94th Congress Wrap-Up: Much Accomplished, Many Issues Left for 95th Congress

Thanks to some heavy end-of-term work, the 94th Congress made great strides in enacting environmentally-protective legislation, especially in the areas of federal activities on public lands, toxic substances, and solid wastes. The over-all record is not without its low points, however, particularly with regard to continued uncertainty over energy problems. The outlook for the new year is encouraging because President Carter is well known for his sensitivity to environmental concerns, and the 95th Congress may well be willing to settle many environmental matters that have been postponed.

Federal Lands

The prominent new developments included passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.¹ The major impetus behind the new Forest Act was the heated controversy generated by recent federal court decisions that effectively halted the Forest Service's long-standing practice of allowing private timber companies to clearcut on national forest lands. The new Act repealed the provision in the 1897 Organic Act that caused judicial prohibition of clearcutting and set up elaborate standards to determine particular methods and safeguards for timber harvesting. In addition, the Forest Act establishes special criteria for logging on marginal lands where regeneration is difficult or where harvesting causes great deterioration of the soil or watershed or adjacent water resources. The new law also deals with the major problem of harvest rate. The legislation calls for an even-flow cutting policy in order to sustain a perpetual yield, but this may be adjusted, in the long term, to accomodate other multiple-use objectives. Finally, the new Act provides for greater public participation in the decision-making on national forest use as well as a large reforestation program.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 establishes an organic act for the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Its most important feature gives Congress a greater role in public lands decisions than in the past by requiring congressional review of agency withdrawals of public lands greater than 5,000 acres in size. Public lands are usually withdrawn to prevent mining activities and in favor of setting the lands aside for national parks or wildlife refuges. Secondly, use of the public lands must be carefully coordinated among all federal agencies, taking into account multiple-use sustained-yield objectives and other environmental considerations.

The grazing fee structure on public lands has been a major issue, particularly in conjunction with continued deterioration of public lands. Although the new Act declares that the use of public lands should be paid for according to their fair market value, grazing fees were not raised, which would have brought them in line with the fees charged for grazing on private lands. Instead, Congress directed a year-long study that will concentrate on the reasonableness of the fees. The Act imposes limitations on right-of-way grants across public lands and, for the first time, authorizes legislative designation of BLM-managed lands as parts of the National Wilderness System.

Congress also enacted legislation protecting a number of specific areas. A portion of the New River in North Carolina was placed in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System,² thereby halting a major hydroelectric project that would have destroyed the free-flowing nature of one of the oldest rivers in the United States. New wilderness areas were established at Alpine Lakes in Washington (393,000 acres), Eagles Nest in Colorado (133,000 acres), and Point Reyes off the California coast (60,000 acres). The virgin forests of South Carolina's Congaree Swamp (15,000 acres) were brought under management of the National Park Service.Congress settled a long-standing conflict over control of national wildlife refuges by blocking the transfer of responsibility for three game ranges to the development-oriented Bureau of Land Management and putting all wildlife refuges under the management of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) except those now jointly managed by FWS and other federal agencies.

New recreation areas were established at Hells Canyon in Washington and Oregon (700,000 acres) and the Chicksaw region in Oklahoma (10,000 acres) Historical parks were created at Valley Forge (2,800 acres) and in Washington and Alaska memorializing the Klondike Gold Rush (13,271 acres). Finally, the Omnibus Forest and Refuge Wilderness law made 388,000 acres in 13 states federally-protected wilderness and an additional 587,364 acres were put under study for possible inclusion in the program.³

[7 ELR 10006]

In other federal lands legislation, the 94th Congress responded to increased public furor and finally addressed the issue of mining in the national parks. A new law closes the parks to new claims, puts a moratorium on increased mining in several of the parks, and orders a study of the cost of acquiring existing mining claims as opposed to the environmental cost of continued mining in the parks. Finally, amendments to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act greatly increased the funds available and authority to acquire property for the protection of wildlife and wetlands.

On the negative side, Congress continued its unwillingness to experiment with new forms of land preservation by again failing to enact the Nantucket Sound Islands Trust bill.⁴ This proposal, which has been before Congress in one form or another for the last five years, seeks to curb the extreme development pressures on the Massachusetts islands by a combination of zoning standards involving public and private property ownership and transportation controls. Congress' problem this past session revolved around uncertainties over the influence of federal officials in what is expected to be essentially a local planning and governing process. While local residents have not supported the bill unanimously, there is greater acceptance than in the past and congressional committees have made several summer field study trips to the islands. Rather than agreeing to postpone action for even further study, Senators Kennedy and Brooke and Representative Studds will press for passage in the 95th Congress.

