CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

November 14, 1967

Page 32475

CLEAN AIR ACT -- CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 780) to amend the Clean Air Act to authorize planning grants to air pollution control agencies, expand research provisions relating to fuels and vehicles, provide for interstate air pollution control agencies or commissions, authorize the establishment of air quality standards, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The assistant legislative clerk read the report.

(For conference report, see House proceedings of this day, pp. 32320-32328, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this bill as agreed to unanimously by the conferees contains the essential authority of S. 780 as it was approved by the Senate, July 18, 1967. In some respects the legislation has been improved over the Senate-passed version. The only disappointment to the Senate conferees was in the total level of the authorization.

The House kept almost all of the new concepts in the Senate version of S. 780. Those areas of similarity included:

First. Expanded planning grants to States and local government to assist in implementation of air quality standards;

Second. Two-year full Federal financing for interstate planning bodies established by Governors to assist in development of air quality standards in interstate air quality control regions;

Third. Authority for the Secretary to define the Nation's air basins;

Fourth. Authority for the Secretary to define air quality control regions: problem areas where standards are required;

Fifth. Expanded definition of the Secretary's air quality criteria development responsibility;

Sixth. Authority for the Secretary to develop and distribute information on air pollution control technology;

Seventh. Provision for development and enforcement of air quality standards;

Eighth. Broadened participation in and improved procedures for enforcement conferences;

Ninth. Authority for the Secretary to act in the event of air pollution episodes which pose an imminent and substantial threat to health;

Tenth. Authority for States and local government to set standards for stationary sources more stringent than those approved by the Secretary;

Eleventh. Establishment of an Air Quality Advisory Board to the President;

Twelfth. Federal preemption of the right to set standards for new motor vehicles and new vehicle engines except in California where more stringent standards may be set;

Thirteenth. Federal assistance to the States to develop vehicle emission inspection programs;

Fourteenth. A study of the efficacy of national emission standards;

Fifteenth. Comprehensive study of the economic costs of air pollution and a study of the personnel needs for effective air pollution control programs;

Sixteenth. Annual reports to the Congress on various programs authorized by the act.

Mr. President, this is an impressive list of agreements. Within some of the above there were technical disagreements on particular legislation language but the Senate's intent was not changed by the House. Because the Senate's intent was maintained and because by and large the House amendments to the above-mentioned provisions improved the act the Senate receded from these differences. Those differences include:

First. Clarification of the language under section 105 relating to Federal program and planning grants;

Second. Clarification of the language under section 106 relating to interstate planning agencies;

Third. Establishment of a 1-year deadline to define the Nation's air basins; and

Fourth. Clarification of the language relating to development on implementation of air quality standards.

Mr. President, now that I have cited the agreements between the two versions of S. 780 and those areas on which the other body helped to clarify the legislation, I should like to indicate the major differences between the two bills.

The House version did not contain the major provision of the Senate bill relating to research. As passed by the Senate the Air Quality Act of 1967 included a section authorizing $375 million to develop and demonstrate through grants and contracts methods to control pollution for combustion of fuels. This was the proposal advanced by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, Mr. RANDOLPH.

The basic act provides general authority for this type of research and demonstration and the House continued that authority without earmarked funds. The Senate did not consider that authority adequate to stimulate the needed research and development of improved techniques for the control and abatement of air pollution from fuels.

The conferees agreed to reinstate a modified version of the Senate provision. As reported from conference this research section provided for development and demonstration, by contract with industry, and grants to public or nonprofit agencies and to individuals, of new or improved techniques to control pollution from fuels combustion. At the insistence of the House the Senate receded on this section and agreed to delete grants to industry for these purposes.

The House also insisted, due to current budgetary restrictions, that the total funds authorized by the act not to exceed the $428.3 million figure suggested to them by the administration.

The Senate conferees did not accept the argument that current budgetary restrictions provide a sound basis for legislative authorizations. That is a function more properly left to the appropriations process. Nevertheless, in the interest of getting the program underway, the Senate conferees agreed to recede on the total authorization and accept the House figure of $428.3 million for fiscal years 1968, 1969, and 1970. The House conferees agreed to accept a Senate compromise of $35 million for fiscal year 1968, and $90 million for fiscal year 1969 for fuels combustion research and development. Operations authorizations are $74 million for fiscal year 1968, $95 million for fiscal year 1969, and $134.3 million for fiscal year 1970.

