view of this situation, the committee considered, amended
and reported S. 1075 to the floor of the Senate.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
The committee amended the bill by striking all after the enact-
ing clause, substituting a new text, and amending the title of the
bill.
The revised text adopts a number of changes which were sug-
gested to the committee by the administration, representatives of
the executive agencies, public witnesses, and committee members
during consideration of the bill. The major changes are as fol-
lows:
1. A new short title, the "National Environmental Policy Act of
1969" has been added to the bill.
2. The statement of purpose has been revised to reflect amend-
ments adopted by the committee.
3. A new title I which is designated "Declaration of National
Environmental Policy," has been added. The new title consists of a
congressional recognition of man's dependence upon the environ-
ment and a congressional declaration of Federal policy to use "all
practicable means consistent with other essential considerations of
national policy" to improve and coordinate all Federal activities to
the end that certain broad national goals in the management of
the environment may be attained. The broad national goals are set
out in subsections 101 (a) (1) through (6).
Section 101 (b) provides a congressional recognition of each
person's right to a healthful environment and of each person's
responsibility to contribute to the enhancement of the environ-
ment.
-------
428 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Section 102 authorizes and directs that the policies, regulations,
and public laws of the United States be interpreted and adminis-
tered in
2 A recent analysis conducted by the staff of the Senate Interior Committee showed that
environmental programs are presently administered by 63 Federal agencies located within 10
of the 13 departments as well as 16 independent agencies of the executive branch.
[p. 6]
accordance with the policies set forth in the act. This section
also directs all Federal agencies to follow certain procedures
and operating principles in carrying out their program activ-
ities. These procedures and operating principles are set out in
subsection 102(a) through (f). They authorize and direct the
Federal agencies to utilize an interdisciplinary approach in plan-
ning and decision making; to develop procedures to insure that
presently unquantified environmental values and amenities are
given appropriate consideration; to include in legislative reports
and recommendations for major Federal actions certain findings
related to the environment; to develop appropriate alternatives to
recommended courses of action involving unresolved environmen-
tal conflicts; to support appropriate activities designed to deal
with international environmental problems; and to review and
report upon present authority, policy, and procedures for con-
formity to the purposes of this act.
Section 102 provides that the policies and goals set forth in the
act are supplemental to the existing mandates and authorizations
of all Federal agencies.
4. Title I of S. 1075 as introduced, is now title II of S. 1075 as
reported. As amended, title II authorizes all agencies of the Fed-
eral Government to conduct ecological research and surveys in
conjunction with their existing programs and authorities. In S.
1075 as introduced, this authority was limited to the Secretary of
the Interior. The express authority granted to the Federal agen-
cies is set out in subsections 201 (a) through (g).
Section 202, as amended, authorizes the President to designate
an agency or agencies to make grants, including training grants,
to carry out the purposes of title II. In S. 1075, as introduced, this
authority was granted to the Secretary of the Interior. The
amendment reflects the committee's judgment that the President
should have the authority to designate the lead agency or agencies
to carry out the provisions of section 202. The committee added a
limitation on the appropriation authorization in the amounts of
$500,000 annually for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, and $1,000,000
for each year thereafter.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 429
In recognition of the additional duties in the field of environ-
mental administration which have been delegated to the Office of
Science and Technology and to further the policies set forth in the
act, section 203 authorizes the establishment of an additional posi-
tion with the title "Deputy Director" in the Office of Science and
Technology.
[P-7]
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 1075, the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, is to establish, by congressional action, a national policy
to guide Federal activities which are involved with or related to
the management of the environment or which have an impact on
the quality of the environment.
Recent years have witnessed a growing public concern for the
quality of the environment and the manner in which it is man-
aged. The cause of this concern appears to be twofold: First, the
evidence of environmental mismanagement is accumulating at an
ever-increasing rate as a result of population growth, increased
pressures on a finite resource base, and advancing technological
developments which have enlarged man's capacity to effectuate
environmental change. Second, the American people—as a result
of growing affluence, more leisure time, and a recognition of the
consequences of continuing many present environmental trends
are placing a much higher value on the quality of the environment
and their surroundings than ever before.
The public's growing concern has figured prominently in many
different areas of Federal activity. Most often it is seen in the
form of citizen indignation and protest over the actions or, in
some cases, the lack of action of Federal agencies. Examples of the
rising public concern over the manner in which Federal policies
and activities have contributed to environmental decay and degra-
dation may be seen in the Santa Barbara oil well blowout; the
current controversy over the lack of an assured water supply and
the impact of a super-jet airport on the Everglades National
Park; the proliferation of pesticides and other chemicals; the in-
discriminate siting of steam fired powerplants and other units of
heavy industry; the pollution of the Nation's rivers, bays, lakes,
and estuaries; the loss of publicly owned seashores, open spaces,
and other irreplaceable natural assets to industry, commercial
users, and developers; rising levels of air pollution; federally
sponsored or aided construction activities such as highways, air-
-------
430 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ports, and other public works projects which proceed without ref-
erence to the desires and aspirations of local people.
S. 1075 is designed to deal with many of the basic causes of
these increasingly troublesome and often critical problems of do-
mestic policy. A primary purpose of the bill is to restore public
confidence in the Federal Government's capacity to achieve impor-
tant public purposes and objectives and at the same time to
maintain and enhance the quality of the environment. It is the
Committee's belief that S. 1075 will also provide a model and a
demonstration to which State governments may look in their
efforts to reorganize local institutions and to establish local policies
conducive to sound and environmental management. This objective
is of great importance because many of the most serious environ-
mental problems the Nation faces are within the scope and,
often, within the exclusive jurisdiction of State action and State
responsibility.
S. 1075 is also designed to deal with the long-range implications
of many of the critical environmental problems which have caused
great public concern in recent years. The challenge of environmen-
tal management is, in essence, a challenge of modern man to
himself. The principal threats to the environment and the Nation's
life support system are those that man has himself induced in the
pursuit of material wealth,
[p. 8]
greater productivity, and other important values. These threats—
whether in the form of pollution, crowding, ugliness, or in some
other form—were not achieved intentionally. They were the spin-
off, the fallout, and the unanticipated consequences which resulted
from the pursuit of narrower, more immediate goals.
The purpose of S. 1075 is, therefore, to establish a national
policy designed to cope with environmental crisis, present or im-
pending. The measure is designed to supplement existing, but nar-
row and fractionated, congressional declarations of environmental
policy.
The "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" would con-
tribute to a more orderly, rational, and constructive Federal re-
sponse to environmental decisionmaking in five major ways. These
are briefly set out below:
1. Management of the environment is a matter of critical con-
cern to all Americans. Virtually every agency of the Federal Gov-
ernment plays some role in determining how well the environment
is managed. Yet, many of these agencies do not have a mandate, a
body of law, or a set of policies to guide their actions which have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 431
an impact on the environment. In fact, the authorizing legislation
of some agencies has been construed to prohibit the consideration
of important environmental values.
Section 101 of S. 1075 rectifies this by providing a congressional
declaration that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of
the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent
with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve
and coordinate Federal planning and activities to the end that
certain broad national goals in the management of the environ-
ment may be attained.
2. A statement of national policy for the environment—like
other major policy declarations—is in large measure concerned
with principle rather than detail; with an expression of broad
national goals rather than narrow and specific procedures for
implementation. But, if goals and principles are to be effective,
they must be capable of being applied in action. S. 1075 thus
incorporates certain "action-forcing" provisions and procedures
which are designed to assure that all Federal agencies plan and
work toward meeting the challenge of a better environment.
3. One of the major factors contributing to environmental abuse
and deterioration is that actions—often actions having irreversi-
ble consequences—are undertaken without adequate consideration
of, or knowledge about, their impact on the environment. Section
201 seeks to overcome this limitation by authorizing all agencies
of the Federal Government, in conjunction with their existing
programs and authorities, to conduct research, studies, and sur-
veys related to ecological systems and the quality of the environ-
ment. This section also authorizes the agencies to make this infor-
mation available to the public, to assist State and local govern-
ment, and to utilize ecological information in the planning and
development of resource-oriented projects.
Recognizing the leading role which the President has delegated
to the Office of Science and Technology for the coordination of
Federal activities in the area of environmental administration, the
committee has adopted provisions designed to assist and
strengthen this office.
[p. 9]
The committee also authorizes the President to designate one or
more lead agencies to carry out a grant program, to maintain an
inventory of development projects which make significant environ-
mental modifications, to establish a data collection system, and to
assist State and local governments.
-------
432 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
4. Title III establishes an independent, high-level, three-member
Board of Environmental Quality Advisers in the Executive Office
of the President. The Board is patterned very closely after the
Council of Economic Advisers which was established by the Full
Employment Act of 1946.
The Board's function is to provide a continuing study and anal-
ysis of environmental trends and the factors which affect these
trends, and to relate each area of study and analysis to the social,
economic, health, and conservation goals of the Nation. The Board
will provide an overview of how effectively the Nation is main-
taining a quality environment for future and present generations.
In addition, it will be uniquely equipped to serve an early warning
function by identifying emerging environmental problems at an
early date so that proper responses may be prepared before situa-
tions reach crisis proportions and before the costs of dealing with
problems grow large.
The Board would also strengthen the Office of the President by
providing advice, assistance, and staff support on the formulation
of national policies and other measures to improve the quality of
the environment. In addition, the Board would assist the President
in the preparation of an annual environmental quality report.
5. Section 303 requires the President to submit to the Congress
an annual environmental quality report on the current status and
condition of the major natural, manmade, and altered environmen-
tal systems of the Nation. In addition, the report is to identify
current and foreseeable trends in quality, management, and the
utilization of these environmental systems and the effects of these
trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Na-
tion.
At present, there is no report available which summarizes and
brings together in one convenient place an authoritative and peri-
odic statement on the status of the environment. Instead, there are
hundreds of reports which deal with some small aspect of environ-
mental management. More often than not these are technical in
nature and do not provide meaningful measures of how well the
Nation is meeting environmental goals and objectives. The annual
report required by S. 1075 would provide a baseline and a periodic
objective statement of national progress in achieving a quality
environment for present and future generations of Americans.
BACKGROUND
Legislative history
S. 1075, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, was
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 433
introduced in the 91st Congress on February 18, 1969, by Senator
Jackson. Hearings on this and two related bills introduced by
Senators Nelson (S. 1752) and McGovern (S. 237) were held on
April 16, 1969,
[p-10]
before the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.3 Fol-
lowing a staff study and consultations with the staff of the
Office of Science and Technology and with representatives of
a number of the Federal departments, the committee considered
S. 1075 in executive session on June 18, 1969. Following the adop-
tion of a number of committee amendments, the measure was
ordered reported to the Senate on June 18, 1969. At the request of
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology and repre-
sentatives of the Bureau of the Budget, the committee voted, on
July 8, 1969, to reconsider the measure for the purpose of consid-
ering additional amendments. The amendments were proposed by
the Bureau of the Budget in a July 7, 1969, letter to the chairman
of the committee. The proposed amendments to titles I and II of S.
1075 were adopted. Amendments proposed to title III by the Bu-
reau of the Budget were adopted in part and rejected in part.
Following the adoption of other amendments suggested by mem-
bers of the committee, the measure was ordered reported to the
Senate on July 8, 1969.
S. 1075, as introduced, was substantially the same measure as S.
2805 which was introduced in the 90th Congress on December 15,
1967, by Senators Jackson and Kuchel. The far-reaching objec-
tives of S. 2805 and similar legislation introduced in the 90th
Congress by Members of both Houses were considered at a unique
joint House-Senate colloquium convened by the chairmen of the
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the House
Committee on Science and Astronautics on July 17, 1968, to dis-
cuss a national policy for the environment.4
Many of the concepts and ideas incorporated in S. 1075 were
drawn from ambitious measures introduced in previous Con-
gresses. Of particular relevance were S. 2549, the Resources and
Conservation Act, introduced by Senator Murray in 1959 and S.
2282 introduced by Senator Nelson in the 89th Congress. The
Murray bill, endorsed by a distinguished group of Senators in the
86th and subsequently in the 87th Congress, called for the estab-
lishment of more efficient machinery in the President's Office to
coordinate resource conservation on the
'' National environmental policy, hearings held before the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., first sess., on S. 1075, S. 1752, and S. 237, Apr. 16, 1969.
-------
434 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
S. 1752, as introduced by Senator Nelson, would create a five-member Council on Environmental
Quality in the Office of the President. This Council would be responsible for assisting the Presi-
dent in preparing an annual environmental quality report which would be transmitted to
Congress. The report would be reviewed by a Joint Committee on Environmental Quality. The
measure would also authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies of the natural
environment, evaluate and disseminate such information, and consult with and provide technical
assistance to departments and agencies of the Government.
S. 237, as introduced by Senator McGovern, would require that the President transmit to the
Congress an annual report on the state of the environment. The measure would also authorize
the creation of a Council of Advisers on Resources, Conservation, and the Environment which
would be in the Executive Office of the President. The three-member Council would assist the
President in the preparation of the annual report and in developing and recommending national
policies to maintain and improve the environment. For the purpose of consideration of the
annual report and plan, this bill would establish in the Senate and the House, special commit-
tees to be known as the Select Committees on Resources, Conservation, and Environment.
* The proceedings were published under the title: "Joint House-Senate Colloquium To Discuss
a National Policy for the Environment," hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, U.S. Senate, and the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Represen-
tatives, 90th Cong., 2d sess., July 17, 1968.
Following the colloquium, a "Congressional White Paper" was prepared at the request of
Cochairman Henry M. Jackson and George Miller by the Legislative Reference Service, Library
of Congress. This document, issued as a joint committee print by the Senate Interior Committee
and House Science and Astronautics Committee and distributed to the entire Congress in
October 1968, summarized the key points raised in the dialog between Members of the Congress
and the colloquium participants which included five Cabinet Secretaries, the President's Science
Adviser, Mr. Laurance Rockefeller, and Dean Don K. Price of Harvard.
A special report to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on "A National Policy for
the Environment" was prepared for the committee's use and was printed as a committee print
on July 11, 1968. The report was prepared by Dr. Lynton K. Caldwell of Indiana University
and William J. Van Ness, special counsel to the committee. The report was used as a back-
ground document for the colloquium. It raises and discusses in detail many of the issues and
questions implicit in establishing a national environmental policy.
[P. ii]
basis of national goals. The Nelson bill included broad provisions
to cope with inadequate use and application by Federal agencies of
ecological knowledge and research methods for attaining better
management of our physical environment. Extensive hearings
were held on each of these and other environmental measures be-
fore the Senate Interior Committee.5
Other concepts and ideas incorporated into S. 1075 were drawn
from the proceedings of the previously mentioned joint House-
Senate colloquium, from technical reports, conferences and sympo-
sia, and from books and journals dealing with environmental
problems.6
In addition, the committee has reviewed and drawn upon con-
cepts and ideas incorporated into many measures introduced in
this and previous Congresses related to various aspects of environ-
mental management.7
Need for the measure
This committee has compiled a great deal of testimony demon-
strating instances of shortcomings, problems, and even national
crises arising in many respects from the inadequacies of the Na-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 435
tion's environmental management policies and practices. Similar
evidence has been compiled by other congressional committees and
is a recurrent topic in the news media and in popular and techni-
cal publications.
Extensive collections of commentary regarding specific exam-
ples of environmental problems along with commentary by recog-
nized spokesmen and authorities in the field have been published
by this committee in the transcripts of the joint House-Senate
colloquium to discuss a national policy for the environment (90th
Cong., second sess.), in the hearing on a national environmental
policy (91st Cong., first sess.), and elsewhere.8 The latter docu-
ment includes an appendix entitled "Bibliography on Environmen-
tal Issues," which lists numerous books, papers, articles, and other
published material dealing with the critical problems of the envi-
ronment.
It would be impracticable to attempt a summary of this volumi-
nous data in this report. Drawing upon the testimony presented to
this and other committees, however, the committee believes that
the following basic propositions summarize the situation of con-
temporary America and the Federal Government regarding the
management of the environment:
5 Proposed Resources and Conservation Act of 1960, hearings before the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 86th Cong., second sess. on S. 2549, Jan. 25, 26, 28, and 29,
1960. Ecological Research and Surveys, hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, U.S. Senate, 89th Cong., second sess., April 27, 1966, on S. 2282.
fi For a detailed listing of these documents see App. A, entitled "A Documentation on En-
vironmental Problems," p. 25, in A National Policy for the Environment, committee print,
Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, July 11, 1968; see also the "Bibliography on
Environmental Issues," pp. 192-204 in National Environmental Policy, hearing before the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong on S. 1075, S. 237, and
S. 1752, Apr. 16, 1969.
7 In the closing days of the 90th Cong., the Legislative Reference Service tabulated over 100
bills which were directly concerned with environmental issues, covering a broad area of interest
—cleaning up the Nation's rivers and better approaches to smog control, improving the use of
open space and prevention of disorderly encroachment by superhighways, factories and other
developments, improved protection of areas of high fertility, wiser application of pesticides,
whose residues affect both man and wildlife, and the control of urban sprawl, unsightly junk-
yards, billboards, and power facilities that lower the amenities of landscape.
In the present Congress, an initial tabulation indicates that over 40 bills have been introduced
which are concerned either with a national policy for the environment or the establishment of
machinery to study the overall problems of the human environment. Of the 16 standing com-
mittees of the Senate, eight have broad jurisdiction of this type of legislation. Of the 21 House
standing committees, 11 are similarly involved. See "A National Policy for the Environment,"
app. B, p. 29, committee print of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, July 11,
1968; "Congressional White Paper on A National Policy for the Environment," app. p. 17,
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the House Committee on Science and
Astronautics, October 1968; and Legislative Reference Service Multilith, TP 450, SP 170 entitled
"Environmental Quality: Selected Bills and Resolutions," June 20, 1969.
8 See, for example, "Selected Excerpts on Environmental Management Policy," in the Con-
gressional Record, Feb. 6, 1968, by Senator Jackson, and the committee publications cited in
previous footnotes.
[p. 12]
-------
436 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1. Population growth and increasing per capita material de-
mands are placing unprecedented pressures upon a finite resource
base.
2. Advancing scientific knowledge and technology have vastly
enlarged man's ability to alter the physical environment.
3. The combination of the foregoing conditions presents a seri-
ous threat to the Nation's life support system. The pursuit of
greater material wealth and increased productivity, the quest for
scientific knowledge, and the requirements of worldwide responsi-
bilities have had unplanned and often unforeseen consequences in
the form of resource depletion, pollution, ill conceived urbaniza-
tion, and other aspects of environmental degradation.
4. The attainment of effective national environmental manage-
ment requires the Nation's endorsement of a set of resource man-
agement values which are in the long-range public interest and
which merit the support of all social institutions. The Federal role
will involve in some measure nearly every Federal agency. Suc-
cessful Federal leadership in environmental management must be
based upon the best possible information and analyses concerning
the status and trends of environmental conditions. Federal action
must rest upon a clear statement of the values and goals which we
seek; in short, a national environmental policy.
There is no general agreement as to how critical the Nation's
present environmental situation has become. Some respected schol-
ars insist that a number of crises already exist. Others maintain
that there is yet time to prevent them. There is nearly unanimous
agreement, however, that action is needed and that, at least in
some instances, dangerous conditions exist.
The Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee has not con-
cluded that the complex environmental problems we face are sus-
ceptible of easy solution. It is however, clear that the Congress
cannot disavow its responsibility to establish basic policies and to
exercise supervisory powers over the agencies it has created. The
Senate Committee on the Judiciary stated this responsibility
clearly:
Policymaking is not a function that can be performed prop-
erly by a small group of appointed officials, no matter how
able or well intentioned. Only in Congress, where the Mem-
bers are directly answerable to the electorate, can competing
political interests be adequately represented and properly ac-
commodated.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 437
In gathering testimony on various aspects of national environ-
mental policy over the past decade, the Senate Interior Committee
has received broad support and encouragement from diverse seg-
ments of American society—from the scientific community, the
universities, business and labor, and from public affairs groups.
The committee believes that it is necessary to move ahead to define
the "environmental" desires of the American people in operational
terms that the President, Government agencies at all levels, the
courts, private enterprise, and the public can consider and act
upon.
RELATIONSHIP OF S. 107.-. TO EXISTING POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONS
Existing policies
Congress over the past decade has passed a procession of land-
mark conservation measures on behalf of recreation and wilder-
ness, national
[p. 13]
recreational planning, national water planning and research,
wilderness preservation, review of public land policies, estab-
lishment of a system of national trails and a system of national
scenic rivers, air and water pollution control, noise abate-
ment, preservation of endangered wildlife, urban planning for
open space, oceanography, beautification of highways, protection
of shorelines and estuaries, and other related areas. Many of these
measures originated in the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee.0 Others originated in other committees of both the
Senate and House. All of them, in specific and specialized ways,
constitute congressional mandates on various aspects of environ-
mental policy. Taken together, these measures provide an impres-
sive record of congressional action and concern.
Nevertheless, on the basis of recent hearings, seminars, collo-
quia, and staff studies conducted by the committee, it is clear that
there is very real reason for concern for those areas in which no
policies have been established or in which the conflicting opera-
tional policies of different agencies are frustrating and complicat-
ing the achievement of environmental quality objectives which are
in the interest of all. Many older operating agencies of the Federal
Government, for example, do not at present have a mandate
within the body of their enabling laws to allow them to give
adequate attention to environmental values. In other agencies, es-
pecially when the expenditure of funds is involved, an official's
-------
438 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
latitude to deviate from narrow policies or the "most economical
alternative" to achieve an environmental goal may be strictly cir-
cumscribed by congressional authorizations which have overlooked
existing or potential environmental problems or the limitations of
agency procedures. There is also reason for serious concern over
the activities of those agencies which do not feel they have suffi-
cient authority to undertake needed research and action to en-
hance, preserve, and maintain the qualitative side of the environ-
ment in connection with development activities.
S. 1075, as reported by the committee, would provide all agen-
cies and all Federal officials with a legislative mandate and a
responsibility to consider the consequences of their actions on the
environment. This would be true of the licensing functions of
independent agencies as well as the ongoing activities of the regu-
lar Federal agencies.
In addition, by providing a statement of national environmental
goals, policies, and procedures, S. 1075 would give renewed and
vigorous emphasis to the importance of existing environmental
programs and legislation.
The problem of providing for better Federal environmental
management practices is not totally caused by the lack of a policy.
As noted earlier, there are many specific and specialized legislative
policies on some aspects of the environment. The present problem
also involves the need to rationalize and better coordinate existing
policies and to provide means by which they may be continuously
reviewed to determine whether they meet the overall goal of a
quality life in a quality environment for all Americans.
8 See for example, "A Brief Presentation of the Committee's History and Jurisdiction, and
A Summary of its Accomplishments During the 90th Congress," committee print, Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 90th Cong., 2d Sess.
See, also the existing legislation which affects coordination of Federal, air Quality, water
quality, solid waste disposal, and related public works projects cited in S. 2391, introduced by
Senator Muskie and others on June 12, 1969.
[p. 14]
Titles II and III of S. 1075 provide coordinating and oversight
measures which are designed to insure that a coordinated Federal
response to the problems of environmental management is pre-
pared.
Existing institutions
The Federal Government, at present, is not well structured for
the administration of complex environmental issues or to offer
meaningful alternatives to past methods of coping with environ-
mental problems.10 Compensatory measures have been sought
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 439
through interagency agreements and understandings which re-
quire joint consultation and planning in specified cases of natural
resources administration.11
While this represents an improvement in some areas of environ-
mental administration and policymaking, the compensatory meas-
ures are more in the nature of palliatives than basic reforms,
more in the nature of administrative statesmanship rather than
basic policy determinations. In effect, they treat the symptoms
rather than the basic problems.
Functions of oversight and assessment, insofar as they are pres-
ently fulfilled, are vested with a number of committees of the
Congress and with the Bureau of the Budget. Budget's concern
has proven to be more fiscal than policy oriented. The segmented
committee structure of Congress, coupled with inadequate time
and staff to survey the broad range of environmental quality prob-
lems, make it improbable that all of the committees of Congress
will, or can be expected to, provide a continuous and informed
substitute for legislation through which a comprehensive environ-
mental public policy can be developed and applied.12
The present administration has recognized that dealing with
complex environmental questions requires the establishment of a
focal point for the consideration of environmental values within
the Federal Government. On June 3, 1969, President Nixon estab-
lished by Executive Order 11472 an interagency Environmental
Quality Council to be composed of six Cabinet officers and to be
chaired by himself. The Executive order also established a Citi-
zens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, revoked a
number of prior Executive orders, and delegated certain staff
functions to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology.
During the April 16 hearings on S. 1075, members of the Com-
mittee expressed approval of the announcement by the Secretary
of the Interior and the President's science adviser of the Presi-
dent's intent to establish this interagency Council on the environ-
ment. There was general agreement that the Council could be
effective in dealing with environmental problems which were of
concern to more than one Department of the Federal Government
and which required "action."
Many members of the Committee did, however, question
whether an interagency council alone could provide the objective
and impartial advice and adversary support the President needs in
dealing with environmental problems.
10 This deficiency has been thoroughly discussed in two documents of the National Academy
of Sciences: Paul Weiss, "Renewable Resources: A Report to the Committee on Natural
-------
440 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Resources" (NAS-NRC Publ. No. 100A, 1962; "Resources and Man," NAS-NRC. (In press.)
Also see Lynton K. Caldwell, "Administrative Possibilities for Environmental Control," in The
Future Environments of North America (Natural History Press, 1966), and the hearings on
S. 1075.
11 The inadequacies of such compensatory measures are discussed in the following: Stephen
K. Bailey, "Managing the Federal Government," in Agenda for the Nation (Brookinga Insti-
tution, 1968).
12 This fundamental issue was fully discussed in the "Congressional White Paper on a
National Policy for the Environment," op. cit.
[p. 15]
Senator Jackson, in a dialog with Dr. DuBridge, noted that—
* * * the advice, with all due respect, that the President
would receive from the departments will be advice that will
not be adverse to them. It will be compromised advice. This
has been the history of the agencies. It is hard for the Presi-
dent to get objective advice. This is why the Bureau of the
Budget plays such an important role. This is why your office
[Office of Science and Technology] plays an important role.
You have science in every department of the Government, and
the President really needs to be armed with information with
which he can effectively deal with the Cabinet departments.
He needs to be armed with impartial advice, even advice of an
adversary nature which will place the options for decision
before the President.
What I am concerned about, you see, is whether or not the
President is going to be presented with a series of options
that stem from an impartial source. This is casting no reflec-
tion on any department, but every Cabinet officer gets pres-
sures right from the bottom on up.
Concern was also expressed by other members of the Committee
over whether the President and the Cabinet officers involved
would have the time and energy to provide the continuity of effort
required. Concern was voiced over the level of staff support which
the Office of Science and Technology would be able to make availa-
ble to assist the President's Council.
Based upon a review of the strengths and weaknesses of both
the President's Council and an independent board of environmen-
tal advisers as proposed in S. 1075, the Committee believes that
both are needed. Their functions and activities as expressed in the
Executive order and in title III of S. 1075 are not in conflict. They
are complementary bodies: one action-oriented and composed of
those Cabinet officers chiefly concerned with environmental mat-
ters, and the other providing objective and impartial advice as
well as a long-range overview and problem identification function.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 441
SUMMARY
Although historically the Nation has had no considered policy
for its environment, the unprecedented pressures of population
and the impact of science and technology make a policy necessary
today. The expression "environmental quality" symbolizes the
complex and interrelated aspects of man's dependence upon his
environment. Most Americans now understand, far better than
our forebears could, the nature of man-environment relation-
ships. The evidence requiring timely public action is clear. The
Nation has in many areas overdrawn its bank account in life-sus-
taining natural elements. For these elements—air, water, soil, and
living space—technology at present provides no substitutes. Past
neglect and carelessness are now costing us dearly, not merely in
opportunities forgone, in impairment of health, and in discomfort
and inconvenience, but also in a demand upon tax dollars upon
personal incomes, and upon corporate earnings. The longer we
delay meeting our environmental responsibilities, the longer the
growing list of "interest charges" in environmental deteriora-
[p. 16]
tion will run. The cost of remedial action and of getting on to a
sound basis for the future will never again be less than it is today.13
Natural beauty, increased recreational opportunity, urban es-
thetics and other amenities would be important byproducts of a
national environmental policy. They are worthy and important
public objectives in their own right. But the compelling reasons
for a national policy are more deeply based. The survival of man,
in a world in which decency and dignity are possible, is the basic
reason for bringing man's impact on his environment under in-
formed and responsible control. The economic costs of maintaining
a life-sustaining environment are unavoidable. We have not under-
stood the necessity for respecting the limited capacities of nature
in accommodating itself to man's exactions, nor have we properly
calculated the cost of adaptation to deteriorating conditions. In our
management of the environment we have exceeded its adaptive
and recuperative powers, and in one form or another we must now
pay directly the costs of maintaining air, water, soil, and living
space in quantities and qualities sufficient to our needs. Economic
good sense requires the declaration of a policy and the establish-
ment of a comprehensive environmental quality program now.
Today we have the option of channeling some of our wealth into
the protection of our future. If we fail to do this in an adequate
and timely manner, we may find ourselves confronted, even in this
-------
442 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
generation, with an environmental catastrophe that could render
our wealth meaningless and which no amount of money could ever
cure.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1
This section provides that this act may be cited as the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Section 2
This section sets forth the purposes of the act. The purposes of
the act are to declare a national environmental policy; to promote
efforts to prevent environmental damage and to better the health
and welfare of man; to enlarge and enrich man's understanding of
the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Na-
tion; and to establish in the Executive Office of the President a
Board of Environmental Quality Advisers.
TITLE I
Section 101 (a)
This section is a declaration by the Congress of a national
environmental policy. The declaration is based upon a congres-
sional recognition of mankind's dependence upon his physical and
biological surroundings for material goods and cultural enrich-
ment. It is further based upon a recognition of the increasing
pressures exerted upon the environment as a result of population
growth, urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation,
and technological development.
The continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Govern-
ment is declared to be that, consistent with other essential consid-
erations of national policy, the activities and resources of the
Federal Government shall be improved and coordinated to the end
that the Nation may
la For a discussion of the economic and social costs of continuing past environmental manage-
ment practices see page 5, "A National Policy for the Environment," Committee Print, Senate
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, July 11, 1968.
[p. 17]
attain certain broad national goals in the management of the
environment. The broad national goals are as follows:
(1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of
the environment for future generations. It is recognized in this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 443
statement that each generation has a responsibility to improve,
enhance, and maintain the quality of the environment to the great-
est extent possible for the continued benefit of future generations.
(2) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings. The Federal
Government, in its planning and programs, shall strive to protect
and improve the quality of each citizen's surroundings both in
regard to the preservation of the natural environment as well as
in the planning, design, and construction of manmade structures.
Each individual should be assured of safe, healthful, and produc-
tive surroundings in which to live and work and should be af-
forded the maximum possible opportunity to derive physical, es-
thetic, and cultural satisfaction from his environs.
(3) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable
and unintended consequences. The resources of the United States
must be capable of supporting the larger populations and the
increased demands upon limited resources which are inevitable in
the future. To do so, it is essential that the widest and most
efficient use of the environment be made to provide both the ne-
cessities and the amenities of life. In seeking intensified beneficial
utilization of the earth's resources, the Federal Government must
take care to avoid degradation and misuse of resources, risk to
man's continued health and safety, and other undesirable and un-
intended consequences.
(4) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects
of our national heritage, and maintain wherever possible an envi-
ronment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.
The pace of urbanization coupled with population growth and
man's increasing ability to work unprecedented change in the nat-
ural environment makes it clear that one essential goal in a na-
tional environmental policy is the preservation of important as-
pects of our national heritage. There are existing programs which
are designed to achieve these goals, but many are single-purpose
in nature and most are viewed as being within the province of a
particular agency of Government. This subsection would make it
clear that all agencies, in all of their activities, are to carry out
their programs with a full appreciation of the importance of
maintaining important aspects of our national heritage.
This subsection also emphasizes that an important aspect of
national environmental policy is the maintenance of physical sur-
roundings which provide present and future generations of Amer-
ican people with the widest possible opportunities for diversity
-------
444 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and variety of experience and choice in cultural pursuits, in recre-
ational endeavors, in esthetics and in living styles.
(5) Achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of
life's amenities. This subsection recognizes that population in-
creases underlie many of the resource and environmental problems
which are being experienced in America. If the Nation's present
high standards of living are to be made available to all of our
citizens and if the general and growing desire of our people for
greater participation in the
[p. 18]
physical and material benefits, in the amenities, and in the esthetic
enjoyment afforded by a quality environment are to be satisfied,
the Federal Government must strive to maintain magnitude and
distribution of population which will not exceed the environment's
capability to provide such benefits.
(6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach
the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. In re-
cent years a great deal of the emphasis of legislative and executive
action regarding environmental matters has concentrated upon the
protection and improvement of quality of the Nation's renewable
resources such as air and water. It is vital that these efforts be
continued and intensified because they are among the most visible,
pressing, and immediate concerns of environmental management.
It is also essential that means be sought and utilized to improve
the effectiveness of recycling of depletable resources such as fiber,
chemicals, and metallic minerals. Improved material standards of
living for greater numbers of people will place increased demands
upon limited raw materials. Furthermore, the disposal of wastes
from the nonconsumptive single use of manufactured goods is
among our most critical pollution problems. Emphasis must be
placed upon seeking innovative solutions through technology, man-
agement, and, if necessary, governmental regulation.
Section 101 (b)
This subsection asserts congressional recognition of each per-
son's fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environ-
ment. It is apparent that the guarantee of the continued enjoy-
ment of any individual right is dependent upon individual health
and safety. It is further apparent that deprivation of an individu-
al's right to a healthful environment will result in the degradation
or elimination of all of his rights.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 445
The subsection also asserts congressional recognition of each
individual's responsibility to contribute to the preservation and
enhancement of the environment. The enjoyment of individual
rights requires respect and protection of the rights of others. The
cumulative influence of each individual upon the environment is of
such great significance that every effort to preserve environmental
quality must depend upon the strong support and participation of
the public.
Section 102
The policies and goals set forth in section 101 can be imple-
mented if they are incorporated into the ongoing activities of the
Federal Government in carrying out its other responsibilities to
the public. In many areas of Federal action there is no body of
experience or precedent for substantial and consistent considera-
tion of environmental factors in decisionmaking. In some areas
of Federal activity, existing legislation does not provide clear au-
thority for the consideration of environmental factors which con-
flict with other objectives.
To remedy present shortcomings in the legislative foundation of
existing programs, and to establish action-forcing procedures
which will help to insure that the policies enunciated in section
101 are implemented, section 102 authorizes and directs that the
existing body of Federal law, regulation, and policy be interpreted
and administered to the fullest extent possible in accordance with
the policies set forth
[p. 19]
in this act. It further establishes a number of operating pro-
cedures to be followed by all Federal agencies as follows:
(a) Wherever planning is done or decisions are made which
may have an impact on the quality of man's environment, the
responsible agency or agencies are directed to utilize to the fullest
extent possible a systematic, interdisciplinary, team approach.
Such planning and decisions should draw upon the broadest possi-
ble range of social and natural scientific knowledge and design
arts. Many of the environmental controversies of recent years
have, in large measure, been caused by the failure to consider all
relevant points of view in the planning and conduct of Federal
activities. Using an interdisciplinary approach that brought to-
gether the skills of the landscape architect, the engineer, the ecolo-
gist, the economist, and other relevant disciplines would result in
better planning and better projects. Too often planning is the
exclusive province of the engineer and cost analyst.
-------
446 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(b) All agencies which undertake activities relating to environ-
mental values, particularly those values relating to amenities and
aesthetic considerations, are authorized and directed to make ef-
forts to develop methods and procedures to incorporate those val-
ues in official planning and decisionmaking. In the past, environ-
mental factors have frequently been ignored and omitted from
consideration in the early stages of planning because of the diffi-
culty of evaluating them in comparison with economic and techni-
cal factors. As a result, unless the results of planning are radically
revised at the policy level—and this often means the Congress—
environmental enhancement opportunities may be forgone and un-
necessary degradation incurred. A vital requisite of environmental
management is the development of adequate methodology for eval-
uating the full environmental impacts and the full costs of Federal
actions.
(c) Each agency which proposes any major actions, such as
project proposals, proposals for new legislation, regulations, pol-
icy statements, or expansion or revision of ongoing programs,
shall make a determination as to whether the proposal would have
a significant effect upon the quality of the human environment. If
the proposal is considered to have such an effect, then the recom-
mendation or report supporting the proposal must include state-
ments by the responsible official of certain findings as follows:
(i) A finding shall be made that the environmental impact
of the proposed action has been studied and that the results of
the studies have been given consideration in the decisions
leading to the proposal.
(ii) Wherever adverse environmental effects are found to
be involved, a finding must be made that those effects cannot
be avoided by following reasonable alternatives which will
achieve the intended purposes of the proposal. Furthermore, a
finding must be made that the action leading to the adverse
environmental effects is justified by other considerations of
national policy and those other considerations must be stated
in the finding.
(iii) Wherever local, short-term uses of the resources of
man's environment are being proposed, a finding must be
made that such uses are consistent with the maintenance and
enhancement of the long-term productivity of the environ-
ment.
[p. 20]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 447
(iv) Wherever proposals involve significant commitments
of resources and those commitments are irreversible and irre-
trievable under conditions of known technology and reasona-
ble economics, a finding must be made that such commitments
are warranted.
(d) Wherever agencies of the Federal Government recommend
courses of action which are known to involve unresolved conflicts
over competing and incompatible uses of land, water, or air re-
sources, it shall be the agency's responsibility to study, develop,
and describe appropriate alternatives to the recommended course
of action. The agency shall develop information and provide de-
scriptions of the alternatives in adequate detail for subsequent
reviewers and decisionmakers, both within the executive branch
and in the Congress, to consider the alternatives along with the
principal recommendation.
(e) In recognition of the fact that environmental problems are
not confined by political boundaries, all agencies of the Federal
Government which have international responsibilities are author-
ized and directed to lend support to appropriate international ef-
forts to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of the
worldwide environment.
(f) All agencies of the Federal Government are directed to
review their existing statutory authority, administrative regula-
tions, policies, and procedures. The agencies are to propose to the
President and to the Congress new executive or legislative author-
ity which they find to be necessary to make their authority consist-
ent with the provisions and purposes of this act.
The committee expects that each agency will diligently pursue
this review and that appropriate legislative recommendations will
be prepared for presentation to the Congress within 1 year's time.
The committee recognizes, however, that there is a wide difference
in the complexity of legislation dealing with the activities of the
various executive agencies and that a specific deadline might prove
unreasonably burdensome on some agencies.
Section 103
This section provides that the policies and goals set forth in this
act are supplementary to the existing mandates and authorizations
of Federal agencies. They are not considered to repeal the existing
authorizations. Where conflicts occur, they will be resolved under
the procedure prescribed in section 102 (f).
-------
448 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
TITLE II
Section 201
This section provides authorization for the Federal agencies to
include, as a part of their existing programs and their ongoing
activities, certain environmental management functions which will
be necessary to support the policies established by this act. No
specific authorization of appropriations is provided for these ac-
tivities. The committee believes that the agencies can perform the
functions authorized as a part of the general administration and
operation of their existing programs. To the extent that agencies
are pursuing activities with environmental management implica-
tions, the costs of the functions authorized in this section are
appropriate costs of their work. The functions authorized for each
Federal agency are as follows:
[p. 21]
(a) To conduct investigations and research relating to eco-
logical systems and environmental quality. It is intended that
such activities will be undertaken by each agency when its
activities would have an adverse impact on an ecological sys-
tem or on the quality of the environment.
(6) To collect and document information relating to
changes or trends in environmental conditions including eco-
logical systems. It is intended that each agency perform this
function in its area of expertise and operation.
(c) To evaluate and publish environmental and ecological
data which it has collected.
(d) To make available advice and information at its dis-
posal relating to environmental management.
(e) To utilize ecological information in the planning and
development of resource-oriented projects. Each agency
which studies, proposes, constructs, or operates projects hav-
ing resource management implications is authorized and di-
rected to consider the effects upon ecological systems to be a
part of the analyses governing its actions and to study such
effects as a part of its data collection.
(/) To conduct ecological research and studies within the
Federal lands under its jurisdiction.
(g) To assist to the fullest extent possible the Board of
Environmental Quality Advisers established by this act and
any environmental council or committee established by the
President.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 449
Section 202 (a)
This section authorizes the President to designate an agency or
agencies to carry out the following functions regarding environ-
mental management:
(1) Administer a program of grants, contracts and cooper-
ative agreements, training and research to further the pro-
grams of ecological study authorized by title II and to accept
and utilize donations for this purpose.
(2) Develop and maintain an inventory of Federal projects
and programs, existing and contemplated, which have made
or will make significant modifications in the environment.
(3) Establish an information collection and retrieval sys-
tem for ecological research materials.
(4) Assist and advise State and local governments and
private enterprise in developing policies and procedures to
enhance the quality of the environment.
Section 202 (b)
Appropriations in the amounts of $500,000 annually for fiscal
years 1971 and 1972 and $1 million annually for 1973 and each
fiscal year thereafter are authorized for the purposes of this sec-
tion. The funds appropriated would be allotted to the designated
agencies as the President recommends.
Section 203
This section establishes in the Office of Science and Technology
an additional Deputy Director to be compensated at the rate pro-
vided for level IV of the executive schedule pay rates.
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) was established by
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 to provide a permanent staff in
[p. 22]
the Executive Office of the President to advise and assist the
President on matters pertaining to or affected by science and
technology. It is also directed to take on such other assignments as
the President may request. The Director of OST, appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, also serves as
the science adviser to the President.
Since it was provided statutory authority in 1962, the OST has
broadened the range and scope of its activities extending beyond
the province of research or policy for science and technology to
the interrelations of science to broad national policies and pro-
-------
450 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
grams. In this sense, the OST is concerned with assuring the most
effective and beneficial use of technology in our society.
Thus, the OST deals with broad problems facing the country in
health, education, the urban environment, energy policy and envi-
ronmental quality.
The President's recent Executive order establishing an Environ-
mental Quality Council directed the OST to provide the staff sup-
port and assistance to the work of the Council. The President's
science adviser was named Executive Secretary of the Council.
In view of the importance of environmental management prob-
lems and the important role which the President's Council will
have in resolving interagency conflict concerning environmental
issues, and in coordinating the ongoing environmental programs
of the Federal Government, a significant increase is expected in
the already demanding work load of the OST.
The committee feels that the addition of a second Deputy Direc-
tor as recommended by the Bureau of the Budget in its July 7,
1969 letter to the chairman, will be of great value in strengthen-
ing OST's capacity to contribute to effective environmental man-
agement.
[p. 23]
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, after long and care-
ful consideration, unanimously recommends that S. 1075, as
amended, be enacted.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
On July 7, the Interior Committee received communications
from the Bureau of the Budget on the amended version of S. 1075
which was unanimously reported out of committee on June 18.
The full text of this communication, together with a marked-up
copy of S. 1075 which includes the Bureau's suggested amend-
ments, is set forth in full below.
Additional communications from the Bureau of the Budget
dated June 14, 1969 as well as the Office of Science and Technol-
ogy dated May 29, 1969 are also set forth in full. These communi-
cations were received subsequent to the inclusion of a national
environmental policy statement in S. 1075, following the April 16
hearing on this measure.
Further communications from the Bureau of the Budget, the
National Science Foundation, and the Departments of Interior,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 451
Agriculture, State, and Health, Education, and Welfare, on S.
1075, prior to amendment, are also set forth in full.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., July 7,1969.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : We have reviewed carefully the provi-
sions of your bill, S. 1075, which are designed to strengthen Fed-
eral capabilities to respond to problems of environmental quality.
The President certainly shares the concern of the Congress and
the public as to the need for improved environmental manage-
ment. The President's serious concern over the problems of envi-
ronmental quality is reflected in his establishment by Executive
Order 11472 of the Environmental Quality Council and the Citi-
zens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality. He has as-
signed to the Office of Science and Technology the responsibility
for providing advice, assistance, and staff support to the President
and the Environmental Quality Council. He has further directed
that the Office of Science and Technology be strengthened to pro-
vide the diverse professional capabilities needed for objective as-
sessments of a wide range of environmental quality problems.
This staff capability in the Executive Office of the President is to
provide for assessing environmental problems, analyzing long
term trends in the environment, evaluating the adequacy of Fed-
eral programs, and assuring that environmental considerations
are adequately taken into account in proposed Federal programs
and actions.
[p. 27]
Establishment of the Environmental Quality Council, chaired by
the President, the highest possible level of attention of depart-
ments and agencies to problems of the environment and provides
the framework within which to improve coordination among agen-
cies in their environmental programs.
Establishment of the Citizens' Advisory Committee provides a
clear channel for getting independent information and advice
from the non-Government community and for relationships with
the many voluntary organizations that have an interest and stake
in the improved management of the environment. In addition, the
-------
452 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
assignment of responsibility to the Office of Science and Technol-
ogy provides a ready access through the President's Science Advi-
sory Committee to many experts in a variety of fields in the
universities, industry, and other sectors who can assist in address-
ing environmental problems.
S. 1075 as amended would establish a national environmental
policy, authorize studies and research related to environmental
quality, require an annual report from the President, and estab-
lish a Board of Environmental Quality Advisers in the Executive
Office of the President. With respect to the policy statement, Mr.
Hughes' June 13, 1969, letter noted that there is already a large
body of policy with respect to the environment, that a com-
prehensive statutory statement of policy in this area could be
helpful to the President and the Environmental Quality Council,
and that the Council will take up the question of a national policy
at one of its earliest meetings. The proposed statement in title II
of general functions that operating agencies are authorized to
carry out with respect to the environment appears to be a useful
reaffirmation of authorizations in this important area. An annual
report on the environment, along the lines provided for in title III,
would appear to be a useful periodic assessment of important
problems which could be made available to the Congress and the
public. We believe a number of changes should be made in titles I
and II. The attachment reflects the changes that appear to be
essential if legislation along the lines of S. 1075 is to be enacted at
this time.
With respect to title III we believe that establishment of the
proposed Board of Environmental Quality Advisers would be un-
desirable. Such action would further complicate the organization
and functioning of the Executive Office of the President. Further-
more, the establishment in the Federal Government of an addi-
tional body to deal with overall environmental problems would
diffuse responsibility rather than provide the sharp focus now
required and now provided for in the President's actions. These
actions represent the President's best judgment as to the mecha-
nisms that are required at this point in time for addressing envi-
ronmental problems. It is recognized that additional changes may
be required after there has been experience with the newly estab-
lished mechanisms.
If the Congress wishes to legislate in support of these actions
we would have no objection to providing a statutory basis for
assignment of appropriate responsibilities to the Office of Science
and Technology. This action could be accompanied by provision of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 453
an additional position of presidentially appointed Deputy Direc-
tor in OST who could devote full time to environmental quality
problems if the committee deemed it useful. These steps would
make very clear congressional support for the President's action
while, at the same time, avoiding the undesirable consequences of
establishing a new organization.
[P. 28]
It should be emphasized that the arrangements established by
the President are designed to preserve the flexibility in the organi-
zation and staffing of the Executive Office that is necessary if the
President is to have an opportunity to use the resources available
to him for effective action. As you are well aware, this basic
principle with respect to organization of the Executive Office has
been endorsed by knowledgeable and thoughtful persons in the
Congress and elsewhere.
The attached copy of S. 1075 has been marked up to reflect the
essential changes discussed above. If the bill were modified in this
way, we believe it could provide useful assistance for the Presi-
dent.
Sincerely,
ROBERT P. MAYO, Director.
Enclosure.
[Bureau of the Budget suggested additions are printed in italic;
deletions in brackets]
A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct investigations,
studies, surveys, and research relating to the Nation's ecological systems,
natural resources, and environmental quality, and to establish a Council
on Environmental Quality.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 1. That this Act may be cited as the "National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969".
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national
policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere
and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the under-
-------
454 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
standing of the ecological systems and natural resources impor-
tant to the Nation; and to establish a Board of Environmental
Quality Advisers.
TITLE I
DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing that man depends on
his biological and physical surroundings for food, shelter, and
other needs, and for cultural enrichment as well; and recognizing
further the profound influences of population growth, high-den-
sity urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and
new and expanding technological advances on our physical and
biological surroundings, and on the quality of life available to the
American people; hereby declares that it is the continuing policy
and responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practica-
ble means, consistent with other essential considerations of na-
tional policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions,
programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may—
[p. 29]
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
of the environment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the envi-
ronment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural as-
pects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possi-
ble, an environment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing
of life's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and ap-
proach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable re-
sources.
(b) The Congress recognizes that each person has a fundamen-
tal and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each
person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and
enhancement of the environment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 455
SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that the policies,
regulations, and public laws of the United States to the fullest
extent possible, be interpreted and administered in accordance
with the policies set forth in this Act, and that all agencies of the
Federal Government—
(a) utilize to the fullest extent possible a systematic, inter-
disciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of
the natural and social sciences and the environmental design
arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an
impact on man's environment;
(b) identify and develop methods and procedures which
will insure that presently unquantified environmental ameni-
ties and values may be given appropriate consideration in
decisionmaking along with economic and technical considera-
tions ;
(c) include in every recommendation or report on propos-
als for legislation [or] and other [significant] major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human envi-
ronment, a finding by the responsible official that—
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action
has been studied and considered;
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided by following reasonable alternatives are justi-
fied by other stated considerations of national policy;
(iii) local short-term uses of man's environment are
consistent with maintaining and enhancing long-term
productivity; and that
(iv) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources are warranted.
(d) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to
recommended courses of action in any proposal which in-
volves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
land, water, or air;
(e) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of en-
vironmental problems and lend appropriate support to initia-
[p. 30]
tives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize in-
ternational cooperation in anticipating and preventing a de-
cline in the quality of mankind's world environment; and
(f) review present statutory authority, administrative reg-
ulations, and current policies and procedures for conformity
to the purposes and provisions of this Act and propose to the
-------
456 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
President and to the Congress [within one year after the date
of enactment] such measures as may be necessary to make
their authority consistent with this Act.
SEC. 103. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are supple-
mentary to, but shall not be considered to repeal the existing
mandates and authorizations of Federal agencies.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. To carry out the purposes of this Act, all agencies of
the Federal Government in conjunction with their existing pro-
grams and authorities, are hereby authorized—
(a) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research,
and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental
quality;
(b) to document and define changes in the natural environ-
ment, including the plant and animal systems, and to accumu-
late necessary data and other information for a continuing
analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of
their underlying causes;
(c) to evaluate and disseminate information of an ecological
nature to public and private agencies or organizations, or indi-
viduals in the form of reports, publications, atlases, and
maps ;
(d) to make available to States, counties, municipalities,
institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in
restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the envi-
ronment ;
(e) to initiate and utilize ecological information in the
planning and development of resource-oriented projects;
(f) to conduct research and studies within natural areas
under Federal ownership which are under the jurisdiction of
the Federal agencies; and
(g) to assist [the Board of Environmental Quality Advis-
ers established under title III of this Act and] any council or
committee established by the President to deal with environ-
mental problems.
SEC. 202. In carrying out the provisions of this title, the [Secre-
taries of Interior and Agriculture are empowered to] President is
authorized to designate an agency or agencies to—
(a) make grants, including training grants, and enter into
contracts or cooperative agreements with public or private
agencies or organizations, or individuals, and to accept and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 457
use donations of funds, property, personal services, or facili-
ties to carry out the purposes of this Act.
[(b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
$500,000 annually for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, and
$1,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
[SEC. 203. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the "Director") in order to carry out
the purposes of this title, is authorized and directed—
[p. 31]
[ (a) to review, appraise, and coordinate the investigations,
studies, surveys, and research relating to ecological systems
and environmental quality carried on by agencies of the Fed-
eral Government;]
(b) to develop and maintain an inventory of existing and
future natural resource development projects, engineering
works, and other major projects and programs contemplated
or planned by public or private agencies or organizations
which make significant modifications in the natural environ-
ment;
(c) to establish a system of collecting and receiving infor-
mation and data on ecological research and evaluations which
are in progress or are planned by other public or private
agencies or organizations, or individuals; and
(d) to assist and advise State and local government, and
private enterprise in bringing their activities into conformity
with the purposes of this Act and other Acts designed to
enhance the quality of the environment.
[SEC. 204. The Director shall consult with and provide technical
assistance to other Federal agencies, and he is authorized to obtain
from such departments and agencies such information, data, re-
ports, advice, and assistance as he deems necessary or appropriate
and which can reasonably be furnished by such departments and
agencies in carrying out the purposes of this Act. Any Federal
agency furnishing advice or assistance hereunder may expend its
own funds for such purposes, with or without reimbursement by
the Director.]
Sec. 203. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.
[p. 32]
-------
458 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1.2a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND
FISHERIES
H.R. REP. No. 91-378 (Part 2), 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
JULY 19, 1969.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. GARMATZ, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, submitted the following
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 12549]
Since the filing of Report No. 91-378 on July 1, 1969, to accom-
pany H.R. 12549, it has been noted that the report mentioned does
not accurately show changes in existing law, as required in clause
3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The
House, at the request of Mr. Dingell on July 17, 1969, gave the
committee permission to file a supplemental report.
In compliance with the rule mentioned, therefore, the provisions
of existing law proposed to be changed by the bill, as reported, are
shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed
in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT
ACT OF MARCH 10, 1934, AS AMENDED (48 STAT. 401; 16 U.S.C.
661-666c)
For the purpose of recognizing the vital' contribution of our
wildlife resources to the Nation, the increasing public interest and
significance thereof due to expansion of our national economy and
other factors, and to provide that wildlife conservation shall re-
ceive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features
of water-resource development programs through the effectual and
harmonious planning, development, maintenance, and coordination
of wildlife conservation and rehabilitation for the purposes of this
Act in the United States, its Territories and possessions, the Sec-
retary of the Interior is authorized (1) to provide assistance to,
and cooperate with, Federal, State, and public or private agencies
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 459
and organizations in the development, protection, rearing, and
stocking of all species of wildlife,
[p. l]
resources thereof, and their habitat, in controlling losses of the
same from disease or other causes, in minimizing damages from
overabundant species, in providing public shooting and fishing
areas, including easements across public lands for access thereto,
and in carrying out other measures necessary to effectuate the
purposes of this Act; (2) to make surveys and investigations of
the wildlife of the public domain, including lands and waters or
interests therein acquired or controlled by any agency of the
United States; and (3) to accept donations of land and contribu-
tions of funds in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 2. (a) Except as hereafter stated in subsection (h) of this
section, whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water
are proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel
deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise con-
trolled or modified for any purpose whatever, including navigation
and drainage, by any department or agency of the United States,
or by any public or private agency under Federal permit or li-
cense, such department or agency first shall consult with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the In-
terior, and with the head of the agency exercising administration
over the wildlife resources of the particular State wherein the im-
poundment, diversion, or other control facility is to be con-
structed, with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources by
preventing loss of and damage to such resources as well as provid-
ing for the development and improvement thereof in connection
with such water-resource development.
(b) In furtherance of such purposes, the reports and recommen-
dations of the Secretary of the Interior on the wildlife aspects of
such projects, and any report of the head of the State agency
exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the State,
based on surveys and investigations conducted by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and such State agency for the
purpose of determining the possible damage to wildlife resources
and for the purpose of determining means and measures that
should be adopted to prevent the loss of or damage to such wildlife
resources, as well as to provide concurrently for the development
and improvement of such resources, shall be made an integral part
of any report prepared or submitted by any agency of the Federal
Government responsible for engineering surveys and construction
-------
460 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of such projects when such reports are presented to the Congress
or to any agency or person having the authority or the power, by
administrative action or otherwise, (1) to authorize the construc-
tion of water-resource development projects or (2) to approve a
report on the modification or supplementation of plans for pre-
viously authorized projects, to which this Act applies. Recommen-
dations of the Secretary of the Interior shall be as specific as is
practicable with respect to features recommended for wildlife con-
servation and development, lands to be utilized or acquired for
such purposes, the results expected, and shall describe the damage
to wildlife attributable to the project and the measures proposed
for mitigating or compensating for these damages. The reporting
officers in project reports of the Federal agencies shall give full
consideration to the report and recommendations of the Secretary
of the Interior and to any report of the State agency on the
wildlife aspects of such projects, and the project plan shall include
such justifiable means and
[p. 2]
measures for wildlife purposes as the reporting agency finds
should be adopted to obtain maximum overall project benefits.
(c) Federal agencies authorized to construct or operate water-
control projects are hereby authorized to modify or add to the
structures and operations of such projects, the construction of
which has not been substantially completed on the date of enact-
ment of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and to acquire
lands in accordance with section 3 of this Act, in order to accom-
modate the means and measures for such conservation of wildlife
resources as an integral part of such projects: Provided, That for
projects authorized by a specific Act of Congress before the date
of enactment of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1) such
modification or land acquisition shall be compatible with the pur-
poses for which the project was authorized; (2) the cost of such
modifications or land acquisition, as means and measures to pre-
vent loss of and damage to wildlife resources to the extent justifi-
able, shall be an integral part of the cost of such projects; and (3)
the cost of such modifications or land acquisition for the develop-
ment or improvement of wildlife resources may be included to the
extent justifiable, and an appropriate share of the cost of any
project may be allocated for this purpose with a finding as to the
part of such allocated cost, if any, to be reimbursed by non-Fed-
eral interests.
(d) The cost of planning for and the construction or installa-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 461
tion and maintenance of such means and measures adopted to
carry out the conservation purposes of this section shall constitute
an integral part of the cost of such projects: Provided, That such
cost attributable to the development and improvement of wildlife
shall not extend beyond that necessary for (1) land acquisition,
(2) facilities as specifically recommended in water resource proj-
ects reports, (3) modification of the project, and (4) modification
of project operations, but shall not include the operation of wild-
life facilities.
(e) In the case of construction by a Federal agency, that agency
is authorized to transfer to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, out of appropriations or other funds made available for
investigations, engineering, or construction, such funds as may be
necessary to conduct all or part of the investigations required to
carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) In addition to other requirements, there shall be included in
any report submitted to Congress supporting a recommendation
for authorization of any new project for the control or use of
water as described herein (including any new division of such
project or new supplemental works on such project) an estimation
of the wildlife benefits or losses to be derived therefrom including
benefits to be derived from measures recommended specifically for
the development and improvement of wildlife resources, the cost
of providing wildlife benefits (including the cost of additional
facilities to be installed or lands to be acquired specifically for that
particular phase of wildlife conservation relating to the develop-
ment and improvement of wildlife), the part of the cost of joint-
use facilities allocated to wildlife, and the part of such costs, if
any, to be reimbursed by non-Federal interests.
(g) The provisions of this section shall be applicable with re-
spect to any project for the control or use of water as prescribed
herein,
[p. 3]
or any unit of such project authorized before or after the date
of enactment of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for
planning or construction, but shall not be applicable to any project
or unit thereof authorized before the date of enactment of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act if the construction of the
particular project or unit thereof has been substantially com-
pleted. A project or unit thereof shall be considered to be substan-
tially completed when sixty percent or more of the estimated con-
struction cost has been obligated for expenditure.