Another area where Congress failed to decide a long-standing issue was broad land-use planning legislation.⁵ The concept is similar to the original Coastal Zone Management Act in providing grants to states and requiring them to inventory and basically zone their lands for different uses. In addition, programs would have to be developed encouraging local cooperation. This issue has been before Congress for several years, and the 95th Congress may finally enact the necessary legislation. A noteworthy development on this score is that Congressman Steiger (R.-Ariz.), having lost his bid to move up to the Senate, will not be in Congress to continue his long opposition to national land-use legislation.

Energy

As United States dependence on imported oil continued to grow, Congress pressed on with the task of encouraging development of domestic energy sources. The underlying question was to extent to which environmental protection should play second fiddle to unexamined economic desires.

Environmentalists suffered a major setback when Congress failed to legislate strong federal strip mine reclamation standards. President Ford vetoed specific strip mining legislation,⁶ but sponsors expect to bring the issuebefore Congress again in 1977. Proponents want requirements for the restoration of strip-mined land at least to its original shape and condition, protection of the area's water balance, and treatment of the discarded spoil that causes land and water pollution. Although the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments,⁷ enacted over a presidential veto, did not include any strip-mining safeguards, they require the Interior Department to gather data on the potential for developing coal reserves, including possible environmental impacts, and then develop a comprehensive land-use plan for actual development of the coal resources. Lessees of federal coal lands will be required to submit detailed mining and reclamation plans and to comply with federal pollution laws. Part of the state's share of leasing revenues is to be set aside to assist in mitigating the environmental impacts of increased coal development.

Another problem connected with coal is its transportation from mine to users. The Ford Administration proposed legislation that would have opened the way for coal slurry pipelines, which would require condemnation of rights-of-way on private property, particularly over rail lines. Proponents point to the technological and economic advantages of pipelines, particularly across rough terrain, the environmental advantages from buried transmission lines, the minimization of threats from pipeline disasters through advanced technology, and the advantages for recycling the water used. Out of obvious economic interest, the railroads are opposing the slurry pipelines. A drawback is the pipelines' requirement for vast amounts of water, particularly scarce in the western states where development of the massive coal deposits is planned. This issue should come to a head in the 95th Congress following publication of a report due in July on coal slurry pipelines that is now being prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment.

The Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) focuses primarily on technological solutions to energy problems, but the 94th Congress failed to enact, or defeated, several proposals that would have moved ERDA in specific energy policy directions. Synthetic [7 ELR 10007] fuels loan guarantees, a major issue that was narrowly defeated near the end of the session, will return in the 95th Congress. The main bills worked out from numerous proposals would have provided ERDA loan guarantees of $3.5 billion with an additional $500 million for price supports for synthetic fuels.

The bill would have allowed up to 50 percent of the guarantees to cover energy from such renewable resources as biomass (conversion of urban and agricultural waste to energy), solar, and geothermal, but ERDA had indicated that it would use a very substantial portion of the funds for operative coal-gasification and oil shale plants. The bill's sponsors felt that demonstration plants would help iron out the problems created by synthetic fuels for air and water pollution and occupational cancer, but environmentalists argued that not only would be legislation divert funds from more environmentally desirable programs such as conservation and solar energy research and development, but would encourage uneconomic technologies requiring continued federal subsidization by price supports and government purchase agreements. Defeated in December 1975 and blocked again by a single vote in the Senate in September 1976, the issue is sure to have a prominent place in the agenda of the 95th Congress. ERDA received substantially larger sums for solar energy funding in its authorization bill⁹ than in previous years and the conference report agreed upon $300 million in loan guarantees for biomass, but Congress adjourned before actually appropriating the funds. Until the new Congress acts on these authorizations, ERDA will be unable to spend this additional money.

The Federal Energy Administration's (FEA) fiscal year 1977 authorization, which was signed by the President on August 14, 1976,¹⁰ is a major boost for solar energy use, however, because homeowners may apply to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a 25-percent subsidy of home conservation investments using such renewable resources as solar energy. As a further incentive for installing or leasing energy conservation equipment, business, non-profit institutions and local government units may apply for $2 billion in loan guarantees.

