ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Even more important than the question of preeminence and organizational stability is the narrow focus of environmental protection without which no program will ever be successful. If the control of pollution is assigned to those responsible for the promotion 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 autonomous environmental regulation, some have suggested the creation of a Department of Natural Resources or a Department of Conservation. Whatever the merits of such a department to serve other purposes, such a move for these purposes would be a mistake for several impor tant reasons. First, it would ignore the fact that our environmental protection problem involves competition in the use of resources-a competition which exists in any department which must develop resources 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 natural environment and his manmade environments. TO AVOID ECOLOGICAL DISASTER An independent agency, charged with responsibility for developing and implementing Federal environmental quality standards, supporting basic research on problems of environmental quality and providing technical and construction assistance to State, interstate, 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 Administration and the National Air Pollution Control Administration. It includes in the new agency many of the other important environmental regulatory functions now scattered among the Atomic Energy Commission and other Federal agencies. At the same time, it excludes from the EPA any responsibilities for resource development 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. 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 confuses 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 Agriculture 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 presently exist in the U.S. Geological Survey and the Environmental Science Service Administration, and we should consider transferring them to the new agency. The second focus of my concern with the reorganization plan is the ability of the new agency to evaluate health matters quickly and to act on those evaluations. The National Institute for Environmental 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 the FWQA used the capacity of the Bureau of Water Hygiene, earlier identification of the present mercury crisis might have 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 practical, however, to itemize or aggregate the exact expenditure reductions which will result in this action." We should not expect expenditures for these already underfunded, 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. 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 brighter. In fiscal years 1966 through 1969, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration-now known as the Federal Water Quality 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 Accounting 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 supervision of construction grants. Some additional positions have been added to the construction grant program as a result of additional appropriations for that program for fiscal 1970, but much improvement still is needed. We should not be cutting back authorized 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 commitment 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 augmented by the additional transfers I have suggested and if it is administered and funded properly, the EPA would mark an important 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 commitment 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, 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 devas tating air pollution which is wrecking havoc in every big city and small city in America. Could any of this problem have been obviated by more funding or better programs that we have neglected 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 quality programs from the manpower ceilings that apply to the Government generally. We think it is a disservice to the people of this country to suggest new stiff legislation when we know that without 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 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. Do you have questions, Senator Metcalf? Senator METCALF. No, I do not think so. Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Senator Muskie. 49-935-70 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 President'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 agency of this sort, as has happened historically with the establishment of such agencies as the AEC 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 opprotunity 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 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 comprehensive, 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 control 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: |