-------
462 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(h) The provisions of this Act shall not be applicable to those
projects for the impoundment of water where the maximum sur-
face area of such impoundments is less than ten acres, nor to
activities for or in connection with programs primarily for land
management and use carried out by Federal agencies with respect
to Federal lands under their jurisdiction.
SEC. 3. (a) Subject to the exceptions prescribed in section 2 (h)
of this Act, whenever the waters of any stream or other body of
water are impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the
stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or modified for
any purpose whatever, including navigation and drainage, by any
department or agency of the United States, adequate provision,
consistent with the primary purposes of such impoundment, diver-
sion, or other control, shall be made for the use thereof, together
with any areas of land, water, or interests therein, acquired or
administered by a Federal agency in connection therewith, for the
conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources
thereof, and its habitat thereon, including the development and
improvement of such wildlife resources pursuant to the provisions
of section 2 of this Act.
(b) The use of such waters, land, or interests therein for wild-
life conservation purposes shall be in accordance with general
plans approved jointly (1) by the head of the particular depart-
ment or agency exercising primary administration in each in-
stance, (2) by the Secretary of the Interior, and (3) by the head
of the agency exercising the administration of the wildlife re-
sources of the particular State wherein the waters and areas lie.
Such waters and other interests shall be made available, without
cost for administration, by such State agency, if the management
of the properties relate to the conservation of wildlife other than
migratory birds, or by the Secretary of the Interior, for adminis-
tration in such manner as he may deem advisable, where the
particular properties have value in carrying out the national mi-
gratory bird management program: Provided, That nothing in
this section shall be construed as affecting the authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with the States or in mak-
ing lands available to the States with respect to the management
of wildlife and wildlife habitat on lands administered by him.
(c) When consistent with the purposes of this Act and the
reports and findings of the Secretary of the Interior prepared in
accordance with section 2, land, waters, and interests therein may
be acquired by Federal construction agencies for the wildlife con-
servation and development purposes of this Act in connection with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 463
a project as reasonably needed to preserve and assure for the
public benefit the wildlife potentials of the particular project
area: Provided, That before properties are acquired for this pur-
pose, the probable extent
[p-4]
of such acquisition shall be set forth, along with other data
necessary for project authorization, in a report submitted to the
Congress, or in the case of a project previously authorized, no
such properties shall be acquired unless specifically authorized by
Congress, if specific authority for such acquisition is recommended
by the construction agency.
(d) Properties acquired for the purposes of this section shall
continue to be used for such purposes, and shall not become the
subject of exchange or other transactions if such exchange or
other transaction would defeat the initial purpose of their acquisi-
tion.
(e) Federal lands acquired or withdrawn for Federal water-re-
source purposes and made available to the States or to the Secre-
tary of the Interior for wildlife management purposes, shall be
made available for such purposes in accordance with this Act,
notwithstanding other provisions of law.
(f) Any lands acquired pursuant to this section by any Federal
agency within the exterior boundaries of a national forest shall,
upon acquisition, be added to and become national forest lands,
and shall be administered as a part of the forest within which
they are situated, subject to all laws applicable to lands acquired
under the provisions of the Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 961),
unless such lands are acquired to carry out the National Migra-
tory Bird Management Program.
SEC. 4. Such areas as are made available to the Secretary of the
Interior for the purposes of this Act, pursuant to sections 1 and 3
or pursuant to any other authorization, shall be administered by
him directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements entered
into pursuant to the provisions of the first section of this Act and
in accordance with such rules and regulations for the conserva-
tion, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof,
and its habitat thereon, as may be adopted by the Secretary in
accordance with general plans approved jointly by the Secretary
of the Interior and the head of the department or agency exercis-
ing primary administration of such areas: Provided, That such
rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the laws for
the protection of fish and game of the States in which such area is
-------
464 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
situated (16 U. S. C., sec. 664) : Provided further, That lands
having value to the National Migratory Bird Management Pro-
gram may, pursuant to general plans, be made available without
cost directly to the State agency having control over wildlife re-
sources, if it is jointly determined by the Secretary of the Interior
and such State agency that this would be in the public interest:
And provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior shall
have the right to assume the management and administration of
such lands in behalf of the National Migratory Bird Management
Program if the Secretary finds that the State agency has with-
drawn from or otherwise relinquished such management and ad-
ministration.
SEC. 5. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Mines, is authorized to make
such investigations as he deems necessary to determine the effects
of domestic sewage, mine, petroleum, and industrial wastes, ero-
sion silt, and other polluting substances on wildlife, and to make
reports to the Congress concerning such investigations and of
recommenda-
[p.B]
tions for alleviating dangerous and undesirable effects of such
pollution. These investigations shall include (1) the determina-
tion of standards of water quality for the maintenance of
wildlife; (2) the study of methods of abating and preventing
pollution, including methods for the recovery of useful or market-
able products and byproducts of wastes; and (3) the collation and
distribution of data on the progress and results of such investiga-
tions for the use of Federal, State, municipal, and private agen-
cies, individuals, organizations, or enterprises.
Sec. 5A. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of
man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natu-
ral environment, both living and nonliving, and the critical impor-
tance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the
overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the
continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with
State and local governments, urban and rural planners, industry,
labor, agriculture, science, and conservation organizations, to use
all practicable means and measures, including financial and techni-
cal assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the
general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which
man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 465
social, economic, and other requirements of present and future
generations of Americans.
(b) The President shall transmit to the Congress annually be-
ginning June 30, 1970, an Environmental Quality Report (herein-
after referred to as the "report") which shall set forth (1) the
status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered
environmental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to,
the air, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water,
and the terrestrial environment, including, but not limited to, the
forest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural envi-
ronment; and (2) current and foreseeable trends in management
and utilization of such environments and the effects of those
trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Na-
tion.
(c) (1) There is created in the Executive Office of the President
a Council on Environmental Quality (hereafter referred to as the
"Council"). The Council shall be composed of five members who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate
as chairman, and each of whom shall be a person who, as a result
of his training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally quali-
fied to analyze and interpret environmental information of all
kinds, to appraise programs and activities of the Government in
the light of the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this section,
and to formulate and recommend national policy to promote the
improvement of our environmental quality.
(2) The Council may employ such officers and employees as
may be necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. In
addition, the Council may employ and fix the compensation of such
experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying out
of its functions under this section, in accordance with section 3109
of title 5, United States Code (but without regard to the last
sentence thereof).
(3) It shall be the duty and function of the Council—
(A) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of
the Environmental Quality Report;
(B) to gather timely and authoritative information con-
cerning the conditions and trends in environmental qualities
both current and
[p. 6]
prospective, to analyze and interpret such information for the
purpose of determining whether such conditions and trends
-------
466 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
are interfering, or are likely to interfere, with the achieve-
ment of the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this section,
and to compile and submit to the President studies relating
to such conditions and trends;
(C) to appraise the various programs and activities of the
Federal Government in the light of the policy set forth in
subsection (a) of this section for the purpose of determining
the extent to which such programs and activities are contrib-
uting to the achievement of such policy, and to make recom-
mendations to the President with respect thereto;
(D) to develop and recommend to the President national
policies to foster and promote the improvement of environ-
mental quality to meet social, economic, and other require-
ments of the Nation; and
(E) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and
recommendations with respect to matters of policy and legis-
lation as the President may request.
(4) The Council shall make an annual report to the President in
May of each year.
(5) In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this
section—
(A) the Council shall consult with such representatives of
science, industry, agriculture, labor, conservation, organiza-
tions, State and local governments, and other groups, as it
deems advisable; and
(B) the Council shall, to the fullest extent possible, utilize
the services, facilities, and information (including statistical
information) of public and private agencies and organiza-
tions, and individuals, in order that duplication of effort and
expense may be avoided.
[SEC. 5A.] Sec. SB. In the management of existing facilities
(including locks, dams, and pools) in the Mississippi River be-
tween Rock Island, Illinois, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, adminis-
tered by the United States Corps of Engineers of the Department
of the Army, that Department is hereby directed to give full
consideration and recognition to the needs of fish and other wild-
life resources and their habitat dependent on such waters, without
increasing additional liability to the Government, and, to the max-
imum extent possible without causing damage to levee and drain-
age districts, adjacent railroads and highways, farm lands, and
dam structures, shall generally operate and maintain pool levels as
though navigation was carried on throughout the year.
SEC. 6. There is authorized to be appropriated from time to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 467
time, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri-
ated, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provi-
sions of this Act and regulations made pursuant thereto, including
the construction of such facilities, buildings, and other improve-
ments necessary for economical administration of areas made
available to the Secretary of the Interior under this Act, and the
employment in the city of Washington and elsewhere of such per-
sons and means as the Secretary of the Interior may deem neces-
sary for such purposes.
SEC. 7. Any person who shall violate any rule or regulation
promulgated in accordance with this Act shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than
$500 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
[p. 7]
SEC. 8. The terms "wildlife" and "wildlife resources" as used
herein include birds, fishes, mammals, and all other classes of wild
animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which
wildlife is dependent.
SEC. 9. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the Tennes-
see Valley Authority.
[p. 8]
1.2a(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-765, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
DECEMBER 17,1969.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. GARMATZ, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 1075]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 1075), to
establish a national policy for the environment; to authorize stud-
-------
468 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ies, surveys, and research relating to ecological systems, natural
resources, and the quality of the human environment; and to es-
tablish a Board of Environmental Quality Advisers, having met,
after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following: That this Act may be cited as the
"National Environmental Policy Act of 1969".
Purpose
Sec. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national
policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere
and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the under-
standing of the ecological systems and natural resources impor-
tant to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental
Quality.
TITLE I
Declaration of National Environmental Policy
Sec. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of
man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natu-
ral environment, particularly the profound influences of popula-
tion growth, high-density
[p.l]
urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new
and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the
critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental
quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares
that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in coop-
eration with State and local governments, and other concerned
public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and
measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner
calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other
requirements of present and future generations of Americans.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 469
(6) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act; it is
the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all
practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations
of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, func-
tions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
of the environment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the envi-
ronment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural as-
pects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possi-
ble, an environment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing
of life's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and ap-
proach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable re-
sources.
(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to
contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environ-
ment.
Sec. 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the full-
est extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws
of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in
accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all
agencies of the Federal Government shall—
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sci-
ences and the environmental design arts in planning and in
decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environ-
ment;
(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in con-
sultation with the Council on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by title II of this Act, which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values may be
given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with
economic and technical considerations;
(C) include in every recommendation or report on propos-
-------
470 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
als for legislation and other major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a de-
tailed statement by the responsible official on—
[P. 2]
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(in) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed action
should it be implemented.
Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Fed-
eral official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any
Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special ex-
pertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are au-
thorized to develop and enforce environmental standards,
shall be made available to the President, the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality and to the public as provided by section
552 of title 5, United States Code, and shall accompany the
proposal through the existing agency review processes;
(D) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives
to recommended courses of action in any proposal which in-
volves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources;
(E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of
environmental problems and, where consistent with the for-
eign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to
initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize
international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a
decline in the quality of mankind's world environment;
(F) make available to States, counties, municipalities, in-
stitutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in
restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the envi-
ronment;
(G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the plan-
ning and development of resource-oriented projects; and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 471
(H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by title II of this Act.
Sec. 103. All agencies of the Federal Government shall review
their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and
current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining
whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which
prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this
Act and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971,
such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and
policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures
set forth in this Act.
Sec. 104. Nothing in Section 102 or 103 shall in any way affect
the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to
comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to
coordinate or consult ivith any other Federal or State agency, or
(3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommen-
dations or certification of any other Federal or State agency.
Sec. 105. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are supple-
mentary to those set forth in existing authorizations of federal
agencies.
[p. 3]
TITLE II
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Sec. 201. The President shall transmit to the Congress annually
beginning July 1,1970, an Environmental Quality Report (herein-
after referred to as the "report") which shall set forth (1) the
status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered
environmental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to,
the air, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water,
and the terrestrial environment, including, but not limited to, the
forest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural envi-
ronment; (2) current and foreseeable trends in the quality, man-
agement and utilization of such environments and the effects of
those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the
Nation; (3) the adequacy of available natural resources for ful-
filling human and economic requirements of the Nation in the
light of expected population pressures; (4) a review of the pro-
grams and activities (including regulatory activities) of the Fed-
eral Government, the State and local governments, and nongovern-
mental entities or individuals, with particular reference to their
effect on the environment and on the conservation, development
-------
472 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and utilization of natural resources; and (5) a-program for reme-
dying the deficiencies of existing programs and activities, together
with recommendations for legislation.
Sec. 202. There is created in the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent a Council on Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to
as the "Council"). The Council shall be composed of three mem-
bers who shall be appointed by the President to serve at his pleas-
ure, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Presi-
dent shall designate one of the members of the Council to serve as
Chairman. Each member shall be a person who, as a result of his
training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally well quali-
fied to analyze and interpret environmental trends and informa-
tion of all kinds; to appraise programs and activities of the Fed-
eral Government in the light of the policy set forth in title I of
this Act; to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, eco-
nomic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of the
Nation; and to formulate and recommend national policies to pro-
mote the improvement of the quality of the environment.
Sec. 203. The Council may employ such officers and employees
as may be necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. In
addition, the Council may employ and fix the compensation of such
experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying out
of its functions under this Act, in accordance with section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code (but without regard to the last sen-
tence thereof).
Sec. 204. It shall be the duty and function of the Council—
(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of
the Environmental Quality Report required by section 201;
(2) to gather timely and authoritative information con-
cerning the conditions and trends in the quality of the envi-
ronment both current and prospective, to analyze and inter-
pret such information for the purpose of determining
whether such conditions and trends are inter-
[p.4]
fering, or are likely to interfere, with the achievement of the
policy set forth in title I of this Act, and to compile and submit
to the President studies relating to such conditions and
trends;
(3) to review and appraise the various programs and activ-
ities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set
forth in title I of this Act for the purpose of determining the
extent to which such programs and activities are contributing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 473
to the achievement of such policy, and to make recommenda-
tions to the President with respect thereto;
(4) to develop and recommend to the President national
policies to foster and promote the improvement of environ-
mental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic,
health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation;
(5) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research,
and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental
quality;
(6) to document and define changes in the natural environ-
ment, including the plant and animal systems, and to accumu-
late necessary data and other information for a continuing
analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of
their underlying causes;
(7) to report at least once each year to the President on the
state and condition of the environment; and
(8) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and
recommendations with respect to matters of policy and legis-
lation as the President may request.
Sec. 205. In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under
this Act, the Council shall—
(1) consult with the Citizens' Advisory Committee on
Environmental Quality established by Executive Order num-
bered 11472, dated May 29, 1969, and with such representa-
tives of science, industry, agriculture, labor, conservation or-
ganizations, State and local governments, and other groups,
as it deems advisable; and
(2) utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facili-
ties, and information (including statistical information) of
public and private agencies and organizations, and individu-
als, in order that duplication of effort and expense may be
avoided, thus assuring that the Council's activities will not
unnecessarily overlap or conflict with similar activities au-
thorized by law and performed by established agencies.
Sec. 206. Members of the Council shall serve full time and the
Chairman of the Council shall be compensated at the rate provided
for Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313).
The other members of the Council shall be compensated at the rate
provided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5
U.S.C.5315).
Sec. 207. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
the provisions of this Act not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year
-------
474 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
1970, $700,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 for each fiscal
year thereafter.
And the House agree to the same.
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the title of the bill, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
[p. 5]
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment
of the House to the title of the bill, insert the following: "An Act
to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for
the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, and for
other purposes."
And the House agree to the same.
EDWARD A. GARMATZ,
JOHN D. DINGELL,
WAYNE N. ASPINALL,
W. S. MAILLIARD,
JOHN P. SAYLOR,
Managers on the Part of the House.
HENRY M. JACKSON,
FRANK CHURCH,
GAYLORD NELSON,
GORDON ALLOTT,
LEN B. JORDAN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 6]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the
House to the bill (S. 1075) to establish a national policy for the
environment; to authorize studies, surveys, and research relating
to ecological systems, natural resources, and the quality of the
human environment; and to establish a Board of Environmental
Quality Advisers, submit the following statement in explanation
of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recom-
mended in the accompanying conference report:
The House struck out all of the Senate bill after the enacting
clause and inserted a substitute amendment. The committee of
conference has agreed to a substitute for both the Senate bill and
the House amendment. Except for technical clarifying, and con-
forming changes, the following statement explains the differences
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 475
between the House amendment and the substitute agreed to in
conference.
PROVISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
First section and section 2
Section 1 of the Senate bill provided that the bill may be cited as
the "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969". Section 2 of the
Senate bill contained a statement of the purpose of the bill. There
were no similar provisions in the House amendment. The confer-
ence substitute conforms to the Senate bill with respect to these
two sections.
TITLE I—NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Section 101
The Senate bill contained a recognition by Congress of (1) the
critical dependency of man on his environment, (2) the profound
influences which the factors of contemporary life have had and
will have on the environment, and (3) certain specified goals in
the management of the environment which the Federal Govern-
ment should, as a matter of national policy, attain by use of all
possible means, consistent with other essential considerations of
national policy. The House amendment (in the first section
thereof) contained a general statement of national environmental
policy, but did not include specified policy goals. The first section
of the House amendment also stated that the Federal Government
should achieve the general policy in cooperation with State and
local governments and certain specified public and private organi-
zations and that financial and technical assistance should be
among the means and measures used by the Federal Government
to achieve the policy. Under the conference agreement, the lan-
guage of the House amendment is substantially retained in section
101 (a) of the conference substitute; the language
[P. 7]
setting forth the specified organizations with which the Govern-
ment should cooperate was dropped in favor of "other concerned
public and private agencies."
The national goals of environmental policy specified in the Sen-
ate bill are set forth in section 101 (b) of the conference substi-
tute.
Section 101 (c) of the conference substitute states that "Con-
gress recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful envi-
-------
476 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ronment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to
the preservation and enhancement of the environment". The lan-
guage of the conference substitute reflects a compromise by the
conferees with respect to a provision in the Senate bill (but which
was not in the House amendment) which stated that the Congress
recognizes that "each person has a fundamental and inalienable
right to a healthful environment * * *". The compromise lan-
guage was adopted because of doubt on the part of the House
conferees with respect to the legal scope of the original Senate
provision.
Section 102
This section of the conference substitute is based on section 102
of the Senate bill. There was no comparable provision in the
House amendment. Under the conference substitute, the Congress
authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the
Federal laws, regulations, and policies be administered in accord-
ance with the policies set forth in the bill; and (2) all Federal
agencies shall—
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to in-
sure integrated use of the sciences and arts in any official
planning or decisionmaking which may have an impact on the
environment;
(B) in consultation with the Council on Environmental
Quality, identify and develop methods and procedures to in-
sure that unquantified environmental amenities will be con-
sidered in the agency decisionmaking process, along with eco-
nomic and technical considerations;
(C) include in every recommendation or report on propos-
als for legislation or other major Federal actions a detailed
statement by the responsible official on the environmental im-
pact of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects
which can not be avoided should the proposal be adopted,
alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between
the short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irrever-
sible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would
be involved. Under the conference substitute, the responsible
Federal official, prior to making any such detailed statement,
shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal
agency having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved and the com-
ments of any such agency, together with the comments and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 477
views of appropriate State and local agencies shall thereafter
be made available to the President, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and the public under the provisions of section
552 of title 5, United States Code, and shall accompany the
proposal through the subsequent review process. The confer-
ees do not intend that the requirements for comment by other
agencies should unreasonably delay the processing of Federal
proposals and anticipate that the President will promptly pre-
pare and establish by Executive
[p. 8]
order a list of those agencies which have "jurisdiction by
law" or "special expertise" in various environmental matters.
With regard to State and local agencies, it is not the intention
of the conferees that those local agencies with only a remote
interest and which are not primarily responsible for develop-
ment and enforcement of environmental standards be included.
The conferees believe that in most cases the requirement
for State and local review may be satisfied by notice of pro-
posed action in the Federal Register and by providing supple-
mentary information upon request of the State and local
agencies. (To prevent undue delay in the processing of Fed-
eral proposals, the conferees recommend that the President
establish a time limitation for the receipt of comments from
Federal, State, and local agencies similar to the 90-day review
period presently established for comment upon certain Fed-
eral proposals.) ;
(D) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives
to recommend courses of action in any proposal which in-
volves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources;
(E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of
environmental problems and, where consistent with the for-
eign policy of the United States, lend support to programs
and other ventures designed to maximize international coop-
eration in anticipating and preventing a decline in the world
environment;
(F) make available to State and local governments and
individuals and organizations advice and information useful
in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the
environment;
(G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the plan-
ning and development of resource-oriented projects; and
(H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality.
-------
478 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
As noted above, the conference substitute provides that the
phrase "to the fullest extent possible" applies with respect to those
actions which Congress authorizes and directs to be done under
both clauses (1) and (2) of section 102 (in the Senate bill, the
phrase applied only to the directive in clause (1)). In accepting
this change to section 102 (and also to the provisions of section
103), the House conferees agreed to delete section 9 of the House
amendment from the conference substitute. Section 9 of the House
amendment provided that "nothing in this Act shall increase, de-
crease or change any responsibility or authority of any Federal
official or agency created by other provision of law." In receding
from this House provision in favor of the less restrictive provision
"to the fullest extent possible," the House conferees are of the
view that the new language does not in any way limit the congres-
sional authorization and directive to all agencies of the Federal
Government set out in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of clause
(2) of section 102. The purpose of the new language is to make it
clear that each agency of the Federal Government shall comply
with the directives set out in such subparagraphs (A) through
(H) unless the existing law applicable to such agency's operations
expressly prohibits or makes full compliance with one of the direc-
tives impossible. If such is found to be the case, then compliance
with the particular directive is not immediately required. How-
ever, as to other activities of that agency, compliance is required.
Thus, it is the intent of the conferees that the provision "to the
[P. 9]
fullest extent possible" shall not be used by any Federal agency as
a means of avoiding compliance with the directives set out in
section 102. Rather, the language in section 102 is intended to
assure that all agencies of the Federal Government shall comply
with the directives set out in said section "to the fullest extent
possible" under their statutory authorizations and that no agency
shall utilize an excessively narrow construction of its existing
statutory authorizations to avoid compliance.
Section 103
This section is based upon a provision of the Senate bill (section
102 (f)) not in the House amendment. This section, as agreed to
by the conferees, provides that all agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment shall review their "present statutory authority, administra-
tive regulations, and current policies and procedures to determine
whether there are any deficiencies and inconsistencies therein
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 479
whether there are any deficiencies and inconsistencies therein
which prohibit full compliance with the purpose and provisions"
of the bill. If an agency finds such deficiencies or inconsistencies, it
is required under this section to propose to the President not later
than July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to bring its
authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes,
and procedures of the bill. Section 103 thereby provides a mecha-
nism which shall be utilized by all Federal agencies (1) to ascer-
tain whether there is any provision of their statutory authority
which clearly precludes full compliance with the bill and (2) if
such is found, to recommend changes in their statutory authority
which will enable full compliance with the bill. In conducting the
review noted above, it is the understanding of the conferees that
an agency shall not construe its existing authority in an unduly
narrow manner. Rather, the intent of the conferees is that all
Federal agencies shall comply with the provisions of section 102
"to the fullest extent possible," unless, of course, there is found to
be a clear conflict between its existing statutory authority and the
bill.
Section 104
This section, which was not in the House amendment and which
is corollary to the actions taken by the conferees with respect to
sections 102 and 103 of the conference substitute, provides that
nothing in such sections 102 or 103 shall affect the specific statu-
tory obligations of any Federal agency—
(1) to comply with criteria and standards of environmental
quality;
(2) to coordinate or consult with any Federal or State
agency; or
(3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the
recommendations or certification of any other Federal or
State agency.
Section 105
This section declares that the policies and goals set forth in the
bill are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorities of
Federal agencies. The effect of this section, which is a slightly
revised version of section 103 of the Senate bill, is to give recogni-
tion to the fact that the bill does not repeal existing law. This
section does not, however, obviate the requirement that the Fed-
eral agencies conduct their activities in accordance with the provi-
-------
480 LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
sions of this bill unless to do so would clearly violate their existing
statutory authorizations.
[p. 10]
TITLE II—COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Section 201
Section 201 of the conference substitute, which conforms, except
for a date change, with the language of section 2 of the House
amendment, requires the President to submit to the Congress an-
nually, beginning July 1, 1970, an environmental quality report
which will set forth an up-to-date inventory of the American envi-
ronment, broadly and generally identified, together with an esti-
mate of the impact of visible future trends upon the environment.
Such report shall also include a review of the programs and activi-
ties of the Federal, State, and local governments, as well as those
of nongovernmental groups, with respect to environmental condi-
tions, together with recommendations for remedying the deficien-
cies of existing programs, including legislative recommendations.
Section 202
This section of the conference substitute establishes in the Exec-
utive Office of the President a Council on Environmental Quality
composed of three members appointed by the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. One of the members
shall be designated by the President as the Chairman of the Coun-
cil. The Senate bill would have created a three-member Board of
Environmental Quality Advisers in the Executive Office of the
President. (The Senate bill would also have provided for an addi-
tional officer, a Deputy Director, in the Office of Science and Tech-
nology to assist with environmental problems. The establishment
of this additional office is not retained in the conference substi-
tute.) Section 3 of the House amendment would have established a
Council on Environmental Quality with five members. The confer-
ence substitute provision is basically the House provision but with
the membership of the Council reduced to three.
Section 203
The provisions of section 203 of the conference substitute
Iwhich were contained in both the Senate bill and the House
amendment) permit the Council to hire such officers and employ-
ees as are necessary to carry out the purposes of the act and also
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 481
permit the Council to hire such experts and consultants as may be
appropriate.
Section 204
The House amendment set forth the following duties and func-
tions of the Council on Environmental Quality—
(1) to assist the President in the preparation of the envi-
ronmental quality report;
(2) to gather information on the short- and long-term
problems that merit Council attention, together with a con-
tinuing analysis of these problems as they may affect the
policies stated in section 101;
(3) to maintain a continuing review of Federal programs
and activities as they may affect the policies declared in sec-
tion 101, and to keep the President informed on the degree to
which those programs and activities may be consistent with
those policies;
[p. 11]
(4) to develop and to recommend policies to the President,
on the basis of its activities, whereby the quality of our envi-
ronment may be enhanced, consistent with our social, eco-
nomic and other requirements;
(5) to make studies and recommendations relating to envi-
ronmental considerations, as the President may direct; and
(6) to report at least once each year to the President.
The conference substitute contains the functions and duties
listed above and also adds the following functions and duties
(which, under the Senate bill, would have been the responsibilities
of other Federal agencies) —
(1) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research,
and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental
quality; and
(2) to document and define changes in the natural environ-
ment, including the plant and animal systems, and to accumu-
late necessary data and other information for a continuing
analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of
their underlying causes.
Section 205
Section 205 of the conference substitute sets forth those public
and private organizations with which the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality shall consult in carrying out its functions and duties
under the Act and states that the Council should utilize, to the
-------
482
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
fullest extent possible, the services, facilities, and information of
public and private organizations and individuals in carrying out
such functions and duties. Section 205 conforms to the language in
section 7 of the House amendment, with the exception that the
conference substitute provision specifies that the Council shall con-
sult with the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Environmental
Quality which was established in May 1969, by Executive order.
Section 206
This section provides that the Chairman of the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality shall be compensated at the rate provided for at
level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates, and that the other
members of the Council shall be compensated at the rate provided
for in level IV of such rates. This section conforms with the rates
of compensation provided for in both the Senate bill and House
amendment.
Section 207
This section of the conference substitute authorizes the appro-
priation of not to exceed $300,000 in fiscal year 1970, $700,000 in
fiscal year 1971, and $1 million in each fiscal year thereafter, to
carry out the purposes of the act. Under the House amendment,
the same amounts were authorized to be appropriated except with
respect to fiscal year 1971, for which $500,000 was authorized. The
Senate bill authorized $1 million to be appropriated annually.
EDWARD A. GARMATZ,
JOHN D. DINGELL,
W. S. MAILLIARD,
JOHN P. SAYLOR,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 121
1.2a(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 115 (1969)
1.2a(4)(a) July 10: Considered and passed Senate, pp. 19008-
19009,19013
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT OP 1969
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate proceed to the consideration of
Calendar No. 287, S. 1075.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
1075) to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to conduct investigations,
studies, surveys, and research relating
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
483
to the Nation's ecological systems,
natural resources, and environmental
quality, and to establish a Council on
Environmental Quality.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which
had been reported from the Commit-
tee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
with an amendment, to strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert:
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 1. That this Act may be cited as the
"National Environmental Policy Act of 1969".
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To
declare a national policy which will encour-
age productive and enjoyable harmony be-
tween man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate dam-
age to the environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and welfare of man;
to enrich the understanding of the ecological
systems and natural resources important to
the Nation; and to establish a Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers.
TITLE I
DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing that
man depends on his biological and physical
surroundings for food, shelter and other
needs, and for cultural enrichment as well;
and recognizing further the profound in-
fluences of population growth, high-density
urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new and expanding tech-
nological advances on our physical and bio-
logical sun oundings and on the quality of
life available to the American people; hereby
declares that it is the continuing policy and
responsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national
policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources
to the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each gen-
eration as trustee of the environment for suc-
ceeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, health-
ful, productive, and esthetically and culturally
pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degrada-
tion, risk to health or safety, or other un-
desirable and unintended consequences,
(4) preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heiitage,
and maintain, wherever possible, an environ-
ment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit high
standards of living and a widesharing of
life's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable re-
sources and approach the maximum attain-
able recycling of depletable resources.
(b) The Congiess recognizes that each per-
son has a fundamental and inalienable right
to a healthful environment and that each
person has a responsibility to contribute to
the preservation and enhancement of the en-
viionment.
SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and di-
rects that the policies, regulations, and pub-
lic laws of the United States, to the fullest
extent possible, be interpreted and admin-
istered in accordance with the policies set
forth in this Act, and that all agencies of
the Federal Government—
(a) utilize to the fullest extent possible a
systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural
a.nd social sciences and the envii onmental
design arts in planning and in decisionmak-
ing which may have an impact on man's en-
vironment;
(b) identify and develop methods and
procedures which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and
values may be given appropriate considera-
tion in decisionmaking along with economic
and technical considerations;
(c) include in every recommendation or
report on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment, a
finding by the responsible official that—
{i) the environmental impact of the pro-
posed action has been studied and consid-
ered;
(ii) any adveise environmental effects
which cannot be avoided by following reason-
able alternatives are ju ^tified by other stated
considerations of national policy;
(iii) local short-term uses of man's en-
vironment are consistent with maintaining
and enhancing long-term productivity; and
that
(iv) any irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitments of resources are warranted.
(d) study, develop, and describe appro-
priate alternatives to recommended courses
of action in any proposal which involves un-
i osolved conflicts concerning alternative uses
of land, water, or air;
-------
484
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(e) recognize the worldwide and long-range !
character of environmental problems and lend
appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions,
and programs designed to maximize inter-
national cooperation in anticipating: and pre-
venting a decline in the quality of mankind's
wuild environment; and
(f) leview present statutory authority, ad-
ministrative regulations, and current policies
and procedures for conformity to the pur-
puses and provisions of this Act and pro-
pose to the President and to the Congress
such measures as may be necessary to make
their authority consistent with this Act.
SEC. 103. The policies and goals set forth in
this Act are supplementary to, but shall not
be considered to repeal the existing mandates
and authorizations of Federal agencies.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. To carry out the purposes of
this Act, all agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment in conjunction with their existing pro-
giams and authoiities, are hereby authorized—•
(a) to conduct investigations, studies, sur-
veys, research, and analyses relating to
ecological systems and environmental quality;
(b) to document and define changes in the
natural environment, including the plant and
animal systems, and to accumulate necessary
data and other information for a continuing
analysis of these changes or trends and an
interpretation of their underlying causes;
(c) to evaluate and disseminate informa-
tion of an ecological nature to public and
private agencies or organizations, or individ-
uals in the form of reports, publications,
atlases, and maps;
(d) to make available to States, counties,
municipalities, institutions, and individuals,
advice and information useful in restoring,
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of
the environment;
(e) to initiate and utilize ecological in-
formation in the planning and development
of resoui ce-oriented projects;
(f) to conduct research and studies within
natural areas under Federal ownership which
are under the jurisdiction of the Federal
agencies; and
(g) to assist the Board of Environmental
Quality Advisers established under title in
of this Act and any council or committee
established by the President to deal with en-
vironmental problems.
SEC. 202. (a) In carrying out the provi-
sions of this title, the President is authorized
to designate an agency or agencies to—
(1) make grants, including training grants,
and enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with public or private agencies
or organizations, or individuals, and to ac-
cept and use donations of funds, property,
personal services, or facilities to carry out
the purposes of this Act;
(2) develop and maintain an inventory of
existing and future natural resource develop-
ment projects, engineering works, and other
major projects and programs contemplated or
planned by public or private agencies or
organizations which make significant modifica-
tions in the natural environment;
(3) establish a system of collecting and re-
ceiving information and data on ecological
research and evaluations which are in prog-
ress or are planned by other public or private
agencies or organizations, or individuals; and
(4) assist and advise State and local gov-
ernment, and private enterprise in bringing
their activities into conformity with the
purposes of this Act and other Acts designed
to enhance the quality of the environment.
(b) There are hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated $500,000 annually for fiscal years
1971 and 1972, and $1,000,000 for each fiscal
year thereafter.
SEC. 203. In recognition of the additional
duties which the President may assign to
the Office of Science and Technology to sup-
port any council or committee established
by the President to deal with environmental
problems and in furtherance of the policies
established by this Act, there is hereby es-
tablished in the Office of Science and Tech-
nology an additional office with the title
"Deputy Director of the Office of Science and
Technology." The Deputy Director shall be
appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, shall per-
form such duties as the Director of the Office
[p. 19008]
of Science and Technology shall from time to
time direct, and shall be compensated at the
rate provided for level IV of the Executive
Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the
bill was reported unanimously from
the Senate Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs. The ranking minority
member of the committee, the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT), is here.
He will concur that the committee
went into this matter in great detail.
We have had it under consideration
for some time, and the bill was given
the unanimous support of the com-
mittee.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, that
is entirely correct. I add that I con-
cur in the statement which I believe
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
485
the distinguished chairman of the
committee is going to make for the
RECORD.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, S.
1075, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended and as
reported by the Senate Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee on July 8,
1969, is in my judgment the most sig-
nificant and important measure in the
area of long-range domestic policy-
making that will come before the 91st
Congress. Without question, it is the
most significant measure in the area
of natural resource policy ever con-
sidered by the Congress.
As reported by the committee, S.
1075 provides a considered congres-
sional statement of national goals and
purposes for the management and
preservation of the quality of Amer-
ica's future environment. The bill di-
rects that all Federal agencies con-
duct their activities in accordance
with these goals, and provides "action-
forcing" procedures to insure that
these goals and principles are ob-
served. The bill specifically provides
that its provisions are supplemental to
the existing mandates and authoriza-
tions of all Federal agencies. This
constitutes a statutory enlargement of
the responsibilities and the concerns
of all instrumentalities of the Federal
Government.
Title II grants new authority to
agencies of the Federal Government
to engage in research and to incorpo-
rate the results of this ecological and
environmental quality research into all
of their planning and development ac-
tivities. In addition, title II strengthens
the Office of Science and Technology's
capabilities in the area of coordinat-
ing Federal environmental manage-
ment activities by adding the new po-
sition of Deputy Director.
Title III of the measure creates a
Board of Environmental Quality Ad-
visers in the Executive Office of the
President. Both the Board of Environ-
mental Advisers and the Office of Sci-
ence and Technology are to carry out
their duties under the bill at the direc-
tion of the President.
The Board is directed to provide a
continuing study and analysis of en-
vironmental trends, the factors which
affect these trends, and to relate each
area of study and analysis to the
conservation, social, economic, and
health goals of the Nation.
In many respects, the only prece-
dent and parallel to what is proposed
in S. 1075 is in the Full Employment
Act of 1946, which declared an historic
national policy on management of the
economy and established the Council
of Economic Advisers. It is my view
that S. 1075 will provide an equally
important national policy for the man-
agement of America's future environ-
ment.
Mr. President, a statement of en-
vironmental policy is more than a
statement of what we believe as a peo-
ple and as a Nation. It establishes
priorities and gives expression to our
national goals and aspirations. It
serves a constitutional function in
that administrators may refer to it
for guidance in making decisions
which find environmental values in
conflict with other values.
What is involved is a congressional
declaration that we do not intend, as
a government or as a people, to initi-
ate actions which endanger the con-
tinued existence or the health of man-
kind. That we will not intentionally
initiate actions which will do irrepa-
rable damage to the air, land, and
water which support life on earth.
An environmental policy is a policy
for people. Its primary concern is with
man and his future. The basic princi-
ple of the policy is that we must
strive, in all that we do, to achieve a
standard of excellence in man's rela-
-------
486
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tionships to his physical surroundings.
If there are to be departures from the
standard, they will be exceptions to
the rule and the policy. And as excep-
tions, they will have to be justified in
the light of public scrutiny. * * *
[p. 19009]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to further amendment. If
there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
The title was amended so as to
read: "A bill to establish a national
policy for the environment; to author-
ize studies, surveys, and research re-
lating to ecological systems, natural
resources, and the quality of the hu-
man environment; and to establish a
Board of Environmental Quality Ad-
visers."
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill was passed.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I ex-
press my thanks to the distinguished
senior Senator from Florida for mak-
ing time available.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I
thank my friend, the Senator from
Washington. I was happy to yield, and
I support the measure which he has
just carried through to passage.
[p. 19013]
1.2a(4)(b) Sept, 23: Amended and passed House, pp. 26569-26591
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker,
by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 644 and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:
H. RES. 544
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
12549) to amend the Fish and Wildlife Co-
ordination Act to provide for the establish-
ment of a Council on Environmental Quality,
and for other purposes. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed one hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair-
man and ranking: minority member of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the bill for amend-
ment, the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments
as may have been adopted, and the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final pas-
sage without intervening: motion except one
motion to recommit. After the passage of
H.R. 12549, it shall be in order in the House
to take from the Speaker's table the bill S.
1075 and to move to strike out all after the
enacting clause of said Senate bill and insert
in lieu thereof of provisions contained in
H.R. 12549 as passed by the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
from Hawaii is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LATTA) pending which
I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
487
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 544
provides an open rule with 1 hour of
general debate for the consideration
of H.R. 12549 to amend the Pish and
Wildlife Coordination Act to establish
a Council on Environmental Quality.
The resolution also provides that,
after the passage of H.R. 12549, it
shall be in order to take S. 1075 from
the Speaker's table, move to strike all
after the enacting clause and amend
the Senate bill with the House-passed
language.
The purpose of H.R. 12549 is to
create a Council on Environmental
Quality, consisting of five members
appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the
Senate, one of whom the President
shall designate as Chairman.
The Council may employ such offi-
cers and employees as necessary and
may employ and fix compensation of
such experts and consultants as
necessary.
The duty and function of the Coun-
cil shall be to assist the President in
the preparation of an environmental
quality report, which he shall trans-
mit to the Congress annually begin-
ning June 30, 1970; to gather, ana-
lyze, and interpret information con-
cerning conditions and trends in en-
vironmental qualities; to appraise the
various programs and activities of the
Government in this area; to develop
and recommend policies to promote
improvement of environmental qual-
ity; to make and furnish studies and
make recommendations thereon.
Cost of the legislation is estimated
at approximately $1 million per year.
In view of the rapidly deteriorating
environment of ours, Mr. Speaker,
this cost must be considered an invest-
ment, rather than an added expense to
the taxpayer.
Time is not on our side and unless
we take this action today we will have
failed in our responsibility as the trus-
tees of the welfare of the people we
represent in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 544 in order that
H.R. 12549 may be considered.
Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gen-
tleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I agree
with all the statements just made by
my friend, the gentleman from
Hawaii, on this resolution.
I want to point out that the Rules
Committee has had this resolution un-
der consideration since July for the
reason that there was a jurisdictional
question which arose concerning a
matter between the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries and
the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. It is our understanding now
that the difficulties have been resolved
and that, by an agreement between
the two committees, when this matter
goes to conference two members of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs will be on the conference com-
mittee.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill
is to create a Council on Environ-
mental Quality which shall have a
broad and independent overview of
current and long-term needs and pro-
grams to improve the quality of the
national environment. The Council is
to advise the President and, through
him, the Congress on what steps
should be taken to improve and up-
grade the national environment.
The Council will be responsible di-
rectly to the President rather than to
any governmental agency or body. It
is to be composed of five members
selected by the President, with the
advice and consent of the Senate, one
of whom the President shall designate
as Chairman. All members of the
Council are to be persons with ex-
pertise, training, and attainments
which qualify them to analyze and
interpret environmental information
of all kinds and to formulate and
recommend policies to improve the
quality of our national environment.
The President is required to trans-
-------
488
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
mit to the Congress annually, begin-
ning on June 30, 1970, an environ-
mental quality report. The Council
shall assist the President in the prepa-
ration of this report. It shall also
carry on a continuing program of col-
lecting and analyzing environmental
information, conditions, and trends
and shall interpret such information in
order to advise the President in this
field. The Council shall also evaluate
existing Government programs
[p. 26569]
and make recommendations thereon
to the President. It shall make an
annual report to the President in
May of each year.
Testimony received by the commit-
tee indicates that in order to staff the
Council to the needed degree ap-
proximately 55 professional employees
and 20 to 30 clerical employees will be
needed. Based upon these figures, it is
estimated that the cost of this legisla-
tion would be $1 million per year. The
Chairman of the Council is to be paid
$30,000 per year and the four other
members of the Council will receive
$27,000 per year. No operational
funds are authorized in the bill.
There are no minority views. A
number of departments and agencies
have submitted reports on the legisla-
tion as originally introduced (H.R.
6750) which is very similar to the re-
ported bill. Generally, they support the
aims of the legislation but point out
that the President, on May 29, by
Executive Order 11472, established an
Environmental Quality Council and a
Citizens Advisory Committee to the
Council with broad responsibilities for
advising and assisting the President
with respect to environmental quality
matters. Several departments and
agencies question whether this Presi-
dential action does not do all that is
necessary now.
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to
the granting of this rule, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. MADDEN).
(Mr. MADDEN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and to include a tabula-
tion.)
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MAD-
DEN was allowed to speak out of
order.)
TAX REFORM, NOW—WATER AND AIR
POLLUTION LEGISLATION, THIS SESSION
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I was
startled to read in Saturday's Wash-
ington Post, the headline, "Nixon
Aides Do Not Expect Tax Bill To
Pass This Year." An Associated Press
dispatch also quoted a prominent
member of the Senate Finance Com-
mittee, that he "could not see action
this year on the 'proposed revision' of
the Nation's tax system."
Almost 7 years ago, after 4 months
of hearings by the congressional tax
writing House Ways and Means Com-
mittee, and also a week's debate on the
floor of tbe House, the tax reform bill
was passed. It has been juggled, post-
poned, and filibustered for weeks in
the Finance Committee of the other
body. Now we read that the White
House seems to extend silent aid and
comfort to the painstaking stalling
and filibustering which the tax reform
bill will undergo in the other body.
In this morning's mail I received 30
letters from my district, which has
been the average daily mail I have
been receiving, protesting the adminis-
tration's recommendations that the
promised appropriation of $1 billion
toward cleaning up the pollution
should be cut to $214 million. This
proposed weakening of the battle to
preserve the health of millions of
Americans against the drinking of
contaminated and occasionally poison-
ous water in the urban areas of the
Nation is beyond belief. The message
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
489
which I am receiving from citizens,
not only from my own district, but
other parts of Indiana and the Mid-
west, is that they feel that this cut
will be a major setback to cities and
States and all citizens in their fight
against water pollution and an effort
to preserve the health of millions.
A great number of Members of the
House, including myself, are sponsor-
ing a bill and working for legislation
to restore the $1 billion in the 1970
budget which was set up to support
the Clean Water Restoration Act.
The House and Senate both must
take the initiative to provide the nec-
essary matching funds to aid the
States and cities to purify the Na-
tion's water supply in our rivers and
lakes. Our Government must give full
support to compel the mammoth in-
dustries to install the proper machin-
ery to terminate air pollution in our
congested urban areas.
It is no excuse for the Government
or the Congress to protest lack of suf-
ficient funds to combat this water and
air pollution scourge on the present
and future health of millions of Amer-
ican families. The tax reform legisla-
tion if enacted this year will provide
an additional $8 billion to amply sup-
ply funds for water and air pollution,
education, housing, poverty, health,
and so forth.
The tax reform bill, it appears now,
is receiving the old legislative trick of
postponement and stalling with the
hope that public interest for tax re-
form will subside. The bill passed by
the House is now apparently dormant
for this session in the other body,
judging from the Associated Press dis-
patches in the papers yesterday. The
postponing of this tax reform bill un-
til next session of Congress will mean
that the Federal Treasury will not
only suffer a loss of many billions of
Federal tax dollars from large tax
loopholers, but it will afford a better
opportunity for the continuation ol
the unnecessary 10-percent surtax for
another year, running it into 1971.
A year ago last June I opposed and
voted against the 10-percent surtax
for the simple reason that had the
Ways and Means Committee taken
the tax reform bill up at that time
and enacted the same a year ago, there
would be no excuse whatsoever for
the administration to extend the sur-
tax and curtail needed money for air
and water pollution, education, hous-
ing, poverty programs, health, and so
forth. Now is the time for the Ameri-
can people to become aroused and
notify their Senators and the execu-
tive department that money for these
great domestic programs should not
be curtailed, and insist that the Presi-
dent exercise his terrific power toward
passing the tax reform bill which the
House enacted almost 2 months ago.
All segments of our economy should
equally share the huge expenses to
finance necessary Federal programs.
A number of Members of Congress
and almost 90 percent of the wage and
salary earning public have no com-
prehension of the stupendous amount
of taxes our U.S. Treasury loses by
reason of the fabulous, and in most
cases fraudulent, tax loopholes which
will be partially outlawed in the pend-
ing tax reform bill.
In the September edition of the
CWA newspaper a breakdown of some
of the major tax loopholes was set
out estimating the 1968 revenue loss
as a result of the major tax loopholes.
I include the tabulation with my re-
marks.
1968 revenue loss as a result of major tax
loopholes (estimated by U.S. Treasury)
[In millions]
Nontaxed interest on tax-free bonds $1,800
Depletion deductions (corporations
included) 1,500
Intangible drilling deductions (oil and
gas) 760
Travel and entertainment deductions
(estimated excesses) 400
-------
490
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The 50 percent of capital grains not
reported on tax returns 5,000
Capital gains that escape tax at
death 2,000
Unreported dividends and interest 1,000
Total loophole revenue loss in
1968 12,450
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes. I yield to the
gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KYL. Can the gentleman from
Indiana tell us if the tax bill, as it left
the House, calls for increased or de-
creased revenue for the Federal Gov-
ernment in toto?
Mr. MADDEN. If the loopholes are
closed and not changed over in the
other body, it will bring in several bil-
lion dollars, especially in the field of
the oil depletion allowance, reducing
it from 27Vz percent down to 20 per-
cent, when it should have been wiped
out entirely. It is estimated that the
oil depletion allowance alone, if that
27% percent were wiped out, would
bring in something like $3 billion
into the Treasury, including exemp-
tions on imported oil, gas, and so
forth.
Mr. KYL. Will the gentleman yield
further?
Mr. MADDEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. KYL. Is it not a fact that as
the bill left the House there is a loss
of revenue?
Mr. MADDEN. No, there is not a
loss of revenue. There would be an
increase in revenue. Just the TVs
percent reduction from the oil-deple-
tion allowance would bring in over $1
billion or more.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I had no
requests for time on this side, and I
yielded back my time. I would like to
ask unanimous consent that my time
be reinstated, as I do have a request.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. GROSS).
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I was
very much interested in the remarks
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
MADDEN) with respect to water and
air pollution. I have driven the In-
diana Turnpike a good many times
since I have had the honor to be a
Member of this body, and going west
on the Indiana Turnpike you are
made aware many, many miles east
of Gary, Ind., that you are approach-
ing that city. I wonder what the State
of Indiana or the city of Gary, Ind.,
has done
[p. 26570]
or proposes to do about the terrible
pollution that fills the air over Gary,
Ind., and east of it when the wind is
in the west.
Also, traveling by plane to Chicago,
and crossing the lower end of Lake
Michigan, there is no trouble at all
in locating the pollution of Lake Mich-
igan as supplied in part by the steel
mills of Gary, and other industries.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. Yes; I am glad to
yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MADDEN. The Indiana State
Legislature and the mayors of Gary
and East Chicago and Whiting, Ind.,
as well as the city of Chicago, have
been fighting this water pollution for
a number of years. We have been try-
ing to get help.
You must bear in mind that 90
percent of the pollution that comes
about in that area comes from the
terrific amount of industry—oil re-
fineries and other industries. Auto-
mobiles traveling from the east going
into Chicago and the automobiles from
the west, out of Chicago and pass-
ing through our area. That contrib-
utes a great deal to the pollution prob-
lem. It is a problem that the Federal
Government will have to commence
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
491
to extend aid on in order to protect
the health of the millions of people
living in the Chicago and northern
Indiana area. The chances are that
the gentleman from Iowa drives
through there and by doing so he
perhaps contributes a little to the
pollution problem.
Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much
for my contribution to the pollution
problem. But if those steel mills were
not operating, you would not know
there was an automobile in the vicin-
ity insofar as air pollution is con-
cerned.
There is usually a huge cloud of
fumes and smoke over Gary, Ind., and
the gentleman knows—since he lives
there—that when you drive west on
the Indiana Turnpike into Gary, Ind.,
within 25 or 30 miles of the city, if
the wind is from the west, this pollu-
tion situation exists.
I would ask the gentleman from In-
diana, When does the State of Indiana
and the city of Gary propose to do
something about it? I have been driv-
ing over that highway for more than
20 years, and I have noticed little
improvement.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield further, every
city in the Calumet area, as the gen-
tleman from Iowa knows, including
the steel mills, are trying to work to-
gether in order to clean up this water
and air pollution situation, but we will
need some Federal assistance.
Mr. GROSS. Now you have gotten
down to paydirt. That is what I
thought this was all about.
Mr. MADDEN. But we have been
working on these programs
*****
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R.
12549) to amend the Fish and Wild-
life Coordination Act to provide for
the establishment of a Council on En-
vironmental Quality, and for other
purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill, H.R.
12549, with Mr. MCCARTHY in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
DINGELL) will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. PELLY) will be rec-
ognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, for centuries now,
man has exploited and freely used the
resources provided by his natural en-
vironment secure in his belief that
nature's bounty would last forever,
heedless of any consequences in his
headlong rush toward greater power
and prosperity.
More recently, Western man's atti-
tude toward his environment has been
characterized by an emphasis on eco-
nomic motives. The industrial revolu-
tion which has provided us with the
gift of technology has inaugurated
specialization and division of labor as
prerequisites for production for profit.
In fact, our Nation's wealth was
founded on technological progress
spurred on by the profit motive.
However, mankind is playing an ex-
tremely dangerous game with his en-
vironment. Unless we change our
ways, mankind faces the very real
possibility of extinction from misuse
-------
492
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of environment. We have been warned
by scientists, citizens' organizations,
public officials, and Government agen-
cies of the dangers and consequences
of such upsetting agents as air pollu-
tion, water pollution, explosion, and
overenthusiastic use of pesticides. We
have not yet learned that we must
consider the natural environment as a
whole and assess its quality continu-
ously if we really wish to make strides
in improving and preserving it.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 12549 clearly
expresses my conviction that we need
the vigorous involvement of the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President of the
United States in this problem. This
concept of an independent advisory
council to the President on environ-
mental matters is
[p. 26571]
not new. It was the principal recom-
mendation of a task force report to
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare by June of 1967. I—as
well as several other Members of the
House—introduced legislation to ac-
complish this purpose in the 90th
Congress. However, no action—other
than hearings—was taken on any of
these bills.
In February of this year I again
introduced legislation to carry out
this concept.
After holding 7 full days of hear-
ings, and hearing from a wide range
of witnesses including scientists, en-
gineers, ecologists, statisticians, econ-
omists, anthropologists, conservation-
ists, and various departmental wit-
nesses, my Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Wildlife Conservation unani-
mously reported to the full Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries a
clean bill in the form of H.R. 12549.
H.R. 12549 was cosponsored by all of
the members of my subcommittee, ex-
cept one, and it was unanimously re-
ported by our full Committee on Mer-
chant Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, briefly explained.
section 1 of the bill would amend the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
by inserting a new section in the act
designated as section 5A.
Subsection (a) of the new section
would recognize the impact of man's
activities upon his environment and
the critical importance of making that
impact less adverse to his welfare.
Accordingly, it states a basic and con-
tinuing policy that the Federal Gov-
ernment, in cooperation with all other
interested parties, shall use all prac-
ticable means and measures, including
financial and technical assistance, to
assure that man's capacity to change
his environment is devoted to making
that change one for the better, while
remaining consistent with his future
social, economic, and other needs.
Subsection (b) of the new section
would direct the President to transmit
to the Congress at the close of each
fiscal year an annual report setting
forth an inventory of the American
environment, broadly and generally
identified, together with an estimate
of the impact of visible future trends
upon our future environment. This
report would follow the report sub-
mitted by the Council in May of each
year.
Subsection (c) (1) of the new sec-
tion would create a five-man Council
on Environmental Quality in the Of-
fice of the President. Although the
original bills before the committee
provided for a three-man Council, the
committee felt that there was a clear
need for a slightly larger Council with
more personal resources available to
it, and yet not so large as to be un-
wieldy; the Chairman of the Council
would be designated by the President,
since he would be acting as a major
adviser to the President in this area.
The qualifications of the Council mem-
bers are stated broadly, since general-
ists are what the Council will require,
and since it is impossible to define
generalists adequately except in terms
of their overall experience and com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
493
petence. Most critical in the selection
of the Council members will be their
commitment to an understanding and
resolution of the environmental prob-
lems which we confront as a society.
Subsection (c) (2) would authorize
the Council to employ the necessary
staff to assist it in carrying out its
duties. The importance of attracting
and holding an extremely high caliber
staff is of great importance. This
subsection would give the Council
broad authority to obtain the services
of experts and consultants, including
advisory committees and task forces
on specific environmental problems.
Subsection (c) (3) would specify the
duties and functions of the Council.
These include—
First, assisting the President in the
preparation of the annual report;
Second, gathering information on
the short- and long-term problems
that merit Council attention, together
with a constant analysis of these
problems as they may affect the poli-
cies stated in subsection (a), and a
constant inflow of information to the
President on the significance of these
problems;
Third, maintaining a constant re-
view of Federal programs and activ-
ities as they may affect the policies
declared in subsection (a), and keep-
ing the President informed on the de-
gree to which those programs and
activities may be consistent with those
policies;
Fourth, requiring the Council to re-
view and to recommend policies to the
President, on the basis of its activ-
ities, whereby the quality of our en-
vironment may be enhanced, consist-
ent with our social, economic, and
other requirements; and
Fifth, authorizing the Council to
make studies and recommendations re-
lating to environmental considera-
tions, as the President may direct.
Subsection (c) (4) would direct the
Council to make an annual report on
its activities to the President.
Subsection (c) (5) would require
the Council to maintain open lines of
communication with all affected seg-
ments of society, and would instruct
it to avoid duplication of work that'
has already been done by others, wher-
ever that can be done. This will be of
particular significance as the Council
acts to set up the data bank referred
to in (3) (B) of this subsection; cer-
tainly most of the information flow-
ing into that bank will have to be de-
rived from sources outside the Coun-
cil, and it will become vital that the
Council assure itself that this infor-
mation continue to be available to it.
Section 2 of the bill would amend
title 5 of the United States Code to
add the Chairman of the Council to
level II of the Executive pay schedule,
and the balance of the Council mem-
bers to level IV. Since this is the same
compensation received by the Chair-
man and members of the Council of
Economic Advisers, who devote their
full time to carrying out their duties,
likewise it would be expected that the
Chairman and members of the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality will de-
vote their full time in carrying out
the work of this high-level Council.
Mr. Chairman, our Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries was
impressed by the wide range of wit-
nesses testifying at the hearings in
support of the legislation. In the main,
all witnesses were in favor of the leg-
islation. In fact, it is worthy to note
that out of approximately 100 wit-
nesses heard at the hearings there de-
veloped no substantive opposition on
the part of the public to the legisla-
tion, and that the slight resistance on
the part of witnesses for the depart-
ments stemmed from a feeling that
the Council might in some way con-
flict with the interdepartmental Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by Executive order of the
President on May 29 of this year. It
should also be noted that while the
departments did not recommend en-
-------
494
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
actment of the legislation, neither did
they recommend against it. Witnesses
from several agencies spoke highly of
the potential of the Council contem-
plated by the legislation as comple-
mentary to the excellent steps already
taken by the President. The only op-
position to the legislation came from
the Office of Science and Technology,
which was based on the premise that
the Council established by Executive
order would accomplish the same pur-
pose as the Council to be established
by the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, our entire member-
ship of the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee applauds the
President on creating a Cabinet-level
Council on Environmental Quality.
However, we do not believe the Cabi-
net-level Council can devote a major
proportion of their attention to the
problems in the depth required. The
problems are of several magnitudes
larger than those which can be dealt
with by this interdepartmental organi-
zation and its six staff members. On
the other hand, we do realize that the
interdepartmental Council can fill a
clear and observed need of coordinat-
ing and resolving internal policy dis-
putes between different executive
agencies of the Government.
The purpose of this bill is to create
by legislative action, standing outside
the programs that can be done and
undone by unilateral executive action,
a council which can provide a consis-
tent and expert source of review of na-
tional policies, environmental prob-
lems and trends, both long term and
short term. Such a council would act
entirely independently of the execu-
tive, mission-oriented agencies.
The President, the Congress, and
the American people stand in need of
this type of assistance. No organiza-
tion, in existence or contemplated, ex-
cept as provided for in this bill, shows
any sign of meeting that need. It is
for this reason that I strongly recom-
mend the creation of such a council,
through enactment of H.R. 12549.
[p. 26572]
Mr. PELLY. * * *
Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly
support the remarks of the distin-
guished chairman of the Fisheries and
Wildlife Conservation Subcommittee,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
DINGELL), who has worked very hard
to bring this important legislation to
the floor. H.R. 12549, the clean bill to
establish a Council on Environmental
Quality, was unanimously reported by
the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries and" has the bipartisan
support of the members of that com-
mittee.