Also included are a three-year grant program for weatherization of low-income housing, state conservation information programs, and a feasibility study for financial incentives to encourage energy conservation. A separate bill for energy tax credits, however, never came to a vote. The FEA authorization legislation also inludes a study of electric utility rate structures encouraging energy conservation and minimizing consumer costs, but major legislation in this area may come up before the new Congress.

Air and Water Bill Defeats

Proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 narrowly failed to pass in the last congressional session.¹¹ Preparation of the legislation in subcommittee and committee hearings and mark-up sessions was extraordinarily time-consuming. Auto and utility companies lobbied heavily against the Clean Air Act amendments, and a last-minute filibuster led by Utah Senators Jake Garn (R) and Frank Moss (D) which kept the Senate from voting on the conference report on the last day of the session killed the measure. The legislation agreed to by the conferees would have minimized air quality degradation in areas that currently enjoy better air than the national standards. The conference bill also gave auto manufacturers a one-year delay in meeting the 1978 emission standards. This matter will reappear early in the 95th Congress as the auto companies again urge delay because of alleged technological inabilities to meet the fast-approaching 1978 standards. More important, however, will be industrial and government arguments on the issue of significant deterioration of clean air areas.

Another major air pollution issue is whether new pollution-causing industry can be built in areas where national air quality standards have not yet been met. In November 1976, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Deputy Administrator John Quarles proposed a "trade-off" policy to admit new air pollution sources if an equivalent existing source in the area were closed down.¹² Whether the new administration will carry on with this idea is, of course, uncertain.

Defeat of the FWPCA amendments by a failure of the conference to agree on a report was a more favorable result from the point of view of environmentalists. The House version of the legislation contained a provision that would have sharply curtailed federal authority to protect ecologically valuable wetlands from destruction. The major point of contention was the Corps of Engineers' dredge-and-fill program set up by § 404 of the FWPCA. The House bill would have made substantial inroads into the Corps' current authority by narrowing its statutory jurisdiction from "waters of the United States" to commercially navigable waters, adjacent wetlands, and coastal wetlands. The Senate bill would have preserved the broad federal regulatory jurisdiction but would have transferred much of the authority for the 404 permit program to EPA with a provision for delegation of this power to qualified states.

Other conflicts involved delegation to the states of authority for sewage plant construction grants, use of local ad valorem taxes to pay the operating costs of federally-financed sewage plants, and the funding level for sewage treatment plants. The 95th Congress will doubtless face new proposed amendments to the FWPCA which are much broader in scope, at least in [7 ELR 10008] part in response to the forthcoming report of the National Commission on Water Quality.

Chemicals and Solid Wastes

Perhaps the brightest achievement of the 94th Congress was its passage of the long-awaited statute regulating toxic chemicals.¹³ The Toxic Substances Control Act was five years in the making and subjects a broad range of consumer, commercial, and industrial chemcials and mixtures to direct federal regulation for the first time. Chemicals found to be unreasonably hazardous by EPA may be prohibited from commercial distribution. Significantly, the regulatory standard is risk of harm rather than actual damage. Although a complex and cumbersome procedure is required for EPA regulatory action, recent advances in the science of toxicology and testing will alleviate some of the burdensome aspects of regulation.

Controversy over pesticide regulation by EPA generated several significant amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.¹⁴ A proposed amendment to give the Agriculture Department veto power over EPA pesticide decisions was defeated, but EPA is nevertheless now required to notify the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in advance of EPA decisions and give USDA an opportunity to comment. On the other hand, "private" applicators of toxic pesticides — usually farmers who apply the chemicals themselves — are not required to be certified by EPA beyond a mere self-affirmation of competency. States are permitted to impose testing requirements, an unlikely possibility since the farm states themselves opposed such testing. In addition, a scientific panel reflecting a balanced representation of interests was established to advise EPA on proposed pesticide control actions, but separate legislation¹⁵ allowing congressional veto of EPA pesticide regulatory decisions was vetoed by President Ford as an unconstitutional interference with the principle of separation of powers.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act¹⁶ was another major achievement of the 94th Congress. The new law, which significantly increases the federal role in solid waste management, authorizes EPA to control land disposal of hazardous wastes, including mandatory federal standards for handling and transportation, establishes minimum requirements, provides grants for state and local solid waste and recycling plans, authorizes research and development programs for waste disposal and resource recovery, and includes a citizen suit provision. Amendments dealing with container guidelines and mandatory deposits for beverage containers were deleted, but these issues will probably be taken up again in the 95th Congress.