The second major disagreement related to provisions in both bills which required registration of fuel additives. The House conferees were concerned by the requirement in the Senate version that fuels be registered as well as additives. A compromise was reached whereby the fuel manufacturer is required to notify the Secretary as to the name, the range of concentration and the purpose in use of any additive contained in any fuel delivered in interstate commerce. The additive manufacturer is required to register the additive as to chemical composition, recommended range of concentration and recommended purpose in use. When the information is known, the additive manufacturer is also required to provide the Secretary with information on the chemical structure of the additive. The House also accepted the Senate language for protection of trade secrets with a minor amendment. Provisions for enforcement were identical in both bills.

Mr. President, several minor differences with the House bill were compromised without difficulty or sacrifice.

The House bill included a provision which expressed the intent of Congress that any State not a part of a designated air quality control region should not participate in an air pollution compact.

As a part of this provision the House deleted that portion of the Senate bill picked up from the basic act which encouraged interstate compacts. The conferees agreed to accept both provisions.

The House bill moved a subsection relating to research advisory committees from the specific fuels research section 104 as provided in the Senate bill to the general research section 103. The Senate conferees accepted this change.

The House bill lowered from 12½ to 10 percent of total funds appropriated the share of Federal funds which could be allocated for air pollution control programs in any one State. The conferees agreed that with 50 State programs as envisioned by this bill, it would be unlikely that any single State could expect even 10 percent. Therefore, the Senate conferees receded.

The House bill included a provision requiring designation of air quality control regions within 18 months after enactment. This provision was modified to permit the Secretary to revise such regions or to add regions as he deems it necessary to protect the public health and welfare. It was not the intent of the conferees that the Secretary wait 18 months before making the first designations.

The House bill did not contain a Senate amendment providing for continuation of existing enforcement procedures during the standards development period. The conferees agreed that circumstances would arise wherein this basic authority should be used and the House conferees receded.

The House included provision calling for a study of the feasibility and practicality of controlling aircraft emissions. The Senate conferees accepted this provision.

The House bill included the so-called Davis-Bacon labor standards program which the Senate conferees accepted.

Mr. President, the conference agreement represents an excellent compromise. While the Senate did not prevail in its dollar figure, the basic approach unanimously approved earlier this year was maintained. The Air Quality Act of 1967 represents a significant expansion in Federal, State, and local air pollution control responsibilities. It focuses the attention of our national program where it should be: on the enhancement of our air quality.

The Federal role is expanded both as a supporter of State programs and, in the event the States fail to act, as an active participant in the development and implementation of air quality standards.

This new role will cost more money, more effort and more effective administration. No longer can air quality criteria be developed on an ad hoc basis. The people of the Nation have spoken. Congress has responded with the act, and now the effectiveness of our combined efforts will be judged by the creative abilities of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I understand that the Senate accepted a very sharp cut in the amount authorized for appropriation. This relates to air pollution, a matter of the most burning interest to many of us in the big cities. I should like, first, to continue, as so many of us have done before, our tribute to Senator MUSKIE for his outstandingly fine leadership in this matter.

As I understand, there was a considerable cut. I wish the Senator would tell us, for the record, how much of a cut was absorbed in the authorization and also -- because this is of the utmost importance -- what ameliorating changes in the provisions of the bill he feels help us to make up for the cut in money.

Mr. MUSKIE. The resolution of the money problem is somewhat complicated. I will try to explain it.

In the Senate version, we authorized a total of $700 million. Of this amount, $375 million was authorized over a 3-year period for research -- the section 104 research program which was authored by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], and which the Senate committee and the Senate as a whole considered very important. The remainder of the Senate authorization, or $325 million, was for all other purposes supported by the bill; and of that amount, $66 million had been authorized under existing legislation for the current fiscal year.

The House figure of $428.3 million was not broken down between research and general operations so that the total House figure of $428.3 million included an unspecified amount for research, and the remainder was for operations.

In order to resolve the figure, we had to undertake some mathematical gymnastics to get the House to compromise. The House was not prepared to go along on anything above the $428.3 million because of the mood of the House which the Senator from New York has described in connection with the problem he has discussed this afternoon.

We first considered a 2-year authorization, with an authorization figure which would be closer to the Senate figure for those 2 years. The House was receptive to this suggestion, but felt that they were risking a point of order on the House side. So the Senate conferees then proposed to retain the 3-year authorization for general operations and concentrate earmarked research money in the first 2 years. We agreed to eliminate research money for the third year, on the theory that we could come back to Congress for that money, while retaining the operating funds -- that is, the authorization for all other purposes -- at a figure of $303 million. The $303 million for operations should be compared with the Senate figure of $325 million.