I have been asked, "Do we need an-
other Presidental Commission or Coun-
cil? Have we not enough experts in
and out of Government concerned with
the quality of our environment?" The
answer to the second question explains
the need. There are many experts
within Government, industry and aca-
demic institutions concerned with
various aspects of improving our daily
life. We have experts in the field of
transportation coping with the prob-
lem of moving people from one city to
another in the least possible time with
the greatest degree of safety. We have
constructed a vast system of inter-
state highways to accomplish this. Yet
at the same time, we have created
serious problems of soil erosion,
stream pollution and urban displace-
ment. We have other experts con-
cerned with assuring an adequate
food supply for our ever-growing pop-
ulation. In conjunction with private
industry, they have developed power-
ful chemicals to control pests and
diseases that would otherwise destroy
a substantial portion of the harvest,
but these chemicals pollute our
streams and lakes, and their residue
is building up in our bodies. We have
other experts who build dams to con-
trol floods and at the same time de-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
495
stroy irreplaceable stretches of wil-
derness.
Progress in transportation, agricul-
ture, the prevention of natural disas-
ters, and developments in many other
areas where we have applied modern
technology are essential in a country
of over 200 million people. The experts
have, by and large, done their job
well, but we must remember that their
job is building highways, increasing
our food production, preventing floods,
and so on. Their primary concern is
not the quality of our environment
considered as a totality. That is not to
say, of course, that the Federal Gov-
ernment is not concerned about the
impact of such programs upon the
quality of life as a whole. There is a
growing awareness on the part of the
principal executive departments that
they must look beyond the narrow
confines of their particular responsi-
bility. We must recognize, however,
that there is a natural inclination to
foster and promote programs. Rarely
will we find a department head urging
the curtailment of a program because
of its long-range adverse impact upon
the environment as a whole. Thus,
within the Federal Government we
have many groups working to improve
our lives, frequently at cross purposes.
The President on May 29, 1969, is-
sued an Executive order establishing
an Environmental Quality Council
composed of the Vice President and
six Cabinet Secretaries. The Science
Advisor to the President was ap-
pointed Executive Secretary of the
Council and assists the
[p. 26573]
President in directing its affairs. The
Office of the President's Science Ad-
visor will furnish administrative and
staff support for the Council. This is
an extremely important development
within our Federal Government in
that it provides the machinery where-
by the heads of principal departments
will be able to interchange ideas con-
cerning the impact of their programs
and the goals of their agencies.
Again, however, we must bear in
mind that the primary function of
our Cabinet Secretaries is to admin-
ister and promote the efforts of their
respective departments. I would not
expect a Cabinet officer who is vigor-
ously pursuing the mandate of his
department to lay aside a program to
which his department is committed
simply because another department
head raised doubts about its long-
range impact upon the environment so
long as there are short-run benefits to
be gained. I believe, therefore, that
while the President's Council on En-
vironmental Quality will be a useful
tool for the interchange of informa-
tion and for some degree of coordina-
tion, we cannot expect that the paro-
chial views of the respective depart-
ments will be entirely divorced from
its deliberations and decisions. t
Beyond the Federal Government,
there is the vast area of State and
local activity, which has an equal if
not greater impact upon our environ-
ment. The fields of waste disposal, in-
dustrial pollution control, intelligent
land use, and so forth, are primarily
in the hands of our State and local
governments. While the Federal Gov-
ernment through a variety of pro-
grams gives assistance, the ultimate
responsibility rests at the State and
local level, and the goal of an im-
proved environment rests ultimately
on the success achieved by our States
and municipalities.
The third major area concerned
with our environment is private in-
dustry encompassing large corpora-
tions, which are too frequently large
polluters of our environment as well,
all the way down to the smallest busi-
ness entity that produces some form
of refuse. The problems of industrial
pollution are infinitely complex. Vir-
tually every industrial process re-
quires a different form of pollution
control depending upon the raw ma-
-------
496
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
terials employed and the end product
of the process. In this regard, our
committee received testimony from
an official of one of our largest indus-
trial corporations who outlined the
tremendous complexity of pollution
control and the great financial invest-
ment required, both to build pollution
control into new plants as well as add
it to existing, often old, economically
marginal plants.
The problem that we face in the field
of environmental quality is greatly
complicated by the fact that no one
of these groups alone can bring about
any change for the better. Whatever
is done will require the highest degree
of coordination of programs and in-
terchange of knowledge. The con-
tinued appropriation of money by
Congress for pollution abatement pro-
grams administered by a variety of
Federal agencies, often employing con-
flicting standards, will not of itself
produce much return.
What is needed today is an organi-
zation devoted exclusively to the prob-
lem of reconciling the needs of a large
industrial society with the desire for
quality in our environment. By qual-
ity, I mean, among other things, air
that is just air, not air diluted with
lead and other industrial wastes—
water that is just water, not fortified
with DDT—wildlife flourishing in its
natural habitat rather than recorded
in a book of extinct species—and cities
where people can satisfy their desire
for economic prosperity without pay-
ing a heavy price in terms of physical
and spiritual deterioration.
The President's Council on Environ-
mental Quality cannot accomplish the
task of coordinating the activities and
often conflicting interests of our Fed-
eral agencies, State and local govern-
ments, and private industry. The re-
sponsibilities of our Cabinet officers
are already too varied—the demands
on their time too great.
Assuming, however, that the Cabi-
net Secretaries do have the time to get
together and engage in a meaningful
exchange of information and ideas,
who will provide the groundwork for
their deliberations? According to the
President's Executive order, the Sci-
ence Adviser and his staff will furnish
the needed expert assistance on envi-
ronmental matters. However, in testi-
mony before our committee, Dr. Lee
DuBridge, the President's Science
Adviser, stated that the President has
requested an appropriation for only
six additional staff members to sup-
port the Environmental Quality Coun-
cil, and there is no assurance that
even these six would devote them-
selves exclusively to the Council.
The budget item covering these
positions was included in the request
for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
of the Department of the Interior.
However, the Appropriations Commit-
tee refused to act upon this request,
and the bill as passed by the House
did not include these funds. I under-
stand that the other body agreed with
our action yesterday. The report of
the Appropriations Committee ex-
pressed the committee's concern for
the environmental problems facing the
Nation, but stated that the patchwork
approach such as envisioned by the
Executive order would be little better
than nothing. The report further
stated that the committee would be
receptive and sympathetic to the fund-
ing requirements necessary to achieve
the objectives stated in the various
bills now pending in the Congress for
the creation of a Council on Environ-
mental Quality.
Mr. Chairman, the essential element
of this legislation is the creation of
an expert body whose members will
devote their full time and attention
to the difficult task of analyzing and
interpreting environmental informa-
tion, and who will be in a position to
formulate and recommend to the
President national policies to promote
the betterment of our environment. Of
equal importance is the requirement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
497
that the Council annually report to
the President and the President, in
turn, report to the Congress regarding
the status of our environment. Only
in this way can we gather the facts
upon which to make intelligent de-
cisions.
The Council will complement rather
than conflict with the interagency
council established by the President's
Executive order. Hopefully, it will
have a staff well versed in all aspects
of our environmental problems. In my
opinion, this staff will augment and be
of great benefit to the office of the
Science Adviser.
I have not attempted to discuss in
any detail the great number of envi-
ronmental problems facing the Na-
tion today. These problems have been
discussed at great length by many dis-
tinguished Members. Even a casual
examination of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD will illustrate the attention
which our colleagues have given these
problems. I have stressed the organi-
zational aspects of our fight for envi-
ronmental quality rather than simply
catalog the many crises we are facing.
The technological know-how exists to-
day to produce clean air and water
and to generally upgrade the quality
of our environment. A recent report
of the American Chemical Society en-
titled "Cleaning our Environment—
the Chemical Basis for Action,"
stressed the fact that this country can
take enormous strides now toward a
cleaner environment if it is willing to
devote sufficient energy and financial
support to the task. We have identified
many of the problems, we have the
technical know-how to solve them.
This legislation will establish a much-
needed focal point to set priorities
and channel the efforts of Government
and industry in a coordinated pro-
gram. I therefore strongly urge its
passage.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Com-
mittee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. GABMATZ).
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Chairman, as
chairman of the House Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, I am
naturally concerned about all phases
of the environment which affect fish,
wildlife and our natural resources.
The ugly and devastating disease of
pollution has contaminated every as-
pect of our environment—air, land,
and water.
The massive pollution that now
stalks our Nation is a very real and
dangerous threat. It constitutes a
problem so vast and so inter-related,
one segment of the environment can-
not be separated from another. Since
man's manifold activities are affect-
ing all components of the natural en-
vironment, the only logical approach
is a broad-ranging, coordinated Fed-
eral program.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 12549 is de-
signed to initiate such a program.
This legislation proposes to create a
Council on Environmental Quality.
This Council, which would be com-
posed of outstanding and qualified
leaders of the scientific, industrial
and business community, would over-
see and review all national policies
relating to our environment; it would
report directly to the President and
recommend national programs to fos-
ter and promote the improvement of
the Nation's total environmental qual-
ity.
One of the vital functions of this
council would be to consult with State
and local governments and other in-
terested groups and individuals, and
to utilize the services, facilities and
information of
[p. 26574]
these agencies and organizations. I
consider this to be an extremely im-
portant and significant function, since,
for the first time, it would establish
-------
498
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
an effective liaison between the Fed-
eral Government and individual States,
thereby creating a long-needed central
clearinghouse of information.
Establishing such a council will not
immediately solve all our massive pol-
lution problems. It will, however, con-
stitute the most significant step yet
taken because it will represent the
very first concerted congressional at-
tack upon all forms of abuse upon our
natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of
this legislation, and I hope it will be
enacted as rapidly as possible.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. MAILLIARD).
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
shall not take very much time. I
simply want to say that as the rank-
ing minority member on the commit-
tee I support this bill.
In recent years, scientists—and in
turn the public—have become increas-
ingly aware that technological prog-
ress is a mixed blessing. This can
perhaps be compared to the injection
of a newly-developed drug into the
human body. All too often while cur-
ing the disease, the drug will produce
undesirable side effects. In some in-
stances, these effects may prove fatal.
Short of that, the drug must be ad-
ministered with caution and the body's
reactions carefully monitored. Fortu-
nately, the average human body can
tolerate a high degree of foreign sub-
stances intended to ward off or cure
certain ills. Within a certain range,
the body simply throws off anything
in excess of its needs.
Our planet, earth, has demonstrated
a similar ability to absorb the side
effects of increased population and in-
dustrial development.
We did not begin polluting our en-
vironment in earnest until the 19th
century. Birmingham and other Eng-
lish cities where iron and coal were
brought together to form the basis of
an industrial society first witnessed
the intolerance of our atmosphere.
The grime was an unmistakable sign
that man was injecting far more than
nature could absorb.
But this was a purely local condi-
tion—a very small raw spot. Annoy-
ing in the immediate area but hardly
of much concern to the world as a
whole. Generally, our ancestors stood
in awe and marveled at the scientific
and technical progress of the 1800's.
The water became a bit murky and a
smell began to pervade the air, but
few noticed.
Some years after England first
tasted—and smelled—the benefits of
industrial progress the United States
began the rapid development of a
great industrial society. Our realiza-
tion of its unpleasant side effects has
been slow in coming, however.
In 1695, a man named Thomas
Beverly wrote a book in London in
which he described the end of the
world in 1697. He wrote a second
book in 1698 claiming that the world
had indeed ended but nobody had
noticed.
Probably nobody will notice the day
the earth begins to produce less oxy-
gen than is consumed. Nor will anyone
be aware of the precise moment when
the accumulation of pesticides pro-
duces irreversible physical changes in
all animal life including man.
The side effects of progress are dif-
ficult to monitor. We know so little
about the fundamental processes of
nature and even less about the impact
of our interference with these proc-
esses.
To most laymen like myself these
problems seem remote indeed. While
there is some evidence, for example,
that we are using up the world's oxy-
gen supply, it is difficult to relate
these questions to here and now. Yet
someone must. We do not have the
right to exploit the world's resources
or apply our scientific knowledge with-
out some regard for those who will in-
herit this world and this Nation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
499
Fortunately, this globe has a high
degree of natural resistance to man's
injections of progress. We have not
yet exceeded its level of tolerance. We
must, however, beg-in to monitor it
and modify our activities when danger
signals appear. This cannot be done
haphazardly. It will require expert
advice in all scientific and technical
disciplines and coordinated action at
all levels of government and economic
activity.
I believe the Council on Environ-
mental Quality as envisioned by this
legislation can fulfill this vital role
and I support its enactment.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
SCHADEBERG).
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the bill,
H.R. 12549.
Mr. Chairman, I participated in
many hearings at which experts in
their respective fields of knowledge
warned against action in making
progress without regard to its ulti-
mate effect on the quality of our envi-
ronment and which causes irreparable
damage to our streams and lakes and
atmosphere. The fact is that the vari-
ous segments of society working each
in its own field has resulted in a situ-
ation in which the right hand of gov-
ernment does not know what the left
hand is doing. It is certainly not in
the best interests of the citizens of
our country either as citizens desiring
improved environment in which to live
and as taxpayers to spend millions to
build dams to provide flood control or
recreational areas when such a proj-
ect might add to the pollution of the
streams and lakes through tampering
with the natural flow of the stream
that cleanses it. It is imperative that
our efforts to make progress and to
improve our environment be coordi-
nated. This legislation is a step in the
right direction.
Mr. Chairman, man has been able to
progress to his present state of devel-
opment by controlling his environ-
ment instead of having to adjust to
its changing conditions. He has har-
nessed streams and rivers to provide
power and transportation. He has dug
deep into the earth to mine the min-
erals that provide energy, heat, and
light. He has built himself protection
from the natural elements by using
nature's natural products. But in so
doing, he has upset the natural bal-
ance of the earth that has provided
him with his wealth. If man is to sur-
vive, he must learn to work with, in-
stead of against, this natural balance.
Man is rapidly running headlong into
disaster as a society as he desecrates
the water, air, and land. Action is
needed now.
Mr. Chairman, the general quality
of the environment relates to the gen-
eral welfare of the people of the
United States and must, therefore, be
a. main priority of Congress. As we
consider more and more legislation to
combat the problems of environmental
imbalance, Congress needs to have at
hand an understanding of how to
create and maintain conditions under
which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony, thereby fulfilling
the social, economic, and other re-
quirements of present and future gen-
erations. The Council proposed by the
legislation now under consideration is
necessary in order to provide this un-
derstanding. If such a council existed
at the time of the invention of the
automobile, perhaps we would have
been able to realize the threat that
would be presented to our atmosphere
by the internal combustion of hydro-
carbons before it was too late.
The great advantage in the council
approach is that the findings will be
shared by all agencies of the Federal
Government, enabling them to develop
meaningful environmental policies at
the lower decisionmaking levels, and
by the local and State governments.
-------
500
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. Chairman, as I work with my
district to preserve beautiful southern
Wisconsin, I find the greatest problem
is that there are many studies on par-
ticular problems, but there is no in-
formation available on the interrelat-
edness of all the proposed solutions. I
support this legislation with the hopes
that the Council on Environmental
Quality can meet the needs of the
American people. By providing a con-
sistent review of national policies and
environmental problems so that the
present threat to our future can be ap-
proached in a comprehensive fashion.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Minne-
sota (Mr. MAcGREGOR).
Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Chairman,
I strongly favor the adoption by the
committee of the bill to provide for
the establishment of a Council on En-
vironmental Quality. We badly need
to create a Council with a broad and
independent overview of current and
long-term trends in the quality of our
national environment, to advise the
President, and through him the Con-
gress and the American people on
steps which may and should be taken
to improve the quality of that envi-
ronment.
I note from the hearings that the
slight resistance on the part of wit-
nesses for the executive departments
stemmed from a feeling that the Coun-
cil might in some way conflict with
the Interdepartmental Council on En-
vironmental Quality established by
Executive order of the President on
May 29 of this year. But witnesses
from several agencies spoke.
[p. 26575]
highly of the potential of the Council
contemplated by the legislation as
complementary to the excellent steps
already taken by the President to
achieve concurrent and coherent en-
vironmental pollution within the ex-
ecutive agencies through the interde-
partmental Council.
The Departments of Transportation
and the Interior were of the opinion
;hat should the Congress feel that es-
tablishment of a separate environmen-
tal advisory body in the Executive
Office of the President along the lines
contemplated by this legislation was
desirable to assist the efforts of the
President's Council, they would not
object to such action. The Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare stated that if the legislation were
enacted into law, it stood ready to co-
operate to the fullest in carrying out
its praiseworthy purposes.
The testimony at the hearing also
stressed the importance of the interna-
tional aspects of the environmental
problem. It is an unfortunate fact
that many and perhaps most forms of
environmental pollution cross interna-
tional boundaries as easily as they
cross State lines. Contamination of
the oceans, with insufficient attention
paid to its long-term consequences,
appears to be a major problem to
which far too little attention has been
spent in the past. The international
aspects are clearly a major part of
the questions which the Council would
have to confront, and I feel confident
that these would receive early atten-
tion by the Council.
Several members of the scientific
community have stressed the need for
the development of an adequate infor-
mation collection and retrieval system.
There is today a 5- to 10-year gap be-
tween the development of basic re-
search information and its technolog-
ical implementation. Much of this basic
research has significant implications
for both improvement and degrada-
tion of man's environment, and activi-
ties in this area should more than
repay the initial investment, to the
extent that the Council could assist
in making this information more ac-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
501
cessible to the public and to the Fed-
eral Government.
State and local governments have
a large stake in the common problem;
it is also true that by no means all of
the environmental problems which we
see are caused, even indirectly, by the
Federal Government alone. Witnesses
at the hearings stressed the need for
a continuing interchange between the
Council and other agencies, including
private citizens' groups, as a signifi-
cant part of the environmental prob-
lems. There should be clear and open
lines of communication between the
Council and the public. The Council
should also consider the impact of its
activities upon the educational system,
together with ways and means of
continuing the growing trend toward
public enlightenment on and concern
with the important environmental
issues that we confront.
Mr. REID of New York (at the re-
quest of Mr. PELLY) was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in strong support of H.R.
12549, to provide for the establish-
ment of a Council on Environmental
Quality.
This legislation is, if anything, long
overdue, but greatly needed nonethe-
less. The dangers of polluting our-
selves off the planet within a decade
are not exaggerated, and unless we
act without further delay to combat
air and water pollution, we will find
ourselves smothered and choked by our
own lack of action and existing, inad-
vertent weather modification. I ap-
plaud this urgently needed legislation,
but the existence of this Council must
in no way be an excuse for lack of
action by the interdepartmental Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by Executive order of the Pres-
ident on May 29 of this year. I would
hope in addition to annual reports
that interim reports from both coun-
cils would be forthcoming in the near
future as we can tolerate no further
delay in national action.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. ROGERS).
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the bill, H.R.
12549, to amend the Fish and Wild-
life Coordination Act to establish with
the Executive Office of the President
a Council on Environmental Quality.
I was pleased to join with my dis-
tinguished colleague from Michigan
(Mr. DINGELL) and the other mem-
bers of the Subcommittee on Fish and
Wildlife Conservation in sponsoring
this legislation, and I am confident
that the House will recognize the im-
port of this legislation and quickly
voice its approval.
Time is of the essence, Mr. Chair-
man, in our struggle to restore our
environment. Man simply does not
have an eternity to right the wrongs
he has done to the land, sea and air.
Indeed, he may only have a genera-
tion. We must correct these wrongs
and chart new directions which will
guarantee that history does not re-
peat itself in the wanton and reckless
use of the environment that God has
provided for us.
This legislation would enable such
new direction to be charted by provid-
ing the President and the Congress
with annual environmental quality
reports. The bill would also require
the five-man Council to maintain a
continuing review of Federal policies
and activities with environmental im-
plications. This is necessary because
the various agencies and departments
of the Federal government do not
always act harmoniously in their con-
cept and utilization of the land, sea
and air upon which we must rely for
our very existence.
Above all, this legislation would
provide the first independent source
-------
502
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of review of the total environmental
situation, and this is most necessary
in view of the fact that we are
spending more and more each fiscal
year to combat pollution and to restore
our environment, and we will be spend-
ing more in the years to come if we
are to successfully win the battle.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to my distinguished friend the gentle-
man from Minnesota (Mr. KARTH).
Mr. KARTH. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to begin by saying that I
endorse the remarks just made by the
distinguished chairman of our Sub- j
committee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and wholeheartedly sup-
port his request for passage of H.R.
12549.
As one of the cosponsors of H.R.
12549, it is needless to say that I sup-
port H.R. 12549. However, I would
like to emphasize several points which
I think justify the establishment of
an independent council on environ-
mental quality.
First. The President's Cabinet level
Environmental Quality Council can
carry out decisions but has a built-in
conflict of interest in arriving at
proper conclusions due to statutory
obligations for various operating pro-
grams.
Second. Environmental decision-
making requires independent, consist-
ent, and expert advice.
Third. No such capability exists
today for the President, the Congress
or the public.
Fourth. The Office of Science and
Technology has a great number of
important duties for a limited staff.
Funding of additional environmental
staff services in this office is therefore
complicated and unlikely to produce
the required level of effort.
Fifth. While science and technology
can bring important facts to envi-
ronmental decisionmaking, this infor-
mation is only a part of what is nec-
essary. Therefore, the emphasis on
science, which the announced role of
Office of Science and Technology sug-
gests, is misleading and could de-
crease the availability of non-science
inputs to the President.
Sixth. The present Citizen's Advi-
sory Committee is a renaming of a
former group established for recrea-
tion and natural beauty. Its member-
ship is not chosen—and is therefore
not adequate—for the task of envi-
ronmental quality and productivity
studies. Support for this group has
been meager—via the Bureau of Out-
door Recreation of the Department of
the Interior—and is likely to be cur-
tailed further because of the unwill-
ingness of the Congress to sustain
such indirect funding.
Seventh. An independent advisory
body established by statute as pro-
posed in this bill, would command the
funding support of the Congress, thus
enabling the establishment of an ade-
quate, highly competent staff.
Eighth. A mandate of independent
review would attract persons of the
highest character and expertise to
serve as Council members. The goal of
complete and objective structuring of
the available facts and ideas would
bring outstanding scholars to the staff.
The stature of the Council and its
staff would stimulate improved per-
formance of all organizations con-
cerned with the environment.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, passage of
this legislation would add a comple-
mentary step to that taken by the
President. Both the legislative and
executive branches are well agreed on
a national policy for the environment.
The electorate has the will power and
the purse power to accept decisions
for an improved management of our
natural surroundings. Let us now
[p. 26576]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
503
construct the institutional arrange-
ments which will put policy into prac-
tice.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues
in urging prompt passage of H.R.
12549.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. FARBSTEIN).
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I
echo the sentiments of those who have
spoken heretofore this afternoon in
connection with the dire need for
legislation of this type. I am particu-
larly interested in the pollution of the
air which is caused by the emissions
from automobile engines. I do hope
that sufficient time and attention will
be given to this question.
This legislation, H.R. 12549, to es-
tablish a Council on Environmental
Quality is long overdue.
For too long, we have stressed
technological progress, assuming that
our environment could take care of
itself. We have found that unfortu-
nately it could not, and the result of
our neglect is that our environment
is becoming increasingy unlivable.
Schoolchildren in Los Angeles cannot
exercise outdoors on certain days be-
cause the smog level is too high. Street
corners in Tokyo now must come
equipped with pure oxygen so that
motorists can prevent themselves from
becoming asphyxiated.
I support this legislation today for
the same reasons I introduced H.R.
12265, legislation to accomplish the
same objective, last June. I believe
a new set of priorities is needed in
national policy emphasizing the crea-
tion, restoration, and maintenance of
a habitat in which people can live
more healthful lives and better enjoy
their physical surroundings.
The American Chemical Society has
recently put out an excellent report
entitled "Cleaning Our Environment:
the Chemical Basis for Action." This
report examines our technological ca-
pabilities for doing something about
pollution and comes to the conclusion
that willingness to act, and not tech-
nological capability, is the major ob-
stacle to action. What it points out is
particularly true of automotive pol-
lution. The report suggests that there
are a number of practical alternatives
which could be utilized now to lower
the pollution level from automobiles
if only the auto industry would act.
The auto industry, like most of the
rest of society, will act, however, only
when compelled.
The individual acts against pollu-
tion, if he acts at all, in accordance
with his own self-interest. This is fully
as true of the man in the street as it
is of the legal person called the corpo-
ration or of any Government agency.
Companies may rail at the actions of
pollution control officials, but how
many companies have acted to abate
pollution without some inducement in
addition to the simple desire not to
pollute, be it improved public rela-
tions, the possibility of profit, or
threat of legal action? Self-interest
is, of course, old to the affairs of men,
and society deals with it generally, in
the larger goods, by striking a balance
called the law.
Since I introduced legislation to ban
the internal combustion engine in July
I have come into contact with numer-
ous technological improvements which
could be employed by the auto and
oil industries to lower the emission
levels of automobiles. Among these
are alternatives to the internal com-
bustion engine itself. The auto in-
dustry tells us that steam and electric
engines are not practical, yet we find
backyard inventors and smaller com-
panies with little capital and few fa-
cilities able to develop working, and
in many cases inexpensive, steam and
electric engines. A recent article in
the Los Angeles Times documents one
-------
504
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
such engine, developed for the State
of California:
RETURN OF STEAM AGE? NEW CAR ENGINE
COULD CUT AIR POLLUTION
(By Irving S. Bengelsdorf, Ph. D.)
You get into the car, insert the key into
the ignition, turn the key, wait about 7
seconds, press down on the accelerator and
drive off smoothly and noiselessly. You are
driving an automobile equipped with a sim-
ple, powerful, inexpensive, lightweight, com-
pact, fast-starting and non-air-polluting steam
engine.
Is there such a steam engine? Indeed,
there is. Using the latest technological de-
velopments in combustion, air flow, metal-
lurgy, measuring instruments and control
devices. General Steam Corp., Newport
Beach—formerly Therm odynamic Systems,
Inc.—has solved the difficult engineering
problems that have plagued steam engines in
the past. GSC has designed and constructed a
steam engine that shortly will be installed
for testing in a California Highway Patrol
car.
The modern steam engine offers many ad-
vantages over the internal combustion en-
gine. Consider air pollution. Don. E. John-
son, GSC executive vice president and gen-
eral manager, points out, "In testing during
1967, a 1963 car with no smog controlling
device produced 596 parts per million of un-
burned hydrocarbons to pollute the air, even
after a tune-up. A 1967 automobile, equipped
with California smog devices, cut its produc-
tion of air pollutants to 267 ppm. However,
a 1960 steam car, with no smog device and
no tune-up, produced only 20 ppm hydrocar-
bons."
Or, consider simplicity. Lift the hood of a
steam engine and there are few parts—no
carburetor, distributor, set of spark plugs or
smog devices. Unlike an internal combustion
engine that operates by a series of timed,
discrete, high-pressure explosions that take
place within individual cylinders, a steam
engine burns fuel smoothly and continuously
at low pressures.
So, steam engine combustion is more com-
plete, tosses out less carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxides and fewer unburned hydro-
carbons, and does not require leaded fuel.
Thus, the use of steam engines to propel
automobiles would not only help to purify
our air, but it also would permit us to use
a cheaper fuel (kerosene is easier and less
expensive to produce than gasoline), and i1
would eliminate the need for toxic lead addi
tives that ultimately pollute the landscape
and ourselves.
Nor is this all. The GSC steam engine
needs no internal "motor oil." New advances
n metallurgy have made it self-lubricating.
And, there is no need for a bulky, massive
air conditioner. Use of steam pressure with
a small, solid-state device about one-half the
size of a pack of cigarettes cools the car
pleasingly in hot weather. If the temperature
outside is below freezing, a small pilot light
teeps the steam generator warm, preventing
the water from freezing.
The water that is used to be changed into
steam to drive the GSC-steam engine is in
a sealed, recirculating system. Once the wa-
ter is added, additional water should not have
to be added for the original water should
stay in and be used over and over again to
make steam. And the car is explosion-safe. At
any given moment, only a pint of water, at
the most, is being changed into steam. There
no evidence that any steam-powered car
in the past had an explosion due to its steam
system.
GSC steam engines can be made in the
form of reciprocating engines, turbines or
rotary engines. The new steam engine tech-
nology opens up a great deal of versatility
and flexibility to engineers involved in the
design and construction of engines for cars,
ships, helicopters, pumps and the genera-
tion of small amounts of electrical power.
So, unlike some previously publicized
steam engines, an excellent alternative to the
increasingly complex internal combustion en-
gine is just around the corner. The modern
steam engine can play a key role in the
cleansing of our air.
But, a mass-transit system operated by
steam not only would clear out skies, it also
would solve the traffic congestion problem
at the same time. For as long as we depend
exclusively on personal automobiles—one per-
son to a car—to move from A to B, there will
be horrendous traffic jams, regardless of
what kind of power plant is under the hood.
I hope the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality will thus not just examine
the problems of nature as they apply
to the wilderness, but will face up to
environmental problems like air and
water pollution, which affect our
cities, and serve as a lobby for action.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
my distinguished friend, the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. FEIGHAN).
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 12549 to estab-
lish a Council on Environmental Qual-
ity to advise the President and,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
505
through him, the Congress on steps
that should be taken to improve the
quality of the American environment.
The Council would also submit a re-
port on foreseeable trends affecting
the status of the environment in an
attempt to forestall future devasta-
tion of man's most valuable commod-
ity—his natural surroundings.
At a crucial juncture in the future
development of our great Nation, we
cannot afford to ignore the deplorable
condition of many of our natural re-
sources, the building blocks on which
our future greatness depends. While
steps have been taken to improve and
preserve the quality of the environ-
ment, both by the public and private
sectors, there is & distinct need for the
proposed Council to coordinate these
sometimes haphazard efforts and to
plan for the future. The commitment,
in view of the vast amount of work
to be done, cannot be part time. The
problems demand full-time expertise
and attention.
As the representative and citizen of
a district which has the dubious dis-
tinction of claiming within its bound-
aries a river that periodically catches
fire and which borders on a lake re-
ferred to as the "Dead Sea," I am
particularly concerned with measures
which would improve the condition of
these and similarly afflicted areas.
Water pollution, however, is far from
our sole environmental problem. The
state of the air in Cleveland is at
times barely breathable at best. This
unfortunate situation exists in vir-
tually all
[p. 26577]
our large industrialized metropolitan
complexes.
The residents of Cleveland are call-
ing for the amelioration of conditions,
as are concerned citizens throughout
our Nation. These interested individ-
uals may make strides privately or
may appeal to local and State govern-
ments, but access to sophisticated re-
search and development techniques
are limited. In addition, their goals,
in general, are specifically related to
immediate conditions. The formation
of the Council on Environmental Qual-
ity would function to coordinate these
efforts, lending their expertise with
a broad and independent overview of
current and long-term trends, saving
local interest groups duplication of
mistakes and apprising them of suc-
cess in other regions.
Last week 6,000 public works ex-
perts held meetings in Cleveland, pool-
ing ideas on how to cope with Ameri-
ca's environmental problems. Much
more needs to be done, however. An
annual meeting of this nature does
not lend itself to the free and effi-
cient flow of information.
I believe if we had had the annual
report on the status of the environ-
ment which this bill will produce, a
much greater understanding of the
problems would exist. And public un-
derstanding is basic to obtaining the
expenditures to restore and maintain
environmental quality. Our legislative
efforts in air, water, and solid waste
control, in land use planning, recre-
ation, and natural beauty, and other
environmental affairs have given us
a good start. The bill today will add
another powerful tool in the very
difficult task of improving our sur-
roundings while continuing to extract
a high standard of living.
I feel that the establishment of this
Council is essential and urge support
of H.R. 12549. The success of this
type of organization is everyone's
success in a world in which man can
be his own worst enemy.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
MINSHALL) .
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 12549, to es-
-------
506
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tablish a Council on Environmental
Quality.
We of the 20th century have leaped
technology barriers which for thou-
sands of years baffled and blockaded
mankind's progress. But in our haste
to expand and modernize our cities,
exploit our highways, airways, and
waterways, and to wrest from the
earth its crops and minerals, we have
forgotten the immutable law of na-
ture. All things must remain in bal-
ance or the harmony which makes
life not only tolerable but possible will
be destroyed.
Lake Erie is a tragic example of
the mindless abuse men have heaped
upon nature in the name of progress.
Many of you in this House who re-
member this lake from your youth
know that it was a productive, beau-
tiful body of water. Today it is near
death, its harvest of fish reduced only
to perch, its waters unfit for swim-
ming, and even when chemically salted
so that it is potable, so unappetizing
in color and aroma as to be scarcely
drinkable. It—and thousands of lakes,
streams, and rivers across the Na-
tion—are victims of "techno-illogical"
advance: The dumping of sewage, in-
dustrial waste, dredging and the run-
off of nitrogen fertilizers. Miles of
Erie are so choked with algae that
all other marine life is strangled, Ecol-
ogists tell us the lake is doomed if
immediate, massive help is not forth-
coming.
Water pollution continues to be one
of the Nation's most critical problems,
yet we are failing to meet the crisis.
And it is only one of the environ-
mental tragedies threatening our coun-
try. While algae and waste products
choke life from our waters, automo-
bile and industrial fumes are choking
life from the air we breathe. Manage-
ment of a knowledge of how contami-
nants flow, disperse and are converted
into other physical and chemical
forms, and how they can be contained.
Our knowledge is woefully scant in
this field but we do know that air
pollution is literally poisoning the
lungs of millions of urban dwellers.
We only are beginning to realize the
deadly dangers of pesticides and their
residual effects on the food we con-
sume. And we just are beginning to
recognize the long-term consequences
of the destruction of topsoil in strip
mining.
These problems demand the sort of
legislation we are acting on today, if
we are to reverse the collision course
with catastrophe we are following. I
am particularly- impressed by the
scope of the proposed Council—to set
forth "the status and condition of the
major natural, manmade, or altered
environmental classes of the Nation,
including, but not limited to, the
air, the aquatic, including marine,
estuarine, and fresh water, and the
terrestrial environment, land, range,
urban, suburban and rural environ-
ment."
I endorse this legislation whole-
heartedly and urge the House to give
H.R. 12549 its unanimous support.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to my good friend, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
DADDARIO) .
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the gentleman from
Michigan a question.
The gentleman in his earlier re-
marks referred to a bill in the Senate
which I presume was unanimously
passed and which I further presume
was the bill submitted by Senator
JACKSON.
Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is
correct and that bill is now on the
Speaker's desk.
Mr. DADDARIO. I had the impres-
sion that the gentleman referred to
that bill as being identical to the bill
now under consideration.
Mr. DINGELL. I said "substan-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
507
tially identical," or "substantially the
same."
Mr, DADDARIO. In being sub-
stantially identical, would the gentle-
man indicate whether or not this bill
includes in it title I of the bill which
was passed by the other body?
Mr. DINGELL. The bill now before
this body, I will say to my good friend,
the gentleman from Connecticut, does
not include the same policy statement,
but H.R. 12549 does include a policy
statement which the subcommittee and
the committee regarded as being ex-
tremely valuable in accomplishing the
thoughts set out in the policy state-
ment in the Senate bill.
Mr. DADDARTO. Mr. Chairman, it
is my feeling that the policy state-
ment which is included in the Senate
bill is an extremely important part
of that legislation, and that it ought
to be included in the legislation which
is passed here in the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. DINGELL, Mr. Chairman, I
yield 30 additional seconds to the
gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, it
is my intention to offer an amendment
for that purpose, and I intend to do
so unless I could have assurances here
that the committee in conference on
this particular matter would take into
serious consideration an adjustment
to the Senate position in this regard.
Mr. DINGELL. I have to say in re-
sponse to the inquiry of my good
friend, the gentleman from Connecti-
cut, that the conferees are not yet
constituted. If I happen to te a con-
feree I certainly will look with sym-
pathy with regard to the statement
of policy in the Senate version. But I
am sure the gentleman from Connecti-
cut is aware of the fact that the
managers on the part of the House
cannot go forward without specific
instructions from this body.
Mr. FELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DELLEN-
BACK).
Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that
far too infrequently do we have
measures which come before us which
are both important in concept and
ako urgent in concept. Sometimes we
deal with important matters that do
not appear urgent, and sometimes we
deal with urgent matters which on a
broad measure may not be truly im-
portant. But I think in this measure
today we have a measure which is
both truly important to the future of
this nation and which is also urgent.
In addition to that, if you will, we
have an issue about which many of
the people of this Nation are becom-
ing, I think understandably and prop-
erly, deeply concerned.
When we deal with this basic con-
cept of the environment we have some-
thing that we still can control in
America, and do something about, and
yet we have delayed in some areas
of this Nation far too long in doing
what we ought to be doing. We have
a hodgepodge of information. We have
a hodgepodge of tradition. We have a
hodgepodge of laws which sometimes
conflict with each other, and do not
go about dealing properly and effec-
tively with this problem which is a
nationwide problem, and not a prob-
lem of isolated areas. We do not deal
with it on a constant basis.
The bill that is before us dealing
with providing a Council on Environ-
mental Quality is an attempt to make
order out of chaos. I believe that we
in the House of Representatives would
be derelict if we did not view this
problem in its importance and in its
urgency, and pass this bill today.
[p. 26578]
-------
508
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
As a member of the subcommittee,
and as one of the cosponsors of the
bill, I urge my colleagues in the
House to join today in fast action by
approving H.R. 12549.
Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. ASPINALL).
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I
do not want to appear as a wet blan-
ket to what appears to be more or
less of a love feast going on in the
debate on the very important matter
before the Committee at this time.
I doubt if anybody can really take
exception to trying to protect our
environment and at the same time
trying to get man to realize his re-
sponsibility in protecting his environ-
ment and, also, at the same time to
fit man into the necessary environ-
ment of this world.
This is a very complex matter on
which we are spending a very limited
amount of time today. I think it is
only fair that the RECORD show how
it developed.
By Executive order of May 4, 1966,
the then President established the
President's Council on Recreation and
Natural Beauty, and at the same time
he established the Citizens' Advisory
Committee on Recreation and Natural
Beauty of which the distinguished
citizen of New York, Laurance Rocke-
feller, was appointed as Chairman.
Then by Executive order of May 29,
1969, the present President saw fit to
abolish the then existing Council and
Advisory Committee and established
the Environmental Quality Council,
and at the same time he established
the Citizens' Advisory Committee on
Environmental Quality and at such
time the President appointed the dis-
tinguished gentleman from New
York, Mr. Laurance Rockefeller, as
its Chairman.
Several of our colleagues in the
Congress, one of whom is our distin-
guished colleague from Michigan, Mr.
DINGELL, introduced bills in both
Houses seeking to have the Congress
of the United States assume some
responsibility in this matter.
It so happens that the matter of
jurisdiction is all wrapped up with
the five or six very important stand-
ing committees of the House of Rep-
resentatives. The same situation exists
in the other body. We find in this
body that the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs was given the
legislation having to do with legis-
lation that was presented in the other
body, and the Committee in the other
body on Interior and Insular Affairs
handled its own legislation and re-
ceived the approval of the other body.
Bui before they sent it over to the
House they struck the title of the bill
and inserted a new title which left it
open generally to all the committees
in the House having jurisdiction on
the subject of environment.
The distinguished Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries of
the House sent their own bill. They
got to work on it very effectively and
it is now before this committee for
consideration.
Because of various, I think, inade-
quacies and some controversy con-
cerning the legislation, I shall seek to
offer some amendments, only two or
three of which are of substantial im-
portance. The rest of them are clari-
fying amendments.
But I do think it is important to be
advised that the legislation is not
substantially identical as my good
friend, the gentleman from Michigan
states, to the Senate bill; that there is
quite a bit of variance between them.
But the differences between the two
are, in my opinion, such that they can
be ironed out by a conference commit-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
509
tee between the two Houses. I am re-
lying on that conference committee to
help to take care of these differences.
I would ask my distinguished friend,
the gentleman from Michigan, if he
considers after we have passed this
legislation—let us say that we do—
and the President of the United States
approves it, will there be any need
at that time for the existence of a
President's Environmental Council or
a Citizens' Advisory Committee or
Council on Environmental Quality?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ASPINALL. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. DINGELL. This matter was
discussed in considerable detail with
Dr. DuBridge, the President's Science
Adviser. At that time Dr. DuBridge
said there are two different functions,
and his full quotation will appear at
the bottom of page 4 and the top of
page 5 of the committee report,
wherein he pointed out that the func-
tion of a Cabinet-level advisory com-
mittee was one which could iron out
difficulties and differences within the
Cabinet, whereas the agency before
us now has a much broader function,
that is, one of establishing the whole
national policy in this area, reporting
to the Congress and providing an
interplay by and between the Con-
gress, the people, the President, and,
of course, the agency itself. I would
have to defer to the President as to
the matter of judgment as to whether
that particular agency should con-
tinue to exist or not. I think this is a
matter that will have to be taken care
of in conference, it so happens.
To date this body, the House of
Representatives of our Federal Con-
gress, has failed this year to provide
any funds for the continuance of the
activities of the President's own En-
vironmental Quality Council, and the
Citizens' Advisory Committee on En-
vironmental Quality headed by Mr.
Rockefeller. The reason we find our-
selves in this particular situation is
because there seems to be no authoriz-
ing legislation which would directly
authorize the appropriation.
I am sure the Subcommittee on
Appropriations of the House Com-
mittee on Appropriations would like
to make the appropriation if they had
some method of doing so. If there is
this need, we should take care of it in
conference.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. SAYLOR).
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly support H.R. 12549, to
establish a Presidential Council on
Environmental Quality. It will be a
most useful step in focusing the
people's attention on the urgent need
to stem the steadily deteriorating
physical birthright of this generation
of Americans and generations to come.
The fact that our environment is
really an interacting ecological system
of dependent parts must be acknowl-
edged and our efforts to restore it
must be immediate and thorough.
We can and must restore the in-
tegrity of our natural environment. I
would therefore hope that the Council
on Environmental Quality, when cre-
ated, will act as an ardent advocate of
the need to protect our besieged nat-
ural resources, and not merely as a
study group.
The establishment of a Council by
the President will give Mr. Nixon
the opportunity to seize the initiative
in restoring the quality of our en-
vironment.
He must not fail this important
-------
510
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
responsibility, so that there will be a
commitment to the establishment of a
livable, decent environment by other
political leaders, by scientists, and
private citizens. The progress of tech-
nology must take into consideration
the needs of the community.
The Ninth Congressional District of
Illinois, which I represent, is in many
respects a cross-section of urban
America. It stretches along Lake
Michigan from the Chicago River to
the northern city limits containing a
rich mixture of ethnic and cultural
communities, teeming with life and
a desire to make things better. There
are industries, factories, universities,
elegant stores on Michigan Avenue
and small shopping areas. All in all,
the Ninth Congressional District is
one of America's unique places.
But my constituents, as the price
they pay for living in a thriving in-
dustrial center like Chicago, are
forced to breathe air that is little less
than poisonous. In the United States
only New York's air, if one can so
designate its envelope of pollution, is
dirtier. There are Federal, State and
local air pollution statutes, but so far,
in spite of these, the situation is only
beginning to be checked. Unclean air
takes its toll in respiratory diseases,
in cleaning and laundry bills, in
building exteriors which are covered
with layer upon layer of industrial
grime and soot.
Invasion of our part of the lake
from the north and the south has been
threatening for some time. This sum-
mer that part of the Lake Michigan
shoreline which forms the eastern
limit of the ninth district was suitable
for swimming. But to the north and
to the south along that same shoreline
a dip in the lake involved the risk
of bacterial infection. Unless some
action is taken soon to reverse the
spread of pollution in the southern end
[p. 26579]
of Lake Michigan, my constituents
will be subjected to that risk which
is a shocking and unacceptable de-
velopment. The invading contamina-
tion must be hurled back no matter
what the cost for the lake as a na-
tional as well as our local treasure.
Industrial polluters must be held to
their responsibilities for a prompt
cleanup.
But air and water pollution are only
two environmental problems with
which urban Americans are faced. It
is up to us to make our cities cleaner,
quieter, less crowded, and more
human. We have some basic rethink-
ing to do if we are even going to have
a chance of making it all work.
For instance, we are going to have
to learn how to recycle our industrial
waste products instead of pouring
them into the air or into our water
supplies where they act as pollutants.
To cite a single example, we vent into
the atmosphere each year approxi-
mately 12 million tons of sulfur worth
half a billion dollars. During that
same year we extract 16 million tons
of sulfur from the earth to support
our modern civilization. The reasoning
behind that paradox is that it is less
expensive to mine new sulfur than it
is to recover the old sulfur from in-
dustrial wastes. But somehow nobody
mentions that pollution costs this
Nation more than $20 billion annually
in strictly economic terms. Its human
costs are incalculable.
We have to recognize the useless-
ness of passing new air pollution legis-
lation on the one hand and building
new highways into the city on the
other. What is accomplished if a new
air pollution law cuts down the hydro-
carbon content of automobile exhaust
by 10 percent while new highways
concentrate 10 percent more vehicles
in the cities?
In the past we have always as-
sumed that our water resources should
be used to absorb industrial wastes,
and in many instances the result has
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
511
been to make them useless for any
other function. The situation has
reached the point now in the area of
water quality that we must demand
that nondegradation standards be
adopted nationwide. A nondegrada-
tion standard means quite simply that
any further degrading of the present
state of water quality anywhere in
the country is against the law.
Mr. Bertram C. Raynes, vice presi-
dent of the Rand Development Corp.,
says of industrial polluters:
The only sensible policy now is to force
them to take care of their wastes properly.
Simply to require that the water they dump
be pure, regardless of its condition when
they receive it. That the gases they vent be
free of pollution. That their spoil doesn't
in turn despoil other property or remain ugly,
regardless of how poor the area might have
been when they undertook their operations.
Instead of comforting the public with state-
ments to the effect that "there is no evidence
that these pollutants have unfavorable effects
upon humans," let's see some evidence that
they are definitely not harmful.
When Congressmen brought up the
inadequacy of technology to combat
pollution in some cases, and asked
Mr. Raynes whether he thought the
laws should be passed anyway, he
answered simply:
Necessity has always been the father of
technology.
But no matter how much we do to
make our cities more livable, they
will remain cities. Hopefully, they
will be a little cleaner and a little
quieter—but they will still be crowded
centers of activity. Cities will still
have more cultural than rural areas—
more diversity, more dissension—
more people, and more pressure.
Thus, in addition to improving the
quality of urban life we must provide
an alternative to it for those times
when a man's spirit demands respite
from the rigors and frustration of
city living. More areas will have to
be set aside within and near urban
areas where a man can take his family
for an afternoon or a weekend or a
camping trip during the summer. As
our population grows, more recrea-
tion areas and parks will be required
so that every American child will
have the opportunity to see a duck
take flight from a pond and learn the
difference between an oak and a
maple.
And, finally, we have to develop a
new respect for our wilderness areas.
As Americans, we should remember
that our Nation was conceived in the
wilderness and was shaped in charac-
ter by the interaction of civilization
and the natural frontier. Thus far in
our history we have too often looked
on the wilderness areas of our coun-
try—the vast stands of primeval
woodlands, the powerful rivers and
clear streams, the mountains and the
valleys—as places where nature can
be converted into profits. We have
been trading away chunks of our nat-
ural heritage for short-term economic
advantage.
We have forgotten that wilderness
is to be valued for its own sake, as a
place where man can learn about his
world and his place in it. Many of our
remaining wilderness areas are unique
ecological systems whose balance of
interaction between various animal
and plant species and the physical en-
vironment can never be restored once
it is impaired by a new road, a new
airport, a mine, or a logging opera-
tion. There are many wilderness areas
in the United States—the Everglades,
the Great Swamp in New Jersey, the
Cascades, the Indiana Dunes, to men-
tion just a few. We must protect them
all.
We must reject the conventional
wisdom that there is something inevi-
table about the whittling away of
nature's wonders. Instead, as David
Brower has urged:
We shall seek a renewed stirring of love
for the earth; we shall urge that what man
is capable of doing to the earth ifl not always
-------
512
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
what he ought to do; and we shall plead that
all Americans, here, now, determine that a
wide spacious, untrammeled freedom shall
remain in the midst of the American earth
as living testimony that this generation, our
own, had love for the next.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee, our dis-
tinguished colleague, the gentleman
from Colorado, has explained one of
the difficulties which has arisen with
regard to this bill. I am satisfied that
one of the responsibilities of the Con-
gress is to establish whatever national
commissions are in order. We have
established others, and the mere fact
that the President and prior Presi-
dents have established councils or
commissions on environmental quality
should not deter this body from prop-
erly passing legislation granting
congressional sanctions. I believe it
is the responsibility of the Congress
to legislate and the Executive to carry
out the mandates of the Congress.
The bill before us was so drafted
that it amended the Pish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, and as such, went
to the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries. The bill, S.
1075, which passed the other body and
is now on the Speaker's desk, and that
bill which has been supported by other
Members of this body, merely author-
izes the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct these investigations relative
to the Nation's ecology, its ecological
systems, natural resources, and en-
vironmental quality, and to establish
a Council on Environmental Quality,
and called for reports by that Council
to the Congress.
As a result of meetings between the
members of the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee and the House
Interior and Insular Affairs Com-
mittee, practically all the difficulties
between these two bills have been
worked out, and as Mr. ASPINALL ex-
plained he has a series of perfecting
amendments which will, in substance,
change the bill so that it will become,
rather than an amendment to the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
a substantive piece of legislation in
and of itself, establishing a Council
on Environmental Quality.
This Council on Environmental
Quality will, I believe, be of great im-
portance. I shall tell Members just a
few of the reasons why. Its work will
be absolutely necessary if mankind is
to survive, and we are to be informed
by some of the outstanding ecologists
in this country and in the world on
how to establish a balance in our
environment between our exploding
population and the depletion of our
natural resources in order to permit
a continued high standard of living
and the ability to share many of
life's amenities. Up until this point
we have not tried to have any sched-
ule or any program to consider the
total environment of this country or
even how it relates to other countries
of the world.
I think it is necessary because in
this country we are also exhausting
some of our depletable resources, and
I think it is necessary for a Council
on Environmental Quality to study
these depletions to determine what is
the right manner in which various
resources should be depleted—some
faster than others probably.
These are the kinds of problems
that this Council can and must solve,
and must report on to the Congress,
because the Founding Fathers in-
tended this body of the Capitol to
legislate on matters affecting the peo-
ple.
For these reasons, and, with the
amendments which will be proposed
by the chairman of the House Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
I support this legislation and ask
that it have the united support of all
Members of this body.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
[p. 26580]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
513
such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. GOODLING).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this bill.
Conserving our natural resources is
becoming our No. 1 domestic problem.
When we destroy our environment, we
destroy everything.
While various agencies may be
working on this problem, we hope the
Council, authorized under this bill,
will be able to coordinate all work in
this most important field.
I urge the passage of H.R. 12549.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 12549, to provide for
the establishment of a Council on En-
vironmental Quality.
It is because of my conviction that
a Council of this type is necessary
that I authored a proposal identical
to the one by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) and others
that we are debating today. I do not
believe that we can any longer afford
to give our environment little more
than passing attention. There are
those who already feel that because
of population pressures, new technol-
ogy and an inadequate public and
private desire, we are, in fact, al-
ready overwhelmed by the problem.
Last week, Col. Edwin Aldrin stood
before us in this very Chamber and
stated:
The Apollo lesson is that national goals
can be met where there is a strong enough
will to do so.
The passage of this legislation
should signal that we do have the will
to preserve our environment.
It would establish a Council whose
sole purpose is to consider implica-
tions for our environment when
decisions are made by the private
sector of our economy and by other
departments and units of Government.
For too long we have given economic
considerations greater weight than
environmental considerations and the
result is surely becoming obvious for
even the most shortsighted among us
—a tasteless environment and an in-
jured one.
Some questions have been raised
about this proposal on the grounds
that this new Council will conflict
with the Interagency Environmental
Council recently established by the
President. They say that there is no
real difference between the tasks or
the organizations of the two. I do
not believe this is true.
One difference concerns the com-
position of the President's Council.
That Cabinet-level Council is com-
posed of very busy men with vast
governmental agencies to run. That
committee cannot be expected to do
the long-range planning and does not
have the training and expertise
needed to delve into the complex prob-
lems of the environment.
The other difference is one which
any legislator who has ever dealt with
a bureaucratic department should un-
derstand. Any department of Govern-
ment is concerned first of all with the
programs within its jurisdiction and
only secondarily with the implications
which the carrying out of its pro-
grams have on other areas of con-
cern. The great danger presented by
an interagency Council of the type
proposed by the President is that
when you get people from various
Government departments sitting down
at the same table they will be tempted
to say to each other, "you stay out
of my bureaucratic backyard, and I
will stay out of yours."
As a consequence of that attitude,
environmental considerations will be
given little weight. The main goal of
each of the participants is likely to
be the protection of his jurisdiction
from outside interference rather than
the preservation of our environment.
-------
514
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
This problem is not necessarily
unique to the question of environment.
In Wisconsin several years ago we
faced the same argument in the field
of mental health.
When considering whether to have
an interagency committee on mental
health or a coordinating committee
on mental health with outside experts
as members, the Wisconsin legislative
committee which recommended the
creation of the advisory committee
said:
It is apparent that stimulation and co-
ordination in the field of mental health is
imperative; this stimulation and coordina-
tion cannot be expected from one of the
departments engaged in mental health activi-
ties nor from a commission composed ex-
clusively of representatives from the depart-
ments involved.
In addition to the need for stimulation and
coordination, there is a need for constant
evaluation and research of all mental health
activities and programs.
These words are as true for a con-
sideration of the environment as for
the consideration of mental health
problems.
Stimulation into new avenues of re-
search can only come from the out-
side because it is impossible for those
who are involved with departmental
programs to evaluate them without
bias. It would be unlikely, to say the
least, to expect an individual to en-
gage in a critical review of another
department or policy if that person
knows he will be subject to the same
critical review by his colleagues a
few days later. Evaluation of govern-
ment programs is a sensitive job anc
one which cannot be carried out effec-
tively solely by those who have a
special stake in the outcome. For
these reasons, while I commend the
President for his initial action, I fee
the Congress must take further steps
This bill would minimize bureau
cratic back scratching. For that rea
son, I strongly support the measur(
before us today. I congratulate thi
•entleman from Michigan (Mr. DIN-
JELL) and the other authors of the
egislation, and I would like to es-
jecially commend the members of the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com-
mittee and its able chairman, the
•entleman from Maryland (Mr. GAR-
MATZ).
There is more that can be done in
environmental quality and I would
ike to see a stronger bill. But this
'egislation will be a good first step in
our newly found willingness to attack
;he environmental problems before it
is too late.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to my good friend the
gentleman from New York (Mr.
BIAGGI).
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, this
bill, H.R. 12549, is another valuable
contribution from the Congress to the
array of administrative forces against
pollution and other threats to the
continued quality and productivity of
our environment. These two concepts
are the essence of the issue. Quality—
because we must restore and main-
tain the diversity and vitality of all
the living landscape. Productivity—be-
cause we are a burgeoning technolog-
ical society with great dependence
on natural resources. If we cannot
harmonize our civilization with the
principle of ecology then nature, and
not mankind, will ultimately dictate
the course of events.
I have been proud of the leader-
ship shown by the Congress in en-
vironmental affairs. The Air Quality
Act and the Water Quality Act were
developed over a decade of legislation.
Scenic rivers and scenic trails laws
have originated in this branch of
Government. Modern agricultural
practice, mining and forestry laws,
and natural beauty protection have
evolved from the hearings and de-
bates of various committees.
Thus, the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality is one more necessary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
515
governmental institution, the need for
which has been recognized by the
Congress. This is not to disparage in
any way the efforts of the President
and his Cabinet coordinating group.
The support of the executive agencies
is essential if action programs are to
be carried out in consonance with a
natural policy for environmental en-
hancement.
But an advisory council such as
provided by this bill, with a statutory
link to the Congress and an independ-
ence from Federal departments, will
fill a unique role. It will collect, eval-
uate, and present authoritative data
in an annual report on the status of
the environment. It will serve as a
channel of information from State
and local governments, private in-
dustry, and citizens groups. It will
take a long-range view with no need
to sacrifice our natural heritage to
political or economic expediency.
I strongly endorse the Council on
Environmental Quality and urge the
adoption of this measure.
Mr. MINISH. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to support H.R. 12549, a bill
providing for the establishment of a
Council on Environmental Quality
within the Executive Office of the
President.
Not only is pollution worsening, but
so far we have not done anything to
insure the ecology problems are care-
fully studied. It is not enough to dip
cleansing agents into a stream, or try
to swish the air clear with a spray.
To achieve the desirable result, the
eventual affects of such actions upon
living organisms must be studied. I
believe H.R. 12549 makes a good start
in this direction.
The Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, which reported out H.R.
12549, says:
The problem is deep and it touches on
practically every aspect of everyday life,
economic, scientific, technological, legal and
even interpersonal ... it is a problem which
we can no longer afford to treat as of sec-
ondary importance ... if we are to reverse
what seems to be a clear and intensifying
trend toward environmental degradation.
[p. 26581]
These significant facts must be
acknowledged.
The administration has recently
established an Inter-Cabinet Environ-
mental Quality Control Council. How-
ever, it is presently clear that the
Secretaries of the Interior, Agricul-
ture, Health, Education, and Welfare,
Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Commerce, together
with the Vice President and the Pres-
ident, all of whom will serve on the
Council, will have little enough time
to devote to the subject of a stable
and healthful environment.
Science Advisor Dr. Lee A. Du-
Bridge has testified that he hopes to
have a staff of six professionals and
an equal number of supporting cleri-
cal staff assigned to this Council. The
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries has suggested 55 profession-
als and 20 to 30 clericals as a work-
able number of members for the
Council on Environmental Quality set
up under H.R. 12549. Although it is
good to know that the administration
is interested in this overriding issue,
I would be set more to ease were I
to know that the Congress had shown
its intent by setting up a Council
with its complement of staff. The staff
under this Act would entirely devote
itself to the problems at hand.
At recent hearings on H.R. 12549,
Dr. David M. Gates, director of the
Missouri Botanical Gardens and chair-
man of the board of advisers to the
Ad Hoc Committee on the Environ-
ment, said:
It is not unlikely that our generation or
the next one or perhaps the one after will
have reached the pinnacle of quality and
after that it will be a downhill slide. There
is a finite amount of energy to be consumed.
There are a finite number of resources.
-------
516
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Something must be done. That is
why I support H.R. 12549 unreserved-
ly. Too much is at stake.
Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Chairman, I
am one of the sponsors of this bill
and I enthusiastically support the
purposes and the goal which it seeks
to achieve.
Very simply, the bill creates a
Council of five members appointed by
the President, who will analyze en-
vironmental information and recom-
mend national policy to promote the
improvement of our environmental
quality. The Council will report di-
rectly to the President and he, in
turn, will report the findings and rec-
ommendations to the Congress.
I have no doubt that such a Council
is necessary. The President has many
advisers available to him with knowl-
edgeable experience in all fields. He
does not, however, have a panel of
advisers whose main concern is the
environmental problems of our Nation
and the world. For the sake of our
Nation's health, it is imperative that
he have this advice.
