페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

principal sponsor, spokesman for the bill, might have some bearing upon what the legislative

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is not the law.

Senator MUSKIE. I know that is not the law; but it would seem to me it would have some bearing upon what legislative intent is. Mr. Sneed didn't even bother to quote me this morning. You quoted me this afternoon with language that is irrelevant to the point.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I am not so sure it is.

Senator MUSKIE. The trouble with this administration, Mr. Ruckelshaus

[Laughter.]

Senator MUSKIE. The trouble with this administration is that it uses tiny precedents to build great houses—tiny precedents to build great houses.

Here we try, in a responsible fashion, to give you flexibility for the purposes that I have described to you and to Mr. Sneed and now you take that flexibility to build for yourselves the authority to cut in half a legislative authorization. Whether or not you or I am right as to whether that is the effect will be decided in due course, but

you were prepared to take that step if that was the effect, from what you have said this afternoon. So you take this responsible legislative action to give you flexibility to cut in half a program after the Congress, by an overwhelming margin that indicated to the President they disagreed with him, that is just a temptation to Congress to be more inflexible, not more flexible in the future.

If I were to write this bill over again, I would write it in such a way that you would really have to squirm to reach the conclusion that the White House or you yourself apparently have reached with respect to this.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think-
Senator MUSKIE. That is what I challenge the President on.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think it would have been a simple enough matter to make it in the bill

Senator MUSKIE. It obviously was not simple.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think I could write language here that would make it clear. I think the bill itself is clear enough,

Senator MUSKIE. Having in mind the devious motives that you pursued to undercut the purposes of the Congress, I could now write better language and believe me, I will. Believe me, I will.

The clear language and debate was what we were giving you, is what we understood to be legitimate administrative discretion to spend the money, not defeat the purposes. Then to have you twist it as you have, is a temptation to this Senator to really handcuff you the next time.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I just don't agree with you at all that we have twisted this language and I am sorry

Senator MUSKIE. With respect to the---
Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I am sorry your reaction is as it is.
Senator MUSKIE. My view of it may be more relevant than yours.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It may be; but I do not agree we have twisted this language nor do I agree the language in the law does other than support what we are doing.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me give you another question out of some of our legislation and see how you respond to that.

In October of last year and in October of 1971, your agency was required by the Resources Recovery Act to submit a report on recycling and other matters to the Congress. Isn't that correct?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. According to a recent New York Times article that report exists and has existed since last August 24. Is that correct?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. There is a draft report which we are circulating to the other agencies of the Government for their comment on it prior to submitting it to Congress.

Senator MUSKIE. I have it here. Your circulation paths got breached a little. This says Annual Report to Congress, August 24. How many months ago was that?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, that must be about 6.

Senator MUSKIE. Quite a few. According to the same New York Times article that report was forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance prior to transmittal to Congress. Is that correct?

M. RUCKELSHAUS. That is right. I don't think you have got the right report. I don't think you have the one we submitted to OMB.

Senator MUSKIE. When you have to resort to devious means to get these things you can't be sure you have the right report, that is true. The legislation didn't contemplate I would have to get it in this fashion. Do

you consider that the executive branch has honored the requirements of that law with respect to this report?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Are we late in getting the report to Congress?

Senator MUSKIE. Any report. We were supposed to have had two by now.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. We are late in getting the report to Congress. I admit that, Senator, and I apologize to Congress for doing that and have done so to Senator Randolph, the chairman of the Public Works Committee. When we circulate these reports to get other agencies' comments—which the congressional committee specifically direct us to ask for-in most of the bills we have to implement-we have delavs. Delays are not something I like and I am sorry that we are not able to meet some of the deadlines that Congress puts on us.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, all it is to me is another evidence that it dosen't matter what we ask for, we have to struggle to get it.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, I am sorry that that is your interpretation because it certainly is not my desire to frustrate the congressional will to get a report by a specific date and, frankly, in this case, Senator, I don't blame you for being frustrated. I would like to have that report up here. I would like to have it in your hands on time. And because of all kinds of difficulties in getting the report circulated to the other agencies, getting the report out of our agency, we haven't been able to comply with that deadline and I don't blame you for being upset.

Senator MUSKIE. If it stood alone it wouldn't bother me. I can forget mistakes because I make them. But when it seems to be part of a pattern of diluting the mandates of the Congress, then I am concerned because then you get not just to a report but you get to the question of funding an important and vital program that we do our best to mandate clearly only to have that mandate twisted out of all shape.

Let me ask you this question, on the issue of funding.

Do you believe your agency has authority to refuse to implement any aspect of your legal responsibility for which adequate funds have been made available?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUs. Well, if you are asking me do I believe our agency has the authority to break the law, no.

Senator MUSKIE. I didn't say that so I will repeat it.

Do you believe your agency has authority to refuse to implement any aspect of your legal responsibility for which adequate funds have been made available?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I would have to look at that question in the context of which it is given. As a proposition

Senator MUSKIE. The context is pretty plain.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. As a proposition I think there may be some responsibilities that we have been given by Congress in various areas for which funds are made available, for which it appears that the funds simply can't be spent in a wise or expeditious manner and in which Congress may agree with us. There are, I think, clearly times in which funds are appropriated and made available for specific responsibilities that we have under a particular bill on which the executive branch for a variety of reason has decided not to spend those funds at that particular time.

In the report that was sent to Congress yesterday on the Impoundment actions taken by the Office of Management and Budget, there were several reasons given for the failure to apportion funds that had been appropriated.