International Impacts

A number of new laws dealt with environmental problems in the international arena, but several major issues were left to be determined by the new Congress. In the foreign aid appropriations bill, United States funding for the United Nations Environmental Programme was set at $10 million,¹⁷ double what the Ford Administration requested. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act,¹⁸ which takes effect in March 1977, extends the exclusive United States fishing zone from 12 to 200 miles and establishes an extensive fisheries management program whereby all domestic and foreign fishing in the zone must be licensed; United States fishermen are to be given preferential treatment. Retaliatory actions against United States fishermen by foreign nations will result in a ban on seafood imports from these countries. The Commerce Department is directed to develop an extensive fisheries research program.

The larger exclusive United States fisheries zone should prevent the rapid depletion of resources by foreign ships using sophisticated equipment, but this matter may be dealt with on a more comprehensive basis if the Law of the Sea Conference can complete its work. United States legislation was prompted by similar actions by other fishing nations and Massachusetts' attempt to create such a zone for its fishermen. Already it is apparent that there may be a conflict over the limits of the zones because of the convoluted boundaries with Canada in Maine and Washington.¹⁹

Another crucial Law of the Sea issue is deep seabed mining. If the international body continues its inability to solve this problem, the 95th Congress will be faced with renewed efforts to help the technologically-competent United States companies to extract manganese, cobalt, copper, and nickel from the ocean floor. The legislation would deal with insurance coverage as an incentive to protect private investments, but a major problem will be to establish environmental standards to protect marine resources. At the international level, the major question is the sharing of the sea's mineral wealth with land-locked and technologically less proficient nations.

The proliferation of nuclear technology is another serious problem that made little progress in the 94th Congress but is expected to be a major issue in 1977, particularly considering President Carter's well-publicized views on the matter and the increasing nuclear capabilities of other nations. Under legislation that was passed, the United States will cease economic or military assistance to any country that receives a nuclear reprocessing facility (which, by diverting plutonium, can be used to make nuclear warheads) [7 ELR 10009] and refuses to place all nuclear equipment and material under inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency.²⁰ Other proposals that failed, however, included a safeguard system on reprocessing by foreign countries of United States-exported nuclear fuel and congressional review of export license applications from non-signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.²¹

Coastal Waters

The 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act was substantially amended²² to increase funds available to coastal states in dealing with onshore environmental and economic impacts resulting from accelerated federal offshore leasing for outer continental shelf oil and gas. The two-part Coastal Energy Impact Grant Program will help retire state and local bonds and loans for OCS-related development and will provide automatic additional grants based on increased OCS activity, but state coastal zone management plans must be federally-approved in order to establish consistency of planning on the federal and state levels. Other provisions deal with beach access and the preservation of islands and estuaries.

Revision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to give states greater input into the leasing of federal offshore lands for oil and gas development, to provide environmental safeguards, and to protect the public's return for leasing to private interests failed to pass,²³ but the whole issue will doubtless be before the 95th Congress because of its narrow defeat in the last session. Oil spill liability and clean-up provisions were part of the proposed OCS revisions but also were considered as separate legislation.²⁴ Comprehensive oil spill insurance, liability limits, and the matter of preempting existing state laws (often stricter than the federal standards) failed to make much headway, however.

Wildlife

Besides blocking increased BLM authority over wildlife refuges, noted above, Congress also passed legislation²⁵ to protect whales within the 200-mile United States fishery zone by directing a Commerce Department study of the effects on whales of habitat destruction and oil pollution and calling for negotiations with Canada and Mexico. The controversy over tuna fishing by purse seining with its attendant heavy loss of porpoises may be the impetus for efforts by the fishing industry to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act by giving greater consideration to the economic impacts of wildlife protection.²⁶

Revision of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act²⁷ was attempted in both the 93d and 94th Congresses and may finally come to fruition in the 95th Congress. Problems with the Coordination Act include inconsistent judicial pronouncements regarding obligations to consider the impact on fish and wildlife of dam construction and other water-related projects and uncertainty as to the effect of the environmental impact consideration requirements of NEPA on the Act's consultation procedures.