As has been stated previously, man-
kind is playing an extremely danger-
ous game with his environment. Un-
less he stops, unless he changes his
ways, he faces a strong possibility of
extinction. Our industrial revolution
has given us a significant technologi-
cal progress that staggers the imagi-
nation. But along with benefits it
has brought detriments and we must
realize this.
Jamestown Island, the site of the
first landing of the colonists in Amer-
ica, lies within my district. Several
years ago, a well-known artist was
commissioned to paint the scene of
the three small ships at anchor in the
James River as it appeared over 350
years ago. He did so, executing a
beautiful painting showing the tiny
ships on a blue James River. I am
told the local committee questioned ac-
cepting it because, as every one
knows, the James River is grayish in
color—not blue. When the artist was
questioned, he sincerely answered, "It
was blue then." We shall not see a
blue James River again but hopefully
it will not get any grayer.
Man must learn to live in harmony
with his changing environment. This
bill is a step in the right direction.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I
am pleased to support H.R. 12549, a
bill to create a Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and I congratulate the
chairman and committee for report-
ing it to the House. This legislation
will provide for a permanent agency
in the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent to work toward a national policy
to relate man and his work to the
total environment.
This is an important first step in
defining protected areas where Ameri-
cans can live and enjoy happy and
productive lives. The five-member
Council will be charged with insuring
our citizens of open and naturally at-
tractive areas they and their children
and future generations can enjoy.
The population explosion, the move-
ment from the towns to the cities,
natural changes and industrialization
have transformed our Nation into an
environmental hobgoblin.
We are now living a nonquality life
because our builders and leaders have
moved too fast with brick and mortar
with little regard to what changes
have been made in our living space.
It is primarily a matter of how fast or how
long one wishes to live at certain quality.
Dr. David M. Gates, director of the
Missouri Botanical Gardens, said in
the hearings on the bill—
One can live high and short or slow and
long. Civilization cannot do both.
It is obvious we are living high and
short. We are doing this with little
planning and thinking about the qual-
ity of our lives. I like what Don Mar-
quis wrote:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
517
If the world were not so full of people, and
most of them did not have to work so hard,
there would be more time for them to get out
and lie on the grass, and there would be more
grass for them to lie on.
What we are considering today is
where the grass will be in another
generation. I believe this bill, which
is similar to one I introduced in the
89th, 90th and 91st Congresses—to
provide for a study of our ecology—
will develop the type of program and
national policy to make sure we will
live in "America the Beautiful."
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman,
the bill under consideration reflects
the broad concern of the public and
of the Congress over the quality and
productivity of our natural environ-
ment. It seems quite probable to me
that we will pass some version of this
legislation. I intend to vote for it.
However, there is a serious defi-
ciency in the bill as reported out of
the committee in that it lacks a state-
ment of national environmental policy
as presently interpreted by the Con-
gress. Not to include such a state-
ment would be to miss a great oppor-
tunity to lead this Nation out of the
complex of program objectives which
bring about present environmental
degradation. The resolution of con-
flicting agency activities cannot be
accomplished easily unless there is a
commonly accepted policy guideline.
If the House does not endorse a
policy position today, I am sure we
will be faced with such a requirement
when this bill goes to conference with
the Senate. It is unnecessary and im-
proper that we be put in that position
since the diverse hearings of the past
few years before several House com-
mittees have established the basic
principles of environmental policy.
When we held hearings on En-
vironmental Council bills before our
Science Research and Development
Subcommittee in 1968, we deferred
action at that time because it was not
clear as to what organizational
changes would be made in the execu-
tive branch. Last summer, in the.
Joint House-Senate Colloquium on a
National Policy for the Environment,
it became apparent that, regardless of
organization, a strong policy state-
ment was desirable and that it was the
responsibility of the Congress to take
the lead in formulating this policy.
The report from the colloquium sug-
gested elements of national policy and
these were forwarded by me for com-
ment to the administration. On April
24, 1969, I received a detailed reply
from the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent endorsing the congressional pol-
icy suggestions and adding several
important elements. I inserted this
correspondence in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD on May 20, 1969, page 13148.
The general agreement on these ele-
ments of policy was further evidenced
by the language in title I of S. 1075,
passed by the Senate and sent to the
House in July 1969. Believing that
particular words are unimportant as
long as the principles are the same, I
adopted title I of S. 1075 as title I of
my bill, H.R. 13272, the Environmen-
tal Quality and Productivity Act of
1969, introduced for myself and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MOSHEE)
on August 1, 1969. On that date I
documented in detail the 3-year his-
tory of our committee work in en-
vironmental affairs—CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, August 1, 1969, page 12828.
The Members of this House must
recognize the great interdependence of
man and his environment and the ul-
timate requirement for harmony be-
tween his actions and ecological prin-
ciples. We should recognize a human
right to a healthful environment and
a personal responsibility for pres-
ervation and enhancement of these
values.
We must call on all agencies to
conform their activities to these policy
statements. This directive should pro-
-------
518
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
vide an administrative route for re-
dress of grievances by citizens groups
who now
[p. 26582]
must go to court in order to bring
the rights for environmental quality
into balance with Federal or private
operations.
The original of national policy for
the environment can be traced back
over the past several years. There
was apparent a growing concern of
citizens everywhere that the earlier
guidelines of economic exploitation
were yielding byproducts of determi-
nation, pollution, and esthetic offense.
Many organizations in government
and the private sector began studies
and programs to describe the cause
and effect relationships between so-
ciety's actions and environmental
quality. At the same time, increased
productivity from the landscape was
demanded by a growing world popula-
tion and desire for higher living
standards. These studies found that
environmental quality and produc-
tivity go hand in hand. In fact, In
the long run the most productive
environment is one which Is kept at
a high state of quality.
Therefore I call on the sponsors of
the subject bill to include a strong
policy statement when this bill comes
back to the House from the conference
committee. In doing so, the House
will stand with the Senate in a posi-
tion of leadership, serving notice on
the executive agencies which come
before our various committees that
the entire Congress has agreed to
restore, maintain, and enhance the
quality of air, water, and land re-
sources for continued productivity and
enjoyment of our society far into the
future.
Mr. Chairman, the bill being con-
sidered under the rule would author-
ize the President to appoint a five-
man Council on Environmental Qual-
ity. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
ASPINALL) would omit the necessity
of the President seeking the advice
and consent of the Senate for these
appointments.
In my opinion, the amended bill
would also leave the President free to
appoint at least five members of his
present Citizen's Advisory Committee
on Environmental Quality to the
newly established Council on Environ-
mental Quality. Such flexibility would
satisfy, to a degree, the provisions in
my bill, H.R. 13272, which would have
provided a statutory base for the
Citizen's Advisory Committee on En-
vironmental Quality. My purpose was
to preserve the momentum of execu-
tive branch activities recently initi-
ated by the existing cabinet council
and the citizens advisory group. I
have been concerned that the con-
gressional action under discussion
might be viewed as confusing, dupli-
cative, and unnecessary. However, if
my interpretation is acceptable, the
valuable talents in the group headed
by Mr. Laurance Rockefeller could
continue to serve as a channel for
public and congressional inputs. The
bill would provide staff services, just
as was intended in my proposal.
Adequate help in gathering and
interpreting the factual data base for
environmental management decisions
is essential. I would agree that the
Office of Science and Technology, with
its present limited budget must be
augmented. This is not to say that
Dr. Lee DuBridge, Dr. John Buckley,
and other staff members involved are
not extremely valuable in this role.
They are doing excellent work and
we must give them more assistance.
There is a question in my mind as
to whether full-time service on the
Council established by this bill is
necessary. The role of the Council Is
in long-range planning and to act as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
519
a watchdog for the public and the
Congress on the activities of the
Federal departments. The best per-
sons for these tasks may not be avail-
able to serve full time but would be
willing and able to contribute on a
part-time basis as does the present
advisory committee. As I read the
bill there is no requirement that the
Council members serve full time, hav-
ing no other employment.
Another minor problem in this bill
is that the President has named his
Cabinet group the Environmental
Quality Council. This bill creates an
independent Council on Environmental
Quality. The obvious confusion in
names for these groups with distinctly
different duties is unfortunate. I
would hope that the sponsors of the
bill would in conference rename the
congressionally established group as
something other than a council.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, be-
cause it is unquestionably in the im-
mediate and long range urgent na-
tional interest I am supporting this
bill before us, H.R. 12459, to create a
Council on Environmental Quality
and I hope the House will overwhelm-
ingly approve it without extended
delay. This measure recognizes and
responds to the imperative necessity
to legislatively initiate a strong, in-
dependent review of our total environ-
ment, the causes by which that en-
vironment has become increasingly
dangerous to human life from pollu-
tion and poison and the means
through which we may begin to meet
these dangers in order to prevent our
own unwitting self-extinction.
Let us emphasize that, at present,
there is no unit or commission or
other body in existence that can pro-
vide this Nation and our Government
with an abstract, critical appraisal of
various Federal programs and activ-
ities related to the environment and
from which we could receive broad
policies and recommendations for ex-
pedient improvement of our environ-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, it is universally
recognized and admitted that our com-
plex environmental issues and an-
swers require legal, economic, social,
management and systems analysis as
well as scientific study in order to be
of realistic value and effect.
Every school child and adult in this
country is well aware that the ad-
vance of modern technology, however
great its material benefits, has been
unrestrained in its accompanying af-
flictions upon us through byproducts
that increasingly poison our air and
pollute our waters. The Federal Gov-
ernment has spent vast sums of money
on different aspects of and approaches
to this critical national problem. Yet
there is no independent source of re-
view of the total environmental situa-
tion nor any agency to provide the
President and the Congress with an
estimation of the priorities that should
be assigned and the activities that
should be coordinated to meet and
overcome this problem.
In considering this measure before
us, the House is demonstrating its in-
terest and concern that every Ameri-
can has a fundamental and inalien-
able right to a healthful environment.
In approving this bill the House will
be fulfilling its legislative duty of in-
suring that this right will become a
reality in the most prudent manner
at the earliest date. I most earnestly
urge my colleagues therefore to speed-
ily adopt this measure which I believe
is imperative to the public interest
and our national survival.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, it
is a pleasure to rise in support of H.R.
12549, the bill to establish an Envi-
ronmental Quality Council.
I think we are all pretty much in
agreement in this House on the need
for such a Council. All we need to do
is pick up the newspapers or take a
good look around us and we read or
-------
520
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
we see deterioration of our environ-
ment. For the most part, it is a deteri-
oration caused by man.
We are only now beginning to feel
the impact of overpopulation. We
know that the effects of this problem
place great stress on our existing
institutions and facilities. Our real
problem is trying to produce goods
and services sufficient and suitable to
man's needs.
We read of smog-filled cities and of
polluted waters, a serious danger not
only to mankind, but also to all wild-
life and plantlife. We continue, almost
unchecked to mar and deface our land-
scape and to ruin and destroy the few
remnants of natural beauty remaining.
We know the dangers of radioactivity
and nuclear testing; dredging and fill-
ing of productive estuaries; drainage
of wetlands; deforestation and soil
erosion; defacing of land through
stripmining; and ground water deple-
tion.
Such development must no longer
be allowed to go unchecked. We are
fast becoming a victim of our own
technology and progress. Man and
his environment are vital to each
other; the development and protection
of one is dependent on the develop-
ment and protection of the other.
The proposed five-man Council
would provide a broad and independ-
ent overview of existing and potential
problems that affect the quality of
our environment. The bill would also
require the Council to report annually
to the President on the status of
various aspects of the American en-
vironment. The President is required
by this act to submit an annual report
to Congress on the condition of the
environment, current and long-range
trends, utilizing the environment, and
an evaluation of the impact on these
trends on national requirements. The
Council itself would maintain a con-
tinuous review of Federal policies
and activities that influence environ-
mental quality and will have the
authority to conduct studies that are
deemed necessary to carry out its
mandate. I feel-that the establishment
of an independent Council will also
assist in the coordination of various
Federal programs and provide a
means in assisting in resolving in-
ternal policy disputes. The Council,
in short, will provide additional
[p. 26583]
assistance for both the President and
Congress in meeting the environmen-
tal problems that have been created
by advancing technology.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this
bill to establish an Environmental
Quality Council is a most valuable
addition to attempt to solve the most
serious problems of environmental
pollution. I urge the adoption of this
measure by this Chamber.
Mr. FREY. Mr. Chairman, even as
we gather here today, the quality of
man's environment on earth is slowly
decreasing. While such ecological dis-
asters as the ruptured oil well off the
Santa Barbara coast make the head-
lines and bring about a national con-
cern, we must also be concerned about
the environment on a long-range
basis. The deterioration of the various
facets of man's environment is becom-
ing more and more noticeable. The
coastal zone which surrounds so much
of Florida is a prime example of this
deterioration. Pollution of outlying
regions and its effect on inland
waterways, the washing away of liter-
ally hundreds of feet of beautiful
beaches by waves, hurricane damage
and the incorrect utilization of the
delicately balanced ecology which
forms the habitat of important fish
and wildlife are only a few examples.
Marine environmental problems and
their solutions will become even
greater as private industry more and
more realizes the wealth which lies
beneath the ocean floor. And this is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
521
only one of our environments. One of
the more important general questions
relative to man's environment is
whether or not the world's population
will have enough to eat in the 21st
century and beyond.
Our Federal, State, and local gov-
ernments have spent great amounts
of money in efforts to define the
various problems In the environment
and then arrive at workable solutions.
This bill, H.R. 12549, will provide us
for the first time with a council which
will make an independent review of
the total environmental situation and
provide both the President and Con-
gress with an estimation of the pri-
orities which should be assigned to
the various aspects of the problem.
I urge your support of the legislation.
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I
am supporting the bill (H.R. 12549)
to provide for the establishment of a
permanent Presidential Council on
Environmental Quality. This bill is
an important first step in formulating
a national policy for environmental
quality.
The Council on Environmental
Quality would oversee Federal, State,
and local programs aimed at improv-
ing the environment and would assist
the President in the preparation of an
annual message to the Congress on
the state of the environment, just as
the Council of Economic Advisers
assists the President with his annual
message on the state of the economy.
We welcome these legislative steps
toward the creation of a national
policy for environmental quality and
a governmental capability to imple-
ment that policy. I am especially
gratified that this bill under consider-
ation includes essential provisions of
my own bill, H.R. 13826, for environ-
mental quality improvement. A per-
manent Presidential Council on En-
vironmental Quality, as recommended
both in my bill and in the one now
under consideration, must be estab-
lished to oversee and coordinate the
multiple and often conflicting pro-
grams pursued by the different levels
of government to improve different
aspects of the environment.
We need to develop on the part of
Government an anticipatory capabil-
ity; we need to go beyond reacting to
specific crisis situations in the en-
vironmental field. It is far cheaper in
human, social, and economic terms to
anticipate these problems at an early
stage and to find alternatives before
they require the massive expenditures
which we are now obligated to make
to control water, air and land pollu-
tion.
My own bill was tailored to begin
developing this anticipatory capabil-
ity and I would hope that future legis-
lation in this field would follow this
route. To achieve this anticipatory
capability I recommended that the
Secretary of the Interior be author-
ized to conduct studies of natural en-
vironmental systems in the United
States, to document and define
changes in these systems, and to de-
velop and maintain an inventory of
natural resource development projects
which may make significant modifica-
tions in the natural environment.
Further, I recommended that the
Secretary of the Interior be directed
to establish a clearinghouse for in-
formation on ecological problems and
to disseminate information about pro-
grams related to those problems.
Also, I recommended that the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare be authorized to establish a
comprehensive solid waste manage-
ment program which would coordinate
all such research now being done
under a number of different Federal
programs. Another recommendation of
mine directed the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to compile a
national inventory of solid waste
management needs and problems and
-------
522
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
of solid waste management tech-
nology.
In addition, I recommended that
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare establish a clearing-
house for information on all aspects
of air, water and soil pollution and
solid waste disposal. This information
would be made available to business,
industry and municipalities, and the
general public. These are the kind of
provisions which would help to de-
velop an anticipatory capability and
I would hope that future legislation
in the environmental field would in-
clude them.
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the
ever-increasing expanse of mankind
and man's undirected use of technol-
ogy pose a direct and definite threat
to man's very existence.
The tragedy of Lake Erie and the
Potomac River are but limited exam-
ples of man's shortsighted use of
technology. Technology that was im-
plemented for the betterment of man's
condition and quality of life has
created problems of air, land, and
water use that threaten to cause ir-
reparable harm to his environment.
The Federal Government has spent
vast sums of money in recent years
in an effort to meet a limited number
of these problems and will likely in-
crease its efforts in the future. How-
ever, at present, there is not an inde-
pendent agency or review board that
can review the total environmental sit-
uation or provide the President or
Congress with an estimation of the
priorities which must be assigned to
different aspects of the problem.
There are numerous instances, such
as the Peripheral Canal project in
California, where a Federal project
designed to deal with the need for an
expanded water supply in the south-
ern California region may not have
fully taken into consideration the
effect of the water removal on the
Sacramento River Basin.
This bill would require the Presi-
dent to transmit to the Congress an
annual environmental quality report
concerning the status of various as-
pects of the American environment
and their impact on other national re-
quirements.
The bill would also require the
Council to maintain a continuing re-
view of Federal policies and activi-
ties with environmental implications.
When a Federal project, such as the
Peripheral Canal project, irreversibly
Changes the ecology of a vast region
there needs to be in-depth study of
the total environmental effects of such
a program.
On May 29 of this year the Presi-
dent, by Executive order, created an
interdepartmental Council on Environ-
mental Quality. While there is a defi-
nite need for an interdepartmental
Council to resolve internal policy con-
flicts between mission oriented execu-
tive agencies, that is not the purpose
of this legislation.
There is a definite need for a con-
sistent and expert source of review
of national policies, environmental
problems and trends, both long and
short term. The problems that need to
be solved are several times larger
than those which can be adequately
dealt with by this interdepartmental
Council. In addition, they are prob-
lems which will require full-time
expertise and attention—expertise and
attention which ought not to be de-
voted to other problems.
An overwhelming need exists for
action to be taken in this area. No
other organization, in existence or
contemplated shows any sign of meet-
ing that need. It is for that reason
that I urge immediate passage of this
legislation, H.R. 12549.
Mr. BOLAND, Mr. Chairman, the
bill which is before this House today,
calling for the creation of a Council
on Environmental Quality, is one
which deserves the support and ap-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
523
proval of every Member of Congress.
Its purpose is one which has far too
long been delayed. The issues it pro-
poses to tackle are far too critical for
the quality of life to allow us to fur-
ther postpone this necessary first step
toward effective control and improve-
ment of our environment. We must
act.
H.R. 12549 is not a complicated bill.
Its primary purpose is the creation of
a five-man council whose mission will
be a continuing study and assessment
of factors and trends affecting the
quality of our environment. It will
prepare and
[p. 26584]
submit to the President an annual
report on its activities, and assist
him in the preparation of an annual
President's report to the Congress on
environmental quality, which is called
for in the bill., The council will also
maintain a continuing review of Fed-
eral activities and programs affecting
the environment, and keep the Presi-
dent informed on its findings. Finally,
it will recommend to the President
policies to enhance the quality of our
environment.
In a sense, the Council will be the
President's main adviser on environ-
mental matters, in much the same
manner as the Council of Economic
Advisers now assists him in matters
relating to the economy. That Council
has been in existence since 1946, and
has proved of inestimable value to
the President, the Congress, and the
country.
Mr. Chairman, ours is a society that
has succumbed to the bewitchment of
technology, a process which has trans-
formed the world around us. Tech-
nology is widely created with many
of the good things of modern life;
rising agricultural productivity, new
sources of power, automation, accel-
erated travel, increased volume, and
speed of communication, spectacular
improvements in medicine and sur-
gery—and more. Technology has
greatly increased the wealth pro-
duced by human labor; it has length-
ened our lives and immeasurably
improved the conditions under which
most men live. Little wonder that
there has been engendered in our
society a firm faith in technology as
an almost undiluted good.
There are now, however, a number
of reasons to question this implicit
faith, for there is a growing body of
evidence that society is paying a high
price in environmental pollution for
the advantages that flow from the
rapid spread of technology. We now
know that the beneficiaries of the
good that technology can do are also
victims of the environmental disease
that technology breeds.
Few Americans are untouched or
unaware of the extent of water pollu-
tion. Many of our urban dwellers are
conscious of the discomfort—even the
danger—of air pollution. Few who
traveled the highways of America or
visited our public parks this past
summer will be surprised, on reading
an advertisement in Time magazine
for September 19, to learn that each
of us is producing some 5 pounds of
trash every day. These are the more
obvious signs of our deteriorating
environment. There are other, more
subtle—even exotic—examples of tech-
nology's encounters with our environ-
ment—the mysterious fishkills; the
quieter, if not "silent" springs in some
areas; the death of a herd of sheep
in Utah; the depredations of the sea
lamprey in the Great Lakes.
Our record to date is not bright.
Hindsight tells us that what we are
experiencing is a logical outcome of
almost-unrestrained application of
technology on the once magnificent re-
sources of a rapidly-growing country.
It may be that we will never be able
to restore some of the despoiled re-
-------
524
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
sources and the natural beauties of
our country. Certainly, recovery will
be a long and costly process. But
if we remember that the future begins
tomorrow, then the bill we are con-
sidering today offers a great oppor-
tunity to prepare for that future.
A common reference point for look-
ing ahead these days is the year 2000.
If we consider just one aspect of the
predicted future—population growth
which will boost our numbers to some
300 million—we know that these num-
bers will place almost unbearable de-
mands on the resources and the insti-
tutions, some of which are barely able
to serve today's society. If we add
another dimension of the future—the
impact of the predicted growth of
science and technology—then the in-
teraction of these two dimensions will
surely shape a future beyond our
comprehension.
We have become more aware in
recent years of past and present in-
sults to our environment. Our re-
sponse has been piecemeal and often
too late. Lake Erie's reputed death
may be the most glaring example of
our inability or unwillingness to act
in a responsible manner. We have an
opportunity today to prepare our-
selves to deal with this kind of thing
in the future.
We have more than an opportunity;
we have a responsibility.
As representatives of a democratic
society, we are committed to the de-
velopment of policies which insure
maximum individual freedom and
human development. Neither of these
goals can be achieved in a decaying
and overburdened environment. We
must devise policies that take full
account of the impact of technological
development on the environment, and
we can achieve this only if we have
a clearer knowledge of what that im-
pact might be.
The Council which this bill would
create is the vehicle which can pro-
vide the President and the Congress
with the kind of information which
can guide us in shaping programs con-
sistent with society's needs. The
Council will also provide a vitally
needed source for reviewing the total
environmental situation—an "early
warning" system that warns us of
the effect on the environment of a
particular program. Finally, it will
fill the need for an agency capable of
providing the President and the Con-
gress with estimates of the priorities
which must be assigned to all of the
different aspects of the interaction of
man and his environment.
Mr. Chairman, I hope every Mem-
ber of this House will support H.R.
12549.
Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to join my colleagues in
urging passage of the Environmental
Quality Council bill, H.R. 12549.
The purpose of this legislation is
to create in the Executive Office of
the President an independent ad-
visory group to advise the President
and through him the Congress and
the American people on steps which
should be taken to improve the quality
of our environment. Although the
President is in the process of organiz-
ing his Cabinet-level Council, created
by Executive Order No. 11472, May
29, 1969, the legislative branch still
sees the need for a permanent type
council and feels that creation of this
independent council would serve to
complement and supplement the
President's efforts.
Mr. Chairman, the Cabinet-level
Council is an excellent means of com-
municating Executive decisions to
the departments and agencies which
would carry them out, but it has no
potential as a means of promoting
new policies, or even of investigating
them, which may conflict in any way
with the status quo. If the President
had the time to concern himself per-
sonally with the many and complex
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
525
issues with environmental implica-
tions, it is possible that the inde-
pendent council that we propose might
not be as important as it is. But he
does not have that time, nor does his
Science Adviser, and he needs a com-
petent full-time group of advisers to
assist him—men and women with
commitments to no programs or mis-
sions, other than that of environmen-
tal protection.
Mr. Chairman, the problems of our
environment are several magnitudes
larger than those which can be ade-
quately dealt with by the part-time
council. They touch on practically
every aspect of everyday life and
require the full-time expertise and
attention of a Council such as that
envisioned by this bill. The Council
closely parallels the Council of Eco-
nomic Advisers, which was created
by the Full Employment Act of 1946
and which has successfully proven
its worth, and it is for this reason
that I highly endorse H.R. 12549 and
urge its prompt passage.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in
considering this bill today, I want to
acknowledge a debt owed by our com-
mittee to an impartial and expert
group of men and women who have
provided us with excellent and timely
assistance in our deliberations.
Almost one-fourth of the membership
of this House has joined the informal
and unofficial Ad Hoc Committee on
the Environment—a committee of
concerned legislators who have ex-
pressed an interest in information
relevant to the growing problem of
environmental degradation. That com-
mittee now numbers 119: Democrats
and Republicans, liberals and con-
servatives in the House as well as on
the other side of the Capitol. I would
particularly like to thank Mr. Frank
Potter, the executive director of the
ad hoc committee, who has worked
closely with our committee and
through his tireless efforts has made
the passage of this legislation pos-
sible.
Our committee is in regular con-
tact with 126 distinguished scientists,
educators, businessmen, and conserva-
tionists, who serve as a board of ad-
visers to our ad hoc committee. This
board, which usually communicates
with members of the ad hoc committee
through the Environmental Clearing-
house, Inc. (a local nonprofit corpora-
tion which provides staff assistance to
the ad hoc committee) provided 21
witnesses for our hearings. If time
had permitted, many more advisers
who had offered to appear before us
would have been heard. The testimony
of these advisers was almost unani-
mously in favor of the bill, and that
testimony was a very important fac-
tor in our being able to report the
bill to the floor of the House as early
and as strongly as we were able to.
[p. 26585]
I cannot say whether or not we
could have moved as surely or as
rapidly as we have, without the assist-
ance of these public-spirited men and
women in the board of advisers. I can
say, however, that they were of im-
measurable assistance to us in putting
the issue into proper perspective, and
that much of the urgency with which
we view the environmental crisis, and
which we are attempting to communi-
cate to our colleagues today stems
directly from the urgency and con-
cern expressed by this impressive
body of experts.
As I say, this is a debt that I am
happy to acknowledge, and I know
that I speak for all my colleagues on
the subcommittee as well. The only
proper way that we could pay this
debt would be to see that this bill,
H.R.12549, is passed as quickly as
possible, and that the Council on En-
vironmental Quality begins to move.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I also
would like to bring to the attention of
-------
526
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the Members the recently established
Environmental Policy Division in the
Legislative Reference Service at the
Library of Congress. Mr. Richard A.
Carpenter, senior specialist in science
and technology, has been appointed
chief of the new division. Mr. Car-
penter has been most helpful to the
committee and I would like to take
this opportunity to officially express
my appreciation for his kind assist-
ance and to congratulate him on his
promotion. The Environmental Policy
Division was established in response
to increasing congressional concern
for the quality and productivity of
the physical environment.
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no
further requests for time, the Clerk
will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is
amended by redesignating section 5A as sec-
tion 5B and by inserting immediately after
section 5 the following new section:
Mr. DINGELL (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, reserv-
ing the right to object, I wish the
gentleman from Michigan would with-
hold that request. I have no intention
of asking the Committee of the Whole
to read the entire bill, but I wish the
gentleman would withhold that re-
quest for a minute or 2, or 3 or 4 or
5 minutes.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw by unanimous-consent re-
quest.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
"SEC. 5A. (a) The Congress, recognizing
the profound impact of man's activity on the
interrelations of all components of the gen-
eral environment, both living and nonliving,
and the critical importance of restoring and
maintaining environmental quality to the
overall welfare and development of man, de-
clares that it is the continuing policy of the
Federal Government, in cooperation with State
and local governments, urban and rural plan-
ners, industry, labor, agriculture, science, and
conservation organizations, to use all practical
means and measures, including financial and
technical assistance, in a manner calculated
to foster and promote the general welfare,
to create and maintain conditions under
which man and nature can exist in produc-
tive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic,
and other requirements of present and future
generations of Americans.
"(b) The President shall transmit to the
Congress annually beginning June 30, 1970,
an Environmental Quality Report (herein-
after referred to as the 'report') which shall
set forth (1) the status and condition of the
major natural, manmade, or altered environ-
mental classes of the Nation, including, but
not limited to, the air, the aquatic, includ-
ing marine, estuarine, and fresh water, and
the terrestrial environment, including, but
not limited to, the forest, dryland, wetland,
range, urban, suburban, and rural environ-
ment; and (2) current and foreseeable trends
in management and utilization of such en-
vironments and the effects of those trends
on the social, economic, and other require-
ments of the Nation.
"(c)(l) There is created in the Executive
Office of the President a Council on Environ-
mental Quality (hereafter referred to as the
"Council"). The Council shall be composed
of five members who shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, one of whom the
President shall designate as chairman, and
each of whom shall be a person who, as a
result of his training, experience, and attain-
ments, is exceptionally qualified to analyze
and interpret environmental information of
all kinds, to appraise programs and activities
of the Government in the light of the policy
set forth in subsection (a) of this section,
and to formulate and recommend national
policy to promote the improvement of our
environmental quality.
"(2) The Council may employ such officers
and employees as may be necessary to carry
out its functions under this Act. In addition,
the Council may employ and fix the compen-
sation of such experts and consultants as
may be necessary for the carrying out of its
functions under this section, in accordance
with section 3109 of title B, United States
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
527
Code (but without regard to the last sentence
thereof).
"(3) It shall be the duty and function of
the Council—
"(A) to assist and advise the President in
the preparation of the Environmental Quality
Report;
" (B) to gather timely and authoritative
information concerning the conditions and
trends in environmental qualities both cur-
rent and prospective, to analyze and inter-
pret such information for the purpose of
determining whether such conditions and
trends are interfering, or are likely to in-
terfere, with the achievement of the policy
set forth in subsection (a) of this section,
and to compile and submit to the President
studies relating to such conditions and trends;
" (C) to appraise the various programs j
and activities of the Federal Government in !
the light of the policy set forth in subsec- j
tion (a) of this section for the purpose of ]
determining the extent to which such pro-
grams and activities are contributing to the
achievement of such policy, and to make
recommendations to the President with re-
spect thereto;
"(D) to develop and recommend to the
President national policies to foster and pro-
mote the improvement of environmental
quality to meet social, economic, and other
requirements of the Nation; and
"(E) to make and furnish such studies,
reports thereon, and recommendations with
respect to matters of policy and legislation
as the President may request.
"(4) The Council shall make an annual
report to the President in May of each year.
"(5) In exercising its powers, functions,
and duties under this section—
"(A) the Council shall consult with such
representatives of science, industry, agri-
culture, labor, conservation, organizations,
State and local governments, and other
groups, as it deems advisable; and
"(B) the Council shall, to the fullest ex-
tent possible, utilize the services,, facilities,
and information (including statistical in-
formation) of public and private agencies
and organizations, and individuals, in order
that duplication of effort and expense may
be avoided."
Mr. SAYLOR (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the bill be considered as
read, printed in the RECORD, and open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I ob-
ject to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the sec-
tion be considered as read, printed in
the RECORD, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to te request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. ASPINALL. Where does sec-
tion 1 end?
The CHAIRMAN. On page 5, line
11.
Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. ASPINALL
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I
have amendments at the desk. I ask
unanimous consent that my amend-
ments be read down to No. 17, and
that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado that the amendments be con-
sidered en bloc?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Aspinall: On
page 1, lines 3 to 6, strike out "Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act is amended by re-
designating section 5A as section 5B and by
inserting immediately after section 5 the fol-
lowing new section:
"SBC. BA. (a) The".
On page 2, line 13, strike out "'(b)" and
insert "SEC. 2."
On page 3, line 1, strike out "'(c)(l)"
and insert "SEC. 3."
-------
528
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
On page 3, line 5, strike out "by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate,".
On page 3, line 15, strike out "'(2)" and
insert "SEC. 4."
On page 3, line 23, strike out "'(3)" and
insert "SEC. 6."
On page 3, line 24, strike out '"(A)" and
insert "(a)".
On page 4, line 1, strike out '"(B)" and
insert "(b)".
On page 4, line 10. strike out "'(C)" and
insert "(c)".
On page 4, line 17, strike out "'(D)" and
insert "(d) ".
[p. 26586]
On page 4, line 21, strike out *"(E)" and
insei t " (e) ".
On page 4, line 24, strike out "'(4)" and
insert "SEC. 6."
On page B, line 1, strike out "'(5)" and
insert "SEC. 7."
On page B, line 3, strike out "'(A)" and
insert "(a)".
On page B, line 7, strike out "'(B)" and
insert "(b)".
On page 6, line 11, strike out "avoided.'"
and insert "avoided."
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, it
is my understand that these amend-
ments are satisfactory to the com-
mittee having jurisdiction over this
legislation. Most of them are tech-
nical. However, there are three or
four amendments which are substan-
tial in their effect.
The first amendment has reference
to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act. This language is deleted in order
that this new legislation can stand on
its own and will not be tied to an
existing program. The subject matter
of the bill relates to all environmental
classes, and therefore its enactment as
an amendment to this act is not ap-
propriate and should be changed.
The second important amendment
has to do with the question of Senate
confirmation. Requirements for Senate
confirmation of members of the Coun-
cil , are deleted by my amendment. I
see no reason for Senate confirmation
of a Presidential council of this na-
ture. In fact, I think it dilutes the im-
portance of the council. I think it
means, if you take it as I read it,
that this House is giving way to the
Senate in the membership of the pro-
posed council a great deal of its own
prerogative in the establishment of
the Council itself.
Another important change that I
dislike is the language added to make
it clear that nothing in this act
changes the authority given to an
existing agency created by provisions
of existing law. We leave existing
law as it is. In my opinion, if addi-
tional authority and direction to
existing agencies is needed, it should
be provided by additional legislation.
Here is where we will find ourselves
in conflict with the other body when
our conferees go into conference with
the other body, because they do not
pay sufficient attention in my opinion
to existing authority of agencies al-
ready created.
If I remember correctly, that is as
far as these amendments to this sec-
tion go.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman,
these amendments have been dis-
cussed by and between me and my
good friend, the gentleman from
Colorado.
I would like to ask my good friend
from Colorado if these are the amend-
ments that we discussed at a time
earlier.
Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman is
correct, excepting that there are other
amendments I have before the com-
mittee at this time and they will be
added when we get to the reading of
the next section.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
have discussed these amendments with
my good friend from Colorado, and
on behalf of the committee I interpose
no objection. We have agreed to ac-
cept these amendments on the floor.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the necessary number of
words.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
529
Mr. Chairman, one of the previous
speakers said that the people are
deeply concerned about environmental
quality. Let me add that the people of
this country are more deeply con-
cerned about the tax burdens that are
being loaded onto them, the inflation,
and the debt that is being piled up. I
suggest that at this time a council
on tax environment would be far more
appropriate than still another Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality.
I tried a few minutes ago to get
some kind of a handle, some kind of
information, on the number of coun-
cils already loose in this country
dealing with various forms of environ-
mental quality. I got exactly no-
where. There is one, as I tried to
point out earlier, in Virginia occupy-
ing, I do not know how many acres of
land. This is out by Dulles Airport
in the Herndon, Va., area. It is called
Environmental Sciences and apparent-
ly operated by the Department of
Commerce. Is that not large enough
to embrace all environments? What
is the meaning of "sciences"? What
is the meaning of "environment"?
There was established last spring by
the President of the United States, an
Environmental Quality Council. It is
apparently functioning right now.
What is proposed to be done with
this Council already in existence?
How much money is it proposed to
spend on organizations of this kind?
There is no question in my mind
but what this pending bill is going to
provide more duplication. When do
we propose to start saving $1 million
around here? There is no limitation
contained in this legislation except
the estimated cost of $1 million a
year. It could be more.
When is it proposed to save $1
million around this place? When is
it proposed to give the taxpayers a
break? When are we going to make
some move toward stopping inflation
that is chewing the economy of tliis
country to pieces?
I do not know how many consul-
tants, how many supergrades it is
proposed to hire in this deal. I do not
know how many there are over at the
White House backing up the Council
that has already been established with
the same title. How many supergrades
are already employed for this purpose?
There is no limitation on this bill ex-
cept the report says, "We estimate
$1 million a year."
Is it not about time to apply the
brakes around here? When? When?
When do we stop the duplication and
the extravagance?
Mr. Chairman, this bill ought to be
put on the shelf at least until we are
provided valid reasons for spending
money for purposes of this kind.
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I supported this
legislation in the committee. However,
I did support it with reservations,
some reservations which I would like
to point out to the Committee today.
No one can doubt that cleaning up
our air and earth and water demands
the best efforts of many people. Any
attempt to control the environmental
system, therefore, must involve not
only the best efforts of science and
technology, but the law, sociology,
politics, and economics.
But when we join such diverse tal-
ents can we strike that precious bal-
ance to avoid self-interest—the great-
est of all pollutants to man's progress.
For in matters of the environment,
the range of self-interests to be served
is national in scope.
The environmental system, further-
more, is by nature thoroughly geo-
political. Air and water contaminants
do not respect State and local political
boundaries. And so it falls on the
Federal Government—the Congress—
to create the basic legislation that
-------
530
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
applies equitably and effectively to all
jurisdictions.
The purpose of the legislation be-
fore the Congress today—to provide
for the establishment of a Council on
Environmental Quality—is supposed
to promote general welfare and create
and maintain conditions under which
man and nature can exist in produc-
tive harmony. It may not.
The problem of swill, garbage, rub-
bish, and trash is very close, if not
near and dear, to the citizens of New
York and in fact every major urban
area and many less concentrated areas
of population. These necessary but
unwanted byproducts of our every-
day life are politely termed solid
waste. It is the disposal and even
worse the failure to dispose of solid
waste that is the constantly growing
cause of major hazard to health and
esthetics. When we seek to establish
a Council on Environmental Quality
with the goal of controlling our envi-
ronmental system—our air and earth
and water—we should strive to think
in grand terms of accomplishment. In
the case of solid waste, many com-
munities have only one practical means
of disposal and that is by burning.
So we must consider solid waste then
as a fuel and as a fuel we should use
its energies for electric power, the
control of water pollution, and the
treatment of sewage. We should burn
it cleanly so as not to pollute the air
around us and we must develop new
combustible technology for this pur-
pose.
With considerable foresight I be-
lieve, the Department of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare has been com-
mitted to research for this very
objective for several years. This is a
program that ought to vitally concern
at least three Cabinet departments
and five agencies within those depart-
ments: Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, with its divisions of solid waste
and air pollution; Interior, with its
Office of Salient Water and Federal
Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion; and Housing and Urban Devel-
opment, with its planning of model
cities and its multitude of other re-
sponsibilities.
Now, not tomorrow, is the time for
a crash program by all of these agen-
cies to complete the research and put
our solid waste disposal into a safe
position and perhaps even one that
actually contributes to, rather than
detracts from the general well-being
of all of our people.
This I would deem one of the major
challenges that would concern the
Council on Environmental Quality
proposed in this legislation. However,
the ubiquitous hand of a number of
Federal agen-
[p. 26587]
cies and vested interest groups, both
implicitly and explicitly, has written
this legislation for their own self-
interest and for the general welfare.
I would like to emphasize here that
the power of the Department of the
Interior, in matters of conservation,
seem to override almost all consider-
ations for the public good. In fact,
they affect public works on a national
basis.
The Department has consistently
hid behind the veil of conservation to
overrule vitally needed public works
projects.
On the one hand they screamed pol-
lution to prevent a channel-dredging
operation in New York Harbor. Yet
they allowed the dirtiest type of coal-
fired powerplant to be built in my
district.
So what we are talking about now
is control of the environment by Gov-
ernment agencies. We cannot build a
road in my district. We cannot build
a road because of environmental fac-
tors and conservation factors that
completely override need, technology,
and the public good.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
531
The constant threat of power black-
outs in New York City alone would
be abated today if single-minded
preservationists had not effectively
thwarted efforts to build a hydro-
electric powerplant outside of the city.
I am concerned about creating a
commission that will be conservation
oriented. If that were to happen,
progress would be limited to what has
taken place in past decades. I cannot
support any measure that literally
insures dominance of conservative
elements that so overcome the desires
and needs of the public that we lose
sight of those everyday needs.
I want the record here today in the
Congress to insure that this Commis-
sion does not act against the environ-
ment in our urban areas. That it
consider balance in the creation of
necessary public works to clean, as
well as to preserve our land.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. ASPI-
NALL).
The amendments were agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. REUSS
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. REUSS: On page
2, line 22, strike out "and" immediately pre-
ceding "(2)".
On page 2, line 25, strike out the period and
insert in lieu thereof a semicolon and the fol-
lowing: "(3) the adequacy of available natural
resources for fulfilling human and economic
requirements of the Nation in the light of ex-
pected population pressures; (4) a review of
the programs and activities (including regu-
latory activities) of the Federal Government,
the State and local governments, and nongov-
ernmental entities or individuals, with particu-
lar reference to their effects on the environ-
ment and on the conservation, development
and utilization of natural resources and (5) a
program for remedying the deficiencies of
existing programs and activities, together with
recommendations for legislation "
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I first
want to congratulate the members of
the committee for having brought
forth this trailblazing piece of legis-
lation to the floor this afternoon. It,
in its day, when enacted, will be as
much of a landmark in matters of the
environment as the Employment Act
of 1946 has been in matters of eco-
nomics.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment I
propose is a simple amendment. It
relates to the annual report on en-
vironmental quality required of the
President by the bill. As the bill now
stands, it contains excellent language
that the President shall report on the
status and condition of the environ-
ment. My amendment goes on to say
that he should also give a report on
how we are doing to fulfill the en-
vironmental goals under existing
measures and programs and, if we
are not doing as well as we might, to
recommend ways of remedying those
deficiencies, including recommenda-
tions for legislation.
This language is modeled after the
language which has proved workable
for more than 20 years with respect
to the Employment Act of 1946.
It was approved in testimony be-
fore the House Committee on Govern-
ment Operations by the Presidential
science adviser, Dr. DuBridge, and I
have submitted it to the managers on
both sides. I believe it is satisfactory
to them.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. REUSS. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. DINGELL. I have discussed
with the members of the committee,
with the able and distinguished chair-
man of the committee, the Honorable
EDWARD GARMATZ, and with my dis-
tinguished friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr.
PELLY) .
We find no objection to this lan-
guage and I believe it would help the
bill. On behalf of the committee, I am
-------
532
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
happy to accept the language offered I
by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I
do commend him for his labors in this
regard and I thank him.
Mr. REUSS. I thank the gentleman, i
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
REUSS) .
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED DY MR. DADDARIO
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DADDARIO: On
page 1, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert
the following:
"That (a) This Act may be cited as The
Environmental Quality and Productivity Act
of 1969.
"SEC. (b) (1). The Congress, recognizing
that man depends on his biological and phys-
ical surroundings for food, shelter, and other
needs, and for cultural enrichment as well;
and recognizing further the profound influ-
ences of population growth, high-density ur-
banization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new expanding tech-
nological advances on our physical and bio-
logical surroundings and on tb.2 quality of
life available to the American people; hereby
declares that it is the continuing policy and
responsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practical means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national
policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources to
the end that the Nation may—
"(A) fulfill the responsibilities of each gen-
eration as trustee of the environment for
succeeding generations;
"(B) assure for all Americans safe, health-
ful, productive, and esthetically and cul-
turally pleasing surroundings;
" (C) attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of safety, or other undesirable and un-
intended consequences;
" (D) preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heritage,
and maintain, wherever possible, an environ-
ment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
"(E) achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit high
standards of living and a wide sharing of
life's amenities; and
"(F) enhance the quality of renewable re-
sources and approach the maximum attain-
able recycling of depletable resources.
"(2) The Congress recognizes that each
person has a fundamental and inalienable
right to a healthful environment and that
each person has a responsibility to contribute
to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment.
"SEC. (c). The Congress authorizes and di-
rects that the policies, regulations, and public
laws of the United States, to the fullest ex-
tent possible, be interpreted and adminis-
tered in accordance with the policies set
forth in this act, and that all agencies of the
Federal Government—
" (1) utilize to the fullest extent possible
a systematic, interdisciplinary approach
which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environ-
mental design arts in planning and in de-
cision-making which may have an impact
on man's environment;
" (2) identify and develop methods and
procedures which will insure that presently
unquantined environmental amenities and
values may be given appropriate considera-
tion in decisionmaking along with economic
and technical considerations;
" (3) include in every recommendation or
report on proposals for legislation and other
Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a find-
ing by the responsible official that—•
"(A) the environmental impact of the pro-
posed action has been studied and considered;
" (B) any adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided by following1 rea-
sonable alternatives are justified by other
stated considerations of national policy;
" (C) local short-term uses of man's en-
vironment are consistent with maintaining
and enhancing long-term productivity; and
that
" (D) any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources are warranted.
"(4) study, develop, and describe approp-ri-
ate alternatives to recommend courses of ac-
tion in any proposal which involves unre-
solved conflicts concerning alternative uses
of land, water, or air;
" (5) recognize the worldwide and long-
range character of environmental problems
and lend appropriate support to initiatives,
resolutions, and programs designed to maxi-
mize international cooperation in anticipate
ing and preventing a decline in the quality of
mankind's world environment; and
" (6) review present statutory authority,
administrative regulations, and current poli-
cies and procedures for conformity to the
purposes and provisions of this Act and pro-
pose to the President and to the Congress
such measures as may be necessary to make
their authority consistent with this Act.
"SEC. (d) (1). The Congress, recognizing the
profound."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
533
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
On page 2, line 13, strike out "'(t>)" and
insert "2".
On page 3, line 1, strike out " '(c) (1)" and
insert "3A".
[p. 26588]
On page 3, line 5, strike out "by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate,".
On page 3, line 15, strike out "'(2)" and
insert "B".
On page 3, line 23, strike out "'(3)" and
insert "C".
On page 3, line 24, strike out "'(A)" and
insert " (i)".
On page 4, line 1, strike out "'(B)" and
insert " (ii) ".
On page 4, line 10, strike out "'(C)" and
insert " (iii)".
On page 4, line 17, strike out "'(D)" and
insert "(iv)".
On page 4, line 21, strike out "'(E)" and
insert " (v) ".
On page 4, line 24, strike out "'(4)" and
insert "(D)".
On page 5, line 1, strike out "'(5)" and
insert "(E)".
On page 5, line 3, strike out "'(A)" and
insert " (i)".
On page 5, line 7, strike out '"(B)" and
insert "(ii)",
On page 5, line 11, strike out "avoided." "
and insert "avoided."
On page 5, line 12, strike out "SEC. 2 (a)."
and insert "SEC. (e) (1)."
On page 6, line 16, strike out "(b)" and
insert "(2)".
On page 5, after line 19, insert new sec-
tions f, g, and h, as follows:
"SBC. f. The annual reports submitted to
the Congress pursuant to section 2 of this
Act shall be referred by the Speaker to each
standing committee of the House of Repre-
sentatives that has jurisdiction over any part
of the subject matter of the reports,
"SEC. g. Nothing in this Act shall increase,
decrease, or change any responsibility or au-
thority of any Federal official or agency cre-
ated by other provision of law.
"SEC. h. There are authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out the provisions of this
Act not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year
1970, $500,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,-
000 for each fiscal year thereafter."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. ASPINALL. The amendment,
as it has been offered, would destroy
the entire structure of section 1 as
perfected by the so-called Aspinall
amendment. I wish to know if the
Chair would rule that that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of
the opinion that the amendment of
the gentleman from Connecticut was
offered in the nature of a substitute
for section 1 of the bill, but the Chair
will examine the amendment.
Mr. ASPINALL. I did not under-
stand the gentleman from Connecticut
to offer his amendment as an amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Connecticut proposed to strike
out lines 3 through 6 and insert sub-
stitute wording.
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that it
comes too late. It comes after perfec-
tion of the original language and
would destroy the so-called Aspinall
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man make a point of order against
the amendment?
Mr. ASPINALL. That is exactly
correct. That is what I am doing.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentle-
man state his point of order again?
Mr. ASPINALL. After the bill has
been perfected by the so-called Aspi-
nall amendment, the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Con-
necticut is offered as an amendment
to that amendment as such, after it
has been adopted by the House.
If the amendment were offered as
a substitute, than I could not object
to it, so far as that is concerned. But
I object to it as purely an amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Connecticut desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman,
the amendment which I offer as a
substitute to the first section would
-------
534
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
simply add language which would in
no way interfere with the activity
already taking place but which is in
fact supplementary to it. The lan-
guage is clear. It would have no
effect on the action already taken, ex-
cepting to add language.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MCCARTHY).
The Chair is prepared to rule. The
Committee has agreed to the amend-
ments offered by the gentleman from
Colorado. His first amendment al-
tered the language on page 1, lines
3 to 6.
The Chair upholds the point of
order of the gentleman from Colorado
that the amendment of the gentleman
from Connecticut attempts to amend
an amendment already agreed to and
is not in order. The Chair sustains
the point of order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SBC. 2. (a) Section 5313 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following:
"(20) Chairman, Council on Environ-
mental Quality."
(b) Section 5315 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding, at the end
thereof, the following:
"(92) Members, Council on Environmental
Quality."
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
report the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 5, line
14, delete "of" and insert in lieu thereof
"on".
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY
MR. ASPINALL
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I
offer amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. ASPINALL: On
page 6, line 12, strike out "SEC. 2." and in-
sert "SEC. 8."
On page 5, after line 19, insert new sec-
tions 9 and 10, as follows:
"SEC. 9. Nothing in this Act shall increase,
decrease, or change any responsibility or au-
thority of any Federal official or agency cre-
ated by other provision of law.
"SEC. 10. There are authorized to be ap-
propriated to carry out the provisions of this
Act not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year
1970, $500,000 for fiscal year 1971 and
$1,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter."
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ASPINALL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask my good friend, the
gentleman from Colorado, are these
the amendments the gentleman dis-
cussed with me earlier?
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman,
these are the amendments I discussed
with my good friend, the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. They are dealing
with what?
Mr. ASPINALL. They deal with
the proposed sections 9 and 10 and
also a correcting amendment on page
5, line 12, because that section is to
be renumbered, as it should be.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further, I
have discussed these amendments
with the able and distinguished chair-
man of the full committee, Mr. GAR-
MATZ, and with my distinguished
friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. PELLY). I am
prepared to accept these amendments.
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I
wish to make two short statements.
One, I thank my friend the gentleman
from Michigan, for his statement that
his committee accepts the amend-
ments, but I do want the RECORD to
show that what we propose in the
language is to make clear that noth-
ing in this act changes the author-
ity and responsibility of existing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
535
agencies created by other provisions
of law. In my opinion, if additional
authority is needed and direction to
existing agencies is needed, they
should be provided by separate legis-
lation.
Finally, I wish to state that the
House bill is open ended for the ex-
penditure of money. The Senate bill
is open ended in one place and closed
in two other places, with larger
amounts of money than is proposed
here.
The language I have proposed, and
on which I have received unanimous
consent to have the amendments con-
sidered en bloc, places a ceiling on
the amount authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out the provisions of
this act.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to this
legislation we are giving to Congress
the oversight authority which it needs
and which it should have on any en-
vironmental program that is pro-
posed by the executive department or
by Congress.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ASPINALL. I yield to my
friend, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I
congratulate the gentleman from
Colorado for offering these amend-
ments, particularly the amendment
which is new section 10, because this
places a limitation upon the expendi-
tures that can be made by this Com-
mission that will be appointed. This
is in keeping with the policy which
we have used in the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs in all
legislation we report to the Congress.
I think other committees might do
well to follow like procedure in such
matters.
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman,
the chairman of the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, now in
the well, suggests that this is the way
to see that our oversight authority
is taken care of properly.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on
[p. 26589]
the amendments offered by the gentle-
man from Colorado (Mr. ASPINALL).
The amendments were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker having resumed the
chair, Mr. MCCARTHY, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had un-
der consideration the bill (H.R.
12549) to amend the Fish and Wild-
life Coordination Act to provide for
the establishment of a Council on
Environmental Quality, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolu-
tion 544, he reported the bill back to
the House with sundry amendments
adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule,
the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed 'to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be en-
grossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quo-
rum is not present.
-------
536
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify
absent Members, and the Clerk will
call the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 372, nays 15, not voting
43, * * *
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
TITLE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. ASPINALL
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I
offer an amendment to the title.
The Clerk read as follows:
Title amendment offered by Mr. ASPINALL:
Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to
provide for the establishment of a Council
on Environmental Quality, and for other pur-
poses."
The title amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pur-
suant to the provisions of House Reso-
lution 544, I call up for immediate
consideration the bill (S. 1075) to
establish a national policy for the
environment; to authorize studies, sur-
veys, and research relating to ecologi-
cal systems, natural resources, and
the quality of the human environ-
ment ; and to establish a Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers.
The Clerk read the title of the
Senate bill.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DINGELL
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion offered by Mr. DINGELL: Strike out
all after the enacting clause of S. 107B and
insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R-
12549, as passed, as follows:
"That the Congress, recognizing the pro-
found impact of man's activity on the inter-
relations of all components of the natural
environment, both living and nonliving, and
the critical importance of restoring and
maintaining environmental quality to the
overall welfare and development of man, de-
clares that it is the continuing policy of the
Federal Government, in cooperation with
State and local governments, urban and
rural planners, industry, labor, agriculture,
science, and conservation organizations, to
use all practicable means and measures, in-
cluding financial and technical assistance, in
a manner calculated to foster and promote
the general welfare, to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can
exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the
social, economic and other reauirements of
present and future generations of Americans.
[p.26590]
"SEC. 2. The President shall transmit to
the Congress annually beginning June 30,
1970, an Environmental Quality Report
(hereinafter referred to as the "report')
which shall set forth (1) the status and
condition of the major natural, manmade, or
altered environmental classes of the Nation,
including, but not limited to, the air, the
aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and
fresh water, and the terrestrial environment,
including, but not limited to, the forest,
dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban,
and rural environment; (2) current and
foreseeable trends in management and uti-
lization of such environments and the effects
of those trends on the social, economic, and
other requirements of the Nation; (3) the
adequacy of available natural resources for
fulfilling human and economic requirements
of the Nation in the light of expected popu-
lation pressures; (4) a review of the pro-
grams and activities (including regulatory
activities) of the Federal Government, the
State and local governments, and nongov-
ernmental entities or individuals, with par-
ticular reference to their effect on the envi-
ronment and on the conservation, develop-
ment, and utilization of natural resources;
and (5) a program for remedying the de-
ficiencies of existing programs and activi-
ties, together with recommendations for
legislation.
"SEC. 3. There is created in the Executive
Office of the President a Council on En-
vironmental Quality (hereafter referred to
as the "Council"). The Council shall be com-
posed of five members who shall be appointed
by the President, one of whom the Presi-
dent shall designate as chairman, and each
of whom shall be a person who, as a result
of his training, experience, and attainments,
is exceptionally qualified to analyze and in-
terpret environmental information of all
kinds, to appraise programs and activities of
the Government in the light of the policy
set forth in subsection (a) of this section,
and to formulate and recommend national
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
537
policy to promote the improvement of the en-
vironmental quality.
"SEC. 4. The Council may employ such offi*
cers and employees as may be necessary to
carry out its functions under this Act. In
addition, the Council may employ and fix
the compensation of such experts and con-
sultants as may be necessary for the carry.
ing out of its functions under this section,
in accordance with section 3109 of title 5,
United States Code (but without regard to
the last sentence thereof).
"SEc. 5. It shall be the duty and function
of the Council—
"(a) to assist and advise the President in
the preparation of the Environmental Qual-
ity Report;
" (b) to gather timely and authoritative
information concerning the conditions and
trends in environmental quality both cur-
rent and prospective, to analyze and inter-
pret such information for the purpose of de-
termining whether such conditions and
trends are interfering, or are likely to inter-
fere, with the achievement of the policy
set forth in subsection (a) of this section,
and to compile and submit to the President
studies relating to such conditions and
trends;
"(c) to appraise the various programs and
activities of the Federal Government in the
light of the policy set forth in subsection
(a) of this section for the purpose of de-
termining the extent to which such programs
and activities are contributing to the
achievement of such policy, and to make rec-
ommendations to the President with respect
thereto;
" (d) to develop and recommend to the
President national policies to foster and pro-
mote the improvement of environmental
quality to meet social, economic, and other
requirements of the Nation; and
" (e) to make and furnish such studies,
reports thereon, and recommendations with
respect to matters of policy and legislation
as the President may request.
"SEC. 6. The Council shall make an annual
report to the President in May of each year.
"SEC. 7. In exercising its powers, functions,
and duties under this section—
"(a) the Council shall consult with such
representatives of science, industry, agri-
culture, labor, conservation, organizations,
State and local governments, and other groups,
as it deems advisable; and
"(b) the Council shall, to the fullest ex-
tent possible, utilize the services, facilities,
and information (including statistical in-
formation ) of public and private agencies
and organizations, and individuals, in order
that duplication of effort and expense may
be avoided.
"SEC. 8. (a) Section 5313 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following:
"(20) Chairman, Council on Environ-
mental Quality,"
"(b) Section 5315 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding, at the end
thereof, the following:
" (92) Members, Council on Environmental
Quality."
"SEC. 9. Nothing in this Act shall increase,
decrease, or change any responsibility or
authority of any Federal official or agency
created by other provision of law.
"SEC. 10. There are authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out the provisions of this
Act not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year
1970, $500,000 for fiscal year 1971, and
$1,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
"Amend the title so as to read: 'An Act to
provide for the establishment of a Council on
Environmental Quality, and for other pur-
poses.' "
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be
read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed.
The title was amended so as to
read: "A bill to provide for the es-
tablishment of a Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and for other pur-
poses."
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 12549)
was laid on the table.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON
S. 1075
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the House
insist on its amendments to the Senate
bill (S. 1075) and request a confer-
ence with the Senate on the disagree-
ing votes of the two Houses thereon.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan? The Chair hears none, and
appoints the following conferees:
MESSRS. GARMATZ, DINGELL, ASPI-
NALL, FELLY, and SAYLOR.
-------
538
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks on
the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
[p. 26591]
1.2a(4)(c) Oct. 8: Senate disagrees to House amendments,
agreed to conference, pp. 29066-29074, 29076-29089
ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOARD OP EN-'
VIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISERS ;
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I
ask the Chair to lay before the Sen-
ate a message from the House of
Representatives on S. 1075.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid
before the Senate the amendment of
the House of Representatives to the
bill (S. 1075) to establish a national
policy for the environment; to author-
ize studies, surveys, and research re-
lating to ecological systems, natural
resources, and the quality of the hu-
man environment; and to establish
a Board of Environmental Quality
Advisers, which was to strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert:
That the Congress, recognizing the pro-
found impact of man's activity on the inter-
relations of all components of the natural en-
vironment, both living and nonliving, and
the critical importance of restoring and
maintaining environmental quality to the
overall welfare and development of man, de-
clares that it is the continuing policy of the
Federal Government, in cooperation with
State and local governments, urban and
rural planners, industry, labor, agriculture,
science, and conservation organizations, to
use all practicable means and measures, in-
cluding financial and technical assistance, in
a manner calculated to foster and promote
the general welfare, to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can
exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the
social, economic, and other requirements of
present and future generations of Ameri-
cans.
