132 



The EFA legislation (S. 1015) would permit a more efficient method of 

 financing as compared with the approach taken in the three bills enacted 

 last year for Federal guarantees of taxable municipal bonds. That is, EFA 

 as a corporate body empowered to issue its own obligations in the market 

 "would have the advantages of consolidated financing and an ability to adjust 

 the timing, maturities, and other terms of its issues to changing market 

 ■conditions in order to minimize its borrowing costs. Also, since there is an 

 ■established market for Federal agency securities, EFA would be able to 

 toobilize quickly the funds necessary to meet the urgent needs for waste treat- 

 taent facilities. 



While the EFA approach may be the most efficient method, short of direct 

 Treasury financing, of providing Federal credit assistance for certain pro- 

 grams, the Administration considers that the use of this approach beyond 

 assisting the financing of waste treatment facilities is not justified at this 

 time. In this connection, I would particularly like to stress our objection 

 to use of the EFA approach on a program by program basis, the inevitable 

 result of which would be to move toward the establishment of a number of 

 small Federally sponsored agencies competing with each other in the capital 

 markets in the funding of new and comparatively modest Federal financial 

 assistance programs. 



In conclusion, we feel that Federal credit assistance should be authorized 

 only for programs of high national priority and only for borrowers who are 

 unable to meet their needs in the private financial markets. In those cases where 

 the need for Federal credit aid is clearly established we believe that the financing 

 should be conducted in the most efficient manner available and in the taxable 

 rather than in the tax-exempt market. I would like to stress again, as indicated 

 in the President's statement on credit programs in the Budget Message, that 

 legislation will be proposed to facilitate overall review and coordination of both 

 the financial and budgetary aspects of Federal credit programs which are financed 

 outside the regular budget. Pending the enactment of this legislation we would 

 recommend against the establishment of additional programs of Federal credit 

 aid except for the most urgent credit needs. 



This concludes my remarks on the provision fo S. 5S2 of major concerns to 

 the Treasury and on several alternative methods of Federal financial assistance 

 that have recently been enacted or proposed by the Administration. I would be 

 happy to answer any questions you may have. 



Statement of a IMember of the Council on Environmental Qital- 

 ITT Before House Committee on Merchant JNIarine and Fish- 

 eries, June 24, 1971. 



statement of dr. GORDON J. F. MACDONALD, MEMBER, COUNCIL O^ST 

 environmental quality, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM REILLY 



Dr. MacDonald. Mr. Chairman, Congressman IMosher and members 

 of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today. I am 

 accompanied by William Reilly of the Council staJff who is one of our 

 experts on land use. 



I appreciate, the opportunity to testify for liussell Train, Chair- 

 man of the Council on Environmental Quality, who is out of the city, 

 on the relationship of the pending coastal zone legislation H.It. 2492 

 and 2493 and the national land use policy legislation submitted by the 

 administration and now pending before the House Interior Commit- 

 tee. 



As this committee is well aware, during the last Congress, the 

 administration proposed coastal zone management legislation. An 

 interagency task force on coastal zone management, chaired by Mr. 

 Train when he was Undersceretary of the Interior, developed the 

 proposals submitted by the administration. On February 8, 1971, the 

 President submitted to Congress his second environmental message, 

 laying before Congress a far-reaching and innovative set of legislative 