While the 94th Congress justly deserves favorable reviews from environmentalists for its strong legislation on toxic substances, management of the federal lands, and solid wastes, much remains to be done in the areas of establishing a comprehensive and cohesive energy policy and resolving the continually knotty problems of air and water pollution. In addition to the other issues already noted, Congress can expect renewed pressures in the areas of noise pollution and the funding of mass transit. While the 1976 elections did not bring an abundance of new faces for the 95th Congress, a number of legislators with strong environmental records will have greater seniority and hence more powerful positions from which to push for important programs. Renewed efforts at congressional reform by consolidating and streamlining the committee system could also have a favorable impact.²⁸ Expected [7 ELR 10010] initiatives from the new Carter Administration will be of utmost importance, and Secretary-designate Andrus at the Department of the Interior and the newly-appointed Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may well chart new directions. Now that the Democrats hold both Congress and the White House for the first time in eight years, they have the opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to effective methods of environmental protection.

1. The National Forest Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-588, was signed by the President on October 22, 1976. The legislation substantially amends, and thus is incorporated in, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614, ELR 41441. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-579, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1782, ELR 41458, was signed October 21, 1976. See Comment, Major New Public Land Laws Provide Detailed Guidance for Activities of Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 6 ELR 10240 (Nov. 1976).

2. The New River bill, P.L. 94-407, was signed on September 11, 1976. See Comment, President Signs Bill Protecting New River, 6 ELR 10219 (Oct. 1976). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287, appears at ELR 41421.

3. The public law numbers and dates the President signed the legislation discussed above are: Alpine Lakes Wilderness, P.L. 94-357 (July 12, 1976); Eagles Nest Wilderness, P.L. 94-352 (July 12, 1976); Point Reyes, P.L. 94-544 (Oct. 18, 1976); Congaree Swamp National Preserve, P.L. 94-545 (Oct. 18, 1976); Game range bill for FWS administration of certain wildlife refuges, P.L. 94-223 (Feb. 27, 1976); Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, P.L. 94-199 (Dec. 31, 1975); Chicksaw National Recreation Area, P.L. 94-235 (May. 17, 1976); Valley Forge National Historical Park, P.L. 94-337 (July 4, 1976); Klondike Gold Rush National Park, P.L. 94-323 (June 30, 1976); Omnibus Forest and Refuge Wilderness, P.L. 94-557 (Oct. 19, 1976); Mining in national parks, P.L. 94-429 (Sept. 28, 1976), ELR 41456; P.L. 94-422 (Sept. 28, 1976), amending the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, ELR 41417, and creating the Historic Preservation Fund, ELR 41452.

4. The Nantucket Sound Islands Trust bill, S. 67, was reported out of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on November 26, 1975, S. Rep. 94-493, and passed by the Senate on December 8, 1975. It was immediately sent to the House where it was referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The House committee failed to report out the bill.

5. The House Interior Committee voted not to report out H.R. 3510 on July 7, 1975. The Senate bill, S. 984, offered March 3, 1975, failed to make any progress. In the 95th Congress, the proposals may emphasize coordination of the many current land use requirements rather than being some sort of omnibus land use planning bill.

6. The first major strip mine controls bill, H.R. 25, was vetoed by President Ford on June 10, 1975. See H. Rep. 94-45, S. Rep. 94-28, and conference reports H. Rep. 94-189 and S. Rep. 94-101. The House Rules Committee killed the two 1976 efforts, H.R. 9725 and H.R. 13950.

7. The Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments, P.L. 94-377, 30 U.S.C. §§ 201-209, ELR 41443, became law on August 4, 1976. See Comment, Interior's Flexible Approach to Strip Mining: Energy Self-Sufficiency Through Minimal Environmental Protection, 6 ELR 10198 (Sept. 1976).

9. The House version of the ERDA appropriation bill, H.R. 13350 (see H. Rep. 94-1081, pts. I and II), passed on May 20, 1976. The Senate version, S. 3105 (see S. Rep. 94-879), passed on June 25. The House approved the conference report, H. Rep. 94-1718, on September 30, but the Senate adjourned before voting on it.

10. The funding bill for the Federal Energy Administration, P.L. 94-385, was signed on August 14, 1976. 15 U.S.C. §§ 761-790h, ELR 41262.