Under that apportionment authority which they assert in this report that it may be that while funds have been appropriated, they are not made available for implementation on the part of an agency or department of government; for a variety of reasons that are spelled out there.

Senator MUSKIE. What I am getting at really is this, and I will set the context a little more clearly because I have two or three other questions I would like to follow upon.

You are head of a mission agency, your responsibility under the laws, as I understand it, is to implement the environmental pollution or environmental cleanup policies that are written into law. EPA was created for the purpose of bringing everything together in a rational and sensible manner and the head of that agency, in my judgment, I have always regarded as the chief spokesman in the execuitive branch for our environmental policies and our environmental values. I am not asking you what the responsibilities of the President or what are the responsibilities of the Director of the Office of Vanagement and Budget, or what are the responsibilities of the secretary of a department. I am asking you these questions in that sense. What are your responsibilities as head of EPA?

So my next question is this.

What is your responsibility when the Executive prohibits you from spending money made available by the Congress or employing personnel authorized by the Congress, either or both of which actions may cause failure to carry out the requirements of the law ?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, I think that the executive branch would not assert that authority unless they did it under color of law and under either the Constitution or some legal authority, and in that

case, if I agreed with the executive branch assertion of authority to do that, I think that I have no recourse but to go along with that assertion of authority.

Now, if the President or whoever in the administration would ask me to do something that were clearly illegal, then

Senator MUSKIE. We are not talking about legality or illegality, I am talking about policy. In other words, who can we look to in the executive branch to fight for the objectives of that water and pollution law, whatever the legality or illegality of the President's direction? Who do we look toward in the executive branch to fight our fight? That is what I am asking you.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, you put it in terms of our fight. I assume you mean try to get the waters cleaned up. In that sense, it would

be me.

Senator MUSKIE. I am talking about fighting our fight to implement this new law, and you know as well as anybody else, because you are an intelligent man, I respect your administration but you know that these funding requirements are tied to the rest of the legislation, they are tied to the feasibility of the deadlines, they are tied to the credibility of the Federal efforts in the minds of State and local governments. I mean, the failure or the actual support of the Federal commitment has a great deal to do not only with the amount of money that we allocate now but with the credibility of this legislation for the vears ahead.

You might not agree with it as a member of the executive establishment; but what I want to know is who is there who understands this in the executive branch to say to the President when he directs you to do this, "Mr. President, from a policy standpoint that is wrong." In other words, I would like to be sure that the President is given the best possible case for not doing what he directed you to do. Even if you concede that he has the legal authority to do it, which I don't. Even conceding that, who is there in the executive branch to say to the President, "Look, if you do this, this will be the impact upon this program, this will be the impact on our goals, this will be the impact ipon efforts in State and local level.” Who is making that fight in the executive branch?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Senator, to the extent that any agency head or department head fights for the programs that he is put in charge of, I make as good a fight as I can and I do the best I can to impress on the President and anybody in the executive branch that our programs and our efforts ought to have the very highest priority. In light of the severe fiscal restraints that have been placed on the entire executive branch because of the difficulties that the President has been having in holding down the deficit, I think we have done very well. I think if you look at the amount of money that has been spent by this administration, by the Federal Government for the construction of sewage treatment plants, you can't help but agree we have spent in the last 3 vears almost three times as much as we spent the previous 15 years.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me tell you how that came about. That didn't come about in the executive branch, that comes about because we generated enough heat in the Congress and against the Appropriations Committees of the Congress, we provided more money in the first year

of this administration than the President asked for, and since then he saw the light and he followed us until this year.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, there is no way he is going to beat you. If he asked for $2 billion you will give him $4. There is no way he is going to win.

Senator MUSKIE. You have given me an answer to my question, a very clear

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I don't know what the answer is if I have given it.

Senator MUSKIE. It is a disappointing one because you have given me the rhetoric of those who have directed you rather than the rhetoric of someone who is trying to fight for this program.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I can't, Senator, there is no way that being in the executive branch and requesting money for construction of sewage treatment plants, that there is no way I can request as much money as the Congress is willing to give. I just don't know what that sum might be. And I think if you look at the statistics of what this administration has been willing to spend

Senator MUSKIE. The legislation is ambiguous on the dollars. Do you mean with respect to the money we have authorized the legislation is ambiguous ?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I didn't say anything about ambiguity. What I am saying is if you are asking me as an agency or department head in the executive branch of Government in this particular area to match what the Congress is willing to spend, I can't do it. The President sent up a request of $6 billion with a 55-percent Federal share, the Senate put in $14 billion and the House went to $20 billion. I think if there had been a third house there would have been $30 billion. I don't see how the President can ever win.

Senator MUSKIE. You are talking like the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and not like the Director of EPA. I regret to say that.

Let me ask you another question. What role does the Office of Management and Budget play in your rulemaking process ?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUs. They played in the past and continue to play a role as a conduit for the circulation among the other agencies and departments of Government of our rules and regulations and standards, for comment by those other agencies and departments. We have just recently reviewed that policy and are in the process now of performing that function ourselves instead of letting the Office of Management and Budget do it under what was called a quality of life review. In all of the laws that we implement there are clear directives on the part of the Congress that we are to coordinate our activities with other agencies and departments of Government. The only function that the Office of Management and Budget played in this whole process was to insure that coordination took place.

Senator MUSKIE. Do they second guess you on your rules, regulations, standards, and so on?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Everybody in the Federal Government second guesses me on rules and regulations and standards and the Office of Management

Senator MUSKIE. They try. I am asking whether they do?
Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Everybody tries.

« 이전계속 »