SEC. 2. The President shall transmit to the
Congress annually beginning June 30, 1970,
an Environmental Quality Report (herein-
after'referred to as the "report") which shall
set forth (1) the status and condition of the
major natural, manmade, or altered environ-
mental classes of the Nation, including, but
not limited to, the air, the aquatic, includ-
ing marine, estuarine, and fresh water, and
the terrestrial environment, including, but
not limited to, the forest, dryland, wetland,
range, urban, suburban, and ruial environ-
ment; (2) current and foreseeable trends in
management and utilization of such environ-
ments and the effects of those trends on the
social, economic, and other requirements of
the Nation; (3) the adequacy of available
natural resources for fulfilling human and
economic requirements of the Nation in the
light of expected population pressures; (4)
a review of the programs and activities (in-
cludinp regulatory activities) of the Fed-
eral Government, the State and local govern-
ments, and nongovernmental entities or in-
dividuals, with particular reference to their
effect on the environment and on the con-
servation, development, and utilization of
natural resources; and (5) a program for
remedying the deficiencies of existing pro-
grams and activities, together with recom-
mendations for legislation.
SEC. 3. There is created in the Executive
Office of the President a Council on Environ-
mental Quality (hereafter referred to as the
"Council"). The Council shall be composed
of five members who shall be appointed by
the President, one of whom the President
shall designate as chairman, and each of
whom shall be a person who, as a result of
his training, experience, and attainments, is
exceptionally qualified to analyze and inter-
pret environmental information of all kinds,
to appraise programs and activities of the
Government in the light of the policy set
forth in subsection (a) of this section, and
to formulate the improvement of our en-
vironmental quality.
SEC. 4. Th'1 Council may employ such offi-
cers and employees as may be necessary to
carry out its functions under this Act. In
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
539
addition, the Council may employ and fix
the compensation of such experts and con-
sultants as may be necessary for the carry-
ing out of its functions under this section,
in accordance with section 3109 of title 5,
United States Code (but without regard to
the last sentence thereof).
SEC. 5, It shall be the duty and function
of the Council—
(a) to assist and advise the President in
the preparation of the Environmental Qual-
ity Report;
(b) to gather timely and authoritative in-
formation concerning the conditions and
trends in environmental qualities both cur-
rent and prospective, to ana'\ze and inter-
pret such information for the purpose of
determining whether such conditions and
trends are interfering, or are likely to inter-
fere, with the achievement of the policy set
forth in subsection (a) of this section, and
to compile and submit to the President
studies relating to such conditions and
trends;
(c) to appraise the various programs and
activities of the Federal Government in the
light of the policy set forth in subsection
(a) of this section for the purpose of deter-
mining the extent to which such programs
and activities are contributing to the
achievement of such policy, and to make
recommendations to the President with re-
spect thereto;
(d) to develop and recommend to the
President national policies to foster and
promote the improvement of environmental
quality to meet social, economic, and other
requirements of the Nation; and
(e) to make and furnish such studies,
reports thereon, and recommendations with
respect to matters of policy and legislation
as the President may request.
SEC. 6. The Council shall make an annual
report to the President in May of each year.
SEC. 7. In exercising its powers, functions,
and duties under this section—
(a) the Council shall consult with such
representatives of science, industry, agri-
culture, labor, conservation, organizations,
State and local governments, and other
groups, as it deems advisable; and
(b) the Council, shall, to the fullest ex-
tent possible, utilize the services, facilities,
and information (including statistical in-
formation ) of public and private agencies
and organizations, and individuals, in order
that duplication of effort and expense may
be avoided.
SEC. 8. (a) Section 5313 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following:
"(20) Chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality."
(b) Section 5315 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding, at the end there-
of, the following:
" (92) Members, Council on Environmental
Quality."
SEC. 9. Nothing in this Act shall increase,
decrease, or change any responsibility or
authority of any Federal official or agency
created by other provision of law.
SEC. 10. There are authorized to be ap-
propriated to carrv out the provisions of this
Act not to exceed $300.000 for fiscal year
1070, $500,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,-
000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
And, amend the title so as to read:
"An act to provide for the estab-
lishment of a Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and for other pur-
poses."
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Presidert, on
July 10, 1069, the Senate passed S.
1075, the Environmental Policv Act
of 1969. On September 23 the House
of Representatives passed H.R. 12549,
"a bill to provide for the estabMsh-
ment of a Council on Environmental
Quality, and for other purposes," by
a vote of 372 to 15. Following adop-
tion of H.R. 12549, a motion was
offered to strike all after the enact-
ing clause of S. 1075, and to sub-
stitute therefor the text of the House
passed bill, H.R. 12549.
The motion was agreed to, the
House insisted on its amendments to
the Senate bill—S. 1075—and re-
quested a conference on the disagree-
ing votes of the two Houses.
Mr. President, upon the conclusion
of my remarks on the history and
content of the House and Senate
passed bills, and the important d'ffer-
ences in the two measures, I interd to
call up S. 1075, and move that the
Senate disagree to the amendments
of the House, agree to the conference
requested by the House, and appoint
the conferees for the Senate.
Mr. President, over the past decade
there have been some very remark-
able changes in public attitudes to-
ward the manner in which the Na-
tion's natural resources are adminis-
-------
540
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
tered. In the past, the public was
concerned about policies designated
by the terms "conservation," "preser-
vation," and "multiple use." Today, a
new set of words and concepts have
come into wide public use in discuss-
ing the Nation's irreplaceable natu-
ral resource base. These words and
concepts include "ecology," "environ-
ment," and the "inter-relatedness" of
all aspects of the physical environ-
ment.
These changes in public attitudes
and the growing public awareness and
concern over man's limited natural
resource base were perhaps best artic-
ulated during the decade of the six-
ties by former Secretary of the In-
terior Stewart Udall. Secretary Udall
made the inadequacy of the Nation's
knowledge, policies, priorities and in-
stitutions for the administration of
the public's resources and man's total
environment an important public is-
sue.
[p. 29066]
The inadequacy of present knowl-
edge, policies, and institutions is re-
flected in the Nation's history, in our
national attitudes, and in our contem-
porary life, that touches every aspect
of man's existence. It threatens, it
degrades, and destroys the quality
life which all men need.
We see increasing evidence of this
inadequacy all around us: haphazard
urban and suburban growth; crowd-
ing, congestion, and conditions within
our central cities which result in civil
unrest and detract from man's social
and psychological well-being; the loss
of valuable open spaces; inconsistent
and, often, incoherent rural and urban
land-use policies; critical air and
water pollution problems; diminishing
recreational opportunity; continuing
soil erosion; the degradation of unique
ecosystems; needless deforestation;
the decline and extinction of fish and
wildlife species; poorly designed
transportation systems; poor archi-
tectural design and ugliness in public
and private structures; rising levels
of noise; the continued proliferation
of pesticides and chemicals without
adequate consideration of the conse-
quences; radiation hazards; thermal
pollution; an increasingly ugly land-
scape clustered with billboards, power-
lines, and junkyards; growing scarcity
of essential resources; and many,
many other environmental quality
problems.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 1075
The need for a comprehensive na-
tional study on resource, conservation,
and environmental administration has
long been a matter of active concern
to the Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee. This history of
active concern is set out in the legis-
lative history section of the commit-
tee's report on S. 1075.
Senate passage of S. 1075 in July
of this year culminated 10 years of
active consideration of legislation on
conservation, resource, and environ-
mental policy and the need for new
governmental institutions in this im-
portant area of Federal responsibil-
ity.
During the 86th Congress 4 days of
hearings were held on Senator Mur-
ray's bill, S. 2549, the Resources and
Conservation Act, which was intro-
duced in 1959. The concept that there
is a need for a high-level Council of
Conservation, Resource, or Environ-
mental Advisers first found legislative
expression in this measure. This meas-
ure also represented the first expres-
sion of need for a unified and com-
prehensive statement of conservation,
resource, and environmental policy.
During the 87th Congress hearings
were held on a similar measure spon-
sored by Senator Engle and others.
In subsequent sessions of Congress
the same and related measures have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
541
been introduced and referred to the
Interior Committee for consideration.
In the 89th Congress hearings were
held before the Interior Committee,
Senator NELSON'S Ecological Research
and Surveys Act. The major pro-
grams of this measure were later
incorporated into S. 2805, introduced
by Senator Kuchel and myself in the
90th Congress. S. 2805 would have
authorized a program of ecological
and environmental research and es-
tablished a Council of Environmental
Advisers in the Executive Office of the
President.
S. 2805 and other measures dealing
with environmental and resource
policy were discussed at a unique
joint House-Senate colloquium to dis-
cuss a national policy for the environ-
ment, sponsored by the Senate In-
terior Committee and the House
Science and Astronautics Committee
in July 1968. All concerned Members
of the Congress were invited and
many attended.
Prior to the colloquium, a special
report entitled a "National Policy
for the Environment" was prepared
for the Interior Committee as a back-
ground document on the need for a
policy. After the hearings, a congres-
sional white paper on "A National
Policy for the Environment" was pre-
pared. This paper summarized the
colloquium proceedings, discussed al-
ternatives for congressional action,
and attempted to state the elements
of a national policy.
During the 91st Congress, three
separate major bills dealing with en-
vironmental and resource policy and
the establishment of new institutions
for overview and oversight purposes
were introduced and referred to the
Interior Committee. The bills were
S. 237, McGovERN; S. 1075, JACKSON ;
and S. 1752, NELSON. Hearings were
held on these measures on April 16,
1969.
Following a staff review of the
hearing record, amendment No. 25,
an amendment in the nature of a
substitute of S. 1075, was introduced
on May 29, 1969. This amendment
added a new title to S. 1075 and was
substantially incorporated into S.
1075 as ordered reported to the Sen-
ate on June 18.
Before the committee's report was
filed, the Bureau of the Budget re-
quested that the committee reconsider
the measure and recommended further
amendments. The bill was recon-
sidered on July 8, amendments were
adopted and the measure was or-
dered reported. The committee report
was filed on July 9 and the bill was
passed by the Senate on July 10.
S. 1075 was not referred to com-
mittee in the House because of a
question over which committee or com-
mittees had legislative jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the bill.
The measure was held at the Speak-
er's desk until the House passed H.R.
12549, a measure similar to S. 1075
in many respects.
S. 1075 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE
(H.R. 12549)
On September 23, the House passed
H.R. 12549 and substituted the text
of the House-passed bill for the text
of S. 1075. The House disagreed with
the language of S. 1075, requested a
conference and appointed conferees.
H.R. 12549—DlNGELL and others—
and a number of other identical and
similar measures were the subject
of hearings before the House Mer-
chant Marine and Fisheries Com-
mittee in May and June of this year.
H.R. 12549 is similar to title III of
S. 1075 in that it would establish a
Council of Environmental Advisers
and require the President to submit
an annual Environmental Quality Re-
port to the Congress.
-------
542
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Following committee consideration,
H.R. 12549 was amended and was
ordered reported to the House on
July 11. In late September a rule was
granted by the House Rules Com-
mittee and the measure was sched-
uled for debate. Following floor de-
bate on September 23, and the adop-
tion of amendments, H.R. 12549 was
passed. S. 1075 was then amended by
substituting the text of the House-
passed bill. The House insisted upon
its amendments to S. 1075, and a
conference was requested.
S. 1075 as passed by the Senate
included a number of provisions
which are not in the House version.
Among these provisions are some
which are essential if the Congress
is to enact a sound national policy
for the environment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that there be printed at this
point in the RECORD a statement on
the differences in the Senate- and
House-passed versions of S. 1075; the
legislative history; excerpts from a
special report of the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs; excerpts
from a congressional white paper on
a national policy for the environ-
ment; a comparison of the measures,
and a section-by-section analysis.
There being no objection, the ma-
terial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
DIFFERENCES IN THE SENATE- AND HOUSE-
PASSED VERSIONS OF S. 1075
The following major provisions of S. 1075 as
passed by the Senate are not included in the
House bill:
TITLE I DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRON-
MENTAL POLICY
The House version includes, as Section 1, a
brief statement of Congressional policy recog-
nizing the importance of environmental man-
agement as a function of the Federal govern-
ment. This statement, however, does not include
the specific statement of goals and require-
ments for specific action on the part of Federal
agencies which are set forth in Title I of the
Senate version.
Congressman Daddario offered an amendment
on the floor of the House which would have
incorporated the Senate language of Title I
into the House bill. A point of order was
raised on procedural grounds, however, and
the House did not have an opportunity to con-
sider the amendment on its merits.
Title I of the Senate version includes the
following provisions:
Sec. 101 (a) is a declaration by the Congress
if a national environmental policy. It recog-
nizes mankind's dependence upon the environ-
lent and- the increasing pressures of popu-
lation growth and technological advancement.
Six broad national goals are set forth to guide
the environmental management efforts of the
Federal establishment.
Sec. 101 (b) asserts Congressional recognition
of each person's fundamental right to a health-
ful environment.
Sec. 102 provides for the integration of the
policies and goals set forth in Section 101 into
the existing activities of the Federal agencies.
In many areas of Federal action there is no
body of experience or precedent for substan-
tial and continuing consideration of environ-
mental factors in governmental decisionmak-
ing. In some areas of Federal activity, existing
legislation does not provide clear authority to
consider environmental factors which are in
conflict with other objectives. In other areas,
lack of express authority has been interpreted
[p. 29067]
to prohibit consideration of environmental
factors.
To permit all Federal agencies to imple-
ment the goals and policies stated in the Act,
Sec. 102 authorizes and directs all agencies to
follow certain operating procedures:
(a) to utilize a broad interdisciplinary team
approach in the planning of Federal projects
and activities which have an impact on envi-
ronmental values,
(b) to develop new methods of evaluating
environmental values which are at present
not considered in cost-benefit analysis and
other methods used in Federal decision-
making,
(c) to accompany each proposal for major
activities with explicit findings concerning
the environmental impact which will or
which may result from the proposed activity,
(d) to study and describe alternatives in
instances where environmental conflicts cannot
be avoided,
(e) to support international efforts to pro-
tect the environmental quality of other nations
and the world, and
(f) to recommend legislation which will
facilitate the implementation of the policies
set forth in the Act.
Sec. 103 provides that the policies and goals
set forth in the Act are supplementary to the
existing mandates and authorizations of Fed-
eral agencies.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
543
TITLE II
Sec. 201 provides authorization for the
Federal agencies to include certain environ-
mental management functions among their
ongoing activities. These activities include the
collection, utilization, and dissemination of
ecological and environmental data; research on
environmental matters; and assurance to the
Council.
Sec. 202 authorizes the President to desig-
nate an agency or agencies to perform cer-
tain specific functions regarding environ-
mental management including:
1. a program of training and research
grants, in the amount ultimately of $1 million
annually,
2. an inventory of Federal projects,
3. an information retrieval system, and
4. assistance and advice to State and local
governments.
Sec. 203 would establish a second Deputy
Director's position in the Office of Science
and Technology. This position was requested
by the Bureau of the Budget, and is required
to strengthen the organization of OST to
support its increasingly broad functions.
Among the duties recently assigned to OST
is staff support for the President's newly
foimed Environmental Quality Council.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 1075, the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, was introduced in the 91st Con-
gress on February 18, 1969, by Senator Jack-
son. Hearings on this and two related bills
introduced by Senators Nelson (S. 1752) and
McGovern (S. 237) were held on April 16,
1969, before the full Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.1 Following a staff study
and consultations with the staff of the Office
of Science and Technology and with repre-
sentatives of a number of the Federal depart-
1 National environmental policy, hearings
held before the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., first
S63S., on S. 1075, S. 1752, and S. 237, Apr. 16,
1969, S. 1752, as introduced by Senator Nel-
son, would create a five-member Council on
Environmental Quality in the Office of the
President. This Council would be responsible
for assisting the President in preparing an
annual environmental quality report which
should be transmitted to Congress. The re-
port would be reviewed by a Joint Committee
on Environmental Quality. The measure would
also authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct studies of the natural environment,
evaluate and disseminate such information,
and consult with and provide technical assist-
ance to departments and agencies of the
Government.
ments, the committee considered S. 1075 in
executive session on June 18, 1969. Following
the adoption of a number of committee
amendments, the measure was ordered re-
ported to the Senate on June 18, 1969. At
the request of the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology and representatives
of the Bureau of the Budget, the committee
voted, on July 8, 1969, to reconsider the
measure for the purpose of considering
additional amendments. The amendments were
proposed by the Bureau of the Budget in a
July 7, 1969, letter to the chairman of the
committee. The proposed amendments to
titles I and II of S. 1076 were adopted.
Amendments proposed to title III by the Bu-
reau of the Budget were adopted in part
and rejected in part. Following the adoption
of other amendments suggested by members
of the committee, the measure was ordered
reported to the Senate on July 8, 1969.
S. 1075, as introduced, was substantially
the same measure as S. 2805 which was in-
troduced in the 90th Congress on December
15, 1967, by Senators Jackson and Kuchel. The
far-reaching objectives of S. 2805 and similar
legislation introduced in the 90th Congress by
Members of both Houses were considered at
a unique joint House-Senate colloquium con-
vened by the chairman of the Senate Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs and
the House Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics on July 17, 1968, to discuss a national
policy for the environment.2
Following the colloquium, a "Congresssional
White Paper" was prepared at the request of
Cochairman Henry M. Jackson and George
Miller by the Legislative Reference Service,
-' S 237, as introduced by Senator McGovern,
would require that the President transmit to
the Congress an annual report on the state
of the environment. The measure would also
authorize the creation of the Council of
Advisers on Resources, Conservation, and the
Environment which would be in the Executive
Office of the President. The three-member
Council would assist the President in the
preparation of the annual report and in de-
•eloping and recommending national policies
to maintain and improve the environment.
For the purpose of consideration of the an-
nual report and plan, this bill would establish
in the Senate and the House, special commit-
tees to be known as the Select Committees
on Resources, Conservation, and Environment.
2 The proceedings were published under
the title: "Joint House-Senate Colloquium
To Discuss a National Policy for the Environ-
ment," hearing before the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, and
the Committee on Science and Astronautics,
U.S. House of Representatives, 90th Cong.,
2d sess., July 17, 1968.
-------
544
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Library of Congress. This document, issued
as a joint committee print by the Senate
Interior Committee and House Science and
Astronautics Committee and distributed to
the entire Congress in October 1968, sum-
marized the key points raised in the dialog
between Members of the Congress and the
colloquium participants which included five
Cabinet Secretaries, the President's Science
Adviser, Mr. Laurance Rockefeller, and Dean
Don K. Price of Harvard.
A special report to the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs on "A National
Policy for the Environment" was prepared
for the committee's use and was printed as
a committee print on July 11, 1968. The re-
port was prepared by Dr. Lynton K. Caldwell
of Indiana University and William J. Van
Ness, special counsel to the committee. The
report was used as a background document
for the colloquium. It raises and discusses
in detail many of the issues and questions
implicit in establishing a national environ-
mental policy.
Many of the concepts and ideas incorpo-
rated in S. 1075 were drawn from ambitious
measures introduced in previous Congresses.
Of particular relevance were S. 2549, the Re-
sources and Conservation Act, introduced by
Senator Murray in 1959 and S. 2282 intro-
duced by Senator Nelson in the 89th Con-
gress. The Murray bill, endorsed by a distin-
guished group of Senators in the 86th and
subsequently in the 87th Congress, called
for the establishment of more efficient ma-
chinery in the President's Office to coordinate
resource conservation on the basis of na-
tional goals. The Nelson bill included broad
provisions to cope with inadequate use and
application by Federal agencies of ecological
knowledge and research methods for attain-
ing better management of our physical en-
vironment. Extensive hearings were held on
each of these and other environmental meas-
ures before the Senate Interior Committee."
Other concepts and ideas incorporated into
S. 1075 were drawn from the proceedings of
the previously mentioned joint House-Sen-
ate colloquium, from technical reports, con-
ferences and symposia, and from books and
3 Proposed Resources and Conservation Act
of 1960, hearings before the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate,
86th Cong., second sess. on S. 2549, Jan. 25,
26, 28, and 29, 1960. Ecological Research and
Surveys, hearings before the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 89th
Cong., second sess., April 27, 1966, on S. 2282.
journals dealing with environmental prob-
lems.*
In addition, the committee has reviewed
and drawn upon concepts and ideas incorpo-
rated into many measures introduced in this
and previous Congresses related to various
aspects of environmental management.5
STATEMENT BY SENATOR HENRY M. JACKSON
Over the years, in small but steady and
growing increments, we in America have been
4 For a detailed listing of these documents
see app. A, entitled "A Documentation on
Environmental Problems," p. 25, in A Na-
tional Policy for the Environment, commit-
tee print, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee, July 11, 1968; see also the
"Bibliography on Environmental Issues," pp.
192-204 in National Environmental Policy,
hearing before the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong.
on S. 1076, S. 237, and S. 1752, Apr. 16, 1969.
5 In the closing days of the 90th Cong., the
Legislative Reference Service tabulated over
100 bills which were directly concerned with
environmental issues, covering a broad area
of interest—cleaning up the Nation's rivers
and better approaches to smog control, im-
proving the use of open space and preven-
tion of disorderly encroachment by super-
highways, factories and other developments,
improved protection of areas of high fertility,
wiser application of pesticides, whose residues
affect both man and wildlife, and the con-
trol of urban sprawl, unsightly junkyards,
billboards, and power facilities that lower
the amenities of landscape.
In the present Congress, an initial tabula-
tion indicates that over 40 bills have been
introduced which are concerned either with
a national policy for the environment or the
establishment of machinery to study the
overall problems of the human environment.
Of the 16 standing committees of the Senate,
eight have broad jurisdiction of this type of
legislation. Of the 21 House standing com-
mittees, 11 are similarly involved. See "A Na-
tional Policy for the Environment," app. B,
p. 29, committee print of the Senate Interior
and Insular Affairs Committee, July 11, 1968;
"Congressional White Paper on A National
Policy for the Environment," app. p. 17, Sen-
ate Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs and the House Committee on Science
and Astronautics, October 1968: and Legisla-
tive Reference Service Multilith, TP 450, SP
170 entitled "Environmental Quality: Se-
lected Bills and Resolutions," June 20, 1969,
[p. 29068]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
545
making very important decisions concerning
the management of our environment. Un-
fortunately, these haven't always been very
good decisions. Throughout much of our his-
tory, the goal of managing the environment
for the benefit of all citizens has often been
overshadowed and obscured by the pursuit
of narrower and more immediate economic
goals.
It is only in the past few years that the
dangers of this form of muddling through
events and establishing policy by inaction
and default have been very widely perceived.
Today, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy
to see that in America we have too often
reacted only to crisis situations. We always
seem to be calculating the short-term con-
sequences of environmental mismanagement,
but seldom the long-term consequences or
the alternatives open to future action.
This report proposes that the American
people, the Congress, and the administration
break the shackles of incremental policy-
making in the management of the environ-
ment. It discusses the need for a national
environmental policy and states what some
of the major elements of such a policy might
be. It also raises a number of questions im-
plicit in the establishment of such a broad-
based and far-reaching policy.
The report does not purport to deal ex-
haustively with these subjects. Rather, it at-
tempts to place some of the fundamental
questions concerning the need for and the
elements of a national environmental policy
in the arena of public debate. If the report
is successful in encouraging discussion and
in refining some of the issues involved, it
will have performed a worthwhile purpose.
In the last few years, it has become increas-
ingly clear that soon some President and
some Congress must face the inevitable task
of deciding whether or not the objective of
quality environment for all Americans is a
priority national goal which takes prece-
dence over a number of other, often com-
peting, objectives in natural resource man-
agement and the use of the environment. In
my judgment, that inevitable time of de-
cision is close upon us.
If we are to make intelligent decisions
which are not based in the emotion of con-
servation's cause celebre of the moment or
in the error of simply perpetuating past prac-
tices, there is a very real need to develop a
national capacity for constructive criticism of
present policies and the development of new
institutions and alternatives in the manage-
ment of the environmental resources of land,
air, water, and living space. Developing this
capacity will require that representatives
from all elements of our national life—
industry, the university. Federal, State, and
local government—participate in forming this
policy. It will require the creative utilization
of technology to improve environmental con-
ditions and to prevent unanticipated future
instances of costly abuse. It will also require
that government, business, and industry pay
closer attention to a far greater range of
alternatives and potential consequences when
they make environment-affecting decisions than
they have in the past.
Finally, it needs to be recognized that the
declaration of a national environmental pol-
icy will not alone necessarily better or en-
hance the total man-environment relation-
ship. The present problem is not simply the
lack of a policy. It also involves the need
to rationalize and coordinate existing poli-
cies and to provide a means by which they
may be continuously reviewed to determine
whether they meet the national goal of a
better life in a quality environment for all
Americans. Declaration of a national environ-
mental policy could, however, provide a new
enduring concept by which governmental
decisions could be weighed and evaluated in
the light of better perceived and better un-
derstood national needs and goals.
This report was prepared for the use of the
Senate Interior Committee by Prof. Lynton
K. Caldwell, chairman, Department of Gov-
ernment, Indiana University, with the as-
sistance of Mr. William J. Van Ness, special
counsel to the committee, and the Natural
Resources Division, Legislative Reference Serv-
ice, Library of Congress. Professor Caldwell's
contribution was, in part, made possible
through an arrangement with the Conservation
Foundation.
A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
This report is based upon the assumption
tbat the threat of environmental misman-
agement and deterioration to the security
and welfare of the United States has been
established. (See app. A.) There are differ-
ences of opinion as to the severity and rela-
tive urgency of various hazards to the en-
vironment. Some scientists believe that man's
environmental relationships have reached a
point of crisis; others do not see the condition
of the environment generally as having yet
reached a critical stage. But there is, never-
theless, general consensus throughout most
walks of life that a serious state of affairs
exists and that, at the least, it is approach-
ing a crisis of national and international pro-
portions. The focus of this report is therefore
on national policy to cope with environmental
crisis, present or impending, rather than with
documenting the facts related to environmental
deterioration.
-------
546
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PART I—REQUIREMENTS FOR POLICY
EFFECTIVENESS
Effective policy is not merely a statement
jf things hoped for. It is a coherent, reasoned
statement of goals and principles supported
by evidence and formulated in language that
enables those responsible for implementa-
tion to fulfill its intent. Tnis section of the
report describes some of the interrelating
conditions that appear necessary to an effec-
tive national policy for the environment.
The discussion will be developed under the
following five headings:
(1) Understanding Imminent Need.
(2) Recognizing Costs.
(3) Marshaling Relevant Knowledge.
(4) Facilitating Policy Choice.
(5) National Policy and International Co-
operation.
J. Understanding imminent need
An effective and enlightened environmen-
tal policy is a response to the needs of man
in relation to his environment. The response
may involve the control of man's behavior
on behalf of the larger interests of mankind
where those interests are clearly perceived
and widely held. Man's relationship with his
environment are, of course, multitudinous
and complex. Control by governments, by in-
ternational organizations, or by other insti-
tutions, cannot feasibly be extended to every
aspect of the environment nor to more than
a fraction of the actual points of impact of
individual man upon his environment. Pol-
icy effectiveness consequently depends very
largely upon the internalization, in the hu-
man individual, of those understandings,
values, and attitudes that will guide his con-
duct in relation to his environment along
generally beneficial lines. A major reauisite
of effective environmental policy is therefore
intelligent and informed individual self-control.
There is substantial evidence to indicate
that large numbers of Americans perceive
the need for halting the spread of environ-
mental decay. It is also evident, however,
that few recognize the connection between
the conditions which they deplore, and the
absence of any explicit and coherent national
policy on behalf of environmental quality.
Man is confronted by a circumstance that
is totally new in human history. He has
rapidly completed the occupancy of the easily
inhabitable areas of the earth while his num-
bers have increased at an exponential and
accelerating rate. Simultaneously, unprece-
dented economic power and advances in science
and technology have permitted man to malce
enormously increased demands upon his
environment. In no nation are these coinci-
dental developments more dramatically evident
than in the United States. And yet many
Americans find it difficult to understand why
sound environmental management should now
suddenly become "everybody's business." Loner-
accepted ways of thinking: and acting in rela-
tion to one's surroundings are now being
called into question. Understanding of what
has happened can be helped by a simple exer-
cise in arithmetic.
At the time of the American Revolution
the total human population of the present-
day continental United States could hardly
have exceeded 3 million individuals. The de-
mands of the American Indian and European
colonists on the Atlantic seaboard were very
light when contrasted with current exac-
tions. By the close of the 20th century, if
the population of this same area approxi-
mates 300 million, the daily stress man places
on the environment will, on the basis of
mere numbers, have increased 100 times over.
Technology has alleviated some forms of
stress (as on forests for fuel or on wildlife
for food), but it has greatly increased environ-
mental stress in general. The net result has
been enormously increased demands upon
the environment in addition to the increase
in population. Calculation of an average per
man-year stress upon the environment, esti-
mated from A.D. 1700 to 2000, and adjusted
for technological factors at particular histori-
cal periods, would" be a powerful persuader of
the need for a sensitive and forward-looking
national environmental policy. The exponential
increase in the pressure of man and his
technology upon the environment, particularly
since World War II, is the major cause of the
need for a national environmental quality
effort.
The rate at which the Nation has changed
since 1890 when the frontier officially ceased
to exist has been unexceeded by any other
social transformation in history. Scarcely
one long generation removed from the last
days of the frontier, America has become an
urbanized and automated society with pub-
licly institutionalized values in social security,
labor relations, civil rights, public education,
and public health that would have been
Utopian less than a century ago. In the
absence of a system for adequately assessing
the consequences of technological change, who
could have predicted the many ways in which
applied science would transform the condi-
tions of American life? Powerful new tools
applying the discoveries in chemistry, physics,
biology, and the behavioral sciences were put
to work for improving the health, wealth, com-
fort, convenience, and security of Americans.
Utilizing the vast natural resources of the
American environment, the world's highest
standard of living was achieved in an amaz-
ingly short period of time. Unfortunately, our
productive technology has been accompanied
by side effects which we did not foresee. Ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
547
perience has shown us that there are dangers
as well as benefits in our science-based tech-
nology. It is now becoming apparent that
we cannot continue to enjoy the benefits of
our productive economy unless we bring its
harmful side effects under control. To obtain
this control and to protect our investment in
all that we have accomplished, a national
policy for the environment is needed.
Although Americans have enjoyed prodi-
gious success in the management of their
economy they have been much leas success-
ful in the management of national resources.
As a people we have been overly optimistic,
[p. 29069]
and at times callous in our exactions of the
natural environment. The history of soil
exhaustion and erosion, of cut-over of our
lands, of slaughtered wildlife documents a
few of our early failures to maintain our
restorative capacities of our natural resources.
Fortunately many of these early failures have
been corrected or are now being remedied.
But our exploding population and technology
have created more subtle dangers, less easily
detected and more difficult to overcome.
These more recent dangers have been doc-
umented in testimony before the Congress
and in the reports of scientific committees
(app. A). They confront us with the possi-
bility that the continuation of present trends
affecting, for example, (a) the chemistry of
the air, (b) the contamination of food and
water, (c) the use of open land and living
space, and (d) the psychophysical stress of
crowding, noise and interpersonal tension on
urban populations, may infinitely degrade
the existence of civilized man before the end
of the century. These are not the exagger-
ated alarms or unsubstantiated predictions
of extremists; they are sober warnings of
competent scientists supported by substan-
tial demonstrable evidence. The practical
course is, therefore, to forestall these threats
before they have outgrown our technical,
economic, legal, and political means to over-
come them. Fortunately, we still have a choice
in this matter. We still have a relatively wide
range of alternatives available in managing
the environment.
It may be contended that the problems of
the environment must wait until more ur-
gent political issues are resolved. Problems
of national security, poverty, health, educa-
tion, urban decay, and underdeveloped na-
tions have just and appropriate claims for
priority in national attention and public
expenditure. Yet many aspects of these prob-
lems involve environmental policy. Three of
the most urgent—the slums and ghettos of
the great cities; increasing disability and
death from diseases induced by environmen-
tal factors (for example, cancer, emphysema,
mental disorders); and the decline and decay
of rural areas (for example, in Appalachia)
furnish persuasive reasons for a national en-
vironmental policy. Before billions of dollars
are spent in attempts to alleviate these social
ills, it would be wise to be sure that environ-
mental factors causing or accompanying
these conditions are properly identified and
remedied. We may otherwise worsen the state
of our economy and environment without
solving the underlying social problems.
In summary, within the present genera-
tion the pressures of man and technology
have exploded into the environment with un-
precedented speed and unforeseen destruc-
tiveness. Preoccupied with the benefits of an
expanding economy the American people have
not readily adopted policies to cope with the
attendant liabilities. Popular understanding
of the need to forestall the liabilities in order
to preserve the benefits is now becoming
widespread, and provides the political rationale
for the development of a national policy for
the environment, and for a level of funding
adequate to implement it.
2. Recognising costs
The nation long ago would probably have
adopted a coherent policy for the management
of its environment, had its people recognized
that the costs of overstressing or misusing
the environment were ultimately unavoidable.
This recognition was arrived at belatedly for
several reasons: First, environmental deterio-
ration in the past tended to be individual and
accumulative, so that it was not apparent
that any cost or penalty was being exacted;
second, it seemed possible to defer or to
evade payment either in money or in obvious
loss of environmental assets; third, the right
to pollute or degrade the environment (unless
specific illegal damage could be proved) was
widely accepted. Exaggerated doctrines of
private ownership and an uncritical popular
tolerance of the side effects of economic pro-
duction encouraged the belief that costs pro-
jected onto the environment were costs that
no one had to pay.
This optimistic philosophy proved false as
many regions of the Nation began to run out
of unpolluted air and water, as the devasta-
tion of strip mining impoverished mining
communities, as the refuse of the machine
age piled up in manmade mountains of junk,
as the demand for electricity and telecom-
munications arose to festoon the Nation with
skeins of cables strung from forests of poles,
and as the tools of technology increasingly
produced results incompatible with human
well-being. Under the traditional "ground
rules" of production, neither enterprise nor
citizen was called upon to find alternatives
or to pay for measures that would have pre-
vented or lessened ensuing loss of environ-
-------
548
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
mental quality. Payment continued to be
exacted in the loss of amenities the public
once enjoyed, and in the costs required to
restore resources to usefulness and to support
the public administration that environmen-
tal deterioration entailed. When the public
began to demand legislation to control pollu-
tion and to prevent environmental decay, the
reaction of those involved in environment
degrading: activities was often one of counter-
indignation. Businessmen, municipalities, cor-
porations and property owners were con-
fronted with costs in the form of taxes or
the abatement of nuisances that they had
never before been called upon to pay. They
were now about to be penalized for behavior
which America had long accepted as normal.
What is now becoming evident is that there
is no way in the long run of avoiding the
costs of using the environment. The policy
question is not whether payment shall be
made; it is when payment shall be made, in
what form, and how the costs are to be dis-
tributed. Hard necessity has made evident
the need for payment to obtain air and water
of quality adequate to meet at least mini-
mum standards of health and comfort. Sci-
entific knowledge and rising levels of amenity
standard have added to public expectation
that protection against environmental dam-
age will be built into the products and pro-
duction costs of manufacturers.
Lack of a national policy for the environ-
ment has now become as expensive to the
business community as to the Nation at
large. In most enterprises a social cost can
be carried without undue burden if all com-
petitors carry it alike. For example, indus-
trial waste disposal costs can, like other costs
of production, be reflected in prices to con-
sumers. But this becomes feasible only when
public law and administration put all com-
parable forms of waste-producing enterprises
under the same requirements. Moreover it
has always been an advantage to enterprise
to have as clear a view as possible of future
costs and requirements. When public expec-
tations and "ground rules" change, however,
as they have been changing recently on en-
vironmental quality issues, the uncertainty
of resulting effects upon business costs, and
the necessity for adjustment to unexpected
expenses and regulations, is disconcerting
and hardly helpful.
A national policy for the environment
could provide the conceptual basis and legal
sanction for applying to environmental man-
agement the methods of system analysis and
cost accounting that have demonstrated their
value in industry and in some areas of gov-
ernment. It has been poor business, indeed,
to be faced with the billions of dollars in
expense for sal vagi ng our lakes and water-
ways when timely expenditures of millions
or timely establishment of appropriate pol-
icies would have largely preserved the ameni-
ties that we have lost and would have made
unnecessary the cost of attempted restora-
tion. A national system of environmental cost
accounting expressed not only in economic
terms but also reflecting life-sustaining- and
amenity values in the form of environmental
quality indicators could provide the Nation
with a much clearer picture than it now has
of its environmental condition. It would help
all sectors of American society to cooperate
in avoiding the overdrafts on the environ-
ment and the threat of ecological insolvency
that are impairing the national economy to-
day.
It is not only industrial managers and
public officials who need to recognize the
unavoidable costs of using the environment.
It is, above all, the individual citizen because
he must ultimately pay in money or in ameni-
ties for the way in which the environment
is used. If, for example, be likes to eat
lobster, shrimp or shellfish, the citizen must
reconcile himself to either paying dearly for
these products or indeed finding them un-
obtainable at any price, unless we find ways
to preserve America's coastline and coastal
waters. The individual citizen may also have
to pay in the cost of illness and in general
physical and psychological discomfort. And
these costs, of course, are not incurred vol-
untarily.
In the interest of his welfare and of his
effectiveness as a citizen the individual
American needs to understand that environ-
mental quality can no longer be had "for
free." Recognition of the inevitability of
costs for using the environment and of the
forms which these costs may take is essen-
tial to knowledgeable and responsible citizen-
ship on environmental policy issues.
In summary, the American people have
reached a point in history where they can no
longer pass on to nature the costs of using
the environment. The deferral of charges by
letting them accumulate in slow attrition of
the environment, or debiting them as loss of
amenities will soon be no longer possible. It
is no longer feasible for the American people
to permit it. The environmental impact of
our powerful, new, and imperfectly under-
stood technology has often been unbeliev-
ably swift and pervasive. Specific effects may
prove to be irreversible. To enjoy the benefits
of technological advance, the price of pre-
venting accidents and errors must be paid on
time. From now on "pay-as-you-go" will in-
creasingly be required for insuring against
the risks of manipulating nature. This means
protection, restoration, replacement, or re-
habilitation of elements in the environment
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
549
before, or at the time, these resources are
used. Later may be too late.
S. Marshaling relevant knowledge
For many years scientist have been warn-
ing against the ultimate consequences of
quiet, creeping, environmental decline. Now
the decline is no longer quiet and its speed
is accelerating. The degradation is destroy-
ing the works of man as well as of nature.
We are confronted simultaneously with en-
vironmental crisis in our cities and across
our open lands and waters. The crisis of the
cities and the crisis of the natural and rural
environments have many roots in common,
although they may erroneously be viewed as
extraneous to one another, or even as com-
petitive for public attention and taxation.
In fact, both crises stem from an ignorance
of and a disregard for man's relationship to
his environment.
An effective environmental policy in the past
might have prevented and would certainly
have focused attention upon the wretched
conditions of urban and rural slums. It
would surely have stimulated the search for
knowledge that could have helped to correct
and prevent degraded conditions of living. It
is now evident that the fabric of American
society can no longer contain the growing
social pressure against slum environments.
Today, remedial measures are being forced by
social violence and by the social and economic
costs of environmental decay;
[p. 29070]
but it is not certain that the remedies take full
account of the nature of the ailment. The pres-
sure upon the urban environment is acute and
overt; it is dramatized, it has obvious political
implications, and it hurts. Conversely, the
degradation of natural and rural environments
is more subtle. Stress may reach the point of
irreparable damage before there is full aware-
ness that a danger exists. What is needed
therefore is a systematic and verifiable method
for periodically assessing the state of the
environment and the degree and effect of
man's stress upon it, as well as the effect of
the environment and environmental change' on
man.
One would expect to be able to look to the
universities and to the great schools and in-
stitutes of agriculture, engineering, and pub-
lic health as constituting an environmental
intelligence system. Unfortunately however,
no such system exists. Man-environment re-
lationships per se have seldom been studied
comprehensively. Various disciplines have
concerned themselves with particular aspects
of environmental relationships. Geographers,
physiologists, epidemiologists, evolutionists,
Geologists, social and behavioral scientists,
historians, and many others have in various
ways contributed to our knowledge of the re-
ciprocal influences of man and environment.
But the knowledge that exists has not been
marshaled in ways that are readily applicable
to the formulation of a national policy for
the environment. At present, there are many
gaps in our knowledge of the environment to
which no discipline has directed adequate
attention.
It should not be surprising that there is a
lack of organized knowledge relating to en-
vironmental relationships. Society has never
asked for this knowledge, and has neither
significantly encouraged nor paid for its pro-
duction. By way of contrast, public opinion
has supported the costs of high-energy
physics as reasonable, even though direct and
immediate applications to public problems
are relatively few. But public opinion has
been guided in part by the judgment of the
scientific community and of the leaders of
higher education. Only recently have the
scientific community and the universities
begun to interest themselves institutionally
in man-environment relationships, perceived
in the totality in which they occur in real
life.
Environmental studies in the universities
are as yet largely focused on separate phases
of man-environment relationships. This, in
itself, is not undesirable; it is in fact neces-
sary to obtain the degree of specialization
and intensive study that many environ-
mental problems require. The inadequacy
lies in the lack of means to bring together
existing specialized knowledge that would be
relevant to the establishment of sound policies
for the environment. There is also need for
greatly increased attention to the study of
natural systems, to the behavior of organisms
in relation to environmental change, and to
the complex and relatively new science of
ecology. There is need for synthesis as well
as for analysis in the study of man-in-environ-
ment.
A reciprocal relationship exists between
the interests of public life and the activities
of American universities. Public concern with
a social problem when expressed in terms of
public recognition or financial support, stimu-
lates related research and teaching in the
colleges and universities. Research findings
and teaching influence the actions of govern-
ment and the behavior of society. This rela-
tionship has been exceptionally fruitful in
such fields as agriculture, medicine, and
engineering. It has not, as yet, developed
strength in the field of environmental policy
and management. Nevertheless a beginning
is being made in some colleges and universi-
ties, and in a number of independent research
organizations and foundations, to provide a
-------
550
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
more adequate informational base for environ-
mental policy.
Recognition of the need for a more ade-
quate informational base for environmental
policy has not been confined to academic
institutions or to government. Speaking to
the 1967 plenary session of the American
Institute of Biological Sciences, Douglas L.
Brooks, president of the Traveler's Research
Center, declared that "* * * We need to
recognize environmental quality control as
a vital social objective and take steps to
establish the field of environmental manage-
ment as a new cross-disciplinary applied
science professional activity of extraordinary
challenge and importance."
To date, action by Government to assist
the marshaling of relevant knowledge has
been uncoordinated and inconstant. With
the exception of defense and space-related
technical investigations, the amount of money
made available for environmental research
has been relatively meager and has been
allocated largely along conventional disciplinary
lines. Specialized aspects of research on man-
environment relationships have been well
funded by the Atomic Energy Commission,
the Department of Defense, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. But
much of this work is highly technical and is
appropriately directed toward problems en-
countered in the missions of these agencies.
More broadly based are the interests of the
National Science Foundation, but the Founda-
tion's resources for funding academic research
relating to environmental policy are small.
For a brief period the most promising source
of support for the kind of knowledge needed
for environmental policy effectiveness was the
U.S. Public Health Service. In the mid-1960's,
the Service began to assist the establishment of
broadly based environmental health science
centers in selected universities. But a shift
of emphasis in the Public Health Service
brought this effort to an untimely standstill.
The National Institutes of Health fund a
scientific body of health-related environmental
research, but little of it appears to be policy-
related.
The Science Information Exchange of the
Smithsonian Institution, surveying the gen-
eral field of Government-funded research for
*,he Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Com-
mittee, found (not unexpectedly) that there
were heavy concentrations of research where
Government funding was heaviest—notably
in physical science and the biomedical aspects
of the environs. Government-funded research
of broadly cross-disciplinary or policy-oriented
character appeared to be almost negligible in
volume and in funding. It is probable that
policy problems are investigated in the course
of substantive research: but it is evident that
we have not yet made a conscious decision to
organize and fund the effort which students
of environmental policy and management see
as the necessary first step to an adequate en-
vironmental information system.
To provide facilities and financial support
for new research on natural systems, envi-
ronmental relationships and ecology on an
independent, but publicly financed basis, a
National Institute of Ecology has been pro-
posed by a group of scientists associated with
the Ecological Society of America and as-
sisted by the National Science Foundation.
The functions proposed for this institute are
worth restating in brief, as indicative of the
contribution that ecologists would like to
make toward strengthening the Nation's ca-
pacity to cope with its environmental prob-
lems. Defining ecology to be "* * * the scien-
tific study of life-in-environment," the pro-
ponents of a National Institute of Ecology
state that it is needed (1) to conduct large-
scale multi-disciplinary field research beyond
the capacities of individual researches or
research institutions, (2) to provide a central
ecological data bank on which ecologists and
public agencies can draw, (3) to coordinate
and strengthen activities of ecologists in rela-
tion to ecological issues in public affairs, and
to promote the infusion of ecology into general
education at all levels, and (4) to perform
advisory services for government and industry
on active programs affecting the environment.
The principal purpose of the proposed institute
is not, however, to study public policy or
education, but to do more and better ecology.
These efforts and proposals, and many
others unreported here, are constructive con-
tributions to the task of marshaling the
knowledge needed for an effective national
policy for the environment. They do not,
however, add up to a national information
system, nor do they necessarily present in-
formation and findings relative to the envi-
ronment in forms suitable for review and
decision by the Nation's policymakers. The
ecological research and surveys bill intro-
duced by Senator Gaylord Nelson in the 89th
Congress would have established a national
research and information system under the
direction of the Secretary of the Interior.
Similar proposals have been incorporated in
a number of bills introduced in the 90th
Congress, including S. 2805 by Senators Jack-
son and Kuchol. (See app. B.) An important
difference between the proposals before the
90th Congress and the efforts and proposals
described in the preceding paragraphs is that
in pending legislation the knowledge assembled
through survey and research would be system-
atically related to official reporting, apprai-
sal, and review. The need for more knowledge
has been established beyond doubt. But of
equal and perhaps greater importance at this
time is the establishment of a system to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
551
insure that existing knowledge and new find-
ings will be organized in a manner suitable
for review and decision as matters of public
policy.
In summary, to make policy effective through
action, a comprehensive system is required for
the assembly and reporting of relevant knowl-
edge; and for placing before the President, the
Congress, and the people, for public decision.
the alternative courses of action that this
knowledge suggests. With all its great re-
sources for research, data processing, and
information transznittal, the United States
has yet to provide the financial support and
operational structure that would permit these
resources to implement a public policy for
the environment.
4. Facilitating policy choice
The problem of organizing information
for purposes of policy-oriented review leads
directly to the need for a strategy of policy
choice. Environmental policymaking presents
certain organizational difficulties. It must
draw heavily upon scientific information and
yet it embraces important considerations and
issues that are extraneous to science policy.
Insofar as environmental policy is dependent
upon scientific information, it is handicapped
by the insufficiency of the research effort and
the inadequacies of information handling
described in the preceding paragraphs. In a
review of U.S. science policy by the Organi-
zation for Economic Cooperation and De-
velopment, the European examiners cited
environmental problems as one of the areas
of inquiry that American science was not
well organized to attack. The criticism was
directed not at the accomplishments of
American science in support of major tech-
nical undertakings; it was instead concerned
with the absence of a system and a strategy
adequate to deal with the problems of the
environment, and of social relationships and
behavior, on a scale which their compre-
hensive and complex subject matters require.
Insofar as science is an element in environ-
mental policymaking, the Office of Science
and Technology affords a mechanism for en-
listing the resources of the scientific com-
munity, for establishing study groups and
advisory panels on specific issues, and for
presenting their recommendations to the
President. In the coordination of scientific
aspects of environmental policy, the Federal
Council of Science and Technology, in as-
[p. 29071]
sedation with the Office of Science and Tech-
nology, is the more general of several co-
ordinative or advisory bodies in the executive
branch. (See app. G.) The establishment of
special councils for marine resources and
engineering development, for water resources,
for recreation and natural beauty, among
other purposes, complicates to some extent
the function of policy advice. None of these
bodies are constituted to look at man-environ-
ment relations as a whole; none provide an
overview; none appear fully to answer the
need for a system to enable the President, the
Congress, and the electorate to consider alter-
native solutions to environmental problems.
Possible answers to the need for a system
to assist national policy choice may be found
in legislative proposals to create councils
on environmental quality or councils of eco-
logical advisers. These councils are conceived
as bridges between the functions of environ-
mental surveillance, research, and analysis,
on the one hand, and the policymaking func-
tions of the President and the Congress on
the other. The particular and indispensable
contribution of the Council to environmental
policy would be twofold. The first would be,
using S. 2805 for purposes of illustration,
••« » * to study and analyze environmental
trends and the factors that affect these
trends, relating each area of study and analy-
sis to the conservation, social, economic, and
health goals of this Nation." Most proposals
call for a report on the state of the environ-
ment from the Council to the President and
from the President to the Congress. S. 2805,
for example, states that the Council shall
provide advice and assistance to the Presi-
dent in the formulation of national policies,
and that it shall also make information
available to the public. The bill further pro-
vides that "* * * The Council shall periodi-
cally review and appraise new and existing
programs and activities carried out directly
by Federal agencies or through financial as-
sistance and make recommendations thereon
to the President."
From this enumeration of the Council's
functions several inferences may be drawn.
First, the proposed environmental advisory
councils are not science advisory bodies. They
are instructed in pending legislative propos-
als to take specified factors, including the
scientific, into account in the course of
their analysis and recommendations on en-
vironmental policy issues. Second, the coun-
cils are not primarily research or investigat-
ing bodies even through they have important
investigatory functions. They are essentially
policy-facilitating bodies. Third, their func-
tions are those of analysis, review, and re-
porting. Their nearest functional counterpart
is probably the Council of Economic Advisers.
Fourth and finally, councils on the environ-
ment, such as proposed by some of the
measures listed in appendix B, must be lo-
cated at the highest political levels if their
advisory and coordinative roles are to be
played effectively. For this reason the propos-
-------
552
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
als have generally established the Council I
in the Executive Office of the President. How-
ever, the Technology Assessment Board pro-
posed by Representative Emilio Q. Daddario,
which would perform many functions similar
to those of the environmental councils,
would be an independent body responsible
primarily to the Congress.
This brings the discussion to the role of
the Congress in facilitating policy choice.
Some have found the formal committee
structure of the Congress to be poorly suited
to the consideration of environmental poli-
cy questions. Senator Edmund Muskie has
proposed a Select Committee of the Senate
on Technology and the Human Environment
to facilitate consideration of related environ-
mental issues that would normally be di-
vided among a number of Senate committees.
Others have proposed that a Joint Commit-
tee on the Environment, representative of
the principal committee of the House and the
Senate concerned with environmental policy
issues, should be established to review a
proposed annual or biennial report of the
President on the state of the environment.
Many Congressmen, however, feel that the
policy of establishing new committees to
deal with each new problem area should be
resisted and that the present committees
should assume their legislative and over-
sight responsibilities in this area. Meanwhile
the informal and practical operations of leg-
islative business permits the present standing
committees to function with remarkable speed
and dexterity where the will to legislate exists.
In summary, policy effectiveness on environ-
mental issues will require some form of high-
level agency in the executive branch for
reviewing and reporting on the state of the
environment. No existing body seems appro-
priate for this function. To meet this need,
and under various names, a council for the
environment has been suggested and has been
incorporated in numerous legislative proposals.
Provision for a policy assisting body in the
executive branch suggests to some the desir-
ability of a comparable committee in the
Congress.
5. National policy and international cooperation
In his address to the graduating class at
Glassboro State College on June 4, 1969,
President Lyndon B. Johnson called for the
formation of a permanent ''international
council on the human environment." The
ecological research and surveys bill first
offered in 1965 by Senator Gay lord Nelson
authorized participation by the United States
with "other governments and international
bodies in environmental research." Similarly,
S. 2805 and other pending measures authorize
'** * * environmental research in surrounding
oceans and in other countries in cooperation
with appropriate departments or agencies of
such countries or with coordinating inter-
national organizations * * *."
These and other expressions of the willing-
ness and intent of the United States to
cooperate with other nations and with in-
ternational organizations on matters of en-
vironmental research and policy reinforce
the argument for a national environmental
policy. Although the United States could co-
operate internationally on many specific
issues without a national policy, it could do
so more effectively and comprehensively if
its own general position on environmental
policy were formally and publicly enunciated.
The United States, as the greatest user of
natural resources and manipulator of nature
in all history, has a large and obvious stake
in the protection and wise management of
man-environment relationships everywhere. Its
international interests in the oceanic, polar,
and outer space environments are clear. Effec-
tive international, environmental control would,
under most foreseeable contingencies, be in
the interest of the United States, and could
hardly be prejudicial to the legitimate interests
of any nation. American interests and Ameri-
can leadership would, however, be greatly
strengthened if the Nation's commitment to a
sound environmental policy at home were
clear.
PART II—QUESTIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION
What significance would adoption of a na-
tional policy for the environment hold for
the future of government in the United
States? At the least, it would signify a deter-
mination by the American people to assume
responsibility for the future management of
their environment. It would not imply an
all-inclusive Federal or even governmental
environmental administration. The task is
too widespread, multitudinous, and diverse
to be wholly performed by any single agency
or instrumentality. There are important roles
to be played at every level of government
and in many sectors of the nongovernmental
economy. Nevertheless a new policy, and
particularly a major one, is certain to arouse
some apprehensions.
I n the Federal agencies, among the com-
mittees of the Congress, in State govern-
ments, and among businesses whose activities
impinge directly upon the environment and
natural resources, there would be under-
standable concern as to what changes for
them might be implicit in a national policy
for the environment. The objection is certain
to be raised that Government is already too
large and that there are already too many
agencies trying to manage the environment.
"Please—not one more," will be an oft-
repeated plea. These fears, however, are
largely those that always accompany a new
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
553
public effort regardless of its purpose, direc-
tion, or ultimate benefit. Very few people
oppose, in principle, public action on behalf
of quality in the environment. It is imple-
mentation that raises questions and arouses
apprehension.
It would be unconvincing to assert that no
interest, enterprise, or activity will be ad-
versely affected by a national environmental
quality effort. There is no area of public pol-
icy that does not impose obligations upon,
nor limit the latitude for action of impor-
tant sectors of society. But while activities
harmful to man's needs and enjoyments in
the environment must necessarly be curbed,
it is also true that all Americans, without
exception, would benefit from an effective
national environmental policy. In brief, al-
though all would benefit, a relative few might
be required to make adjustments in business
procedures or in technological applications.
For the foregoing reasons, a report on
the need for a national policy for the en-
vironment would be incomplete if it did not
raise, at least for purposes of discussion,
some major questions that the establishment
as such a policy would imply. These are
mainly questions of how a decision to estab-
lish a national policy would be implemented
in practice. They are questions to be answered
by the Congress and by the President. But in
their answers, the policy-determining branches
of Government will need to consider a number
of issues subsidiary to those major questions.
To better illustrate the issues involved in
these questions, reference will be made to
S. 2805. No claim of special priority is im-
plied by these references. Many of the billa
now pending on this issue have similar pro-
visions. Any one bill might serve as well as
any other.
1. What are the dimensions of an environ-
mental policy and how are they distinguish-
able from other areas of national concern?
This is the fundamental question. It would
be unreasonable to expect that its metes
and bounds could be defined more clearly
than those of the more familiar policy areas
of national defense, foreign relations, civil
rights, public health, or employment secu-
rity. The field of definition can be narrowed,
however, by identifying those concepts with
which it might be confused but from which
it should be clearly distinguished.
Environmental policy, broadly construed, is
concerned with the maintenance and manage-
ment of those life-support systems—natural
and man made—upon which the health, happi-
ness, economic welfare, and physical survival
of human beings depend. (See app. D.) The
quality of the environment, in the full and
complex meaning of this term, is therefore
the subject matter of environmental policy.
The term embraces aspects of other areas of
related policy or civic action, and it is
important that environmental policy and en-
vironmental quality, in the broad sense, be
distinguished from these related but some-
times dissimilar policies or movements.
Environmental policy should not be con-
fused with efforts to preserve natural or
[p. 29072]
historical aspects of the environment in a
perpetually unaltered state. Environmental
quality does not mean indiscriminate preser-
vationism, but it does imply a careful ex-
amination of alternative means of meeting
human needs before sacrificing natural species
or environments to other competing demands.
Environmental quality is not identical with
any of the several schools of natural resources
conservation. A natural environmental policy
would however necessarily be concerned with
natural resource issues. But the total environ-
mental needs of man—ethical, esthetic, physi-
cal, and intellectual, as well as economic—
must also be taken into account.
Environmental policy is not merely the
application of science and technology to
problems of the environment. It includes a
broader range of considerations. For this
reason S. 2805, in proposing a Council on
Environmental Quality, does not stipulate
that its five members be scientists, although
it obviously would not preclude scientists
among them.
One of the few differences in emphasis
among the environmental policy bills now
before the Congress has to do with the role
of ecologists and of the science of ecology
in the shaping of national policy. The need
for a greatly expanded program of natural
assistance for ecological research and educa-
tion cannot be doubted by anyone familiar
with present trends in the environment. The
science of ecology can provide many of the
principal ingredients for the foundation of
a national policy for the environment. But
national policy for the environment involves
more than applied ecology, it embraces more
than any one science and more than science
in the general sense.
The dimensions of environmental policy
are broader than any but the most com-
prehensive of policy areas. The scope and
complexities of environmental policy greatly
exceed the range and character of issues
considered, for example, by the Council of
Economic Advisors. One may therefore con-
jecture, without derogation to the unques-
tionable importance of the economic advisory
function, that a council on the environment
would, in time, perhaps equal and even exceed
in influence and importance any of the
specialized conciliar bodies now in existence.
For this reason its membership should be
-------
554
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
broadly representative of the breadth and
depth of national interests in man-environ-
ment relationships. The ultimate scope of
environmental policy, and the relationship of
a high-level implementing council to existing
councils, commissions, and advisory agencies.
are not questions that can be, or need to be,
decided now, nor even at the time that a
national policy may be adopted. The important
consideration is to develop a policy and to
provide a means that will permit its objec-
tives to be considered and acted upon by the
Corgress, the President, and the executive
agencies. If we wait until we are certain of
the dimensions of environmental policy and
of how it will relate to other responsibili-
ties and functions of Government, our as-
surance will be of no practical value. It will
have come too late to be of much help.
2. Upon what considerations and values
should a national environmental policy be
based?
