WSP01144 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000875 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 22131 laGJ '. Mr. ALLOTT. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I recognize the Senator's concern; and I, too. BIll. con- cerned. However. in the Missouri River Valley there aTe 10 states and only 6 or 7 Federal agencies. but. those representa- tive States would not be able to dominate the Commission. In other areas, the preponderance of numbers may be OPPO- s1te. but It makes no difference. There is no vote. These Federal Government agencies supposedly will help the States and w1l1 advise with them. In dealing with water pollution, the Fcdcrnl Government agency which deals with water pollution wIll not try to domi- nnte; Instead. It will try to help the Stntes. So I hope the Senator from Colorado will not press for the adoption at his amendment. because all along It has been agreed that the agencies of the Federal Government would not dominate, but would only try to be helpful to the States. If there Is doubt on that point, I am Bure the House will try to elIminate It and to clarify the situation. However, I feel Bure that the debate we have had today on this point. Including the' partIcipation In It by the Senator from Wyoming, shows that the agencies of the Federal Government will not dominate. but. in- stead, w1ll only try to help the States In their consideration of what to do. Mr. ALLO'IT. Mr. President, I find myself In an embarrassing situation. in that I have drawn up these proposals in alternative form, but I now find that neither the Senator from New MexIco nor his legislative assistant has seen them. I am very sorry about that.. Mr. ANDERSON. But of course I have not accused the Senator from Colo- rado of anythIng In that connection. Mr. ALLOTr. I understand: but I wished to have copies of these submitted to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. PresIdent, In view of the legisla- tive history we have made In regard to this matter and in view of the fact that I have stated clearly that I think a prob- lem exIsts In this connectIon. and that I believe this matter should be dealt with by .the House, I shall not press for the adoptIon oi eIther of these amendments. but shall simply permIt the RECORD to remain as It 15 now. I do not know whether there are other amendments to be offered. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. Pr...ldent, w1I1 the Senator from Colorado yield briefly. to permit me to ask a question? Mr. ALLOTT. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. Th1.s measure Is to be known as the Water Resources Planning Act of 1963. After the studIes have been made a.nd the plans have been evolved. Is It contemplated that in the future the Federal Government. may enter the field of expending. funds to provide facilities, Including conduits and other equtpment. for the provIsion of the water, as con- templated In the plan? . Mr. ALLOTI'. I shall be glad to at- tempt to aru;wer the question, or I am qutte w111~ to defer to the Senator from New Mexico. . Mr. ANDERSON. I thank the S........ tor, 'lbe Federal Go'I'emment IB In tbe No. 191--8 field; and by this measure it Is merelY proposed that in the future an attempt Shall be made to plan these matters cartl- fully, rather than to rush haphazardly into them. Mr. LAUSCHE. Will the planning councll and the planning commissions under the bill have authority to recom- mend the type of projects to be developed In order to provide the water that will be needed? Mr. ANDERSON. They would pass on the suggestions made by .the groups In the field: but the U.S. Congress will deal with that question when It reaches it. This measure wlll not in any way dimin- ish the power of Congress to decide whether it will or will not build a con- duit 01' a dam or similar structures. We merely prOVide In this bill that planning shall be made for the future. rather than to proceed only on a year-by-year basIs. ThIs measure is in no way a guarantee of Federal Government flnanclng of any descriptIon In the future, and that mat- ter has no part In this bill. So I am glad the Senator from Ohio has raised the Question, which had not occurred to me. However. the approval of projects In the future Is in no way a part of this bill. Mr. LA USCHE. I had In mind the point tha.t It Is recommended that Ohio Join a. regional operation for the con- struction of a conduit from Lake Erie Into the interior, to carry water. It Is possible that if such a plan 15 evolved, the Federal Government might step. In the future, to help flnance it. However, I thInk that point needs no- answer. Mr. ALLOTT. 'Ib1& bJU does not con- template such nctloD. The Question of whether the Federal Government might help flnance such projects is an entirely Independent matter. and Is entirely aside from this blU. Mr. ANDERSON. Surely. ,Mr. ALLOTT. But the planning might be a concern under this bill. Mr. LAUSCHE. However, will this measure constitute a "nose of the camel under the tent," so that in the future that would be the objective? Mr. ALLOTr. I wish to repent the statement made a moment ago by the Senator from New Mexico. Under the Department of the Interior. there are reclamation proJects: and under the . Corps of Army Engineers there are docks, flood-control works, and so forth-many of them on the Great Lakes. These projects are for. the benefit of the people of the UnJted states. However, this measure would not in any way change tha.t picture. If the Senator from Ohio wlll examine page 2 or the bUl, he wUl flnd there the answer to his Question. I read section 2: STATEMENT OP POLICY SEC.:I. In order to meet tho rapidly ex- pandlng demands for wa.ter "throughout the NatioD. it Is hereby decle.red to be the polley of the Congress that the eODliervatlon, devel- opment. a.nd uUlLza.tlon of lb.e water and re- la.ted land resource" of the United. 5t8Ite8 &hILlI be planned. on a comprehensive and coordinated. buls wi th the cooperation of all eJfected Pedera.l agencies, Btetes. local g09'- ernmente, and otherB concerned. 'lbe key to that paragraph lies In .the word.8 "shall be planned." . Mr. LAUSCHE. I thank the Senator. Mr. ALWTI'. Mr. President, I beUeve we should make clear two other poln ts of legisla.tive history, and then I believe we will be through with the bill. I refer to page 6, subparagraph <e>. The clause is repeated at other places In the bill. Subparagraph (c) reads as follows: (e) To tbe extent permltt.ed by la:w, all appropriate recordll and papers of the COlln~ ell may be made Bva.llnble tor public tespee- tlon during ordinary omce bours. The same. phrase Is used later in the bill with respect to the Commission, ex- cept that the word "shall" Is used rather than the words "may be made," I raise the question now because I asked the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. .Freeman. to what the words "to the ex- tent permitted by law" referred. I asked hIm speCifically whether or not the lan- .guage would result In an Invocation of the executive privilege of the Federal Government. I have discussed the ques- tion with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. He agrees that It would not. I say that It would not. The only purpose that the language could be used for would be to preserve security. Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator is cor- rect. I call attention to the use of the word ."shall." The States asked for that. They wanted to make their material available. But there are certatn areas of the country In which there mIght be placed 8 military Installation or an In.. stallatlon of some similar nature. The . project might be operated by a mining company that did not care to make all of ltB records public. We thought th..t those considerations should be noted But the provision Is not intended to In- vIte the use of executive privilege. Mr. ALLOTl" I am sure that if any Senator thought that the legislative his- tory should be otherwise, he would say 80 now. I presume that what the Sen... alor has said is correct. On page 8. In subparagraph (b) of subparagraph (1), appears the following language: . . (1) serve all the prlnclpal Bgency for the coordination of Federal. State. Interatate &nd local plana for the development of wate~ and rela~ land resources In 11:.8 region. river baaln. or group of river basins; . A legislative hifltory should be made . on the Question to show that the word __. "coordInation". does not mean control . of local and State plans. It merely means "coordination." Perhaps I am onlY emphasizing the point, for we ought . to know the meaning of English words. However, that Is not a.lways true. Mr. ANDERSON. I agree with the Senator. I agree with his understand- ing of the meaning of the word "co-- .ordlnatlon." It meal18 that the Com- mission would take the local plan which the locality has the right to propose and see that the larger plan properly accom- modates the local plan. 'lbat IB what IB meant by "coordination," and nothlng else. . . Mr. ALLOTr. X tho.nk the dlstin- llUIBhed Senator. . .. -'