CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
September 21, 1967
Page 26308
THE BATTLE FOR CLEAN AIR
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the New York Times of July 20, 1967, contains an editorial entitled "The Battle for Clean Air." With one exception, the editorial is an accurate and objective analysis of the Air Quality Act of 1967, which passed the Senate unanimously on July 18.
On July 27, I wrote to the editor of the Times to clarify the decision of the Committee on Public Works not to adopt national emission standards for air pollutants. Because of space limitations the Times, on August 31, was able to publish only an abridged version of my original letter.
To complete the record and for clarification to Senators, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Times editorial of July 20 and the full text of my July 27 letter to the editor be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial and letter were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the New York Times, July 20, 1967]
THE BATTLE FOR CLEAN AIR
With unanimous approval of the Air Quality Act of 1967 the Senate has taken a long step toward strengthening the hand of the Federal Government in combating the menace of air pollution. It is up to the House to follow suit.
Some of the provisions of the Senate bill are drastic but nonetheless justified by the nature of the air pollution danger, under which three Americans out of every five now live. Thus the setting of air quality standards is left in the first instance to the states; but if they fall to act the Federal Government may step in and create Federal interstate air quality commissions.
The bill grants the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare emergency power, upon his finding that human health is in imminent and substantial danger, to go into Federal court to get an injunction to shut down the source of the danger. It might be directed at an individual plant or it might be a blanket injunction ordering a city to halt all motor traffic.
We share the hope of Senator Edmund S. Muskie, sponsor of the bill, that the threat of Federal intervention will not have to be employed, but will suffice to spur lagging states and cities to adopt and enforce antipollution measures of their own. Traditionally this is a matter for local control, but the winds do not always respect boundary lines.
The measure provides for an enormous and needed expansion of the Federal effort against air pollution. It authorizes a three-year program costing $700 million in contrast to the $99 million asked for 1968 by the President.
More than half the projected expenditures under the new program would go into research. It is estimated that presently some 135 million tons of pollutants enter the atmosphere each year. Automobile exhausts are the largest single source; factories and power plants, heating installations and refuse burning are others. All are bound to increase unless better methods of control can be devised.
One shortcoming in the bill is its failure to establish national emission standards, as President Johnson requested in his special message last January. Under heavy pressure from the coal and oil industries the Senate rejected the President's proposal and substituted a weak-kneed direction to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to undertake a two-year study of possible standards.
Despite this defect, the Air Quality Control Act of 1967 will -- if the House approves -- enable the Federal Government to play a far more effective role in the fight against air pollution in the future than it has until now. It will make available great resources of money and skilled personnel.
It will need to be administered with imagination and diplomacy to enlist cooperation of the states and local communities. Otherwise there is the danger that these will now sit back and leave it all up to Washington. This would be disastrous; the battle can only be won by combined efforts at all levels of Government. But the Federal Government must lead the way.
JULY 27, 1967.
The EDITOR,
The New York Times,
New York, N.Y.
DEAR SIR: Your editorial of July 20, 1967, entitled "The Battle for Clean Air," is an objective and, with one exception, an accurate analysis of the Air Quality Act of 1967 as it passed the Senate last week. Your approval of it as "strengthening the hand of the Federal Government in combating the menace of air pollution," is appreciated.
The exception to which I refer related to your discussion of the proposal for national emission standards and the Committee's reasons for not implementing that concept in the bill.
As stated in the bill, the national purpose in this field is the "enhancement of air quality." Progress toward this objective as quickly as possible is a matter of high priority in the problem areas of the country.
With respect to the kind of Federal authority which would contribute effectively toward such progress, the Committee had two choices
(1) National emission standards which would assert Federal authority only indirectly and partially in the improvement of the ambient air in such problem areas; and
(2) Ambient air quality standards which would assert Federal authority, in the absence of effective State action, with respect to all sources of pollution in such problem areas.
The Committee chose the latter in the conviction that it would enable the Federal government to deal more effectively with the problem areas of the country.
The Committee has recognized the appropriateness of national emission standards as to certain pollution sources. The 1965 Act. for example, authorizes the setting of national standards as to emissions from motor vehicles; and that legislation was enacted over the initial opposition of the Administration and the strong opposition of industry. Legislation will be introduced shortly to deal with other mobile sources of pollution such as railroads, shipping, and aircraft. And it well may be that national emission standards for other industries may evolve out of our developing experience with ambient air quality control.
For a more complete analysis of the Committee's reasoning on the subject of national emission standards, I refer to the following extract from my floor presentation to the Senate. May I add that, to my knowledge, no member of the Committee and no member of the Senate has quarreled with the Committee's choice:
"Considerable attention was given, in the hearings and also informal conferences and executive. sessions, to the concept of national emission standards. Such standards were urged by the administration (1) as a means of eliminating the economic disadvantage of complying with air pollution controls as a local requirement and the temptation for industry to leave or avoid areas where such controls are presently necessary; and (2) on the ground that some industries, by their nature, are a danger to health and welfare wherever they are located.
"In the judgment of the Committee, these arguments were offset by the following considerations"
"(1) The administration itself did not propose uniform national emission standards but rather minimal national standards. Clearly, therefore, there would be local variations which would not eliminate economic disadvantages. Dr. John T. Middleton, Director, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Health, Education, and Welfare, said:
"'Our intention is to get minimum national standards to help insure that no single pollution source would, in itself, be a threat to public health and welfare. These standards would be based on scientific criteria of the effects of air pollutants on man, animals, vegetation, and the air resource itself. The criteria we would use would be those which we are authorized to publish under the provisions of the Clean Air Act' (p. 1153).
"He said later:
"'The setting of such standards at the Federal level would not relieve States and communities of the responsibility of insuring that pollution sources located within their jurisdictions are controlled to the full extent necessary. States could adopt emission standards more stringent than those set at the Federal level (p. 1155).
"(2) Administration witnesses testified that PHS has made no findings with respect to industries which, in and of themselves, constitute a danger to public health and welfare.
"(3) Under the bill approved by the Committee, the Secretary's authority has been extended so that he can deal effectively with any situation which, by its nature, is a danger to health and welfare, in any location.
"(4) National emission standards would eliminate some control options -- relocation of pollution sources, fuel substitutes, and so forth -- which may be essential in serious problem areas in the absence of effective technology.
"(5) Wise use of capital resources dictates that the first priority for the pollution control dollar is in those areas where the problem is most critical. National emission standards would give equal priority to critical areas and areas where no problem presently exists.
"(8) The program authorized in the Committee bill will lead to control of the industries described on a national basis, with the kind of local variations envisioned by administration witnesses.
"(7) The difficulty in areas which have an air pollution problem is that the quality of the ambient air has deteriorated below the level consistent with the protection of health and welfare. National emission standards would be related to the problem to the extent that "national" polluters happened to be located in the problem area. Other sources would not be touched by such standards. Such standards do not, therefore, represent a comprehensive attack on the problem of ambient air quality. The Committee has chosen to deal with the problem of ambient air quality directly and to provide authority designed to improve it."
I hope this will clarify any misunderstanding as to the reasons for the Senate's action in authorizing an air quality standards program rather than depending on national emission standards
In closing I should like to express my appreciation for the interest the Times has shown in focusing public attention on the problems of air pollution and the need to improve the quality of our air. Your news stories, columns and editorials have stimulated a growing concern with effective Federal, State and local action to deal with this national crisis.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. Senator.