If it is ethical for man to value his chances
for survival, to hope for a decent life for his
descendants, to respect the value that other
men place upon their lives, and to want to
obtain the best life has to offer without
prejudicing equal opportunities for others,
then the cornerstone of environmental policy
is ethical. That cornerstone is the main-
tenance of an environment in which human
life is not only possible, but may be lived
with the fullest possible measures of per-
sonal freedom, health, and esthetic satisfac-
tion that can be found. No government is
able to guarantee that these values can be
realized, but government is able to assist
greatly in the maintenance of an environ-
ment where such values are at least realizable.
Ethics, like justice, is not easily quantifiable,
yet few would argue that society should not
seek to establish justice because justice can-
not be adequately defined or quantified.
Environmental policy is a point at which
scientific, humanistic, political, and economic
considerations must be weighed, evaluated,
and hopefully reconciled. Hard choices are
inherent in many policy issues. The sacrifice
of a plant or animal species, for example, or
of a unique ecosystem ought not to be per-
mitted for reasons of short-run economy,
convenience, or expediency. The philosophy
of reverence for life would be an appropriate
guiding ethic for a policy that must at tin*
lead to a decision as to which of two forms
of life must give way to a larger purpose.
The natural environment has been basically
"friendly" toward man. Man's survival is
dependent on the maintenance of this environ-
ment, but not upon the unaltered operation
of all of its myriad components. Pathogenic
micro-organisms, for example, are not rever-
erced by man. Protection against them is a
major task of environmental health and
medicine. But even here, respect for the
.ncredible variety, resilience, and complexity
of nature is a value that environmental
policy would be wise to conserve. Frontal at-
tacks upon man's environmental enemies or
competitors, identified as pathogens or as
"pests," have miscarried too often to en-
courage the thought that direct action on
threats in the environment are always wise,
economical, or effective.
The range of values to be served by en-
vironmental policy is broad and an indication
of how its scope might be defined may be
obtained from the provisions of S. 2805 which
specify the considerations to which the
Council on Environmental Quality should re-
spond: "Each member shall, as a result of
training, experience, or attainments, be pro-
fessionally qualified to analyze and interpret
environmental trends of all kinds and de-
scriptions and shall be conscious of and
responsive to the scientific, economic, social,
esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of
this Nation."
The assessment and interpretation of these
needs and interests is obviously a function
that the members of the Council would have
to perform to the best of their ability. No
more than in the election of legislators or in
the appointment of judges, would it be pos-
sible to stipulate how these or other values
should be understood and weighted. The
reputations and characters of the individuals
appointed to the Council would offer the best
indications of how the specifications of the
law might be construed. But the findings and
conclusions of the Council need not be
wholly subjective or based upon speculative
data. The methods of systems analysis,
cybernetics, telemetry, photogrammetry, elec-
tronic and satellite surveillance, and com-
puter technology are now being applied to
a wide range of environmental relationships.
New statistical and computerized simulation
techniques are rapidly bringing ecology from
what has been described as "one of the most
unsophisticated of the sciences," to what
may become one of the most complex, in-
tellectually demanding and conceptually power-
ful of the sciences.
In brief, the values and considerations
upon which a national environmental policy
should be based should be no less extensive
than the values and considerations that men
seek to realize in the environment. In the
interpretation of these values and considera-
tions science can play a role of great impor-
tance. But neither science, nor any other
field of knowledge or experience, can provide
all of the criteria upon which environmental
policies are based. The full range of knowl-
edge and the contributions of all of the sci-
entific and humanistic disciplines afford the
informational background against which value
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
555
judgments on environmental policy may
most wisely be made.
3. H3W should the information needed for a
national environmental policy be obtained
and utilized?
Of all major questions on the implementa-
tion of environmental policy, this one is
probably the least difficult. It is in part a
technical question; yet to describe it as tech-
nical is not to suggest that it can be easily
answered. There is no present system for
bunging together, analyzing, collating, di-
gesting, interpreting, and disseminating; ex-
isting information on the environment. There
is accordingly no reliable way of ascertain-
ing what aspects of man-environment rela-
tionships are unresearched or hitherto un-
identified. The question is less difficult than
others primarily because it is clearly possible
to design an information system, to fund its
implementation, and to put it into effect.
The particular form in which the data should
finally appear, and the method of its subse-
quent disposition are more problematic.
Title I of S. 2805, and other measures pro-
posed on behalf of a national environmental
policy, make provision for the functions of
information gathering, storage and retrieval,
dissemination, and for enlaiging the avail-
able information through assistance to re-
search and training. The detailed provisions
of S. 2805 on an environmental information
s^ stem are numerous and ' need not be re-
peated here. The significant feature of these
provisions is that they create an information
system designed and intended to serve the
policymaking processes of government.
Most of the environmental quality bills
place this information function under the
direction of the Secretary of the Interior.
But they relate its data-gathering functions
to those of other Federal agencies and they
provide for the transmittal of its findings to
a high-level reviewing body and to the Pres-
ident and the Congress. In the provision for
organizing environmental information into
a form that is usable for policy formation,
this proposal represents a step toward greater
rationality in government and toward the
more effective use of modern information sys-
tems and technology to serve public pur-
poses.
4. How should a national environmental
policy be implemented and periodically re-
viewed for refinery or revision?
Some innovation and restructuring of pol-
icy-forming institutions will be required to
achieve the purpose of a national environ-
mental policy. Our present governmental or-
ganization has not been designed to deal with
environmental policy in any basic or coherent
manner. (See app. C.) The extent to which
governmental reorganization may be neces-
sary cannot be determined absolutely in ad-
vance of experience. But it does seem prob-
able that some new facility at the highest
levels of policy formulation will be needed
to provide a point at which environmental
policy issues cutting across the jurisdictional
'ines of existing agencies can be identified
and analyzed, and at which the complex
problems involved in man's relationships
with his environment can be reduced to ques-
tions and issues capable of being studied, de-
bated, and acted upon by the President, the
Congress, and the American people. As we
have seen, some of the bills on environmental
policy now pending in the Senate and the
House of Representatives (see app. B) pro-
vide a point of focus for this new area of
policy through a high-level board or council.
Many of these bills provide for periodic re-
ports on the state of the environment to
the policy-determining institutions of the
Nation—the President and the Congress—
and, as these reports are matters of public
record, to the American people who must be
[p. &9073]
the final judges of the level of environmen-
tal quality they are willing to support.
As noted in the preceding paragraphs, im-
proved facilities for the finding, analysis and
presentation of pertinent factual data are
needed. A vast amount of data is now col-
lected by Federal agencies and by private re-
search organizations; but this data is un-
even in its coverage of the various aspects of
environmental policy. For example, there is
a superabundance of technical information
on some aspects of environmental pollution,
j but comparatively little research on the so-
1 cial and political aspects of environmental
policy. Much of the data now available is in
a form unsuitable for policy purposes. The
sheer mass of data, much of it highly tech-
nical on certain major environmental prob-
lems, is a serious impediment to its use. For
this reason, the legislative proposals on na-
tional environmental policy p-rovide a system
for reinforcing, supplementing, and correlat-
ing the flow of information on the state of
the environment.
These two major needs, (a) a high-level
reviewing and reporting agency and (b) an
information gathering and organizing sys-
tem, are the essential structural innovations
proposed in bills now before the Congress for
implementing a national environmental policy.
Would these additions to the present structure
of government be sufficient to implement a
national environmental quality program and
how in particular would the proposed high
level Council be related to other agencies in
the federal structure of government?
New policies and programs imply structures
appropriate to their functions and may call
-------
556
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
the new relationships among existing agen-
cies. To construct a comprehensive struc-
ture for environmental administration will
acquire time, and meanwhile the need for
leadership in informing the people and in
formulating policy recommendations and al-
ternatives grows more urgent. It is for this
reason that some of the measures which have
been introduced propose that a Council for
Environmental Quality be established in the
Executive Office of the President. In effect,
the Council would be acting as agent for the
President. It would need information from
the various Federal departments, commis-
sions, and independent agencies that, under
prevailing organization, it could not as easily
obtain if it were located at a level coequal or
subordinate to the division of Government
whose programs it must review. Reinforcing
this consideration is the distribution of
environment-affecting activities among almost
every Federal agency.
Objections may be raised that there are
already too many councils and committees
established in the Executive Office of the
President. Some students of public adminis-
tration argue that a simplification of struc-
ture and a clarification of existing responsi-
bilities should take precedent over any new
programs or agencies. The answer to this ob-
jection lies in an assessment of relative
priorities. Is each of the councils or com-
parable agencies now established in the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President more impor-
tant, of greater urgency, or of more direct
bearing upon the public welfare, than the
proposed Council on Environmental Quality?
What criteria indicate how many conciliar
bodies are "too many"? These questions are
not merely rhetorical. Although they cannot
be answered here, they are obviously germane
to the issue of governmental organization
and to the way in which national environ-
mental policy is formulated and made effective.
A strong case can be made for a major re-
structuring of the Federal departments in
which public responsibility for the quality of
the environment would, like defense or foreign
relations, become a major focus for public
policy. Proposals tending in this direction
and chiefly affecting the Department of the
Interior have been made over several dec-
ades. A prominent news magazine took up
this line of reasoning in a recent editorial
declaring that "* * * the Secretary of the
Interior ought to be the Secretary of the
Environment." But a major restructuring of
functions in the Federal administrative es-
tablishment cannot be accomplished easily
or rapidly. Such a development would be
most plausible as a part of a more general
restructuring of the executive branch. The
multiplication of high-level councils and inter-
agency committees may indicate that a re-
structuring is needed. (See app. C.) Some of
the complexity of present arrangements for
policy formulation and review reflects the
confusion often attending a transition from
one set of organizing concepts to another.
Among the concepts that have been pro-
posed to reduce the burden of the Presidential
office and to provide a more simple and flexible
administrative structure, is that of the
"superdepartment." One of these agencies
already exists as the Department of Defense.
A Department of the Environment might be
another. The substance and character of the
organizational changes that super departments
might imply are germane to a discussion of
environmental administration, but they require
no further exploration in this report beyond
the following three points: First, they would
be fewer in number than present departments,
probably no more than seven to nine; second,
they would be oriented broadly to services per-
formed for the entire population, and third,
they would be planning and coordinative
rather than directly operational, assuming,
to some degree, certain of the tasks that now
fall heavily on the Executive Office of the
President.
There may be another answer to the need
for a more effective review and coordination
of related functions in diverse agencies in
the concept of "horizontal authority" or
matrix organization. This organizational ar-
rangement has been employed in multifunc-
tional, cross-bureau, projects in the Depart-
ment of Defense and in the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration. Under a
temporary structure for project management,
it structures across normal hierarchal lines
and working relationships among the neces-
sary personnel and skills. The concept might
be applicable to interagency attack upon spe-
cific problems of environmental policy.
Review of national policy, and revision if
and when needed, are functions that the
Congress performs for all major policies of
Government. The device of an annual or
biennial report from the President to the
Congress on the state of the environment of-
fers the logical occasion for an examination
by the Congress, not only of the substance
of the President's message, but of national
policy itself. In many respects, the transmis-
sion of an annual report on the state of the
environment accompanied by a clear and
concise statement of the Nation's goals,
needs, and policies in managing the environ-
ment could attain many of the ends sought
by those who propose reorganization.
SUMMATION
Although historically the Nation has had
no considered policy for its environment,
the unprecedented pressures of population
and the impact of science and technology
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
557
make a policy necessary today. The expression
"environmental quality" symbolizes the com-
plex and interrelating: aspects of man's de-
pendence upon his environment. Through
science, we now understand, far better than
our forebears could, the nature of man-en-
vironment relationships. The evidence re-
quiring timely public action is clear. The
Nation has overdrawn its bank account in
life-sustaining natural elements. For these
elements—air, water, soil, and living sp ;ce—
technology at present provides no substi-
tutes. Past neglect and carelessness are now
costing us dearly, not merely in opportunities
foregone, in impairment of health, and in
discomfort and inconvenience, but in a de-
mand upon tax dollars, upon personal in-
come, and upon corporate earnings. The
longer we delay meeting our environmental
responsibilities, the longer the growing list
of "interest charges" in environmental de-
terioration will run. The cost of remedial ac-
tion and of getting onto a sound basis for
the future will never be less than it is today.
Natural beauty and urban esthetics would
be important byproducts of an environmental
quality program. They are worthy public
objectives in their own right. But the com-
pelling reasons for an environmental quality
program are more deeply based. The survival
of man, in a world in which decency and
dignity are possible, is the basic reason for
bringing man's impact on his environment
under informed and responsible control. The
economic costs of maintaining a life sustain-
ing: environment are unavoidable. We have
not understood the necessity for respecting
the limited capabilities of nature in accommo-
dating itself to man's exactions, nor have
we properly calculated the cost of adaptation
to deteriorating conditions. In our manage-
ment of the environment we have exceeded
its adaptive and recuperative powers and in
one form or another must now pay directly
the costs of obtaining air, water, soil, and liv-
ing space in quantities and qualities sufficient
to our needs. Economic good sense requires
the declaration of a policy and the establish-
ment of an environmental quality program
now. Today we have the option of channeling
some of our wealth into the protection of our
future. If we fail to do this in an adequate
and timely manner we may find ourselves
confronted, even in this generation, with en-
vironmental catastrophe that could render
our wealth meaningless and which no amount
of money could ever cure.
APPENDIX A—DOCUMENTATION ON ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROBLEMS
Following is a partial listing of recent writ-
ings on environmental problems subdivided
under five headings: (1) "Technical Reports,"
(2) "Conferences and Symposiums," (3)
"Journals," (4) "News Articles and Speeches,"
and (5) "Books, Yearbooks, and Pamphlets."
PART 1—TECHNICAL REPORTS
The Adequacy of Technology for Pollution
Abatement, Report of the Research Manage-
ment Panel through the Subcommittee on
Science Research, and Development to the
Committee on Science and Astronautics. U.S.
House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 2d
session, Washington, 1966.
Air Pollution: A National Sample. U.S. De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service Publication No. 1562.
Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Air-
port. A report of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel.
Office of Science and Technology. March 1966.
Executive Office of the President.
Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land.
National Academy of Sciences—National Re-
search Council. Publication 519, 1957.
Effective Use of the Sea. Report of the
President's Science Advisory Committee.
Energy R. & D. and National Progress. An
interdepartmental study. (The President desig-
nated the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology and the Chairman of Economic
Advisers as Chairman and Vic2 Chairman of
the Steering Committee.)
Environmental Improvement: Air, Water
and Soil. Department of Agriculture Grad-
uate School.
Environmental Pollution: A Challenge to
Science and Technology. Report of the Sub-
committee on Science, Research, and Devel-
opment to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics. U.S. House of Representatives,
89th Congress, 2d session. Serial 8. Washing-
ton, 1966.
[p.29074]
APPENDIX B—ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
INTRODUCED IN THE QOTH CONGRESS
The two problems—one with respect to
national environmental (or resource) policy
and the other regarding executive organi-
zation—have been the subjects of a large
body of proposed legislation. In the 86th
Congress, Senator James E. Murray proposed
S. 2549 which called for the establishment of
a Council of Resource and Conservation Ad-
visers in the Office of the President. Similar
or related bills have been introduced in sub-
sequent Congresses. A partial list of bills
introduced in the 90th Congress is given
below:
SENATE
S. 843. Mr. Mondale and others. February
6, 1967. Government Operations. Full Oppor-
tunity and Social Accounting Act: Estab-
-------
558
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
lishes a Council of Social Advisers, and di-
rects it to compile and analyze social statis-
tics, devise a system of social indicators, help
develop program, priorities, evaluate the ef-
fectiveness and impact of our efforts at all
levels of government, and advise the Presi-
dent in the establishment of national social
policies.
Requires the President to transmit to Con-
gress an annual report on the state of the
Nation's social health, specifying progress
made, listing goals for the future and speci-
fying policies for achieving these objectives.
Provides for a joint committee of Congress
to review the President's annual report on
the state of our social health, just as the
Joint Economic Committee exercises over-
sight responsibility in economic matters.
S. 886. Mr. Moss and others. February 7,
1967. Government Operations. Department
of Natural Resources Act: Redesignates the
Department of the Interior as the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources. Transfers vari-
ous departments from the Department of the
Interior and others to the Department of
Natural Resources.
S. 1305. Mr. Allott and others. March 15,
1967. Labor and Public Welfare. Piovides
that the President shall transmit to the
Congress by January 20, of each year, a report
on science and technology which shall set
forth (1) the existing major policies of both
Federal and non-Federal research organiza-
tions, (2) the impact of major developments
of science in the progress of such programs,
(3) major goals of the Federal Government
and of private research organizations, (4)
financial information on the funding of science
and research projects across the Nation, and
(5) his recommendations for necessary legis-
lation.
Establishes a Joint Committee on Science
and Technology composed of eight Members
of the Senate appointed by the President of
the Senate and eight Members of the House,
appointed by the Speaker, to assist the Pres-
ident by holding hearings and collecting rele-
vant data, in the compilation of material for
the report.
S. 1347. Mr. Javits. March 21, 1967. Labor
and Public Welfare. Establish a 12-member
Federal Council of Health within the Execu-
tive Office of the President, appointed by the
President for 3-year terms to (1) make rec-
ommendations and continuous evaluation of
policies and programs related to the Nation's
health, including disaster planning, (2) ini-
tiate study and development measures do-
signed to assure the provision of adequate
health manpower, services, and facilities and
to moderate the rising trend in the cost of
medical care, and (3) to advise and consult
with Federal departments and agencies, in-
cluding the Budget Bureau, on policies and
programs concerned with health services,
manpower, and facilities.
S. 2789. Mr. Nelson. December 14, 1967. In-
terior and Insular Affairs. Authorizes the Sec-
retary of the Interior to conduct a program
of research, study and surveys, documenta-
tion and description of natural environ-
mental systems of the United States for the
purposes of understanding and evaluating
the condition of these systems and to pro-
vide information to those concerned with
natural resources management. Authorises
the establishment of an advisory committee.
S. 2805. Messrs. Jackson and Kuchel. De-
cember 15, 1967. Interior and Insular Affairs.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct investigations, studies, surveys, and
research relating to the Nation's ecological
systems, natural resources, and environ-
mental quality. Establishes a Council on En-
vironmental Quality.
S. 3-031. Mr. Nelson. February 26, 1968. Pub-
lic Works. "Requires the President to make
an annual environmental quality report to
Congress and provides that the report set
forth (1) the status and condition of the
major natural, manmade, or altered environ-
mental systems of the Nation, and (2) the
current and foreseeable trends in manage-
ment and utili zation of such environments
and the effect of those trends on the social,
economic, and other requirements of the
Nation.
Creates a five-member Council on Environ-
mental Quality, members to be appointed by
the President and by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, in the Executive Office
of the President and directs it to oversee the
program of the Federal, State, and local gov-
ernments to (1) determine to what extent
these activities are contributing to the
achievement of environmental quality and
(2) gather, analyze, and interpret conditions
and trends in environmental quality.
Provides that the principal task of the
Council he to develop within a 5-year period
comprehensive national policies and pro-
grams to improve and maintain the quality
of our environment.
S. Res. 68. Mr. Muskie and others. Janu-
ary 25, 1967. Government Operations. Pro-
vides for the establishment of a Select Com-
mittee on Technology and Human Environ-
ment.
HOUSE
H.R. 258. Mr. Bennett. January 10, 1967.
Interior and Insular Affairs. Authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a pro-
gram of research, study and surveys, docu-
mentation, and description of the natural
environmental systems of the United States
for the purposes of understanding anct
evaluating the condition of these systems
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
559
and to provide information to those con-
cerned with natural resources management.
Authorizes the establishment of advisory
committees.
H.R. 3753. Mr. Dingell. January 25, 1967.
Government Operations. Consolidates water
quality management and pollution control
authorities and functions in the Secretary
of the Interior who shall administer such
functions through the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration.
H.R. 4480. Mr. Hathaway. February 1, 1967.
Government Operations. Marine and Atmos-
pheric Affairs Coordination Act: Establishes
an Executive Department of Marine and
Atmospheric Affairs headed by a Secretary
appointed by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate. Providea for the
appointment of an Under Secretary and three
Assistant Secretaries in the same manner.
Transfers to the Department of Marine and
Atmospheric Affairs the functions of the
major Government agencies concerned with
marine and atmospheric affairs.
[p, 29076]
Establishes as a function of the Depart-
ment a new coordinating Office of Marine
Geology and Mineral Resources.
Establishes a Joint Committee of Congress
for Marine and Atmospheric Affairs to carry
out the policies outlined in the act.
H.R. 4893. Mr. Moss. February 6, 1967.
Government Operations. Consolidates water
quality management and pollution control
authorities and functions in the Secretary
of the Interior who shall administer such
functions through the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration.
H.R. 6698. Mr. Daddario. March 7, 1967.
Science and Astronautics. Creates a five-
member Technology Assessment Board whose
members shall be appointed by the President.
Gives the Board the duty of (1) identify-
ing the potentials of applied research and
technology and promoting ways and means
to accomplish their transfer into practical
use, and (2) identifying the undesirable by-
products of such research and technology,
in advance, and informing the public of
their potential in order to eliminate or
minimize them.
Provides for a 12-member General Advisory
Council to advise the Board, and provides
that the Council members be appointed by
the President.
H.R. 7796. Mr. Dingell. March 23, 1967. In-
terior and Insular Affairs; referred to Science
and Astronautics, April 17, 1967. Directs the
President to submit to Congress beginning
June 30, 1968, an annual environmental
quality report setting forth the status and
condition of the major natural, manmade, or
altered environmental classes of the Nation*
with a view toward improving man's living
conditions.
Creates a three-member Council on En-
vironmental Quality, appointed by the Presi-
dent, to assist in the compilation, coordina-
tion, and preparation of environmental data
for the report, together with its recommen-
dations for development and improvement of
the Nation's environment.
H.R. 8601. Mr. Blatnik. April 17, 1967. In-
terstate and Foreign Commerce. Provides for
the establishment of regional airshed quality
commissions and airshed quality regions
when so requested by a Governor of one of
two or more contiguous States, and when it is
found that there is a threatening air pollu-
tion situation in such States, an adequate
abatement program does not exist, and that
action is necessary to protect the public
health. Makes provisions for administration
of the airshed quality regions and the com-
mission's duties.
Creates a Federal Air Quality Improvement
Administration to administer the provisions
of this act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Provides that the head of this Administra-
tion be appointed by the Secretary of HEW,
and provides for the appointment of an addi-
tional Assistant Secretary of HEW who shall
assist the Secretary in supervising the Fed-
eral Air Quality Improvement Administra-
tion.
H.R. 10261. Mr. Ottinger. May 23, 1967. Gov-
ernment Operations. Establishes a Council of
Social Advisers, and directs it to compile and
analyze social statistics, devise a system of
social indicators, help develop program pri-
orities, evaluate the effectiveness and impact
of our efforts at all levels of government, and
advise the President in the establishment of
national social policies.
Requires the President to transmit to Con-
gress an annual report on the State of the
Nation's social health, specifying progress
made, listing goals for the future, and speci-
fying policies for achieving these objectives.
Provides for a joint committee of Congress
to review the President's annual report on
the state of our social health, just as the Joint
Economic Committee exercises oversight re-
sponsibility in economic matters.
H.R. 13211. Mr. Tunney. September 28, 1967.
Science and Astronautics. Creates in the
Executive Office of the President a Council
of Ecological Advisers composed of nine
members to be appointed by the President
by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Directs the Council to study the na-
tional environment and national ecology of
the Nation and report to the President.
Grants it necessary powers.
H.R. 15614. Mr. Rosenthal. February 27,
1968. Government Operations. Establishes
-------
560
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
within the executive department a Depart-
ment of Health to be headed by a Secretary
of Health who should be appointed by the
President by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. Provides for the appointment
of five Assistant Secretaries and a General
Counsel to be appointed by the President
by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Transfers to the new Department
are the U.S. Public Health Service, the Vo-
cational Rehabilitation Administration, and
St. Elizabeths Hospital.
H. Con. Res. 307. Mr, St. Onge. April 6,
1967. Rules. Establishes a 10-member joint
congressional committee to study all the
problems involved in the extraordinary pollu-
tion of air and the navigable waters of the
United States, including the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico, by
the extraction, manufacture, transportation,
or storage of substances harmful to human,
animal, or plant life.
H.J. Res. 1321. Mr. Ottinger, June 13, 1968.
Judiciary. Amends the Constitution by add-
ing a "conservation bill of rights" asserting
the "right of the people to clean air, pure
water, freedom from excessive and unneces-
sary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic
and esthetic qualities of their environment."
APPENDIX C—FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
The Federal offices, agencies and commit-
tees listed below contribute a substantial
share of their time and operating effort to
administration and study of environment-
oriented programs.
1. FEDERAL AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture
Secretary
Under Secretary:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service.
Farmers Home Administration.
Rural Community Development Service,
Forest Service.
Soil Conservation Service.
International Agricultural Development
Service.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service.
Agricultural Research Service.
Cooperative State Research Service.
Federal Extension Service.
Department of Commerce
Secretary
Under Secretary:
Assistant Secretary for Science and Tech-
nology.
Environmental Science Service Adminis-
tration.
Environmental Data Service.
Weather Bureau.
Institutes for Environmental Research.
National Environmental Satellite Center.
Coast and Geodetic Survey.
Department of Defense
Secretary
Corps of Engineers.
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare 1
Secretary
Under Secretary:
Public Health Service.
Office of the Surgeon General.
Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environ-
mental Control.
National Institutes of Health.
National Center for Air Pollution Control.
National Center for Urban and Industrial
Waste.
National Environmental Sciences Center.
Food and Drug Administration.
Department of Housing and Vrba>.
Development
Secretary
Under Secretary:
Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan De-
velopment.
D'eputy Assistant Secretary:
Land and Facilities Development Admin-
istration.
Urban Transportation Administration.
Office of Planning Standards and Coordi-
nation.
Department of the Interior
Secretary
Under Secretary:
Office of the Science Adviser.
Office of Ecology.
Office of Water Resources Research.
Assistant Secretary:
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
National Park Service.
Assistant Secretary of Mineral Resources:
Office of Oil and Gas.
Office of Mineral and Solid Fuels.
Office of Coal Research.
Bureau of Mines.
Geological Survey.
Assistant Secretary of Public Land Man-
agement :
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Assistant Secretary of Water and Power
Development:
Bureau of Reclamation.
Bonneville Power Administration.
Southeastern Power Administration.
1 Currently reorganizing.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
561
Southwestern Power Administration.
Assistant Secretary of Water Pollution !
Control:
Office of Saline Water.
Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration.
Department of Justice
The Attorney General
The Deputy Attorney General.
Land and Natural Resources Division.
Department of State
International Boundary and Water Com-
mission—United States and Mexico.
International Scientific and Technical
Affairs.
Agency for International Development.
International Joint Commission—United
States and Canada.
Department of Transportation
Secretary
Under Secretary:
Transportation Policy Council.
Federal Aviation Administration.
Federal Highway Administration.
Federal Railroad Administration:
Office of High Speed Ground Transporta-
tion.
Coast Guard.
Executive Office of the President
The President
Bureau of the Budget.
Council of Economic Advisers.
Federal Committee on the Economic Im-
pact of Pollution Abatement.
Office of Science and Technology:
President's Science Advisory Committee:
Panel on the Environment.
[p. 29077]
Federal Council for Science and Tech-
nology :
Committee on Environmental Quality.
Committee on Water Resources Research.
President's Council on Recreation and Nat-
ural Beauty.
National Council on Marine Resources and
Engineering Development.
Independent agencies
Atomic Energy Commission.
Civil Aeronautics Board.
Federal Power Commission.
National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration.
National Science Foundation.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Water Resources Council.
Appalachian Regional Commission.
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Smithsonian Institution.
2. QUASIGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
National Academy of Sciences-National
Academy of Engineering-National Research
Council:
Environmental Studies Board: Oversees all
mvironmental quality studies of the NAS,
^AE, and NRC. Provides a forum for devel-
opment and exchange of new ideas and their
application to environmental problems.
Committee on Persistent Pesticides.
Committee on Resources and Man.
Committee on Agricultural Land Use and
Wildlife Resources.
U.S. National Committee for the Interna-
tional Biological Program.
Agricultural Board.
Committee on Solid Wastes Management.
Committee on Air Pollution.
Committee on Water Quality Management.
Committee on Remote Sensing of the En-
vironment.
Committee Advisory to the Environmental
Science Services Administration.
Committee for the Development of Criteria
for Nonrail Transit Vehicles.
Committee on Environmental Physiology.
Committee on Water.
Advisory Committee to the Federal Radia-
tion Council.
Building Research Advisory Board.
Committee on Ocean Engineering.
Committee on Geography.
Committee on Toxicology and the Advisory
Center on Toxicology.
Committee on Hazardous Materials.
Ad Hoc Committee on Human Factors in
Environmental Change.
Committee on Urban Technology and Com-
mittee on Social and Behavioral Urban Re-
search.
Highway Research Board.
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and
Biomechanics.
3. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEES
Source: Federal Council on Science and
Technology:
Interdepartmental Committee for Atmos-
pheric Sciences.
Committee on Environmental Quality.
Committee on Scientific and Technical
Information.
Committee on Solid Earth Sciences.
Committee on Water Resources Research.
Inter agency Committee on Meteorological
Services and Interagency Committee on Ap-
plied Meteorological Research.
Federal Committee on Pest Control.
Armed Forces Pest Control Board.
Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Ad-
visory Committee.
Federal Advisory Committee on Water Data.
Interagrency Committee on Coordination of
Sewer and Water Programs.
Steering Committee: United States-Ger-
man Cooperative Program in Natural Re-
sources, Pollution Control and Urban Devel-
opment.
-------
562
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
CONGRESSIONAL WHITE PAPER ON A NATIONAL
POLICY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
PART 1. ASPECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
The colloquium1 focused on the evolving
task the Congress faces in finding more ade-
quate means to manage the quality of the
American environment.
In the recent past, a good deal of public
interest in the environment has shifted from
its preoccupation with the extraction of
natural resources to the more compelling
problems of deterioration in natural sys-
tems of air, land, and water. The essential
policy issue of conflicting demands has be-
come well recognized.
Several social attitudes have become the
action force in the movement for improved
environmental policies and programs. One
is the desire for esthetically attractive sur-
roundings. Another is the recognition of the
folly of excessive population densities. Still
another is the mounting irritation, disgust,
and discomfort (aside from actual economic
loss) resulting from such anomalies as
smoggy air and polluted streams and sea-
shores.
The broad public interest in the natural
environment was succinctly defined by a
report of the National Academy of Sciences
thus:
"We live in a period of social and techno-
logical revolution in which man's ability to
manipulate the processes of nature for his
own economic and social purposes is increas-
ing at a rate which his forebears would find
frightening * * * there is a continuing world-
wide movement of population to the cities.
The patterns of society are being rapidly
rearranged, and new sets of aspirations, new
evaluations of what constitutes a resource,
and new requirements in both types and
quantity of resources are resulting. The ef-
fects on man himself of the changes he has
wrought in the balance of great natural
forces * * * are but dimly perceived and not
at all well understood. * * * It is evident
that the more rapid the tempo of change is
becoming, the more sensitive the whole sys-
tem of resource supply must become in order
to cope with the greater rapidity and sever-
ity with which inconsistencies, conflicts, and
stress from independent innovations will arise.
* * * If divergent lines of progress are seen
to give rise to ever-greater stresses and strains
too fast to be resolved after they have risen
1 Joint House-Senate Colloquium to Dis-
cuss a National Policy for the Environment
Hearings before the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, and the
Committee on Science and AstronauJcs, TJ.S
House of Representatives, 90th Cong., 2d sess.
July 17. 1968.
and been perceived, then obviously the in-
elligent and rational thing to do is to learn
,o anticipate those untoward developments
before they arise." 3
The statements of participants in the col-
oquium itself are evidence that the issues
the human environment are important to
a broad segment of society.
"Mr. ROCKEFELLER. * * * there is a strong
and deep seated concern among the Ameri-
can people for a better environment. The
quality of our surroundings is emerging as
a major national social goal (p. 4).3
"Secretary UDALL. One of the things that
[ take the most encouragement from is sim-
ply the growth of sentiment in the Congress,
:he number of conservationist Congressmen,
the number of organizations! however they
define themselves, that are interested in the
city problem, that are interested in the total
•nvironment problem * * * (p. 62)."
The long-term quality of the environment
is seen to be dependent on today's decisions.
The means of relating the present to the
future is not clear, however.
"Secretary UDALL. The real wealth of the
country is the environment in the long run.
We must reject any approach which inflates
the value of today's satisfactions and heavily
discounts tomorrow's resources (p. 14).
"Mr. ROCKEFELLER. * * * we have not set
down in clear terms what our goals are for
the long-run future (p. 6)."
If America is to create a carefully de-
signed, healthful, and balanced environment,
we must (1) find equitable ways of charging
for environmental abuses within the tradi-
t.onal free-market economy; (2) obtain
adequate ecological guidance on the charac-
ter and impact of environmental change;
(3) where corporate resource development
does not preserve environmental values, then
consider the extension of governmental con-
trols in the larger public interest; (4) coor-
dinate the Government agency activities,
which share with industry the dominant in-
fluence in shaping our environment; and
(5) establish judicial procedures so that the
individual rights to a productive and high-
Quality environment can be assured.
These and other aspects of environmental
management—discussed at the Colloquium and
submitted in the form of letters or reports
for inclusion in the record—are briefly high-
lighted below.
A. Relationships Among Population Growth,
Environmental Deterioration, and the Quality
of Life
2NAS-NRC Publications 1000 and 1000A
(1962).
3 Page nos. in parentheses following quo-
tations refer to the hearing transcript, op. cit.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
563
In an exchange of views on this subject.
Secretary Robert Weaver (HUD) pointed out |
that by 1980 there will be almost 240 million
and by the year 2000 about 312 million people
in the 48 contiguous States and the District
of Columbia, if present projects are borne
out. Secretary Stewart Udall (DI) argued
that a reasonable adjustment between pop-
ulation growth and our finite resources is
required for sound environmental manage-
ment, while Assistant Secretary Philip Lee
(DHEW) contended that we do not presently
have the kind of information to determine
what the ideal population for this country
would be, Dr. David Gates submitted the fol-
lowing observations in the worldwide context:
"It is clear that all segments of the world—
all soils, water, woods, mountains, plains,
oceans, and ice-covered continents—will be
occupied and used by man. Not a single soli-
tary piece of landscape will go untouched
in the future and in fact not be used re-
peatedly for as long as man survives. Every-
thing between soil and sky will be moved
about, redistributed and degraded as man
continues to exploit the surface of the
planet. * * * The population will grow until
it reaches some equilibrium level. * * * An
alternate ultimate destiny is for an earth of
half-starved, depressed billions gasping for
air, depleted or eutropic water, struggling to
avoid the constant presence of one another
and in essence continuing life at a degraded
subsistence level limited in numbers not by
conscience but by consequence. A third
possibility exists which is to maintain a
reasonable quality for life by means of
population control, rational management of
ecosystems, and constructive exploitation of
resources. * * * (p. 174),"
The issue of high population densities as
a source of growing stresses in our society,
with profound effects on health and safety,
raised a number of comments. Senator Henry
Jackson observed that the apparent cause-
and-effect relation of congestion and vio-
lence should be a consideration in arriving
at any decisions concerning what constitutes
an optimum population density.
Dr. Paul Weiss submitted the following
caveat:
[p. 29078]
"A stress free environment offering maxi-
mum comfort and minimum challenge is not
only not optimal but is detrimental. To be
exposed to moderate stress is a means of
keeping the human faculty for adapting: to
stress * * * lacking the opportunity for
such exercise, man loses that faculty and
becomes a potential victim of an unfore-
seen, but inevitable, stressful occurrences.
The optimum environment consists of a
broad band of conditions bounded by an up-
per limit far short of the stress limit and by
a lower limit considerably above the ideal
zone of zero stress. Within those margins of
reasonable safety or tolerance, man must
navigate his own responsibility (p. 224)."
Senator Clifford Hansen suggested that the
Federal Government might well consider pro-
grams which would provide incentives and
opportunities leading to a wider and more
balanced dispersal of our people. Assistant
Secretary John Baker (USD A) agreed and
proposed the creation of new community
centers as a matter of national environmen-
tal policy. Secretary Weaver commented that
any Government policy which has to do with
such dispersal must be based on the demo-
cratic principle of free choice—including for
all of our people the alternatives of living in
existing large population centers, suburbia,
or new towns.
B. Broadening the scope of cost accounting
Narrow utilitarian views governing the
use of environmental resources were cited
as the root of many conflicts and a major
barrier to sound environmental management.
"Dr. DONALD HORNIG. In my view national
policy must recognize the very wide array of
appropriate and necessary uses of air and
water and land. It would recognize, too, the
existence of a number of beneficial but non-
compatible uses, and make provision for re-
solving these conflicts. It should result in an
environment that is safe, healthful, and at-
tractive and that is economically and bio-
logically productive, yet that provides for
sufficient variety to meet the differing re-
quirements and tests of man (p. 31)."
Congressman Emilio Q- Daddario ques-
tioned whether the industrial objective of
immediate profit can be made compatible
with long-term environmental management
objectives. Congressman Joseph Karth ob-
served that the self-interests of some orga-
nizations do not coincide with the public
interest. Secretary Wilbur Cohen (DHEW)
commented that environmental controls may
be costly in the short run, but in the long
run they are a bargain both for industry
and the public it serves: "What we are
leally seeking is an enlightened self-interest
that industry and commerce have often ex-
hibited."
Dr. Lynton K. Caldwell contended that the
social costs of environmental management
should not be an undue burden on the busi-
ness community if all competitors carry it
alike:
"Scientific knowledge and rising levels of
amenity standards have added to public ex-
pectation that protection against environ-
mental change will be built into the products
-------
564
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
and production costs of manufactures (p.
99)."
The point at which compromise among
conflicting uses is reached furnishes one test
of adequacy of policy.
"Mr. ROCKEFELLER. * * *
"If you take a black and white approach,
you are never going: to resolve it. You have
a lot of hostility and you don't represent the
public constructively (p. 63)."
C. The role of ecology
Ecologists dedicated to the study of man-
environment relationships were urged to
show a greater willingness to engage with
industry in what was termed "ecological en-
gineering." However, Dr. Dillon Ripley argued
that this subject involves a kind of ecological
study which is still in the formative stage:
"I think it may take a generation perhaps
to achieve even the beginnings of the kind
of training, the kind of production of origi-
nal minds and talents that will be able to
perform the sorts of—studies—which we
stress the urgency of (p. 75)."
By contrast, several participants contended
that the science of ecology has already es-
tablished a number of basic principles, or
propositions, which could guide the attitudes
and actions of both industry and government
toward the environment. The following ex-
amples are paraphrased from submissions by
Dr. Paul Weiss:
"(i) Organic nature is such a complex,
dynamic, and interacting, balanced and in-
terrelated system that change in one com-
ponent entails change in the rest of the sys-
tem. Isolated analytical study of separate
components cannot yield desired insight. To
find solutions to separate problems of hydrol-
ogy, waste disposal, soil depletion, pest con-
trol, et cetera, is not adequate to achieve the
optimization of environmental resources gen-
erally. All factors and their cohesive impact
on each other need to be simultaneously
considered.
"(ii) The significance or insignificance of
mixtures of components and environmental
conditions cannot be judged from sheer data
on bulk or averages. This fallacy is a pitfall
ignored today by some planners, developers,
builders, and other practicing manipulators
of the environment. Our tendency to maxi-
mize a specific change or result too often
sacrifices other interrelated parts without
optimizing the total result.
" (iii) Similarly, the concept of single,
rigid, linear cause-to-effect chains of natura!
events has given rise to organically unreal
and practically untenable conclusions. More
attention should be given to the network
type of causal relations in an integrated sys
tern that establishes a multiplicity of alter-
native routes to such a goal of optimizing
the development of environmental resources."
Commenting on the complexity of the total
s> stems approach, Mr. Don Price stated:
"I am left with the vaguely uneasy feeling
that if we see the continuous complex here
as one set of interconnecting realities that
have to be understood as a total system, we
may be broadening our interest so much
that it's impossible to act on it at all (p. 64).
"Dr. HOENIO. It is a great thing to talk
about systems analysis, but the trouble with
that is that you have to put in some facts.
And, if you do the analysis when the facts
aren't available, you are in trouble.
'* * * it needs a basis in sound research
that understands, that gives us clear under-
standing of what the nature of these long-
term liabilities are (p. 51)."
D. Redirecting research activities
In addition to increased ecological re-
search, the colloquium touched on the need
for the entire scientific community to direct
a greater share of its total effort to long-
term environmental problems. Mr. Laurance
Rockefeller argued that we have not yet fully
harnessed this Nation's vast technological
talent in the effort for a better environment.
Dr. Walter Orr Roberts pointed out that
cross-disciplinary research on environmental
problems offers the utmost challenge from
the intellectual standpoint, and also cited
the following as an example of neglected
research:
"Only modest efforts have been made to
mount a sustained research program on the
medical effects involved in the slowly devel-
oping health impairments, like aging, that
result from low-level but long-persistent
alterations of the atmospheric environment.
Subtle alterations of the chemical constitu-
tion of the atmosphere, through pollutants
added in the form of trace gages, liquids, or
solids, result from industrial activity or ur-
banization. This is an area of biometeorology
that has significance in every living person,
and yet we have not yet seen even the first
beginnings of an adequately sustained re-
search effort in this area (p. 216)."
Future values are difficult to judge, par-
ticularly when they include non-economic
aspects of environmental quality. Social sci-
ence research and ecology were singled out
for increased support.
"Dr. HORNIG. One of the central problems
in weighing the future against the present
is that we don't know about the future. The
reason we can't muster political forces and
the reason we can't make decisions is that
for the most part the information is not
there (p. 51)."
The establishment of criteria for judg-
ment is a primary task of environment man-
agement.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
565
"Secretary WEAVER. There are too many
things we do not know, basic matters such
as how we define quality in the urban en-
vironment, how we measure it, and how we
strike a balance among competing values
(p. 19)."
"Mr. PRICE. There has been a lot of talk
lately about social indicators out of a convic-
tion that narrow economic statistical con-
siderations are not an adequate guide to
economic policy, and here we are talking
about a field in which it is not enough to
know about the chemical industry and the
biology (p. 67)."
Technology was seen to be the savior as
well as the villain in many environmental
quality problems.
"Mr. PRICE, There is a tactic or an approach
which has received a good bit of attention
recently in technological and scientific litera-
ture. Mr. Weinberg, I think, called it the
technological fix (p. 66).
"It is obviously true that the development
of the specific techniques has proved to be
not only the basis of our accumulation of
wealth which now makes it possible for us
to ask these more sophisticated questions
about our environment, to have very much
higher standards of environmental control
to insist on (p. 68)."
E. International aspects of environmental
alteration
The urgent necessity of taking into account
major environmental influences of foreign
economic assistance and other international
developments was underscored by Mr. Russell
Train.
Dr. Ivan Bennett commented that the
Federal Government is now participating,
through the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development, in a series of
cooperative programs that will encourage
the exchange of environmental information.
Senator Henry Jackson recalled President
Johnson's remarks at Glassboro State College
on June 4 in which he said:
"Scientists from this country and the So-
viet Union and from 50 other countries have
already begun an international biological
program to enrich our understanding of man
and his environment. I propose that we make
this effort a permanent concern of our na-
tions (p. 83)."
Dr. Roberts questioned whether these and
similar ongoing cooperative efforts were
fully adequate, and proposed that a broader
international scheme of cooperative "bench
mark" observations be made. As an example
he described the neglected area of strato-
spheric contamination:
"It is now very difficult for us to say any-
thing quantitative or certain about the de-
gree to which the atmosphere above New
York Ci ty, or Zu ri ch, Switzerland, or the
[p. 29079]
rural regions of the United States, Europe,
and Siberia has been changing in respect to
the burden of liquid or solid wastes that jet
aircraft carry. I have seen many occasions
when the skies over my home city of Boulder,
Colo., are crisscrossed with expanding; jet air-
craft contrails. Often these grow, in hours,
to a general cirrus cover that blankets the
entire sky. On these days, it is eminently
clear that the jet exhausts are stimulating
the formation of a cloud deck. Theory sug-
gests that these clouds, in turn, almost cer-
tainly modify the strength of incoming sun-
light, and the degree to which outgoing in-
frared radiation is permitted to escape from
the earth to outer space. No one can say for
sure, today, to what degree, if any, this alters
the weather (p. 217)."
Dr. Ripley summarized the feeling of the
colloquium:
"* * * to speak about environmental
quality without at least referring to the fact
of the international components and con-
sequences of even our activity as Americans
and considering our own acreage and our
own problems with the environment, appears
to me to be somewhat shortsighted (p. 74)."
Senator Edmund Muskie argued that ex-
isting conservation policies deal too heavily
with the permitted levels of resource ex-
ploitation at the expense of the equally im-
portant objective of enhancing these same
resources.
To overcome this difficulty, Mr. Don Price
suggested that countervailing policies might
be established which would encourage and
even make it profitable for private developers
not to pollute, but actually upgrade the
quality of our environment through the de-
velopment of new resource-processing methods.
Assistant Secretary Lee mentioned that in
the public health area a great deal of con-
sideration has been devoted to the subtle
health effects of many pollutants, but that
the management problem of setting stand-
ards is made all the more difficult by the
constantly changing character of chemicals
being added to the environment. As part of
the standard setting process, he proposed
that it may eventually be necessary to require
industries
"* * * to demonstrate a positive beneficial
effect, or an enhancement of the environ-
ment as suggested by Senator Muskie, rather
than just an absence of deleterious effect
(p. 71)."
Dr. Harvey Brooks argued that we could
easily move too far and
-------
566
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
"* * * place a presumption so much |
against new technology that in fact the dis-
incentives to innovation would create more
penalties to the society than the protection
to the environment that might be afforded
(p. 71)."
Standards which are derived from criteria
should not be absolute and unchanging,
thereby compounding further the difficulties
in the management decisionmaking process.
"Dr. HOKNIG. * • » the minute one sets
standards—standards which cost people
money—the question immediately comes: what
is the basis for these standards? If they
don't have a strong credible basis, not only
to the Congress, but to the public, we can't
enforce the standards (p. 51).
"Mr. PRICE. How do we set standards? How
do we know what we want to do until we can
define more accurately our problems and de-
velop some better measurements for it? (p.
67).
"It gets especially harder when you move
away from the physical or the chemical pol-
lution and you get into the esthetic type of
consideration (p. 67).
"Mr. TRAIN. * * * I'm suspicious of talk
of absolute standards. I think that there
must be a great deal of diversity in whatever
we get at (p. 81).
"Senator MusKIE. We ought to avoid the
straitjacket of Federal standards * * * (p.
44)."
F. The goals of enhancement and recycling
The American landscape is under extraor-
dinary pressure from man-made refuse and
other discarded material. Secretary Udall
singled out the empty metal beer can aa an
example:
"Science should come up with containers
that readily degrade, disappear, or are made
reusable. If we work hard at it, the expense
won't be any burden and we won't foist on
our grandchildren a mess of some kind as we
do so frequently today (p. 50)."
Dr. Gates suggested that the solution to
this ubiquitous problem rests in the analogy
between natural and human recycling of
resources.
"A natural ecosystem recycles its mineral
resources. The minerals are taken up into
the biomass and on death and decay are re-
turned to the soil. Man leaves his debris of
automobiles, cans, bottles, plastics, chemi-
cals, and pavement scattered about the land-
scape and lets his organic refuse of garbage
and sewage be funneled into the rivers and
streams to be washed to sea.
"He does not return the used minerals to
the factory for reprocessing or the nutrients
to the soil, but draws on new concentrated
supplies available in nature. Clearly, such a
way of life cannot continue indefinitely. Re-
lycling will never achieve 100-percent effi-
ciency; but if it can reach much greater effi-
ciencies than at present, man's lifespan on
>arth will be much longer (p. 176)."
G. New approaches in Government
Senator Henry Jackson argued that new
approaches to environmental management are
now required, and urged the Colloquium to
provide thoughts on the possible "action-forc-
ing" processes that could be put into operation.
Secretary Udall pointed out the difficulty
of reorganizing the executive branch on a
strictly environmental basis:
"Let no one .suppose there is any organiza-
tional panacea for dealing with environmental
problems at the Federal level • * *. To
combine all programs affecting the environ-
ment in one department would obviously be
physically impossible.
"Each agency should designate responsible
officials and establish environmental check-
points to be sure they have properly assessed
this impact.
"Whether or not new institutional arrange-
ments are accepted, the Bureau of the Budget
and the Office of Science and Technology
must play a central role in collecting facts,
anticipating impacts and providing an early
warning system for environmental protec-
tion (p. 18)."
Secretary Cohen outlined existing patterns
of agency leadership:
"In certain discrete, well-defined areas ac-
tivities have been organized under the 'lead
agency' concept « » «. The second pattern
involves multiple rather than single agency
leadership, primarily because it must accom-
modate a variety of interests, no one of
which takes precedence (p. 88)."
Dr. Donald Hornig stressed the power of
the Presidency to coordinate and translate
policy into action:
"The principle, the authority for oversight
and coordination—and in fact. Executive re-
sponsibility for management—is vested in
the President; it is exercised through the
Executive Office of the President, particularly
by the Office of Science and Technology and
the Bureau of the Budget in this respect. We
have been working very hard on this prob-
lem of coordination, and we have made much
progress. But, if our efforts turn out to be
insufficient, further steps will surely be nec-
essary and new organizational forms may be
needed in the Executive Office (p. 32)."
Assistant Secretary Baker related early ex-
periences of the USDA with the systems
approach:
"We [Agriculture] are developing a De-
partment-wide systems analysis capability
for evaluating and interpreting the on-going
programs. • • • We seek to organize our
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
567
efforts in w&ya that will make them com-
patible with efforts that may be undertaken
by other agencies (p. 26)."
Secretary Weaver warned of the difficulties
in obtaining a regional or "problem-shed"
management of environmental Quality:
"There is a serious problem of stubborn
resistance to change in our political institu-
tions. This is true at the local and State level,
where the term 'metropolitan government'
is a spark to the tinder, and where needed
cooperation among neighboring local govern-
ments is sometimes resisted for fear it will
lead to metropolitan government * * *. This
means that at the Federal level, we should
and we have helped create institutions for
metropolitan subsystems that can handle
problems affecting the environment of whole
areas (pp. 20 and 21)."
Mr. Laurance Rockefeller stressed the value
of a commission comprising legislative, ex-
ecutive, and private sector members:
"I suggest to you that an effective means
of proceeding might be a Commission on
Environmental Policy Organization.
"It may be that this tack can be done by
some entity less formal than a Commission.
The Citizens Advisory Committee on Recre-
ation and Natural Beauty plans to make the
environment subject one of its major inter-
ests during the coming year.
"The Committee is, of course, directed to
make its recommendations to the President
and the President's Council on Recreation
and Natural Beauty, (pp. 6 and 7.)"
The Congress was discussed in terms of its
own organizational confusion in treating en-
vironmental issues.
"Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The layman is confused
by the organization of Congress in the envi-
ronmental field, (p. 6.)
"Secretary UDALL. There is still a lack of
overview. (P. 13.) * * * I think Congress
ought to be much less bashful about spend-
ing more money on strengthening its staff so
it can provide the kind of oversight that is
needed, (p. 64.)
"Secretary COHEN. We recommend that
the Congress examine its own organization in
order to improve its ability to deal in a com-
prehensive and coordinated manner with the
total problem of environmental quality, (p.
40.)
"Senator ALLOTT. * * * Congress has abro-
gated its responsibilities to a great extent
with respect to legislative oversight, (p. 64.)
"Mr. PRICE. Congress too might have an
eye to its own organization in these matters:
How far it would be possible to go on from
this kind of occasional informal exchange of
views toward either special nonlegislative
committees like the Joint Committee on the
Economic Report, perhaps in conjunction with
some development within the President's Office;
how far pieces of jurisdiction could be carved
out for legislative committees; how far the
burden of coordination could be forced on
the Appropriations Committee * • * (p. 69.)"
PART II. ALTERNATIVES FOB CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION
An impressive number and variety of leg-
islative proposals for improving the quality
of our environment have been set before the
90th Congress (see appendix). Support for
action has come from diverse segments of
American society: from the scientific eom-
[p. 29080]
munity, from business, and from public af-
fairs groups.
The Congress should move ahead to define
clearly the desires of the American people
in operational terms that the President, gov-
ernment agencies at all levels, the courts,
private enterprise, and the public can con-
trol and act upon.
The ultimate responsibility for protecting
the human-serving values of our environment
rests jointly with the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches of our Government. The
Congress, as a full partner, has the obligation
to provide comprehensive oversight of all
environment-affecting programs of the execu-
tive branch, and also to participate in the
overall design of national policy, thus serving
both as architect of environmental manage-
ment strategy and as the elaborator of goals
and principles for guiding future legal actions.
Under the present organization of the Con-
gress, varying aspects of environmental man-
agement (including air and water pollution
control, strip mine reclamation, outdoor rec-
reation, housing and space planning in urban
areas, highway construction, atmospheric re-
search, oceanography, and rural conserva-
tion) are committed to different committees.
While there has been a steady expansion of
independent committee interest in specific
environmental problems, the Congress so far
has not evaluated this field in its entirety
with a view toward evolving a coherent and
unified policy for national environmental
management.
It should be recognized that the declara-
tion of a national environmental policy will
not alone better or enhance the total man-
environment relationship. The present prob-
lem is not simply the lack of a policy. It also
involves the need to rationalize and coordi-
nate existing policies, and to provide the
means by which they may be reviewed con-
tinuously, made consistent with other na-
tional policies and ranked in reasonable
priority.
The proper development of such a far-
reaching body of policy raises many difficult
-------
568
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
organizational, economic and legal problems.
Some individuals who were present at the
July 17 colloquium suggested that a con-
gressional mandate on the subject of en-
vironment, which would necessarily encom-
pass a very wide range of problems and is-
sues, would be impractical and ineffective.
Yet others pointed out that equally broad
mandates and satisfactory organizing con-
cepts for managing our economic welfare
and for guiding the development of atomic
energy have been tested over a period of
years, with effective machinery now operating
both in the executive and legislative branches
to evaluate the extent to which national goals
and activities in these fields are meeting public
expectations and needs.
In any event, to those involved in the col-
loquium and recent hearings on this subject,
it is clear that two functions must be served:
coordination and information gathering. En-
vironmental problems cut across so many
existing operational organizations that co-
ordination in both the executive and legis-
lative branches must be improved. Further,
an effective channel of information exchange
and overview must exist between the Congress
and the administration. If, for example, an
environmental council were established in the
Executive Office of the President, as has been
proposed, it should be complemented with a cor-
responding joint congressional committee for
purposes of efficient and continued interaction.
The acquisition and evaluation of informa-
tion specifically for the Congress must be
improved. Raw facts and data from ecological
and economic studies must be interpreted to
be useful in the legislative process. This
function should be performed in an organi-
zation reporting directly to the Congress; for
example, a strong joint committee staff or
an expanded Legislative Reference Service
environmental unit.
Congress (regardless of present or future
executive branch approaches) may exert a
meaningful influence on the formulation oi
national environmental policy by embarking
on one or a combination of the following
steps: 1
A. A concurrent resolution could be intro-
duced declaring the strong interest of the
Congress in establishing national environ'
mental policy.
1 This white paper deals with action altei
natives for the Congress. Obviously the spec-
trum of organizational and administrative
alternatives for policy in the executive branch
is equally important. These range from
definition of rights with court defense, to
regulation by Federal agency, to standarc
setting, to incentives for voluntary conform
ance, to subsidy of technology for restoration
and maintenance.
This would represent a firm expression of
oncern on the part of the Congress about
nvironmental deterioration, but would not
ie a direct confrontation with the task of
defining national policy. The resolution might
urge the creation of an appropriate body to
nvestigate all matters relating to environ-
mental management; to analyze the means and
methods whereby the organization, adminis-
tration, and funding of government may be
mproved; and, to determine the ways whereby
nongovernmental entities could be encouraged
to participate in overcoming further deteriora-
:ion of the environment in the national in-
terest. Hearings on the resolution could pro-
Fide a forum for a wide range of opinion.
B. A joint resolution calling for an amend-
ment to the Constitution on the subject of
environmental values could be introduced.
This would require approval by two-thirds
of the Congress and ratification by three-
fourths of the States. The amending process
is both slow and cumbersome. Moreover, ac-
ceptance would require a tremendous ground-
swell of support. However, a proposed amend-
ment would generate wide discussion and
involve the State legislatures which are
vitally important in achieving environmental
quality goals. The advantage of constitu-
tional amendments lies in the unanimity of
national commitment. Such an amendment
for the environment could place expanded
emphasis on the judicial process as an in-
strument of controlling future abuse of en-
vironmental values.
C. A joint committee or committees on en-
vironmental management could be estab-
lished to provide across-the-board oversight
on Federal programs, to conduct studies with
the assistance of professional staff, and to
recommend legislation. Alternatively, select
permanent committees could be estab-
lished in each House.
Such committees could draw membership
from existing legislative committees involved
with environmental matters, and perhaps
focus primarily on the review of policy and
coordination matters dealt with by such
groups as the Office of Science and Technol-
ogy, Water Resources Council, the Council on
Recreation and Natural Beauty, and various
interagency coordinating committees.
D. A new environmental surveillance unit
to conduct research and information-gather-
ing services for the Congress could be or-
ganized.
In the past, Congress has shown reluctance
to add new appendages of this sort to the
legislative branch. An alternative might be
an expansion of the functions of the Gen-
eral Accounting Office to make continuing
studies of environmental conflicts and to
prepare appropriate reports for transmittal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
569
to the Congress. New staff positions and ad-
ditional funding would be required.
E. The Congress could establish a non-
governmental task force to carry out in its
belief a special study of environmental policy
needs.
Such a task force could engage the services
of private research organizations and draw
its membership from the finest talent avail-
able in the academic community. The task
force could be administered directly by the
Congress or made the responsibility of some
arm of the Congress such aa the Legislative
Reference Service, Library of Congress, which
has the authority to employ experts on short-
term assignments.
F. A temporary environment management
council could be organized.
Such a council might be similar in orga-
nization and operation to the National Coun-
cil on Marine Resources and Engineering De-
velopment. Its purposes could be to identify
all unmet needs and opportunities in the
environmental field, to study impediments
to sound environmental management, conflicts
of interest and gaps in existing agency and
congressional activities, and to develop recom-
mendations for legislative action within a
specified period of years.
The Congress would retain an overview of
the council and would control the budget for
its operation. Establishment of a policy plan-
ning group in the Executive Office of the
President forces the generation of proposals
to the Congress. A receiving committee should
be set up to correspond to this Council,
similar to the Joint Economics Committee
and the Council of Economic Advisers.
G. A governmental commission could be
established for the same purposes.
The commission could be composed en-
tirely of Congressmen, perhaps the chairmen
of key committees which deal with environ-
mental matters. Or it could be a Joint Com-
mission including representation from the
executive branch and the public at large.
A third type would be a Presidential Com-
mission with members chosen at the dis-
cretion of the Chief Executive. Through a
combination of studies and hearings, the
Commission could be asked to produce a
blueprint for legislative action in the en-
vironmental field.