11. See Comment, Congress Fails to Amend the Clean Air Act or § 404 of the FWPCA, 6 ELR 10426 (Nov. 1976).

12. N.Y. Times, Nov. 11, 1976, at 1, col. 1; Wall Street J., Nov. 12, 1976, at 4, col. 1.

13. The Toxic Substances Control Act, P.L. 94-469, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629, ELR 41335, was signed on October 11, 1976. See Comment, From Microbes to Men: The New Toxic Substances Control Act and Bacterial Mutagenicity/Carcinogenicity Tests, 6 ELR 10248 (Nov. 1976).

14. FIFRA was amended by P.L. 94-140, signed on November 28, 1975. 7 U.S.C. §§ 121-136y, ELR 41301. See Comment, FIFRA Amendment: Agricultural Interests Make Some Inroads at Expense of Environment, 6 ELR 10031 (Feb. 1976).

15. H.R. 12944 (see H. Rep. 94-1105) was passed by the House on August 3, 1976 and by the Senate two days later, but was vetoed by the President on August 13.

16. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 94-580, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6987, ELR 41901, was signed on October 21, 1976.

17. The foreign aid bill detailing the UNEP funding, P.L. 94-441, was signed on October 1, 1976.

18. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act, P.L. 94-265, was signed on April 13, 1976.

19. See 41 Fed. Reg. 48619 (Nov. 4, 1976).

20. The few safeguards on nuclear proliferation passed this session of Congress are contained in the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, P.L. 94-329, signed on June 30, 1976.

21. See generally H.R. 15377 (H. Rep. 94-1469); S. 3084 (S. Rep. 94-917); H.R. 13350 (H. Rep. 94-1718); S. 1439 (S. Reps. 94-875 and 94-1193); and H.R. 15419 (H. Rep. 94-1613).

22. Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act were added by P.L. 94-370, signed on July 26, 1976. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464, ELR 41700:1. See Comment, The Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976: Tailoring Coastal Zone Protection to Expanded Offshore Oil Production, 6 ELR 10193 (Sept. 1976).

23. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1343, ELR 41435. The Senate's proposed amendments, S. 521 (S. Rep. 94-284), passed on July 30, 1975, and the House version, H.R. 6218 (H. Rep. 94-1084), passed on July 21, 1976. Cngress adjourned before the conferees could reconsider the conference report (H. Rep. 94-1632), which had been recommitted by the House on September 28, 1976.

24. H.R. 14862 was cleared by the House Merchant Marine Committe (H. Rep. 94-1489) on September 9, 1976, but the session ended before the Public Works Committee, which had concurrent jurisdiction, took any action. S. 266 was introduced in the beginning of the 94th Congress, on January 21, 1975, but no hearings were held because of jurisdictional disputes between the three committees to which the bill was referred.

25. The whale protection bill, P.L. 94-532, was signed on October 17, 1976. See Comment, Not Saving the Whales: President Ford Refuses to Ban Fish Imports from Nations Which Have Violated International Whaling Quotas, 5 ELR 10044 (1975).

26. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1407, ELR 41815. See Gaines & Schmidt, Wildlife Population Management Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 6 ELR 50096 (1976); Comment, Special Status of Wildlife Receives Judicial Approval, 6 ELR 10270 (Dec. 1976); Comment, Federal Courts and Congress Review Tuna-Porpoise Controversy, 6 ELR 10147 (July 1976).

27. 16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c. Proposed revisions of the Coordination Act, in the 94th Congress, were S.1727, introduced by Senator Moss (D.-Utah) on May 13, 1975, and H.R. 15272, introduced by Congressman Oberstar (D.-Minn.) on August 25, 1976. Neither bill was reported out of committee. In the 93d Congress, H.R. 10651 and H.R. 14527 were introduced, but no progress was made on the bills.

28. See note 24 supra. In addition, on December 8, 1976, the House Democratic Caucus voted to strip the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy of its legislative jurisdiction. Several reasons for this action have been given. First, it was the only joint committee with legislative jurisdiction, and its authority was inconsistent with usual congressional procedure. Secondly, the Committee was not representative of the House membership and was allegedly biased towards industry. Finally, the original reasons for setting up the Joint Committee in 1946 — the need for strict security in dealing with nuclear matters and the perception of atomic energy as a single issue — no longer are relevant.