As a result we have, in the first 2 years, a total of $125 million for research, which compares with the Senate figure for research for those 2 years of $225 million and the House figure, implicit in their total authorization, of $75 million. We are a little closer to the House figure for research than to the Senate amount. However, we are very close to the Senate figure on operations.

By eliminating research funds for the third year of the 3-year period, we were able to resolve the fiscal differences in the two bills in a way that came some distance toward the Senate authorization. And, most importantly the House agreed to accept modified language of section 104. With this specific directive to the agency and the earmarked funds the research program can proceed at an accelerated pace even though that pace will be somewhat slower than we had hoped.

A couple of other important changes were made in the bill which came in the direction of the Senate version. For example, the key to the bill is the setting of air quality standards and this activity is triggered by the establishment of air quality control regions across the country by the Secretary. Under the House version, the Secretary would have had to designate all of these regions within a period of 18 months from the date of the enactment of the act after which his authority would run out. He would have no authority to modify the regions as experience indicated they should be.

The House conferees agreed to a modification of that language, which requires that the Secretary must designate the existing problem areas within 18 months; but he will have authority thereafter to add new areas as they emerge and, in addition, will have authority to modify those regions if necessary. We considered this modification important to preserve the intent of the Senate bill.

One other important provision dealt with the registration of fuel additives which, as the Senator knows, are extremely important in connection with air pollution. Lead, for example, is the most obvious one which threatens to create an air pollution problem. The House version would have required only the registration of the additives. The Senate committee felt that the registration would be meaningless unless information was supplied by both the additive and the fuel manufacturer. We felt the Secretary needed to know concentrations of the additives in the fuel, the chemical structure and composition of the additives, and the purposes for which they are added to the fuels. The House receded on this point.

All in all, I would say to the distinguished Senator from New York that the result of the conference represents a fair compromise between the House and the Senate versions, with give and take on both sides.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the Clean Air Act of 1967, S. 780, which will go to the President to be signed into law following this final action in the Senate today, represents a great deal of work by the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, under the leadership of its chairman, Senator MUSKIE. I think it fair to say that it is almost a creation of the Senate Committee on Public Works in which Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, of Maine, gave leadership. I believe it to be landmark legislation.

I know that Senator BOGGS, the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee, and all of us who worked together on this measure, have great hope for what can be accomplished under this act.

And I wish to pay special tribute to our chairman, Senator RANDOLPH, whose contribution has been so constructive, and who continues to guide the committee into fields of opportunity for helpful and useful legislation.

I consider S. 780 a strong bill -- providing opportunity for the exercise of local initiative by the States and local communities in planning, establishment of air quality standards, and enforcement of pollution controls. It places upon the States and municipalities the responsibility for determining the quality of air they wish to maintain and achieve -- and for the abatement of any pollution that degrades that standard. It places upon the Federal Government, through the Public Health Service and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the definition of air quality control regions, the publication of air quality criteria, the dissemination of existing technology, and the development of promising new technology for the prevention of pollution and control of sources of pollution.

As one of the members of the Senate-House conference which worked out the final form of the bill to be enacted today, I would make one other comment. The amount of the authorization is less than that originally approved by the Senate which was $700 million over a period of 3 years.

We agreed instead to an amount equal to the authorizations in the bill as amended by the House - - $428 million. But the very important section included by the Senate and omitted by the House -- section 104 -- was restored by the conference.

It is this section 104 which provides specific authority to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, first, to conduct research in the combustion of fuels -- including coal and automobile fuels; second, to provide grants to public and nonprofit private groups; and third, to contract with private industry in pilot plants studies and large-scale demonstrations of new controlling air pollution associated with fuel combustion. I am very glad that the bill reported by the conference maintains the Senate provision which, I think, expresses the intention of the Congress that greater emphasis must be given to this work. I think the Senator from West Virginia will agree with me that the committee expects that special effort and more effort, be devoted to developing these improved processes -- without which, after all, attempts at regulation would not be able to accomplish the purposes of the bill.

The conference bill authorizes $35 million for section 104 in fiscal 1968, and $90 million in fiscal 1969. By that time, the committees will have the benefit of an appraisal by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of the need for continuing work, and will be in a better position to recommend an authorization for fiscal 1970 and succeeding years.

This bill -- developed after thorough hearings, months of study and full consideration by the Senate and House committees -- provides a practical and effective means of dealing with the serious problem of air pollution. I urge the Senate to adopt the conference report on S. 780.