H, The Legislative Reference Service could
be directed to add a central research and
evaluation on environmental matters.
A precedent is the establishment of the
Science Policy Research Division in 1964.
I. An environmental counselor could be
placed on the staff of each appropriate stand-
ing committee of the Congress.
The purpose would be to increase the
technical staff available for committee work,
Each counselor could be given the perma-
nent responsibility of advising the committee
to which he was assigned on the probable
environmental impact of all pending legisla-
tion.
PART III. ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL POLICY FOB
THE ENVIBONMSNT
The following language is suggested for a
statement of policy and reflects primarily
the proposed position and attitude of the
Federal Government, but also could be used
for the guidance of State and local govern-
ments, private sector industry and com-
merce, and individual actions. Activities and
relationships which involve man and the
physical environment (as contrasted with
purely person-to-person or person-to-institution
relationships) are the subject of this state-
ment.
It is the policy of the United States that:
Environmental quality and productivity
[p. 29081]
shall be considered in a worldwide context,
extending in time from the present to toe
long-term future.
Purposeful, intelligent management to recog-
nize and accommodate the conflicting parts of
the environment shall be a national responsi-
bility.
Information required for systematic man-
agement shall be provided in a complete and
timely manner.
Education shall develop a basis of indi-
vidual citizen understanding and apprecia-
tion of environmental relationships and par-
ticipation in decisionmaking on these issues.
Science and technology shall provide man-
agement with increased options and capabili-
ties for enhanced productivity and construc-
tive use of the environment.
The requirement to maintain and enhance
long-term productivity and quality of the
environment takes precedence over local.
short-term usage. This policy recognizes the
responsibility to future generations of those
presently controlling the development of
natural resources and the modification of the
living landscape. Although the influence of
the U.S. policy will be limited outside of its
own borders, the global character of ecologi-
cal relationships must be the guide for do-
mestic activities. Ecological consideration*
should be infused into all international rela-
tions.
World population and food production
must be brought into a controlled balance
consistent with a long-term future continu-
ation of a satisfactory standard of living for
all.
Energy must be allocated equitably between
production and the restoration, maintenance,
and enhancement of the environment. Be-
-------
570
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
search should focus on solar energy and fusion
energy for the long: term, and on energy
conversion processes with minimum environ-
mental degradation for the short term.
In meeting the objectives of environmental
management, it will be necessary to seek the
constructive compromise, and resolutely pre-
serve future options.
Priorities and choices among alternatives
in environmental manipulation must there-
fore be planned and managed at the highest
level of our political system. All levels of gov-
ernment must require developments within
their purview to be in harmony with en-
vironmental quality objectives.
Alteration and use of the environment
must be planned and controlled rather than
left to arbitrary decision. Alternatives must
be actively generated and widely discussed.
Technological development, introduction of
new factors affecting the environment, and
modifications of the landscape must be planned
to maintain the diversity of plants and
animals. Furthermore, such activities should
proceed only after an ecological analysis and
projection of probable effects. Irreversible or
difficultly reversible changes should be accepted
only after the most thorough study.
The system of free enterprise democracy
must integrate long-term public interests with
private economic prosperity. A full range of
incentives, inducements, and regulations must
be used to link the public interests to the
marketplace in an equitable and effective
manner.
Manufacturing, processing, and use of nat-
ural resources must approach the goal of
total recycle to minimize waste control and
to sustain materials availability. Renewable
resources of air and water must be main-
tained and enhanced in quality for continued
use.
The broad base of technologic, economic, and
ecologic information will be necessary. The
benefits of preventing quality and produc-
tivity deterioration of the environment are
not always measurable in the marketplace.
Ways must be found to add to cost-benefit
analyses nonquantifxable, subjective values for
environmental amenities (which cannot be
measured in conventional economic terms).
Wherever the maintenance of environ-
mental productivity or the prevention oi
environmental deterioration cannot be made
economical for the private sector, govern-
ment must find appropriate means of cost-
sharing.
Ecological knowledge (data and theories)
must be greatly expanded and organized for
use in management decisions. Criteria must
be established which relate cause and effec
in conditions of the environment.
Indicators for all aspects of environmental
productivity and quality must be developed
and continuously measured to provide a feed-
back to management. In particular, the en-
vironmental amenities (recreational, esthetic,
psychic) must be evaluated. Social sciences
must be supported to provide relevant and
dependable interpretation of information for
environmental management.
Standards of quality must not be absolute—
rather, they should be chosen after balancing
all criteria against the total demands of
society. Standards will vary with locality,
must be adjusted from time to time, and we
must develop our capabilities accordingly.
Decisions to make new technological ap-
plications must include consideration of un-
intended, unanticipated, and unwanted eon-
sequences. Technology should be directed to
ameliorating these effects so that the benefits
of applied science are retained.
Public awareness of environmental qual-
ity relationships to human welfare must be
increased. Education at all levels should in-
clude an appreciation of mankind's harmony
with the environment. A literacy as to en-
vironmental matters must be built up in the
public mind. The ultimate responsibility for
improved maintenance and control of the
environment rests with the individual citizen.
[p. 29082]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section I
This section provides that this act may It*
cited as the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969.
Section t
This section sets forth the purposes of the
act. The purposes of the act are to declare a
national environmental policy; to promote
efforts to prevent environmental damage and
to better the health and welfare of man; to
enlarge and enrich man's understanding of
the ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation; and to establish in
the Executive Office of the President a Board
of Environmental Quality Advisers.
TITLE I
Section 101 (a)
This section is a declaration by the Con-
gress of a national environmental policy. The
declaration is based upon a congressional
recognition of mankind's dependence upon
his physical and biological surroundings for
material goods and cultural enrichment. It
is further based upon a recognition of the
increasing pressures exerted upon the environ-
ment as a result of population growth, urbani-
zation, and technological development.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
571
The continuing policy and responsibility
of the Federal Government is declared to be
that, consistent with other essential consid-
erations of national policy* the activities and
resources of the Federal Government shall be
improved and coordinated to the end that the
Nation may attain certain broad national
goals in the management of the environment.
The broad national goals are as follows:
(1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each gen-
eration as trustee of the environment for
future generations. It is recognized in this
statement that each generation has a respon-
sibility to improve, enhance, and maintain
the quality of the environment to the greatest
extent possible for the continued benefit of
future generations.
(2) Assure for all Americans safe, health-
ful, productive, and esthetically and cultur-
ally pleasing- surroundings. The Federal Gov-
ernment, in its planning and programs, shall
strive to protect and improve the quality of
each citizen's surroundings both in "regard to
the preservation of the natural environment
as well as in the planning, design, and con-
struction of manmade structures. Each indi-
vidual should be assured of safe, healthful,
and productive surroundings in which to live
and work and should be afforded the maxi-
mum possible opportunity to derive physical,
esthetic, and cultural satisfaction from his
environs.
(3) Attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degradation,
risk to health or safety, or other undesirable
and unintended consequences. The resources
of the United States must be capable of sup-
porting the larger populations and the in-
creased demands upon limited resources which
are inevitable in the future. To do so, it is
essential that the widest and most efficient
use of the environment b« made to provide
both the necessities and the amenities of life.
In seeking intensified beneficial utilization of
the earth's resources, the Federal Government
must take to avoid degradation and misuse of
resources, risk to man's continued health and
safety, and other undesirable and unintended
consequences.
(4) Preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heritage,
and maintain wherever possible an environ-
ment which supports diversity and variety
[p. 29084J
of individual choice. The pace of urbaniza-
tion coupled with population growth and
man's increasing ability to work unprece-
dented change in the natural environment
makes it clear that one essential goal in a
national environmental policy is the pres-
ervation of important aspects of our national
heritage. There are existing programs which
are designed to achieve these goals, but many
are single-purpose in nature and most are
viewed as being within the province of a
particular agency of Government. This sub-
section would make it clear that all agencies,
in all of their activities, are to carry out
their programs with a full appreciation of
the importance of maintaining important
aspects of our national heritage.
This subsection also emphasizes that an
important aspect of national environmental
policy is the maintenance of physical sur-
roundings which provide present and future
generations of American people with the
widest possible opportunities for diversity and
variety of experience and choice in cultural
pursuits, in recreational endeavors, in esthetics
and in living styles.
(5) Achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit high
standards of living and a wide sharing of
life's amenities. This subsection recognizes
that population increases underlie many of
the resource and environmental problems
which are being experienced in America. If
the Nation's present high standards of living
are to be made available to all of our citizens
and if the general and growing desire of our
people for greater participation in the physical
and material benefits, in the amenities, and in
the esthetic enjoyment afforded by a quality
environment are to be satisfied, the Federal
Government must strive to maintain magnitude
and distribution of population which will
not exceed the environment's capability to
provide such benefits.
(6) Enhance the quality of renewable re-
sources and approach the maximum attain-
able recycling of depletable resources. In re-
cent years a great deal of the emphasis of
legislative and executive action regarding
environmental matters has concentrated upon
the protection and improvement of quality of
the Nation's renewable resources such as air
and water. It is vital that these efforts be con-
tinued and intensified because they are among
the most visible, pressing, and immediate con-
cerns of environmental management.
It is also essential that means be sought
and utilized to improve the effectiveness of
recycling of depletable resources such as fiber,
chemicals, and metallic minerals. Improved
material standards of living for greater num-
bers of people will place increased demands
upon limited raw materials. Furthermore, the
disposal of wastes from the nonconsnmptive
single use of manufactured goods is among our
most critical pollution problems. Emphasis
must be placed upon seeking innovative solu-
tions through technology, management, and, if
necessary, governmental regulation.
Section -ZOl(b)
This subsection asserts congressional rec-
-------
572
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
ognition of each person's fundamental and
inalienable right to a healthful environment
It is apparent that the guarantee of the con-
tinued enjoyment of any individual right
is dependent upon individual health and
safety. It is further apparent that depriva-
tion of an individual's right to a healthful
environment will result in the degradation
or elimination of all of his rights.
The subsection also asserts congressional
recognition of each individual's responsibil-
ity to contribute to the preservation and
enhancement of the environment. The en-
surement of individual rights requires re-
spect and protection of the rights of others.
The cumulative influence of each individual
upon the environment is of such great sig-
nificance that every effort to preserve en-
vironmental quality must depend upon the
strong support and participation of the
public.
Section 101
The policies and goals set forth in section
101 can be implemented if they are in-
corporated into the ongoing activities of the
Federal Government in carrying out its
other responsibilities to the public. In many
areas of Federal action there is no body of
experience or precedent for substantial and
consistent consideration of environmental
factors in decisionmaking. In some areas of
Federal activity, existing legislation does not
provide clear authority for the consideration
of environmental factors which conflict with
other objectives.
To remedy present shortcomings in the
legislative foundation of existing programs,
and to establish action-forcing procedures
which will help to insure that the policies
enunciated in section 101 are implemented,
section 102 authorizes and directs that the
existing body of Federal law, regulation, and
policy be interpreted and administered to
the fullest extent possible in accordance with
the policies set forth in this act. It further
establishes a number of operating procedures
to be followed by all Federal agencies as
follows:
(a) Wherever planning is done or deci-
sions are made which may have an impact
on the quality of man's environment, the
responsible agency or agencies are directed
to utilize to the fullest extent possible a
systematic, interdisciplinary, team approach.
Such planning and decisions should draw
upon the broadest possible range of social
and natural scientific knowledge and design
arts. Many of the environmental contro-
versies of recent years have, in large meas-
ure, been caused by the failure to consider
all relevant points of view in the planning
and conduct of Federal activities. Using an
interdisciplinary approach that brought to-
gether the skills of the landscape architect,
the engineer, the ecologist, the economist,
and other relevant disciplines would result
in better planning and better projects. Too
often planning is the exclusive province of
the engineer and cost analyst,
(b) All agencies which undertake activi-
ties relating to environmental values, par-
ticularly those values relating to amenities
and aesthetic considerations are authorized
and directed to make efforts to develop
methods and procedures to incorporate
those values in official planning and decision-
making. In the past, environmental factors
have frequently been ignored and omitted
from consideration in the early stages of
planning because of the difficulty of evaluat-
ing them in comparison with economic and
technical factors. As a result, unless the re-
sults of planning are radically revised at
the policy lovel—and this often means the
Congress—environmental enhancement op-
portunities may be forgone and unnecessary
degradation incurred. A vital requisite of
environmental management is the develop-
ment of adequate methodology for evaluat-
ing the full environmental impacts and the
full costs of Federal actions.
(c) Each agency which proposes any ma-
jor actions, such as project proposals, pro-
posals for new legislation, regulations, pol-
icy statements, or expansion or revision of
ongoing programs, shall make a determina-
tion as to whether the proposal would have a
significant effect upon the quality of the
human environment. If the proposal is con-
sidered to have such an effect, then the rec-
ommendation or report supporting the proposal
must include statements by the responsible
official of certain findings as follows:
(i) A finding shall be made that the en-
vironmental impact of the proposed action
has been studied and that the results of
the studies have been given consideration
in the decisions leading to the proposal.
(ii) Wherever adverse environmental ef-
fects are found to be involved, a finding
must be made that those effects cannot be
avoided by following reasonable alternatives
which will achieve the intended purposes of
the proposal. Furthermore, a finding must
be made that the action leading to the ad-
verse environmental effects is justified by
other considerations of national policy and
those other considerations must be stated in
the finding.
(iii) Wherever local, short-term uses of
the resources of man's environment are he-
ing proposed, a finding must be made that
such uses are consistent with the mainte-
nance and enhancement of the long-term
productivity of the environment.
(iv) Wherever proposals involve significant
commitments of resources and those com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
573
mitments are irreversible and irretrievable
under conditions of known technology and
reasonable economics, a finding must be
made that such commitments are warranted.
(d) Wherever agencies of the Federal Gov-
ernment recommend courses of action which
are known to involve unresolved conflicts
over competing and incompatible uses of
land, water, or air resources, it shall be the
agency's responsibility to study, develop, and
describe appropriate alternatives to the rec-
ommended course of action. The agency shall
develop information and provide descrip-
tions of the alternatives in adequate
detail for subsequent reviewers and de-
cisionmakers, both within the executive
branch and in the Congress, to con-
sider the alternatives along with the princi-
pal recommendation.
(e) In recognition of the fact that envi-
ronmental problems are not confined by po-
litical boundaries, all agencies of the Federal
Government which have international re-
sponsibilities are authorized and directed to
lend support to appropriate international ef-
forts to anticipate and prevent a decline in
the quality of the worldwide environment.
(f) All agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment are directed to review their existing
statutory authority, administrative regula-
tions, policies, and procedures. The agencies
are to propose to the President and to the
Congress new executive legislative authority
which they find to be necessary to make
their authority consistent with the provi-
sions and purposes of this act.
The committee expects that each agency
will diligently pursue this review and that
appropriate legislative recommendations wilt
be prepared for presentation to the Congress
within 1 year's time. The committee recog-
nizes, however, that there is a wide difference
in the complexity of legislation dealing with
the activities of the various executive agen-
cies and that a specific deadline might prove
unreasonably burdensome on some agencies.
Section lOt
This section provides that the policies and
goals set forth in this act are supplementary
to the existing mandates and authorizations
of Federal agencies. They are not considered
to repeal the existing authorizations. Where
conflicts occur, they will be resolved under
the procedure prescribed in section 102(f).
Section tOl
This section provides authorization for the
Federal agencies to include, as a part of their
existing programs and their ongoing activi-
ties, certain environmental management
functions which will be necessary to support
the policies established by this act. No spe-
cific authorization of appropriations is pro-
vided for these activities. The committee be-
lieves that the agencies can perform the
functions authorized as a part of the gen-
eral administration and operation of their
existing programs. To the extent that agen-
cies are pursuing activities with environmen-
tal management implications, the costs of
the functions authorized In this section are
[p. 29085]
appropriate costs of their work. The func-
tions authorized for each Federal agency are
as follows:
(a) To conduct investigations and re-
search relating to ecological systems and en-
vironmental quality. It is intended that such
activities will be undertaken by each agency
when its activities would have an adverse
impact on an ecological system or on the
quality of the environment.
(b) To collect and document information
relating to changes or trends in environmen-
tal conditions including ecological systems.
It is intended that each agency perform this
function in its area of expertise and opera-
tion.
(c) To evaluate and publish environmen-
tal and ecological data which it has collected.
(d) To make available advice and in-
formation at its disposal relating to environ-
mental management.
(e) To utilize ecological information in the
planning and development of resource-ori-
ented propects. Each agency which studies,
proposes, constructs, or operates projects
having resource management implications is
authorized and directed to consider the ef-
fects upon ecological systems to be a part
of the analyses governing its actions and to
study such effects as a part of its data col-
lection.
(/) To conduct ecological research and
studies within the Federal lands under its
jurisdiction.
(0) To assist to the fullest extent possible
the Board of Environmental Quality Ad-
visers established by this act and any en-
vironmental council or committees estab-
lished by the President.
Section ton (a)
This section authorizes the President to
designate an agency or agencies to carry ont
the following functions regarding environ-
mental management:
(1) Administer a program of grants, con-
tracts, and cooperative agreements, training
and research to further the programs of
ecological study authorized by title II and
to accept and utilize donations for this pur-
pose.
-------
574
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
(2) Develop and maintain an inventory of
Federal projects and programs, existing and
contemplated, which have made or will make
significant modifications in the environment.
(3) Establish an information collection
and retrieval system for ecological research
materials.
(4) Assist and advise State and local gov-
ernments and private enterprise in develop-
ing policies and procedures to enhance the
quality of the environment.
Section 20l(T>)
Appropriations in the amounts of $500,000
annually for fiscal years 1971 and 1972 and $1
million annually for 1973 and each fiscal year
thereafter are authorized for the purposes of
this section. The funds appropriated would
be allotted to the designated agencies as the
President recommends.
Section 20S
This section establishes in the Office of
Science and Technology an additional Dep-
uty Director to be compensated at the rate
provided for level IV of the executive sched-
ule pay rates.
The Office of Science and Technology
(OST) was established by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1962 to provide a permanent
staff in the Executive Office of the President
to advise and assist the President on mat-
ters pertaining to or affected by science and
technology. It is also directed to take on
such other assignments as the President may
deem best. The Director of OST, appointed by
the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate, also serves as the science adviser
to the President.
Since it was provided statutory authority
in 1962, the OST has broadened the range
and scope of its activities extending beyond
the province of research or policy for science
and technology to the interrelations of sci-
ence to broad national policies and programs.
In this sense, the OST is concerned with as-
suring the most effective and beneficial use
of technology in our society.
Thus, the OST deals with broad problems
facing the country in health, education, the
urban environment, energy policy and en-
vironmental quality.
The President's recent Executive order es-
tablishing an Environmental Quality Council
directed the OST to provide the staff support
and assistance to the work of the Council.
The President's science adviser was named
Executive Secretary of the Council.
In view of the importance of environ-
mental management problems and the im-
portant role which the President's Council
will have in resolving interagency conflict
concerning environmental issues, and in
coordinating the ongoing environmental
programs of the Federal Government, a
significant increase is expected in the already
demanding work load of the OST.
The committee feels that the addition of a
second Deputy Director as recommended by
the Bureau of the Budget in its July 7, 1969,
letter to the chairman, will be of great value
in strengthening OST's capacity to contribute
to effective environmental management.
[p. 29086]
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the
substance of these two initial titles
of the Senate version of S. 1075 is
not included in the House version.
There are, in addition, a number of
differences between title III of the
Senate version, establishing a Board
of Environmental Quality Advisers
and calling for an annual environ-
mental quality report to the Congress,
and the similar House provisions.
Titles I and II of the Senate ver-
sion perform two functions which are
essential for the realization of a
sound national environmental policy.
The first of these functions is the
statement of policies and broad goals
to guide Federal decisionmakers. The
statement will represent the first
comprehensive enunciation of na-
tional concern for environmental
quality.
The second function is the provi-
sion of authority and direction which
will permit the policies set forth in
the act to become a real working part
of all the activities of all Federal
agencies and programs.
There are about 80 major Federal
agencies with programs underway
which affect the quality of the human
environment. If an environmental
policy is to become more than rhetoric
and if the studies and advice of any
high-level, advisory group are to be
translated into action, each of these
agencies nust be enabled and directed
to participate in active and objective-
oriented environmental management.
Concern for environmental quality
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
575
must be made part of every phase of
Federal action.
Mr. President, following my motion
to disagree to the amendments of the
House to S. 1075 and agree to the
conference requested by the House,
a motion will be offered that the con-
ferees on S. 1075 be instructed to in-
sist upon the specific provisions of
S. 1075, as modified by the agreed-
upon proposed amendments that have
been discussed in the debate and
which will be set forth in the RECORD.
This procedure has been discussed
by members of both committees, and
while it is unusual, it has been ac-
cepted as a means which will insure
that the Congress will have an op-
portunity to act on the conference
report on S. 1075.
It is understood that the Senate
conferees will make every possible
effort to gain House agreement to
the text of S. 1075 as passed by the
Senate as well as the amendments
discussed today and set forth in the
RECORD. It is also understood, how-
ever, that the purpose of a conference
committee is to compromise and ad-
just differences between the House
and Senate passed bills, and that the
final product of the conference com-
mittee will probably have to involve
some changes in the language of both
the House and Senate passed bills
on S. 1075. It is, however, the hope
and the intent of all concerned on
the Senate side that these changes
will not in any way affect the sub-
stance of what has been agreed upon.
In any event, any proposed changes
from the agreed-upon text of S. 1075
will be discussed in advance by all of
the parties involved-
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the
statement just made by the distin-
guished Senator from Washington
represents the agreement which we
have reached.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate disagree to the
amendments of the House of Repre-
sentatives and agree to the request
for a conference, and that the Chair
be authorized to appoint the conferees
on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, be-
fore the Chair names conferees on the
part of the Senate, I move that the
conferees on S. 1075 be instructed to
insist upon the specific provisions of
S. 1075, as modified by the agreed-
upon proposed amendments that have
been discussed in the debate and
specifically set forth as follows:
S. 1076
A BILL to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct investigations, studies,
surveys, and research relating to the Na-
tion's ecological systems, natural resources,
and environmental quality, and to estab-
lish a Council on Environmental Quality.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. That this Act may be cited as the
"National Environmental Policy Act of 1969".
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To
declare a national policy which will encour-
age productive and enjoyable harmony be-
tween man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate dam-
age to the environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and welfare of man;
to enrich the understanding of the ecological
systems and natural resources important to
the Nation; and to establish a Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers.
[p. 29087]
TITLE 1
DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing
that man depends on his biological and phys-
ical surroundings for food, shelter, and other
needs, and for cultural enrichment as well;
and recognizing further the profound in-
fluences of population growth, high-denaity
urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new and expanding tech-
nological advances on our physical and bio-
-------
576
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
logical surroundings and on the Quality of
lite available to the American people; hereby
declares that it is the continuing policy and
responsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national
policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources to
the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each
generation as trustee of the environment
for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, health-
ful, productive, and esthetically and cul-
turally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degrada-
tion, risk to health or safety, or other un-
desirable and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heritage,
and maintain, wherever possible, an environ-
ment which supports diversity and variety
of individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit high
standards of living and a wide sharing of
lift's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable re-
sources and approach the maximum attain-
able recycling of depletable resources.
(b) The Congress recognizes that each
person has a fundamental and inalienable
right to a healthful environment and that
each person has a responsibility to contribute
to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment.
SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and di-
rects that the policies, regulations, and pub-
lic laws of the United States, to the fullest
extent possible, be interpreted and admin-
istered in accordance with the policies set
forth in this Act, and that all agencies of
the Federal Government—
(a) utilize to the fullest extent possible a
systematic, interdisciplinary approach, which
will insure the integrated use of the natural
and social sciences and the environmental
design arts in planning and in decisionmaking
which may have an impact on man's environ-
ment;
(b) identify and develop methods and pro-
cedures, subject to review and approval of
the Board of Environmental Quality Advisers
established by Title III of this Act, which
will insure that presently unquantified en-
vironmental amenities and values may be
given appropriate consideration in decision-
making along with economic and technics
considerations;
(c) include in every recommendation or
report on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly affectinf
the quality of the human environment, a de-
tailed statement by the responsible official
(i) the environmental impact of the pro-
posed action;
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which
annot be avoided should the proposal be
mplemented;
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;
(iv) the relationship between local short-
term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity; and
(v) any irreversible commitments of re-
sources which would be involved in the pro-
posed action should it be implemented.
Prior to making any detailed statement,
the responsible Federal official shall consult
with and obtain the comments of any es-
tablished agency which has jurisdiction by
law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved. Copies of
such statement and the comments and views
of the appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, including those authorized to de-
velop and enforce environmental standards,
shall be made available to the President, the
Board of Environmental Advisers and to the
public as provided by 5 U.S.C. 552 and shall ac-
company the proposal through the existing
agency review processes.
(d) study, develop, and describe appro-
priate alternatives to recommended courses
of action in any proposal which involves un-
resolved conflicts concerning alternative uses
of available resources;
(e) recognize the worldwide and long-
range character of environmental problems
and lend appropriate support to initiatives,
resolutions, and programs designed to maxi-
mize international cooperation in anticipat-
ing and preventing a decline in the quality
of mankind's world environment; and
(f) review present statutory authority, ad-
ministrative regulations, and current policies
and procedures for conformity to the pur-
poses and provisions of this Act and propose
to the President such measures as may be
necessary to make their authority consistent
with this Act.
SEC. 103. Nothing in Sec. 102 shall in any
way affect the specific statutory obligations
of any Federal agency (a) to comply with
criteria or standards of environmental qual-
ity, (b) to coordinate or consult with any
other Federal or State agency, or (c) to act,
or refrain from acting contingent upon the
recommendations or certification of any
other Federal or State agency.
SEC. 104. The policies and goals set forth in
this Act are supplementary to existing; au-
thorizations of Federal agencies.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
577
TITLE II
SEC. 201. To carry out the purposes of this
Act, the Board of Environmental Quality Ad-
visers is hereby authorized—
(a) to conduct investigations, studies,
surveys, research, and analyses relating to
ecological systems and environmental qual-
ity to the extent that such activities do not
overlap or conflict with similar activities au-
thorized by law and performed by established
agencies;
(b) to document and define changes in
the natural environment, including the plant
and animal systems, and to accumulate
necessary data and other information for a
continuing analysis of these changes or
trends and an interpretation of their under-
lying causes; and
(c) to evaluate and disseminate informa-
tion of an ecological nature to public and
private agencies or organizations, or individ-
uals in the form of reports, publications,
atlases, and maps.
SEC. 202. To carry out the purposes of this
Act, all agencies of the Federal Government
in conjunction with their existing programs
and authorities, are hereby authorized—
(a) to make available to States, counties,
municipalities, institutions, and individuals,
advice and information useful in restoring,
maintaining and enhancing the quality cf
the environment;
(b) to initiate and utilize ecological infor-
mation in the planning and development of
resource-oriented projects;
(c) to conduct research and studies within
natural areaa under Federal ownership which
are under the jurisdiction of the Federal
agencies; and
(d) to assist the Board of Environmental
Quality Advisers established under title III
of this Act and any council or committee
established by the President to deal with
environmental problems.
Sea 203. There is hereby established in the
Office of Science and Technology an addi-
tional office with the title "Deputy Director
of the Office of Science and Technology." The
Deputy Director shall be appointed by the
President by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate, shall perform such duties
as the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology shall from time to time direct,
and shall be compensated at the rate pro-
vided for level IV of the Executive Schedule
Pay Rates (6 U.S.C. 5316).
TITLE III
SEC. 301. (a) There is created in the Execu-
tive Office of the President a Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers (hereinafter
referred to as the "Board"). The Board shall
be composed of three members who shall be
appointed by the President to serve at bis
pleasure, by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate. Each member shall, as a
result of training, experience, or attainments,
be professionally qualified to analyze and
interpret environmental trends of all kinds
and descriptions and shall be conscious of
and responsive to the scientific, economic,
social, esthetic, and cultural needs and inter-
est of this Nation. The President shall desig-
nate the Chairman and Vice Chairman of
the Board from such members.
(b) Members of the Board shall serve full
time and the Chairman of the Board shall
be compensated at the rate provided for
Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates
(5 U.S.C. 5313). The other members of the
Board shall be compensated at the rate pro-
vided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule
Pay Rates (6 U.S.C. 6815).
SEC. 302. (a) The primary functions of th»
Board shall be to study and analyze environ-
mental trends and the factors that affect
these trends, relating each area of study and
analysis to the conservation, social, economic,
and health goals of this Nation. In carrying
out this function, the Board shall—
(1) report at least once each year to the
President on the state and condition of the
environment;
(2) provide advice, assistance, and support
to the President on the formulation of na-
tional policies to foster and promote the
improvement of environmental quality; and
<3) obtain information using existing
sources, to the greatest extent practicable,
concerning the quality of the environment
and make such information available to the
public.
(b) The Board shall periodically review and
appraise Federal programs, projects, activi-
ties, and policies which affect the quality of
the environment and make recommendations
thereon to the President.
(c) It shall be the duty and function of
the Board to assist and advise the President
in the preparation of the annual environ-
mental quality report required under section
303.
(d) The Board shall carry out its duties
under the provisions of this Act at the direc-
tion of the President and shall perform what-
ever additional duties he may from time to
time direct.
SEC. 303. (a) The President shall transmit
to the Congress, beginning June 30, 1970,
an annual environmental quality report
which shall set forth: (a) the status and
condition of the major natural, manmade, or
altered environmental classes of the Nation;
and (b) current and foreseeable trends in
quality, management, and utilization of such
environments and the effects of those trends
-------
578
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
on the social, economic, and other require-
ments of the Nation.
(b) Such report shall be referred in whole
or in part to the committees of each house
of the Congress which have exercised juris-
diction over the subject matter contained
therein.
SEC. 304. (a) In order to obtain assistance
and independent advice in the development
and implementation of the purposes of this
[p. 29088]
title, the Board may from time to time estab-
lish advisory committees. Committee mem-
bers shall be selected from among represent-
atives of various State, interstate, and local
government agencies, of public or private
interests concerned with population growth,
environmental quality, and planning for the
future, and of the other public and private
agencies demonstrating an active interest, as
well as other individuals in the fields of
population, biology, medical science, psy-
chology, social sciences, ecology, agriculture,
economics, law, engineering, and political
science who have demonstrated competence
with regard to problems of the environment.
(b) The members of the advisory commit-
tees appointed pursuant to this title shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate to
be fixed by the Board, but not exceeding
$100 per diem, including traveltime. and
while away from their homes or regular
places of business they may be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
sistence, as authorized by section 5703 of
title 5 of the United States Code for persons
in the Government service employed inter-
mittently.
(c) The Board shall organize and convene
a biennial forum on current problems and
issues concerning environmental quality,
population, and the future, and publish the
proceedings thereof, and participants in such
forums shall be selected from among repre-
sentatives of various State, interstate, and
local government agencies, of public or
private interests concerned with population
growth, environmental quality, and planning
for the future, and of other public and
private agencies demonstrating an active in-
terest, as well as other individuals in the
fields of population, biology, psychology,
medical sciences, social sciences, ecology,
agriculture, economics, law, engineering, and
political science who have demonstrated
competence with regard to problems of the
environment.
SEC. 304. The Board may employ such offi-
cers and employees as may be necessary to
carry out its functions under this Act. In
addition, the Board may employ and fix the
compensation of such experts and consult-
ants as may be necessary for the carrying
out of its functions under this Act, in ac-
cordance with section 8109 of title 6, United
States Code (but -without regard to the last
sentence thereof).
SEC. SOB. There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated $1,000,000 annually to carry out
the purposes of this title.
Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to
establish a national policy for the environ-
ment; to authorize studies, surveys, and re-
search relating to ecological systems, natural
resources, and the quality of the human en-
vironment; and to establish a Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers."
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, as
the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, I wish to congratulate our
distinguished chairman, the Senator
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), for
his unending efforts in obtaining pas-
sage of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, a. measure of
particular importance in this era of
ever-degrading environment.
I believe that some background in-
formation would be helpful at this
point. Let me take just a moment to
trace the historical development of
S. 1075.
The concept of a high level council
on conservation, natural resources,
and environment is not new. It first
found support from a former chair-
man of the Senate Interior Commit-
tee, the late Senator Murray. In the
86th Congress, he introduced S. 2549,
the Resources and Conservation Act,
which would have established a high
level council on environmental ad-
visers along with the first expression
of a comprehensive environmental
policy.
The bill while not enacted into law,
provided a vehicle for obtaining in-
formation in this vital area. The 4
days of hearings before the Senate
Interior Committee still serve as a
useful reference in this area.
This concept of establishing an en-
vironmental policy was carried on in
subsequent sessions of Congress. In
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
579
the 89th Congress, S. 2282 entitled
the "Ecological Research and Surveys
Act" was introduced by the Senator
from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON). The
provisions of this bill were later in-
corporated into S. 2805, introduced
in the 90th Congress by the chairman
(Mr. JACKSON), and the former rank-
ing minority member of the commit-
tee, Thomas Kuchel.
S. 2805, and similar other meas-
ures, were the subject matter of a
unique joint House-Senate colloquium
held July 17, 1968. This colloquium,
which was jointly sponsored by the
Senate Interior Committee and the
House Science and Astronautics
Committee, provided a forum for
Members of Congress and interested
parties to meet and discuss these
important issues.
During the 91st Congress three
bills were introduced dealing with
environmental policy and the creation
of new overview institutions.
These bills—S. 237, S. 1075, and S.
1752—were all referred to the Sen-
ate Interior Committee, and open
hearings were held on them in April
of this year. Along with the usual
notice in the RECORD, personal in-
vitations were sent to Senators who
had expressed a particular interest
in this area, to attend and participate
in the April hearings.
After the hearings, on May 29,
1969, the chairman introduced amend-
ment No. 25. This amendment re-
sulted from suggestions made by
administration witnesses. There was
general agreement by administration
witnesses, including Dr. DuBridge,
that a statutory declaration of a na-
tional environmental policy would
be both appropriate and useful.
Senators will recall that President
Nixon had committed himself in the
1968 campaign to a policy of improv-
ing the environment in his October
18, 1968, radio address entitled: "A
Strategy of Quality: Conservation in
the Seventies." In that address, Can-
didate Nixon characterized our en-
vironmental dilemma in these words:
The battle for the quality of the American
environment is a battle against neglect, mis-
management, poor planning and a piecemeal
approach to problems of natural resources.
Acting upon that commitment,
President Nixon established by Exec-
utive order the Environmental Qual-
ity Council in May of 1969. This
Council is of the highest level. The
President, himself, is chairman, and
its membership includes the Vice
President and five Cabinet members.
The council provides the action mech-
anism to implement environmental
policy decisions.
S. 1075, as passed by the Senate,
was coordinated with the administra-
tion, and was intended to comple-
ment the actions taken by the Presi-
dent. As a result, the bill, as reported
was cosponsored by every member of
the Senate Interior Committee.
As Dr. DuBridge expressed it dur-
ing the hearings:
I agree completely that one must have in-
dependent evaluations of the activities and
responsibilities of the various departments,
that it must have the best outside advice
that one can get, and operate out of the
President's Office to bring the best adversary
position ... to the attention of the Council.
That is what the Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers, as
envisioned by S. 1075, is intended
to do.
In June of this year, after thorough
discussions, S. 1075 was ordered to be
reported by the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs. Subse-
quent to this order, the administra-
tion through Director Mayo, of the
Bureau of the Budget, recommended
further amendments. On July 8, the
committee, in a unique move, recon-
sidered the bill and adopted several
of the recommended amendments.
On July 8 the bill was once again
ordered reported. The report was
-------
580
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
filed on July 9 and S. 1075 was passed
by the Senate on July 10.
Mr, President, I believe that this
historical development is most im-
portant for several reasons. First,
it shows the amount of work and
thought which has gone into this bill.
Second, it shows the degree of open-
ness that the committee has displayed
during this time. The committee
sought suggestions, aid, and partici-
pation from Senators, Members of
the House, and from the administra-
tion. Our committee listened to and
acted upon suggestions from many
sources.
I believe that it is both timely and
appropriate for the Senate to move
forward in completing congressional
action on this important and urgent
matter by appointing conferees to re-
solve the differences between the
House and Senate passed versions of
S. 1075. It ' should be noted, Mr.
President, that the House has al-
ready appointed its conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the mo-
tion.
The motion was agreed to, and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. JACK-
SON, Mr. CHURCH, Mr. NELSON, Mr.
ALLOTT, and Mr. JORDAN of Idaho
conferees on the part of the Senate.
[p. 29089]
1.2a(4)(d) Dec. 20: Senate agreed to conference report,
pp. 40415-40417, 40421-40427
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
OF 1969—CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I
submit a report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the amendments
of the House to the bill (S. 1075) to
establish a national policy for the
environment; to authorize studies,
surveys, and research relating to eco-
logical systems, natural resources,
and the quality of the human en-
vironment; and to establish a Board
of Environmental Quality Advisers.
I ask unanimous consent for the pres-
ent consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be read for the informa-
tion of the Senate.
The assistant legislative clerk read
the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of December 17, 1969,
pp. 39701-39702, CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present con-
sideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the
House amended the bill as passed by
the Senate by striking all after the
enacting clause and substituting the
text of a new bill. The House bill
included provisions similar to those
of title III of the Senate bill which
would establish a Council on En-
vironmental Quality. It also included
a short policy statement, but it omit-
ted most of the provisions of titles I
and II of the Senate bill.
The conference report represents
a sound compromise worked out in
three meetings of the conferees. It is
a strong measure which will be an
important step toward evolving a
sound program of environmental
management for the Nation.
S. 1075, the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969, was
passed by the Senate on July 10,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
581
1969, had three major titles. Title I
provides a "declaration of national
environmental policy" which set na-
tional goals for environmental man-
agement and established supplemen-
tary operating1 procedures for all
Federal agencies to follow in plan-
ning and decisionmaking which have
an impact on man's environment.
Title II authorized certain research
and data gathering functions. Title
III authorized the creation of a three-
member Board of Environmental
Quality Advisers in the Executive
Office of the President.
S. 1075 was amended and passed
by the House of Representatives on
September 23, 1969. As amended and
passed by the House, S. 1075 con-
sisted of one title which authorized
the creation of a five-member Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality.
On October 8, 1969, the Senate dis-
agreed to the amendments of the
House of Representatives, agreed to
the House's request for a conference,
and authorized the Chair to appoint
the conferees on the part of the
Senate. Prior to the Senate's agree-
ing to the House's request for a con-
ference on S. 1075, and in connec-
tion with debate on S. 7, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969,
there was a discussion by members of
the Senate Public Works Committee
and the Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee on the relationship
between title II of S. 7 and the pro-
visions of S. 1075 as passed by the
Senate on July 10, 1969. As a result
of that discussion, it was agreed that
the Senate conferees on S. 1 and on
S. 1075 would seek certain agreed
upon changes in each measure in
conference committee with the House
of Representatives.
The purpose of the agreed upon
changes in S. 7 and in S. 1075,
which to some extent, dealt with sim-
ilar subject matter as set out in
the October 8, 1969, CONGRESSIONAI
RECORD at pages 29050 through 29089.
It was understood during the dis-
cussion of this matter on October 8
that the Senate conferees on S. 1075
would make every possible effort to
gain House agreement to the text of
S. 1075 as passed by the Senate as
well as to the agreed-upon changes
discussed on the floor. This under-
standing was referred to in a motion
offered by the chairman of the In-
terior Committee that the conferees
on S. 1075 be instructed to insist
upon the provisions of S. 1075 as
passed by the Senate and as modified
by the agreed-upon changes dis-
cussed in connection with debate on
S. 7. As was stated on the floor in
connection with this motion:
It is also understood, however, that the
purpose of a conference committee is to
compromise and adjust differences between
the House and Senate passed bills, and that
the final product of the conference commit-
tee will probably have to involve some
changes in the language of both the House
and Senate passed bills on S. 1075. It is,
however, the hope and the intent of all con-
cerned on the Senate side that these changes
will not in any way affect the substance ot
what has been agreed upon. (October 8,
1969, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, page 29087.)
Mr. President, S. 1075 as agreed
upon by the conference committee is
very close to the bill as passed by
the Senate. Most of the substantive
provisions of the Senate passed bill
have been retained. In addition, most
of the substantive provisions of the
agreed-upon changes which were dis-
cussed on October 8 were adopted in
the report of the conference commit-
tee.
Mr. President, I might point out
that during the conference, the junior
Senator from Washington had an
opportunity to work with the junior
Senator from Maine, who is the chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Public
Works which is directly involved in
the environmental area. It was agreed
that certain statements should be ad-
-------
582
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
justed in the statement of the Senate
managers and this has been done.
The junior Senator from
[p. 40415]
Maine will comment on that in a
moment.
The changes the conference com-
mittee made in S. 1075 as passed by
the Senate and as agreed upon are
reflected in the section-by-section an-
alysis of the conference report accom-
panying the statement of the man-
agers on the part of the Senate. The
changes are also discussed in a sepa-
rate attachment, titled "Major
Changes in S. 1075 as Passed by the
Senate."
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that the major changes in
S. 1075, as passed by the Senate, be
printed at the conclusion of my re-
marks, together with a section-by
section analysis of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
DODD in the chair). Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
(See exhibits 1 and 2.)
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, it
is my view that S. 1075 as passed by
the Senate and now, as agreed upon
by the conference committee, is the
most important and far-reaching en-
vironmental and conservation meas-
ure ever enacted by the Congress.
This measure is important because
it provides four new approaches to
dealing with environmental problems
on a preventive and an anticipatory
basis. As Members of the Senate are
aware, too much of our past history
of dealing with environmental prob-
lems has been focused on efforts to
deal with "crises," and to "reclaim"
our resources from past abuses.
First. The first new approach is
the statement of national policy and
the declaration of national goals
found in section 101.
In many respects, the only prece-
dent and parallel to what is proposed
in S. 1075 is in the Full Employ-
ment Act of 1946, which declared an
historic national policy on manage-
ment of the economy and established
the Council of Economic Advisers. It
is my view that S. 1075 will provide
an equally important national policy
for the management of America's
future environment.
A statement of environmental pol-
icy is more than a statement of what
we believe as a people and as a na-
tion. It establishes priorities and
gives expression to our national goals
and aspirations. It provides a statu-
tory foundation to watch administra-
tors may refer to it for guidance in
making decisions which find environ-
mental values in conflict with other
values.
What is involved is a congressional
declaration that we do not intend, as
a government or as a people, to initi-
ate actions which endanger the con-
tinued existence or the health of man-
kind: That we will not intentionally
initiate actions which will do irrep-
arable damage to the air, land, and
water which support life on earth.
An environmental policy is a pol-
icy for people. Its primary concern is
with man and his future. The basic
principle of the policy is that we
must strive in all that we do, to
achieve a standard of excellence in
man's relationships to his physical
surroundings. If there are to be de-
partures from this standard of excel-
lence they should be exceptions to
the rule and the policy. And as excep-
tions, they will have to be justified in
the light of public scrutiny as re-
quired by section 102.
Second. To insure that the policies
and goals defined in this act are in-
fused into the ongoing programs and
actions of the Federal Government,
the act also establishes some impor-
tant "action-forcing" procedures. Sec-
tion 102 authorizes and directs all
Federal agencies, to the fullest ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
583
tent possible, to administer their ex-
isting laws, regulations, and policies
in conformance with the policies set
forth in this act. It also directs all
agencies to assure consideration of
the environmental impact of their
actions in decisionmaking. It re-
quires agencies which propose actions
to consult with appropriate Federal
and State agencies having jurisdic-
tion or expertise in environmental
matters and to include any comments
made by those agencies which out-
line the environmental considerations
involved with such proposals.
Taken together, the provisions of
section 102 direct any Federal agency
which takes action that it must take
into account environmental manage-
ment and environmental quality con-
siderations.
Third. The act in title II establishes
a Council on Environment Quality in
the Executive Office of the President.
This Council will provide an institu-
tion and an organizational focus at
the highest level for the concerns of
environmental management. It will
provide the President with objective
advice and a continuing and compre-
hensive overview of the fragmented
and bewildering Federal jurisdiction
involved in some way with the en-
vironment. The Council's activities
in this area will be complemented by
the support of the Office of Environ-
mental Quality proposed in the Wa-
ter Quality Improvement Act of 1969.
The Council also will establish a
system for monitoring environmental
indicators, and maintaining records
on the status of the environment. The
Council will insure that there will be
complete and reliable data on en-
vironmental indicators available for
the anticipation of emerging prob-
lems and trends. This data will pro-
vide a basis for sound management.
Fourth. Finally in section 201, S.
1075 requires the submission by the
President to the Congress and to the
American people of an annual en-
vironmental quality report. The pur-
pose of this report is to provide a
statement of progress, to establish
some baselines, and to tell us how
well—or as some suspect how bad—
we are doing in managing the en-
vironment—the Nation's life support
system.
It is the clear intent of the Senate
conferees that the annual report
should be referred in the Senate to
all committees which have exercised
jurisdiction over any part of the sub-
ject matter contained therein. Absent
specific language on the reference of
the report, the report would be re-
ferred pursuant to the Senate rules.
It is the committee's understanding
that under the rules all relevant com-
mittees may be referred copies of the
annual report.
This was the intent of the Senate
when S. 1075 was passed. In the
section-by-section analysis of section
303 of S. 1075 at page 26 of the com-
mittee report No. 91-296 it is ex-
pressly stated that:
It is anticipated that the annual report
and the recommendations made by the Presi-
dent would he a vehicle for oversight hear-
ings and hearings by the appropriate legisla-
tive committees of the Congress.
The Senate conferees intend that
under the language of the conference
report, the annual report would be
referred to all appropriate commit-
tees of the Senate.
Mr. President, one of the provi-
sions of the Senate passed bill which
the conference committee agreed to
change requires special comment.
Section 101 (b) of S. 1075 provided
that:
(b) The Congress recognizes that each
person has a, fundamental and inalienable
right to a healthful environment and that
each person has a responsibility to contrib-
ute to the preservation and enhancement of
the environment.
-------
584
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The conference committee changed
this provision so that it now reads:
(b) The Congress recognizes that each
person should enjoy a healthful environment
and that each person has a responsibility
to contribute to the preservation and en-
hancement of the environment
I opposed this change in conference
committee because it is my belief that
the language of the Senate passed
bill reaffirmed what is already the
law of this land; namely, that every
person does have a fundamental and
an inalienable right to a healthful
environment. If this is not the law of
this land, if an individual in this
great country of ours cannot at the
present time protect his right and
the right of his family to a healthful
environment, then it is my view that
some fundamental changes are in
order.
To dispel any doubts about the ex-
istence of this right, I intend to intro-
duce an amendment to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
as soon as it is signed by the Presi-
dent. This amendment will propose a
detailed congressional declaration, of
a statutory bill of environmental
right.
Another provision which should be
brought to the attention of the Senate
is section 102 (e) of the conference
report. This section directs all Fed-
eral agencies to:
Recognize the -worldwide and long-range
character of environmental problems and,
where consistent with the foreign policy of
the United States, lend appropriate support
to initiatives, resolutions, and programs de-
signed to maximize international coopera-
tion in anticipating and preventing a de-
cline in the quality of mankind's world
environment.
This provision was added to the
bill as an amendment I offered in
the Senate Interior Committee in
June. The purpose of the provision
is to give statutory authority to all
Federal agencies to par-
[p. 40416]
ticipate in the development of a posi-
tive, forward looking program of in-
ternational cooperation in dealing with
the environmental problems all nations
and all people share. Cooperation in
dealing with these problems is neces-
sary, for the problems are urgent and
serious. Cooperation is also possible
because the problems of the environ-
ment do not, for the most part, raise
questions related to ideology, national
security and the balance of world
power.
We must seek solutions to environ-
mental problems on an international
level because they are international
in origin and scope. The earth is a
common resource, and cooperative
effort will be necessary to protect it.
Perhaps also, in the common cause of
environmental management, the na-
tions of the earth will find a little
more sympathy and understanding
for one another.
I am hopeful that the United Na-
tions Conference in 1972 on "the Prob-
lems of the Human Environment"
will unite leaders of nations through-
out the world in the effort of achiev-
ing solutions to international environ-
mental problems. I am, however, con-
cerned that at the present time the
Federal Government is not doing
enough to plan and prepare for the
1972 U.N. Conference. Section 102 (E)
of the conference report on S. 1075
provides the Federal agencies and the
administration with the authority to
make a positive and a far-reaching
contribution to this international
effort to deal with this critical and
growing international problem. I am
hopeful that this authority will be
utilized.
Mr. President, there is a new kind
of revolutionary movement underway
in this country. This movement is
concerned with the integrity of man's
life support system—the human en-
vironment. The stage for this move-
ment is shifting from what had once
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
585
been the exclusive province of a few
conservation organizations to the
campus, to the urban ghettos, and to
the suburbs.
In recent months, the Nation's
youth, in high schools, colleges, and
universities across the country, have
been taking up the banner of environ-
mental awareness and have been
seeking1 measures designed to control
technology, and to develop new en-
vironmental policies which reflect the
full range of diverse values and
amenities which man seeks from his
environment.
S. 1075 is a response by the Con-
gress to the concerns the Nation's
youth are expressing. It makes clear
that Congress is responsive to the
problems of the future. While the
National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 is not a panacea, it is a start-
ing point. A great deal more, how-
ever, remains to be done by the
Federal Government, both in the
form of legislation and executive ac-
tion, if mankind and human dignity
are not to be ground down in the
years ahead by the expansive and
impersonal technology modern science
has created.
Mr. President, the inadequacy of
present knowledge, policies, and in-
stitutions for environmental manage-
ment is reflected in our Nation's
history, in our national attitudes, and
in our contemporary life. It touches
every aspect of man's existence. It
threatens, it degrades, and destroys
the quality life which all men seek.
We see increasing evidence of this
inadequacy all around us: haphazard
urban and suburban growth; crowd-
ing, congestion, and conditions with-
in our central cities which result in
civil unrest and detract from man's
social and psychological well-being;
the loss of valuable open spaces; in-
consistent and often, incoherent rural
and urban land-use policies; critical
air and water pollution problems; di-
minishing recreational opportunity;
continuing soil erosion; the degrada-
tion of unique ecosystems; needless
deforestation; the decline and ex-
tinction of fish and wildlife species;
faltering and poorly designed trans-
portation systems; poor architectural
design and ugliness in public and pri-
vate structures; rising levels of noise;
the continued proliferation of pesti-
cides and chemicals without adequate
consideration of the consequences;
radiation hazards; thermal pollution;
an increasingly ugly landscape clut-
tered with billboards, powerlines and
junkyards; growing scarcity of es-
sential resources; and many, many
other environmental quality problems.
A primary function of Government
is to improve the institutional policy
and the legal framework for dealing
with these problems. S. 1075 as
agreed to by the conference commit-
tee is an important step toward this
end.
There should be no doubt in our
capability to cope with environmental
problems. The historic success of
Apollo 11 last month demonstrates
that if we—as a nation and as a
people—commit our talents and re-
sources to a goal we can do the im-
possible.
If we can send men to the moon,
we can clean our rivers and lakes,
and 'if we can transmit television
pictures from another planet, we can
monitor and improve the quality of
air our children breathe and the open
spaces they play in.
The needs and the aspirations of
future generations make it our duty
to build a sound and operable founda-
tion of national objectives for the
management of our resources for our
children and their children. The fu-
ture of succeeding generations in this
country is in our hands. It will be
shaped by the choices we make. We
will not, and they cannot escape the
consequences of our choices.
-------
586
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
Mr. President, I believe that this
bill agreed upon by the conferees is
a sound measure. This measure will
be an important step toward building
a capability within the Federal Gov-
ernment to cope with present and im-
pending environmental problems.
Problems of environmental man-
agement may well prove to be the
most difficult and the most important
problems we have ever faced. I urge
the Senate to prepare the Federal
Establishment to face them. I urge
the approval of the conference report.
[p. 40417]
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, as a
cosponsor of S. 1075 and as the rank-
ing minority member of the Senate
Interior and Insular Affairs Commit-
tee, I wish to associate myself gener-
ally with the remarks of our distin-
guished chairman, the Senator from
Washington (Mr. JACKSON). I con-
gratulate him for his inde-
[p. 40421]
fatigable efforts to achieve final con-
gressional action on the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969. This
is a measure of particular significance
in this era of ever degrading environ-
ment.
Mr. President, at this point, per-
haps it would be appropriate to point
out that while the explanatory state-
ments relative to the interpretation
of the conference report language, as
provided by the chairman, are useful,
they have not been reviewed, agreed
upon, and signed by the other Senate
conferees. Only the conference report
itself was signed by all the Senate
conferees, and therefore, only it was
agreed upon and is binding. Unlike
the House procedure, Senate rules do
not provide for a coordinated and
signed statement on the part of the
managers for the Senate. Therefore,
while I may agree with the chairman
in most instances "with regard to his
statement, I must reserve the right
to disagree with any part of his state-
ment which I believe to be beyond the
scope of the discussions and agree-
ment of the conferees during the con-
ference. The vote to be taken here
today will be upon the conference
report alone. I presume other Senate
Members of the conference committee
will similarly reserve their rights. I,
also, wish to make reference to my
remarks of October 8, 1969, as they
appear on page 29061 of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD.
It has been accurately stated that
by the enactment of this measure, the
Congress is not giving the American
people something, rather the Con-
gress is responding to the demands
of the American people. The observa-
tion that Congress is generally far
behind the demands of the people is,
for the most part, accurate; but,
then, this is an observation that can
be made of any representative de-
mocracy. The measure of any repre-
sentative democracy is the lapse of
time between the apparency of the
will of the people and the positive
action on the part of their govern-
ment. In this case, government re-
sponse cannot be too soon. We can
only hope that it is not too late.
The concept of a high-level council
on conservation, natural resources,
and environment has had congres-
sional expression for nearly a decade.
It first found legislative support from
a former chairman of the Senate In-
terior Committee, the late Senator
Murray. In the 86th Congress, he in-
troduced S. 2549, the Resources and
Conservation Act, which would have
established a high-level council of
environmental advisers along with
the first expression of a comprehen-
sive environmental policy. While the
bill was not enacted into law, the 4
days of hearings before the Senate
Interior Committee still serve as a
useful reference in this vital area.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
587
Bills of similar purpose were also in-
troduced in the 89th and 90th Con-
gresses.
A unique joint House-Senate collo-
quium was held on July 17, 1968,
which was sponsored by the Senate
Interior Committee and the House
Science and Astronautics Committee.
This colloquium provided a forum
for Members of Congress and inter-
ested parties to meet and discuss
these important issues.
During the 91st Congress, three
bills were introduced and referred to
the Senate Interior Committee. All
three dealt with environmental policy
and creation of new overview insti-
tutions. Hearings were held and addi-
tional consultation and coordination
with the administration ensued. As
a result, S. 1075 was reported by the
committee and passed by the Senate
in a form which would provide the
President and the executive branch
with effective machinery to help it
provide the necessary leadership in
reversing the deterioration of our en-
vironment. In addition, the bill will
establish by statute a national en-
vironmental policy. I believe it is
significant to point out that S. 1075
enjoys the sponsorship of every sin-
gle member of the Senate Interior
Committee.
The Senate Interior Committee has
long had an interest in conservation
and environmental matters. Recent
examples include the establishment
of many national parks and monu-
ments, national seashores and lake-
shores, national recreation areas, a
national trails system, a wild and
scenic rivers system, and a wilder-
ness system. The Outdoors Recreation
Resources Commission was a product
of this committee. Much of this Na-
tion's most precious heritage has been
preserved and protected by legisla-
tion emanating from the Interior
Committee. This committee has also
passed upon legislation to establish
the land and water conservation fund.
In the area of water resources, this
committee has produced a myriad of
legislation to provide for the con-
servation and wise use of it, includ-
ing weather modification. The Water
Resources Council, the National Wa-
ter Commission, and the various river
basin planning commissions all have
their foundations in legislation acted
upon by the Interior Committee. The
reclamation program, which is under
the jurisdiction of this committee, is
an environmental program. One only
needs to observe the "before" and the
"after" with respect to a reclamation
project to know this.
In 1964, we passed upon legislation
to establish the Public Land Law Re-
view Commission and its companion
measure, the Multiple Use and Clas-
sification Act. This is truly landmark
legislation since our public lands are
an important feature of our environ-
ment and its quality.
In the field of mineral resources,
this committee and the Senate ap-
proved a measure, which I have in-
troduced in six successive Congresses,
which would establish a national min-
ing and minerals policy. The signifi-
cance of this measure to environmen-
tal quality may not be apparent at
first view, but the quality of our en-
vironment has a direct relationship to
the availability of materials. In addi-
tion, during the hearings on this meas-
ure, there was a recognition of the
need to better control mine waste
products by all concerned. Also, tech-
nology and the discovery of new
materials may lead to the solution of
some of our most troublesome en-
vironmental problems. Implicit in a
national mining and minerals policy
is the development of improved
methods to recycle both industrial
and other wastes and scrap back into
the materials stream.
-------
588
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
I have taken the time to mention
just a few of the legislative achieve-
ments of the Interior Committee to
demonstrate its long-standing interest
and endeavors in the matter of en-
vironmental quality. Other commit-
tees have also displayed interest in
the environmental field, and I do not
intend to in any way diminish their
achievements.
The President has expressed his
concern over the degradation of our
environment. Senators will recall that
President Nixon had committed him-
self in the 1968 campaign to a policy
of improving the environment in his
October 18, 1968, radio address en-
titled: "A Strategy of Quality: Con-
servation in the Seventies." In that
address, Candidate Nixon character-
ized our environmental dilemma in
these words:
The battle for the quality of the American
environment ia a battle against neglect, mis-
management, poor planning and a piecemeal
approach to problems of natural resources.
Acting upon that commitment,
President Nixon established by Ex-
ecutive order the "Environmental
Quality Council" in May of 1969. The
Council is of the highest level. The
President, himself, is Chairman, and
its membership includes the Vice
President and five cabinet members.
The Council provides the action
mechanism to implement environmen-
tal policy decisions.
S. 1075, as passed by the Senate
and as reported from the conference
is designed to complement the actions
of the President and provide him with
workable tools to get on with the task
of repairing our damaged environ-
ment and preventing further detri-
ment to it.
We can no longer afford to view the
environmental problem on a basis of
cleaning up our dirt. We must ap-
proach it from the stand-point of
prevention. Prevention will require
planning—long-range planning—and
that planning must rest upon re-
search and new technology. In the
89th and 90th Congresses, I intro-
duced legislation which I believe
would assist the Congress to partici-
pate in a meaningful way in deter-
mining the direction and emphasis of
federally financed research. As Sena-
tors know, Federal expenditures for
research and development approach
an annual amount of $17 billion. The
funds for this research and develop-
ment effort are made available in 13
separate appropriations bills, and at
no point does Congress have an op-
portunity to exercise an overview of
our total research and development
program. My proposal would provide
for the establishment of a nonlegis-
lative joint House and Senate com-
mittee to review and report to the
Congress on the effectiveness of our
overall research and development pro-
gram, based upon an annual report
from the President. Such a mecha-
nism, had it come into existence, could
have helped the Congress to have
made the necessary decisions with
regard to research to have dealt with
the many serious problems now facing
us in the environmental area. I still
hold the belief that some mechanism
similar to the one proposed in my
bill S. 1305 of the 90th Congress
would prove to be useful and helpful.
In summary, the environment is the
[p. 40422]
concern of us all. In some respect,
nearly every department of the Gov-
ernment is or may be involved in
decisions or actions which affect the
environment. And, the jurisdiction of
the various committees of Congress
are similarly affected by environmen-
tal considerations. The environment
is not the exclusive bailiwick of any
committee of Congress nor depart-
ment of Government. S. 1075 recog-
nizes this fact, and therein lies its
strength, appropriateness, and time-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
589
liness. This is truly landmark legis-
lation in history of man and his
efforts to protect and improve his
environment, and I am proud to be
associated with this measure.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I
wish to express my appreciation at
this point for the fine cooperation
that we have had in trying to work
out differences which occurred since
the conferees met on S. 1075.
The junior Senator from Maine has
been most cooperative. We would have
had many unresolved problems had
it not been for his cooperation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
wish to express appreciation to the
junior Senator from Washington for
his cooperation in working out points
of difference which otherwise might
have been very difficult and could
have led to difficulties on the floor of
the Senate, which all of us wanted
to avoid.
The basic objective of S. 1075 is
one to which I think all members of
the Committee on Public Works, as
well as all members of the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs sub-
scribed, and that is the concept of
developing an overall and total en-
vironmental improvement policy. We
recognize that in order to do that
we will be concerned with the work
of many agencies in the executive
branch of Government as well as
with the work of many committees in
Congress.
What we have undertaken to do in
our cooperative effort on this bill and
in S. 7, which is in conference be-
tween the two Houses, is to begin
the process of developing a compre-
hensive review of our environmental
policies as well as a comprehensive
policy which we hope will emerge out
of the work of these disparate execu-
tive agencies and eight Senate com-
mittees.
I do not intend to prolong my dis-
cussion of the bill, but I think the
discussions which I have been privi-
leged to have with the distinguished
Senator from Washington and other
members of the committee, as well as
with members of the Committee on
Public Works and the two staffs have
raised some points of emphasis to
which I should refer in this discus-
sion.
I know my colleagues on the Com-
mittee on Public Works, the chair-
man, the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH), and the distin-
guished ranking Republican member
(Mr. BOGGS), also might like to ask
questions for points of emphasis.
One of the questions that primarily
concerned us on the floor of the
Senate on October 8, when we last
had a discussion among: those con-
cerned, and one which concerned us
in the discussion of the conference re-
port, was the question of the relation-
ship of this legislation to the estab-
lished agencies of the executive
branch. First of all, we were con-
cerned with those which have an im-
pact upon the environment, actual or
potential, and second, we were con-
cerned with those agencies which have
responsibilities in the field of environ-
mental improvement.
I would like to refer to some of the
insertions in the RECORD made by the
distinguished Senator from Washing-
ton. He has inserted three principal
documents: First, his floor statement,
as it is described, in the conference
report; second, a section-by-section
analysis of the report as amended in
conference; and finally, a statement
of major changes in S. 1075, as
passed by the Senate and as changed
by the conference report.
First, I should like to refer to page
4 of the major changes analysis. On
page 4 he refers to that part of the
discussion which is entitled "section
102 in general" and I should like to
read it:
-------
590
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
The conference substitute provides that
the phrase "to the fullest extent possible"
applies with respect to those actions which
Congress authorizes and directs to be done
under both clauses (1) and (2) of section
102 (in the Senate-passed bill, the phrase
applied only to the directive in clause (1)).
Mr. President, what disturbed us
about this language in the "major
changes analysis" was the impact of
the phrase "to the fullest extent po?-
sible" upon the executive agencies
which have authority under other
statutes with respect to the improve-
ment of the quality of our environ-
ment, specifically such agencies as
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration and the National Air
Pollution Control Administration.
Both agencies are of special interest
to the Senate Committee on Public
Works. Each operates under basic
legislation which has been written
under the jurisdiction of the Senate
Public Works Committee and which
has become law. Legislation has been
carefully developed over the past 7
or 8 years. We were concerned that S.
1075, through such language as that
which I have just quoted, should not
have the effect of changing the basic
legislation governing the operation
of the agencies such as those to which
I have referred.
As a result of the discussions with
the Senator from Washington and
his staff, language was inserted on
page 5 of the "major changes docu-
ment" put into the RECORD by the
Senator from Washington which clar-
ifies this point.
That insertion reads:
Many existing agencies such as the Na-
tional Park Service, the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration, and the N;
tional Air Pollution Control Administration
already have important responsibilities in the
area of environmental control. The provisions
of section 102 (aa -well as 103) are not de-
signed to result in any change in the man-
ner in which they carry out their environ-
mental protection authority.
It is clear then, and this is the
clear understanding of the Senator
from Washington and his colleagues,
and of those of us who serve on the
Public Works Committee, that the
agencies having authority in the en-
vironmental improvement field will
continue to operate under their legis-
lative mandates as previously estab-
lished, and that those legislative man-
dates are not changed in any way by
section 102-5.
The second section of the confer-
ence report which is of concern to us
is section 103, for the very same rea-
sons that I have discussed already. I
shall read this portion of the discus-
sion in the major changes analysis
placed in the RECORD by the Senator
from Washington.
This portion reads:
This section is based upon a provision of
the Senate passed bill [section 102 (f) ] not
in the House amendment. This section, as
agreed to by the conferees, provides that all
agencies of the federal government shall re-
view their "present statutory authority, ad-
ministrative regulations, and current policies
and procedures to determine whether there
are any deficiencies and inconsistencies
therein, which prohibit full compliance with
the purpose of the provisions" of the bill. If
an agency finds such deficiencies or incon-
sistencies, it is required under this section
to propose to the President not later than
July 1, 1971, such measures as may be nec-
essary to bring its authority and policies into
conformity with the purposes and procedures
of the bill.
Now. Mr. President, in the discus-
sion with the Senator from Washing-
ton and his staff, it developed that
this language had different implica-
tions for different kinds of executive
agencies, especially with respect to
the agencies whose activities have an
impact, potentially unfavorable, upon
the environment. Obviously, it was
the objective of this language to make
such agencies environment conscious.
With respect to that objective, I
was fully in accord with the Senator
from Washington and his committee.
However, the second set of executive
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
591
agencies affected by that language
are those agencies which have author-
ity in the environmental improve-
ment field; more specifically, insofar
as the Public Works Committee is
concerned, the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration and the
National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration.
We were concerned that the lan-
guage which I have referred to should
not have the effect of forcing the
agencies over which we have juris-
diction to conform their basic legis-
lative mandates to the provisions of
S. 1075. This is made clear on page
7 of the major changes analysis,
which was placed in the RECORD by
the Senator from Washington.
I quote from it:
It is not the intent of the Senate con-
ferees that the review required by section
103 would require existing environmental
control agencies such as the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration and Na-
tional Air Pollution Control Administration
to review their statutory authority and regu-
latory policies which are related to main-
taining and enhancing the quality of the
environment. This section is aimed at those
agencies which have little or no authority to
consider environmental values.
This language in the "major
changes analysis" document clarifies,
with the full agreement of the Sena-
tor from Washington and his col-
leagues and myself, their understand-
ing as to the implications of section
103 with respect to those executive
agencies which have environmental
improvement authority at
[p. 40423]
the present time under already exist-
ing legislation.
The third point to which I should
like to refer, for the purpose of em-
phasis, is the question of committee
jurisdiction with respect to the vari-
ous areas of environmental concern
which are now involved in the juris-
diction of several Senate standing
committees.
It was our concern on October 8,
when we discussed this matter in the
Senate last, and it is our concern
now, that S. 1075 shall not have the
effect of altering existing committee
jurisdictions in this respect. Under-
standably, the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOI^H), the Sena-
tor from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), and
I are especially concerned with the
jurisdiction of the Public Works Com-
mittee of the Senate.
I think that in the "major changes
analysis" document of the Senator
from Washington this is again clari-
fied in the following language, which
I read from page 9:
It is the clear intent of the Senate con-
ferees that the annual report would be re-
ferred in the Senate to all Committees which
have exercised jurisdiction over any part of
the subject matter contained therein. Absent
specific language on the reference of the
leport, the report would be referred pur-
suant to the Senate rules. It is the commit-
tees' understanding that under the rules all
relevant Committees may be referred copies
of the annual report. This was the intent of
the Senate when S. 1075 was passed. In the
section-by-section analysis of Section 303 of
S. 1075 at page 26 of the committee report
No. 91-296, it is expressly stated that,
"It is anticipated that the annual report
and the recommendations made by the Presi-
dent would be a vehicle for oversight hear-
ings and hearings by the appropriate legisla-
tive committees of the Congress."
Mr. President, as I say, this was
clearly understood on October 8 when
we last discussed it on the Senate
floor. It was never at issue as be-
tween the Senator from Washington
and myself. It think it is clearly un-
derstood today.
The legislative language which was
included in S. 1075 on October 8 was
stricken from the conference report
because, under House rules, it was
considered to be new matter which
was subject to a point of order. So I
think it is appropriate that on the
Senate floor today we reemphasize
that it is the intent of the Senate,
and of the representatives of both
-------
592
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
committees, that when the annual re-
ports of the Council on Environmen-
tal Control and its legislative recom-
mendations, as they are developed,
reach the floor, they shall be referred
to the committees which have had
traditional jurisdiction with respect
to the subjects of such report and
such legislative recommendations.
I want to make one final point, and
for this I would like to refer to a
document inserted in the RECORD by
the Senator from Washington (Mr.
JACKSON) this afternoon, entitled
"Section-by-Section Analysis." This
point is important because, beginning
on October 8, and a few days prior to
that time, we undertook to do some-
thing new in legislative direction. We
undertook to place in the Executive
Office of the President an agency
which was in part the product of S.
1075 and in part the product of S. 7,
the Water Quality Improvement Act,
which is still in conference between
the House and the Senate and which
is not likely to be acted on finally in
this session of Congress, not because
of the subject I am about to touch
upon, but because of other matters in
this bill which are not touched upon
in S. 1075 at all.
The point I wish to raise with re-
spect to the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality established by S. 1075 and
the Office of Environmental Quality
which would be established under
title II of S. 7 is that on page 18 of
the section-by-section analysis which
was inserted in the RECORD by the
Senator from Washington (Mr. JACK-
SON) is found a discussion that clari-
fies the relationship of these two
bodies.
On page 20 of the section-by-sec-
tion analysis, in a discussion of sec-
tion 203, is found the following:
SECTION 209
This section provides the Council -with
general authority to employ staff and acquire
the services of experts and consultants. This
provision is designed to provide the Coun-
cil with the necessary internal staff to assist
members of the Council.
It is not intended that the Council will
employ, pursuant to this section, a staff
which would in any way conflict with the
capabilities of the staff of the Office of En-
vironmental Quality which would be created
by Title II of the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1969. It is understood that when.
the Office of Environmental Quality is estab-
lished, it will mesh with th? Council as an
integrated agency in the Office of the Presi-
dent—the Council operating on the policy
level and Office of Environmental Quality on
the staff level.
The professional staff of the Office will be
available to the Council (as well as to the
President) to assist in implementing existing
environmental policy and the provisions of
the legislation and to assist in forecasting
future environmental problems, values and
goals.
In conclusion, and before yielding
to my colleagues on the Senate Public
Works Committee, I would like to say
that I agree with the Senator from
Washington (Mr. JACKSON) that S.
1075 can become landmark legislation
in the field of environmental quality.
Whether it does will depend upon the
effectiveness and performance of the
new Council on Environmental Qual-
ity which S. 1075 would create, the
performance of the Office of Environ-
mental Quality which would be es-
tablished under S. 7, and the coordi-
nation and the cooperation of the
various executive agencies which have
an impact upon the environment and
those other agencies which have at
present the authority to improve the
environment in one respect or another.
In addition to that, the landmark
quality of S. 1075 will depend upon
the continuing cooperation of the
Senate committees—at least seven or
eight of them—which have supervi-
sory authority and jurisdiction with
respect to executive agencies, such as
the Committee on Interior and Insu-
lar Affairs, the Committee on Public
Works, the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry, the Banking and Cur-
rency Committee and its Subcommit-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
593
tee on Housing, the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, and so many
others. And so, in order to really
achieve the high-minded objectives of
S. 1075 which are crucial, I think, to
the future health and welfare of our
country, we must move in the direc-
tion of coordinating the work of the
Congress in this field.
S. 1075 undertakes to take impor-
tant steps in the direction of coor-
dinating the efforts of the executive
agencies. We must now go beyond
that in the Congress of the United
States to coordinate the work of the
senatorial and House committees. The
Senator from Washington, other
members of our two committees and I
have discussed this objective as well.
There is pending, for example, in
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, Senate Resolution 78, which I
first introduced two Congresses ago,
to create a Senate Select Committee
on Technology and the Human En-
vironment, whose objective is this
kind of coordination.
The Senator from Washington (Mr.
JACKSON), in the course of our dis-
cussions, indicated his preference for
the Senate and the House to coordi-
nate their work more closely in the
environmental field. I concur with
him that it would be preferable to
create a nonlegislative joint commit-
tee patterned on the basis of the
select committee which I have pro-
posed, and I am glad to join with
him and interested Members on this
side and in the House to undertake to
create that kind of joint committee as
early as possible in the next session
of the Congress. We are agreed on
that objective. We have in mind the
kind of work which is envisaged in
Senate Resolution 78.
So I would like to think that, not-
withstanding the difficulties and the
differences of opinion that the Sena-
tor from Washington (Mr. JACKSON)
and I have had with respect to S.
1075 and S. 7, out of the labor pains
of this creation we have begun a
period of cooperation and coordina-
tion in the Senate's work in the field
of the improvement of environmental
quality which will result in a wiser,
more effective policy in this field.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JACKSON. I wish to express
my concurrence in the comments
made by the able Senator from Maine,
with special reference to the need for
a joint nonlegislative committee on
the environment. I would hope that
would be the first order of business
next year. I think we can move ex-
peditiously in the Senate. If we can
have similar cooperation in the House,
we can have it enacted into law in
the next session.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Delaware.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, as a
member of the Public Works Com-
mittee of the Senate, I have a couple
of questions I would like to ask the
distinguished Senator from Maine.
Is my understanding correct that
all reports and legislative proposals
as a result of S. 1075 will be referred
to all committees with established
jurisdiction in the field? For example,
any report or legislative proposal in-
volving water pol-
[p. 40424]
lution would be referred to the Com-
mittee on Public Works. Is that cor-
rect?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. That is the
clear understanding of the Senator
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON),
myself, and the two staffs. There is
no fuzziness or doubt on that point at
all.
Mr. BOGGS. Am I correct that the
thrust of the directions contained in
-------
594
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
S. 1075 deals with what we might
call the environmental impact agen-
cies rather than the environmental
enhancement agencies, such as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration or National Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Sections 102
and 103, and I think section 105, con-
tain language designed by the Senate
Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs to apply strong pressures on
those agencies that have an impact
on the environment—the Bureau of
Public Roads, for example, the
Atomic Energy Commission, and
others. This strong language in that
section is intended to bring pressure
on those agencies to become environ-
ment conscious, to bring pressure
upon them to respond to the needs of
environmental quality, to bring pres-
sure upon them to develop legislation
to deal with those cases where their
legislative authority does not enable
them to respond to these values ef-
fectively, and to reorient them toward
a consciousness of and sensitivity to
the environment.
Of course this legislation does not
impose a responsibility or an obliga-
tion on those environmental-impact
agencies to make final decisions with
respect to the nature and extent of
the environmental impact of their
activities. Rather than performing
self-policing functions, I understand
that the nature and extent of environ-
mental impact will be determined by
the environmental control agencies.
With regard to the environmental
improvement agencies such as the
Federal Water Improvement Admin-
istration and the Air Quality Ad-
ministration, it is clearly understood
that those agencies will operate on
the basis of the legislative charter
that has been created and is not
modified in any way by S. 1075.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the Senator.
Environmental Policy Council will
mesh with the staff of the Office of
Environmental Quality when it is
established?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I indicated from
the language I read from the section-
by-section analysis put in the RECORD
by the Senator from Washington (Mr.
JACKSON), the Office of Environmen-
tal Quality which would be created
by title II of S. 7, would constitute
tVie staff of the secretariat of the
Council of Environmental Quality es-
tablished by S. 1075, and the two
would be meshed together in a way
to produce a strong agency, strong
at the board level and at the staff
level, to begin the development of a
coordinated Federal policy in the en-
vironmental field.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished Senator from Maine
for yielding, and for his answers to
these questions. I take this oppor-
tunity to congratulate and commend
him and the distinguished Senator
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) for
the excellent and outstanding work
both have done in this field, and for
their cooperation in working together
and bringing forth a sound agree-
ment on the language in this bill, in-
cluding its legislative history.
I think this language protects the
•jurisdiction of other committees that
have exercised jurisdiction in the
environmental field, while preserving
the basic intent of S. 1075.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
I am happy to yield now to the
distinguished chairman of the Com-
mittee on Public Works, the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH).
I appreciate the confidence he has
shown in permitting me to conduct
these negotiations with Senator
JACKSON, and the confidence he has
expressed in the results we have pro-
duced.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
Can he tell me how the staff of the j my knowledgeable colleagues, the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
595
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE),
the Senator from Washington (Mr.
JACKSON), the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. ALLOTT), and the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) have dis-
cussed this legislation which is of
concern, not only because of congres-
sional committee jurisdiction, but to
Congress and the people of the United
States. Today, approximately 203 mil-
lion persons live in an area that is
becoming increasingly confined. Be-
cause of the problems of urban de-
velopment, mobility of people, and
the methods by which products are
moved from one point to another our
society and our environment are con-
stantly changing.
I wish to stress—and do it very
briefly, I hope—what I believe has
come out of the discussion today and
prior conferences that have been held
by members of the Public Works Com-
mittee and the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs. There may have
been some elements of misunderstand-
ing. If there were, they have been
resolved. If there were some elements
of controversy, they have been dis-
sipated.
I think that we have, through these
deliberations, come closer together.
This is important if we are to deal
with environmental quality effective-
ly. It is only of recent years, Mr.
President, though environmental
quality means so much to every facet
of our society, that the Congress has
given specific attention to this sub-
ject.
I serve not only as the chairman of
the Senate Public Works Committee,
but of our Subcommittee on Roads.
We recognize, as my able colleague
from Maine and others in this body
have recognized, that in America, as
we put down a mile of highway, no
matter what type of road it is, we are
not only placing cement or asphalt on
the earth, but we are enabling people
to move from one point to another.
So in 1968, it was my purpose, and
the Senate and Congress agreed, that
we would write into the Federal Aid
Highway Act that year the first ap-
proach to this matter of relocation,
bringing people into the conferences
before an actual decision was made
as to where a road would go, either
by the State or Federal Government,
or by an agreement of both agencies.
The Federal Aid Highway Act is an
example of how we are making the
people a part of policymaking, even
though they, in a sense, are laymen
rather than experts, that they would
have a part in thinking these matters
through.
The Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) and other Senators who
have followed these matters know that
it is important that we take people
into our confidence before the fact
rather than after the fact, in order
to provide the opportunity for dis-
cussion of the many approaches which
can bring a catalyst into being. And
so, in the 1968 act, we dealt with
matters such as relocation. As the
Senator from Washington (Mr. JACK-
SON) knows, this is a matter of en-
vironmental quality for the people
whose lives are affected by highways.
We are facing up to our responsibil-
ity for the first time, to provide
prompt compensation for those who
are displaced in business and indus-
try, or in their places of residence.
I use only this one legislative enact-
ment of Congress to indicate that we
are moving more broadly and more
sufficiently to improve environmental
quality. I could discuss, of course, the
Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army,
and how now they are beginning to
look at environmental matters as
never before, because in the Congress
of the United States, and the Com-
mittee on Public Works they have
provided leadership and required
them to consider environmental qual-
ity.
-------
r
596
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
We find environmental quality in-
terwoven with whatever we do. Wheth-
er it is building a road or construct-
ing a bridge, whether it is in the
impoundment of water or construct-
ing a building, we must realize that
we are working not only with statis-
tics and figures, but we are working
with people. The lives of people are
involved.
I think it is important for the REC-
ORD to reflect that Senators have given
their attention in recent weeks and
days to this matter, have attempted
to bring S. 1075 and S. 7 together
to resolve jurisdictional problems and
to lay down the ground rules that
will guide us to doing a better job in
the months and years ahead.
The stress has been here today on
the coordination and the cooperation.
I think this is a very real partner-
ship among Senator JACKSON, Sena-
tor MUSKIE, Senator ALLOTT, and
Senator BOGGS.
I think we are merging our efforts.
We have arrived at an agreement.
We must not fragment this effort. We
must pool our efforts to assure for
future generations an environment in
which people can live and grow.
We must assure that consideration
of legislation, which affects the en-
vironment in which people live, by
people and committees who are dedi-
cated to this very real task that lies
before us. The resolution of differ-
ences between S. 1075 and S. 7, now
H.R. 4148, provides this assurance.
As chairman of the Committee on
Public Works, I congratulate all of
those Senators who have carried on
these negotiations. They were nego-
tiations in the very best sense of the
word. Although
[p. 40425]
all of the members of the Committee
on Public Works did not engage in
the various negotiations, they were
kept completely informed of what the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE)
was thinking and what his plans
were. The Senator from Delaware
(Mr. BOGGS), who well represents the
viewpoint of the minority, although
there is no minority within our com-
mittee, was present during most of
those negotiations.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
thank my distinguished chairman.
I have taken more time than I ex-
pected this afternoon. However, this
is an opportunity to make clear our
understanding. The record is clear.
I express my appreciation to the
Senator from Washington (Mr. JACK-
SON) , the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
ALLOTT), and my colleagues on the
Senate Public Works Committee.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I
express my appreciation to the able
chairman of the Public Works Com-
mittee, the Senator from West Vir-
ginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), for the sup-
port and understanding we have re-
ceived from all of our colleagues on
both committees.
I express my appreciation also to
the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUS-
KIE), with whom I have worked very
closely, the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. BOGGS), and the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT), and for the
fine cooperation of the staff.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that the conference report on
S. 1075 be printed at this point in
the RECORD.
[Conference Report reprinted fol-
lowing statement, see General 1.2a(3)
for text.]
[p. 40426]
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I
move the adoption of the conference
report.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. 40427]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
597
1.2a(4)(e) Dec 22: House agreed to conference report,
pp.40923-40928
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1075, NA-
TIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
OF 1969
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill
(S. 1075) to declare a national policy
which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and
his environment; to promote efforts
which will prevent or eliminate dam-
age to the environment and biosphere
and stimulate the health and welfare
of man; to enrich the understanding
of the ecological systems and natural
resources important to the Nation;
and to establish a Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the man-
agers on the part of the House be
read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, does the gentleman
propose to take some time to explain
this conference report?
Mr. DINGELL. In answer to the
question of my good friend, the gen-
tleman from Iowa, the answer is yes.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and state-
ment, see proceedings of the House of
December 17, 1969.)
Mr. DINGELL (during the read-
ing). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the man-
agers on the part of the House be con-
sidered as read.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
from Michigan is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, S.
1075, as originally passed by the Sen-
ate, contained three titles in the bill.
Title I provided for a declaration by
the Congress of a national environ-
mental policy; title II provided the
necessary authorization for the Fed-
eral agencies to carry out the purposes
of the act in conjunction with their
existing ongoing programs and ac-
tivities; and title III provided for the
creation of a Board of Environmental
Quality Advisers in the Executive Of-
fice of the President.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members of the
House will recall, the House struck out
of the Senate bill all after the enact-
ing clause and inserted in lieu thereof
a substitute amendment. The House
amendment to the bill was very simi-
lar to title III of the Senate-passed
bill except for the name "Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers" which
was changed to read "Council on En-
vironmental Quality." There were no
provisions in the House amendment
similar to titles I and II of the bill as
originally passed by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the committee of con-
ference has agreed to a substitute for
both the Senate bill and the House
amendment. The substitute is in effect
title I of the bill as originally passed
by the Senate and the House amend-
ment to the bill.
Except for technical, clarifying, and
conforming changes, following is a
brief explanation of the differences
between the bill, as passed by the
House, and the substitute, as provided
by the conference agreement:
-------
598
I
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
PROVISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 1 of the Senate bill provided that
the bill may be cited as the "National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969". Section 2
of the Senate bill contained a statement of
the purpose of the bill. There were no similar
provisions in the House amendment. The
conference substitute conforms to the Senate
bill with respect to these two sections.
Title I of the bill provides for a declaration
of a national environmental policy. There
was no similar provision in the House amend-
ment to the bill.
Section 101 of the Senate bill contained
a recognition by Congress of (1) the critical
dependency of man on his environment, (2)
the profound influences which the factors
of contemporary life have had and will have
on the environment, and (S) certain specified
goals in the management of the environment
which the Federal Government should, as a
matter of national policy, attain by use of
all possible means, consistent with other
essential considerations of national policy.
The House amendment (in the first section
thereof) contained a general statement of
national environmental policy, but did not
include specified policy goals. The first sec-
tion of the House amendment also stated
that the Federal Government should achieve
the general policy in cooperation with State
and local governments and certain specified
public and private organizations and that
financial and technical assistance should be
among the means and measures used by the
Federal Government to achieve the policy.
Under the conference agreement, the lan-
guage of the House amendment is substan-
tially retained in section 101 (a) of the
conference substitute.
The national goals of environmental policy
specified in the Senate bill are set forth in
section 101 (b) of the conference substitute.
Some of the national goals are as follows:
(1) assure for all Americans safe, health-
ful, productive, and esthetically and cul-
turally pleasing surroundings;
(2) attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment;
(3) preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heritage;
(4) achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit high
standards of living and a wide sharing of
life's amenities; and
(5) enhance the quality of renewable re-
sources and approach the maximum attain-
able recycling of d-epletable resources.
Section 101 (c) of the conference substitute
states that "Congress recognizes that each
person should enjoy a healthful environment
and that each person has a responsibility
to contribute to the preservation and en-
hancement of the environment. There was
no similar provision in the House amend-
ment.
Section 102 of the conference substitute is
tased on section 102 of the Senate bill. There
vas no comparable provision in the House
amendment. Under the conference substitute,
the Congress authorizes and directs that, to
the fullest extent possible: (1) the Federal
aws, regulations, and policies be adminis-
tered in accordance with the policies set
forth in the bill; and (2) all Federal agen-
cies shall—
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach to insure integrated use of the
sciences and arts in any official planning or
decision-making which may have an impact
on the environment:
(B) in consultation with the Council on
Environmental Quality, identify and develop
methods and procedures to insure that un-
qualified environmental amenities will be
considered in the agency decision-making
process, along with economic and technical
considerations;
(C) include in every recommendation or
report on proposals for legislation or other
major Federal actions of a detailed statement
by the responsible official on the environ-
mental impact of the proposed action, any
adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided should the proposal be adopted,
alternatives to the proposed action, the re-
lationship between the short-term uses of
[p. 40923]
the environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of lone-term productivity, and
any irreversible and irretrievable commit-
ments of resources which would be involved.
Prior to making any such detailed statement,
the responsible Federal official would be
required to consult with and obtain the
comments of any Federal agency having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
aspect to any environmental impact involved
and the comments of any such agency,
together with the comments and views of
appropriate State and local agencies, would
be required thereafter to be made available
to the President, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and the public.
In addition, the Federal agencies would be
required to—
(D) study, develop, and describe appro-
priate alternatives to recommend courses of
action in any proposal which Involves un-
resolved conflicts concerning alternative uses
of available resources;
(E) recognize the worldwide and long.
range character of environmental problems
and, where consistent with the foreign pol-
icy of the United States, lend support to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
599
programs and other ventures designed to
maximize international cooperation in an-
ticipating and preventing a decline in the
world environment;
(F) make available to State and local
governments and individuals and organiza-
tions advice and information useful in re-
storing, maintaining and enhancing the quality
of the environment;
(G) initiate and utilize ecological infor-
mation in the planning and development of
resource-oriented projects; and
(H) assist the Council on Environmental
Quality established under title II of the bill.
Section 103 is based upon a provision of
the Senate bill (section 102 (f)) which was
not in the House amendment. This section
provides that all agencies of the Federal
Government shall review their "present stat-
utory authority, administrative regulations,
and current policies and procedures to deter-
mine whether there are any deficiencies and
inconsistencies therein which prohibit full
compliance with the purpose and provisions"
of the bill. If an agency finds such deficien-
cies or inconsistencies, it is required under
this section to propose to the President not
later than July 1, 1971, such measures as may
be necessary to bring its authority and poli-
cies into conformity with the intent, pur-
poses, and procedures of the bill.
Section 104, which was not in the House
amendment, provides that nothing in sec-
tions 102 or 103 shall affect the specific statu-
tory obligations of any Federal agency—
(1) to comply with criteria and standards
of environmental quality;
(2) to coordinate or consult with any Fed-
eral or State agency; or
(3) to act, or refrain from acting con-
tingent upon the recommendations or cer-
tification of any other Federal or State
agency.
Section 105 declares that the policies and
goals set forth in the bill are supplementary
to those set forth in existing authorities of
Federal agencies. The effect of this section
is to give recognition of the fact that the
bill does not repeal existing law and that it
does not obviate the requirement that the
Federal agencies conduct their activities in
accordance with the provisions of this bill
unless to do so would clearly violate their
existing statutory authorizations.
Title II of the bill has to do with the es-
tablishment of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality and is essentially the same as
the House amendment to S. 1075.
Section 201 of the conference substitute
requires the President to submit to the Con-
gress annually, beginning July 1, 1970, an
Environmental Quality Eeport which will set
forth an up-to-date inventory of the Ameri-
can environment, broadly and generally
identified, together with an estimate of the
impact of visible future trends upon the en-
vironment. Such report shall also include a
review of the programs and activities of the
Federal, State, and local governments, as well
as those of nongovernmental groups, with
respect to environmental conditions, together
with recommendations for remedying the
deficiencies of existing programs, including
legislative recommendations.
Section 202 of the conference substitute
establishes in the Executive Office of the
President a Council on Environmental Qual-
ity composed of three members appointed by
the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. One of the members
shall be designated by the President as the
chairman of the Council. The conference sub-
stitute provision is basically the House pro-
vision except that the membership of the
Council would be reduced from five to three
and the members of the Council would have
to be approved by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
Section 203 of the conference substitute
(which were contained in both the House
amendment and the bill as it originally
passed the Senate) would permit the Council
to hire such officers and employees as are
necessary to carry out the purposes of the
Act and also would permit the Council to
hire such experts and consultants as may
be appropriate.
The House amendment set forth the fol-
lowing duties and functions of the Council
on Environmental Quality—
(1) to assist the President in the prepara-
tion of the Environmental Quality Report;
(2) to gather information on the short-
and long-term problems that merit Council
attention, together with a continuing anal-
ysis of these problems as they may affect the
policies stated in section 101;
(3) to maintain a continuing review of
Federal programs and activities as they may
affect the policies declared in section 101,
and to keep the President informed on the
degree to which those programs and activities
may be consistent with those policies;
(4) to develop and to recommend policies
to the President, on the basis of its activities,
whereby the quality of our environment may
be enhanced, consistent with our social, eco-
nomic and other requirements;
(5) to make studies and recommendations
relating to environmental considerations, as
the President may direct; and
(6) to report at least once each year to the
President.
Section 204 of the conference substitute
contains the functions and duties listed
above and also adds the following functions
and duties (which, under title II of the bill
as it originally passed the Senate, would
-------
600
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
have been the responsibilities of other Fed-
eral agencies) —
(1) to conduct investigations, studies, sur-
veys, research, and analyses relating to eco-
logical systems and environmental quality;
and
(2) to document and define changes in
the natural environment, including the plant
and animal systems, and to accumulate nec-
essary data and other information for a
continuing analysis of these changes or
trends and an interpretation of their under-
lying causes.
Section 205 of the conference substitute
sets forth those public and private organiza-
tions with which the Council on Environ-
mental Quality shall consult in carrying out
its functions and duties under the Act and
states that the Council should utilize, to
the fullest extent possible, the services, fa-
cilities, and information of public and private
organizations and individuals in carrying out
such functions and duties. Section 205 con-
forms to the language in section 7 of the
House amendment, with the exception that
the conference substitute provision specifies
that the Council shall consult also with the
Citizens* Advisory Committee on Environ-
mental Quality, which was established in
May, 1969, by Executive Order of the
President.
Section 206 provides that the Chairman of
the Council on Environmental Quality shall
be compensated at the rate provided for at
Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates,
and that the other members of the Council
shall be compensated at the rate provided
for in Level IV of such Rates. This section
conforms with the rates of compensation
provided for in both the House amendment
and the bill as it originally passed the Senate.
Section 207 of the conference substitute
authorizes the appropriation of not to ex-
ceed $300,000 in fiscal year 1970, $700,000 in
fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 in each fiscal
year thereafter, to carry out the purposes of
the Act. Under the House amendment, the
same amounts were authorized to be ap-
propriated except with respect to fiscal year
1971, for which $500,000 was authorized.
Mr. Speaker, before closing I would
like to take this opportunity to pay
tribute to my colleagues, particularly
to my distinguished chairman, the
Honorable EDWARD A. GARMATZ, the
members of the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee, and the House
and Senate conference committee, who
have worked so courageously and dili-
gently in seeing that this legislation
came to fruition. It has been a long
and hard-fought battle, but we have
been successful, and I cannot congrat-
ulate my colleagues enough.
Mr. Speaker, my efforts on behalf
of this legislation date back to March
of 1967, when in the first session of
the 90th Congress, I and several other
members of the House introduced sim-
ilar legislation to provide for the es-
tablishment of a Council on Environ-
mental Quality. Although no action—
other than hearings—was taken in
the 90th Congress, much valuable
groundwork was laid.
In February of this year, I again
introduced legislation and was most
fortunate in having it referred to the
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, and subsequently to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wild-
life Conservation, the subcommittee
I have the honor of chairing. The sub-
committee held 7 full days of hearings
on the legislation, and as a result of
the hearings, H.R. 12549, which was
reported by the committee and passed
by the House, was cosponsored by all
the members of the subcommittee. As
you will probably recall, the bill passed
on the floor of the House overwhelm-
ingly with a vote of 372 to 15.
Mr. Speaker, the passage of this
legislation will constitute one of the
most significant steps ever taken in
the field of conservation. With the es-
tablishment of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, we can now move for-
ward to preserve and enhance our
air, aquatic, and terrestrial environ-
ments, and at the same time it will
offer us an opportunity to carry out
the policies and goals set forth in the
bill to provide each citizen of this
great country a healthful environ-
ment.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend
the adoption of this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the
state-
[p. 40924]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
601
ment of the chairman of the Senate
Interior and Insular Affairs Com-
mittee and find no inconsistencies in
his statement with that of the state-
ment on the part of the House man-
agers.
Mr. Speaker, a communication from
the gentleman from Maryland fol-
lows:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., December SO, 1969.
Hon. JOHN D. DINOELL,
House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JOHN: It is my understanding that
the Conference Report on S. 1075 will shortly
be scheduled for Floor consideration. I have
had an opportunity to review the Confer-
ence Report.
I have a few questions concerning the ef-
fects of the legislation which I would like
to address to you for clarification on the
Floor. Four questions are enclosed.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman.
QUESTIONS BY MB. FALLON
I have had an opportunity to review the
Conference Report on S. 1076. I have a few
questions concerning the effects of the legis-
lation which I would like to address to the
gentleman.
1. Would the gentleman advise as to the
intent of the House Conferees with regard
to committee jurisdiction concerning the an-
nual report required of the President by Sec-
tion 201 and the recommendations made
therein?
Answer: It is the clear intent of the House
Conferees that the annual report required
by Section 201 would be referred in the House
of Representatives to all committees which
have exercised jurisdiction over any part of
the subject matter contained therein. The
House Conferees' refusal to accept specific
language for inclusion in the Conference Re-
port was based upon a parliamentary tech-
nicality and was in no way intended to place
executive jurisdiction over the President's
report in any one committee.
The House Conferees intend that under the
language of the Conference Report, the an-
nual report and the recommendations made
by the President would be the vehicle for
oversight hearings and hearings by the ap-
propriate legislative committees of the House,
and the referral of the annual report would
be made to all appropriate committees.
2. H.R. 4148 which is now in conference
includes provision for the Office of Environ-
mental Quality which would serve to advise
the Council of Environmental Quality which
is established in S. 1075. Is there any conflict
between the Office and the Council?
Answer: Title II establishes a Council on
Environmental Quality in the Executive Of-
fice of the President. This Council will pro-
vide an institution and an organizational
focus at the highest level for the concerns
of environmental management. It will pro-
vide the President with objective advice, and
a continuing and comprehensive overview of
the Federal jurisdictions involved with the
environment. The Council's activities in this
area will be complemented by the support
of the Office of Environmental Quality pro-
posed in H.R. 4148, the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1969. It is not intended that
the Council will employ, pursuant to Section
203, a staff which would in any way conflict
with the capabilities of the staff of the
Office of Environmental Quality.
It is further understood that, when the
Office of Environmental Quality is estab-
lished, it will mesh with the Council as an
integrated agency in the Ofiice of the Presi-
dent—the Council operating on the policy
level and the Office of Environmental Quality
on the staff level. The professional staff of
the Office will be available to the Council to
assist in the implementation of existing en-
vironmental policy and the provisions of the
legislation and to assist in forecasting future
environmental problems, values and goals.
3. Is it intended that the Council become
involved in the day to day operation of the
Federal agencies, specific project, or in inter-
agency conflicts which arise from time to
time?
Answer: In including Section 204, Item (3).
pertaining to the duties and functions of
the Council, the Conferees on the part of
the House did not view this direction to the
Council as implying a project-by-project re-
view and commentary on Federal programs.
Rather, it is intended that the Council will
periodically examine the general direction
and impact of Federal programs in relation
to environmental trends and problems and
recommend general changes in direction or
supplementation of such programs when they
appear to be appropriate.
It is not the Conferees' intent that the
Council be involved in the day-to-day deci-
sion-making processes of the Federal Govern-
ment or that it be involved in the resolution
of particular conflict between agencies and
departments. These functions can best be
pei formed by the Bureau of the Budget, the
President's Interagency Cabinet-level Coun-
cil on the Environment or by the President
himself.
-------
r
602
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
4. What would be the effect of this legisla-
tion, on the Federal Water Pollution Control
Agency?
Answer: Many existing agencies such as
the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency
already have important responsibilities in the
area of environment control. The provisions
of Section 102 and 103 are not designed to
result in any change in the manner in which
they carry out their environmental protec-
tion authority. This provision is primarily
designed to assure consideration of environ-
mental matters by agencies in their planning
and decision-making—but most especially those
agencies who now have little or no legislative
authority to take environmental considerations
into account.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may revise and extend their remarks
on the conference report on environ-
mental quality.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. MAIL-
LIARD).
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I
consider this a very important bill.
I support the conference report and
statement of the House managers on
S. 1075 to establish a national policy
for the environment, and to provide
for the establishment of a Council on
Environmental Quality. I urge my
colleagues to adopt this report.
S. 1075, as passed by the House,
would establish a five-member Council
on Environmental Quality appointed
by the President whose principal duty
would be to assist the President in the
preparation of an annual environ-
mental quality report. Additionally,
the Council would make and furnish
to the President such studies, together
with policy and legislative recommen-
dations in the area of environmental
quality as the President might re-
quest. The bill contained a brief state-
ment of policy recognizing the impact
of man's activity on all components
of the natural environment, and the
critical importance of restoring and
maintaining environmental quality for
the welfare of mankind.
The Senate bill would establish a
comparable three-member Board on
Environmental Quality which would
perform essentially the same functions
called for in the House bill. The Sen-
ate, however, substantially increased
the responsibilities of this advisory
group so that it would have continuing
statutory authority and responsibility
to monitor the quality of the environ-
ment and review the activities of the
Federal Government to determine the
extent to which its programs con-
tribute to the achievement of environ-
mental quality. The Senate bill would
thus create a more dynamic council,
one that need not wait for an execu-
tive request to pursue the policy man-
date of the Congress. I believe this is
an important and significant strength-
ening of the Council.
The Senate bill also contained a
more detailed statement of policy and,
most significantly, positive direction
to all agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment that they shall administer their
programs to the fullest extent possi-
ble in a manner which reflects the
declaration of national environmental
policy set forth in the bill.
What the conference has done, in
essence, is to adopt the basic House
version of S. 1075 with respect to the
establishment of the Council, together
with the strengthening provisions I
have mentioned previously, and that
portion of the Senate bill setting forth
detailed policy statements and agency
directives.
Title I of the conference bill sets
forth the statements of policy and re-
quirements for implementation of
these policies while title II of the bill
establishes the Council on Environ-
mental Quality.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
603
Mr. Speaker, the work of the con-
ference has produced a careful blend-
ing of the House and Senate-passed
bills while retaining the basic thrust
of both. This legislation stands as a
commitment of the Federal Govern-
ment to the American people that the
quality of life in this country in terms
of its basic environmental components
will be restored and maintained for
our own benefit and that of succeeding
generations of Americans.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption
of the conference report.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to my good
friend the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in strong support of the conference re-
port on S. 1075, the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969. The bill as
agreed upon by the conference is a
landmark in the history of conserva-
tion legislation.
While this landmark legislation is
not as strong and inclusive as I would
pre-
[p. 40925]
fer it to be, it provides the foundation
upon which this Congress and future
Congresses can forge ahead toward
the goal of providing all Americans
with a quality environment in which
they can live.
Mr. Speaker, the importance of this
legislation cannot be overstated. My
colleagues in this body should well un-
derstand the need and goals behind this
legislation. In this Nation today, we
read with ever increasing frequency
about the pollution of our waters, pol-
lution of the air we breathe, the scar-
ring of our natural landscape, through
the exploitation of our resources. The
profound impact of man's activity
through technological advances, to ac-
commodate the growing urbanization,
resource exploitation, and the indus-
trial expansion has a direct interrela-
tion to the health and welfare of all
Americans.
The report of the conference com-
mittee seeks to meet this challenge by
recognizing the need for a coordinated
Federal program to attack the abuses
so nonchalantly inflicted upon all man-
kind. The bill as reported by the com-
mittee of conference proposes a Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality to
coordinate the directives that each
Federal agency examine its authority
and programs, and to administer and
interpret that authority and pro-
grams so as to assure for all Ameri-
cans a safe, healthful, productive,
esthetic, and cultural environment.
I am privileged to have sponsored
a similar measure, H.R. 12900, in this
first session of the 91st Congress. I
have also witnessed during this first
session of the 91st Congress a num-
ber of converts to our environmental
concerns. I am thankful for their con-
cern and support because it expresses
the responsibility of Congress to the
public demand. That public demand
is for a coordinated Federal program
directed toward the protection of our
environment.
Mr. Speaker, I most strongly sup-
port the adoption of the conference
report and urge my colleagues to sup-
port its adoption.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to my good
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
HARSHA).
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan a question.
It is my understanding this legislation
contains several questions about juris-
diction of various committees in the
House. It was my understanding
there was to be a statement on the
part of the managers, or on the
part of the gentleman from Michigan,
on the subject.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I as-
sure the gentleman from Ohio the
-------
604
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
statement will be in my extension of
remarks.
Mr. HARSHA. Do I have the gen-
tleman's assurance this will not in-
vade the jurisdiction of the Public
Works Committee in particular?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is
not the intention of this committee to
impair or alter or change in any fash-
ion the jurisdiction of any sitting com-
mittee in this body.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to join my colleagues in
recommending passage of the confer-
ence report on S. 1075. This legisla-
tion, if enacted, would provide for the
establishment of a Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality.
The Council, which would be com-
posed of outstanding and qualified
leaders of the scientific, industrial and
business community, would oversee
and review all national policies relat-
ing to our environment; it would re-
port directly to the President and rec-
ommend national programs to foster
and promote the improvement of the
Nation's total environmental quality.
One of the vital functions of this
Council would be to consult with State
and local governments and other in-
terested groups and individuals, and
to utilize the services, facilities and
information of these agencies and or-
ganizations. I consider this to be an
extremely important and significant
function, since, for the first time, it
would establish an effective liaison be-
tween the Federal Government and
individual States, thereby creating a
long-needed central clearinghouse of
information.
Mr. Speaker, the ugly and devas-
tating disease of pollution has con-
taminated every aspect of our envi-
ronment—air, land, and water. The
problem is so vast and interrelated,
one segment of the environment can-
not be separated from another. The
only logical and practical approach
is a broad-ranging, coordinated Fed-
eral program, as proposed in this
legislation.
Establishing such a Council will not
solve all our massive pollution prob-
lems. It will, however, constitute the
most significant step yet taken to con-
serve and preserve our natural re-
sources for future generations.
I also think it is fitting to add a word
of praise about my distinguished col-
league, JOHN DINGELL, because it is
he—more than any other—who pio-
neered the movement that gradually
evolved into the legislation we have
before us today. Although we are con-
sidering the Senate bill, I think it is
important to recognize that Congress-
man Dingell's efforts date back to
March, 1967, when he first introduced
legislation on this issue. As chairman
of our Subcommittee on Fisheries and
Wildlife Conservation, he also sacri-
ficed much in personal time and effort
in a series of seven hearings—which
he chaired in May and June of this
year. An impressive record was es-
tablished at those hearings, which
were held both morning and after-
noon—on each of the 7 days.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this
important legislation will be passed
and enacted expeditiously, so that we
can all get on with the job of protect-
ing our environment from further de-
struction by man.
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, the
conference report on S. 1075, which
is now before this House for consid-
eration, brings to the attention of the
Members of Congress the many facets
of the problems of environmental
quality which are continually coming
before the Congress of the United
States for consideration and solution.
Most apparent of these various prob-
lems is the matter of jurisdiction of
not only the executive departments
but also the committees of Congress.
For the first time, to my knowledge,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
605
since I have been a Member of Con-
gress—some 21 years—the conferees
appointed from this body included
members of two different standing
committees of the House. I do not see
how the matter could have been re-
solved otherwise, although I would be
the first one to admit that perhaps
other committees of the House should
have had representation on the con-
ference committee in addition to those
two committees handling the confer-
ence report. As a House conferee, I
have signed the conference report but
I have refused to sign the statement
of the managers on the part of the
House. This is the first time that I
have found myself in this unenviable
position. However, I find that I cannot
read into the language that was final-
ly agreed upon by the conferees the
interpretation that is given to it in
the statement of the House managers.
I desire my position to be clearly set
forth.
The two principal purposes of S.
1075 are: First, to state congressional
policy with respect to protecting our
natural environment; and, second, to
establish a Council on Environmental
Quality to alert this Nation with re-
spect to environmental problems that
we must face up to and resolve in the
years ahead. The legislation which has
emerged from the conference commit-
tee accomplishes both of these pur-
poses. And while environmental prob-
lems are already receiving increased
attention in connection with ongoing
Federal programs, I believed that this
legislation will add new emphasis and
urgency to their solution. Thus, the
language of the conference report has
my approval. However, the statement
of managers, in certain respects, does
not accurately interpret the language
in the conference report.
Since I first became involved in this
legislation at the time it was consid-
ered in the House, it has been my
purpose to try to establish an orderly
procedure for bringing the operations
of all existing Federal agencies into
compliance with the environmental
policy requirements of this legislation.
It has been my position from the
beginning that existing Federal agen-
cies should not be given new statu-
tory authority by this legislation. All
agencies should cooperate so far as
possible under their existing authority
in complying with the congressional
statement of environmental policy and
should seek, through normal proce-
dures, the authority they need to
fully comply with this policy. This
agency procedure is established in
sections 102 and 103 of the conference
report, the final language of which
is language that I suggested to the
conference committee.
Section 102 tells the agencies to
follow to the fullest extent possible
under their existing authority the pro-
cedures required to make their oper-
ations consistent with the environ-
mental policy established in this act;
and section 103
[p. 40926]
tells them to review their statutory
authority and, if there are deficiencies
or inconsistencies which prohibit full
compliance with the purposes and
provisions of this act, to report not
later than July 1, 1971, what addi-
tional authority is needed to permit
them to operate in conformity with
this act. There is no language in
these two sections to support the in-
terpretation given in the statement
of managers which reads:
The House conferees are of the view that
the new language does not in any way
limit the Congressional authorization and
directive to all agencies of the Federal Gov-
ernment set out in suhparagraphs (A)
through (H) of clause (2) of section 102.
The purpose of the new language is to make
it clear that each agency of the Federal
Government shall comply with the directives
set out in such subparagraphs (A) through
(H) unless the existing law applicable to
such agency's operations expressly prohibits
or makes full compliance with one of the
-------
606
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
directives impossible. * « « the intent of the
conferees is that all Federal agencies shall
comply with the provisions of section 102
"to the fullest extent possible," unless, of
course, there is found to be a clear conflict
between its existing statutory authority and
the bill.
The conference report language re-
quires the agencies to determine
whether there are any deficiencies in
their statutory authority which pro-
hibit compliance and you cannot make
"deficiencies in statutory authority"
mean "clear conflict between its exist-
ing statutory authority and the bill"
merely by statements of intent and
interpretation in the statement of
managers. A deficiency in an agency
statutory authority which prohibits
compliance cannot be interpreted to
mean that—
Each agency * « « shall comply * * • unless
the existing law applicable to such agency's
operations expressly prohibits or makes full
compliance * * * impossible.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that
this matter is of such urgency that
we cannot take the time to follow an
orderly procedure in requiring all
agencies to get their operations in line
with the environmental policy, needs,
and goals of this Nation. They can do
that by proceeding as required in the
conference report to examine their
authority and move quickly to recom-
mend the necessary changes. The new
statutory authority that is needed can
then be recommended to the Congress
and can be considered by the commit-
tees of Congress having jurisdiction.
I recommend approval of the confer-
ence report.
Mr. GALIFIANAKIS. Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to see the results
of the House-Senate conference com-
mittee on S. 1075, the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969. Our
colleagues have brought forth an ex-
cellent piece of legislation which will
in my opinion, become a landmark in
society's struggle to preserve the qual-
ity of our surroundings while continu-
ing to enjoy high standards of living
This legislation is further demon-
stration of congressional leadership
n resolving the basic conflicts of us-
ng the environment. It caps a decade
of response to public concern which
las generated laws for pollution
abatement, natural resource manage-
ment, recreation and natural beauty.
The enthusiastic administration of
;hese laws by the executive branch
should bring a restoration of environ-
mental quality in the United States
of which we may all be proud.
The activities of Government agen-
cies will all be subjected to a thorough
review, under the terms of this bill, to
judge their impact on the environment
and to minimize adverse effects. A
great deal of scientific knowledge will
be necessary to avoid subjective judg-
ment and to form a basis for enforce-
ment which is incontrovertible. I
would call to the attention of the Con-
gress, Mr. Speaker, the important fa-
cilities and the trained scientists and
engineers now at work in North Caro-
lina on these very problems. The re-
search triangle area of Raleigh, Dur-
ham, and Chapel Hill houses three
progressive institutions of higher
learning. In addition the National In-
stitute of Environmental Health and
major laboratories of the National
Air Pollution Control Administration
are located in the area.
It is clear that these technical orga-
nizations will play a major role in
implementing the bill we have before
us today. The interplay of ideas fa-
cilitated by the proximity of many dif-
ferent laboratories and training cen-
ters will make North Carolina a focal
point for Government and private
sector management personnel as they
seek the facts to bring their programs
into consonance with the new National
Environmental Policy Act.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to have the assurance of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DIN-
GELL) that there is no intent to in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
607
fringe upon the jurisdiction of any
committee in this Congress.
However, I am still concerned about
the sweeping effect this legislation
could have on the substantive law and
the jurisdiction of practically every
committee in this Congress.
Functions and responsibilities of
the Federal agencies are substantively
changed in the House substitute for
S. 1075. These changes have a definite
bearing on the interpretation of exist-
ing laws and administration of pro-
grams which are under the jurisdic-
tion of committees other than the
originating committee of this legisla-
tion in the House. In addition the an-
nual environmental quality report
which would include legislative rec-
ommendations for realining agency
functions and responsibilities conceiv-
ably could be referred to that one
originating committee and in effect
make them an oversight committee
for a myriad of programs presently
under the jurisdiction of other com-
mittees.
I trust this is not the case and that
the remarks of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) will preclude
any such action.
While I appreciate the assurances
of the gentleman from Michigan I
still have deep reservations about this
conference report and feel I must
warn the Members that they should
be on guard against the ramifications
of a measure that is so loose and am-
biguous as this.
I fear that the purpose of this bill
is to cause a change in the organiza-
tion of the House of Representatives
and to reorganize the administrative
agencies for the purpose of trans-
ferring jurisdiction and powers to
certain committees of this body.
Lest this sound too strong an accu-
sation, I would remind this body that
the President of the United States
was the first to organize a Council of
this nature. Under the guise for sup-
port of such a concept and with a view
toward providing the benefits of a
legislative organized body, S. 1075 and
its original counterparts were set be-
fore the bodies of Congress.
However, if we read this bill and if
we look at what it does, we discover
it does absolutely nothing to control
pollution. The language is vague and
strange. The exposition which we may
find in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of
December 20 where the other body
acted gives us cause to wonder. For
example, I would invite the attention
of my colleagues to the RECORD of De-
cember 20, 1969, page 40423, at the
point where the distinguished junior
Senator from Maine addresses him-
self to the meaning of this legislation.
At that point the concern of the Pub-
lic Works Committee of the other body
was expressed because the language
is such that it could be read and in-
terpreted to mean that the jurisdic-
tion of that committee in that body
over various areas of environmental
concern would be altered. It is my un-
derstanding of the RECORD that assur-
ances were given to the Public Works
Committee of the Senate by that body
that this was not the case. I must ad-
mit that I would feel considerably
more content about this bill if similar
assurances were given in this body.
I would like, if I might, to invite
the attention of my colleagues to page
40425 of the RECORD of December 20.
In this, the distinguished junior Sen-
ator from Maine distinguishes be-
tween environmental control agencies
and those agencies which have a
strong impact upon the environment.
In the latter category, he means the
Bureau of Public Roads, for example,
as well as the Atomic Energy Com-
mission. He further states that the
nature and extent of environmental
impact with regard to these agencies
will be determined by the environment
control agencies.
Now this might be a desirable
thing; I do not know and I do not say
-------
608
LEGAL COMPILATION—GENERAL
at this time that it is not. I do say,
however, that this is a major revision
of the administrative functions of the
U.S. Government and is indeed far
beyond the concept of that which the
House in its wisdom thought it was
passing when H.R. 12549 was con-
sidered by this body.
Obviously there was considerable
reservation in the Senator from
Maine's mind about this bill or there
would have been no need for the col-
loquy.
In other words, reasonable minds
[p. 40927]
could come to different conclusions
about this legislation because it is so
loose and ambiguous.
The impact of S. 1075, if it becomes
law, I am convinced would be so wide
sweeping as to involve every branch
of the Government, every committee
of Congress, every agency, and every
program of the Nation. This is such
an important matter that I am con-
vinced that we here should consider
it very, very carefully and make a
clear record as to exactly the direction
in which we wish the various elements
of our Government, to move.
I regret that so important a matter
is being handled in so light a manner.
I realize the Members desire to ad-
journ for Christmas and that the hour
is late and that we are all tired, but
this is no subject to merely brush
aside. I had hoped that this matter
could be laid over until Congress re-
convenes, providing the Congress with
ample time to fully understand the
complete ramifications of this legisla-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, I fear, too, that there
may be a measure of politics in the
action forced upon us here tonight.
Frequently, it is the practice in the
American political arena to use emo-
tionally charged words or phrases as
a disguise for actions completely di-
vorced from the true intent of the ap-
parent purpose. I believe we have such
a. case here.
As we all know, the word "envi-
ronment" has become emotionally
charged. We are given to understand
that a major thrust of the President's
state of the Union address will con-
cern itself with the subject. We have
been told—and the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD supports it—that an effort is
being made among the campuses of
the country to make "environment"
an issue leading to demonstrations of
various types. It is my understanding
indeed that high-placed Government
officials in the legislative branch have
extended their support for these dem-
onstrations.
I would take the liberty, Mr. Speak-
er, of reminding this body that when-
ever a subject becomes so infused with
emotion, the danger arises that it can
be used to defeat the very purposes
which it purports to support.
I suggest to this body that we have
such a case here in S. 1075.
I have devoted much of the time
that I have spent serving in this body
to the creation, support and passage
of pollution control legislation. I be-
lieve that I am thoroughly familiar
with our problems in water pollution,
our problems with the administrative
agencies, and our problems in accom-
plishing the efforts made toward im-
proving the environment. I am woe-
fully aware of the problems that have
not yet been solved; and I shall sup-
port as I have in the past, any legiti-
mate effort to solve these problems
but I cannot stand idly by and watch
this most serious problem of our Na-
tion and indeed of all the nations be
used as a thin disguise of politically
motivated moves.
Mr. Speaker, this matter should be
laid aside until Congress reconvenes
in January so that Members can be
adequately apprised of the full im-
port of this measure.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, I
fully supported S. 1075 when it came
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
609
to the floor of the House in October,
and I continue to support it today.
However, I hope that its passage will
not serve as an excuse for substantive
legislation action.
The bill establishes a national poli-
cy for the environment. Unfortu-
nately, policy standards can easily get
lost in the bureaucratic maze.
The bill authorizes studies and re-
search on environmental problems. All
too often, research has been used by
the Federal Government as an excuse
for action. The Federal Government
has studied environmental problems to
death. We know that our air and
waters are polluted. It does us a great
deal more good to establish programs
to do away with this situation than to
study the extent of it from every pos-
sible angle.
The bill also establishes a Board
of Environmental Quality Advisers.
More bureaucracy need not bring more
action.
I hope that before this Congress
adjourns next year, it can take some
of the substantive steps necessary to
demonstrate a genuine commitment
to do something about the environ-
ment.
In the area of auto-caused air pol-
lution, this means ignoring the pres-
sure of the auto-oil complex and pass-
ing strict new standards for pollution
control, controlling the use of addi-
tives in fuels, and making it clear in
many other ways as well that the
Federal Government is not going to
sit idly by and let the automobile
suffocate us all.
In the area of water pollution, this
means enactment of legislation like
the Regional Water Quality Act of
1970, to make the polluter pay for the
cost of his pollution. It also means
more money for water pollution abate-
ment. I am the House sponsor of that
bill.
It means that the Federal Govern-
ment should be policing its own
dispoiling of the environment.
The bill we have before us, S. 1075,
is certainly a good bill and deserves
enactment, but it must not be used
as an excuse for substantive action.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the conference report.
The conference report was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 40928]
A U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1974 O - 466-441 (Vol. No. 1)
-------
------- |