CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

July 18, 1967

Page 19171

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate has demonstrated its recognition of air pollution as a serious national problem. Beginning with the Clean Air Act of 1963 the Senate has given unanimous approval to legislation designed to expand Federal support for the battle to preserve the quality of our air resources.

We realize there are no panaceas, no overnight cures for the complex problems of air pollution, but we are pledged to protect the health and welfare of every citizen of this Nation whether that person be healthy, or suffering from a bronchial disorder.

Mr. President, there is an abundance of compelling evidence to indicate that air pollution is a hazard to health. There is more compelling evidence to indicate that the public welfare is adversely affected by indiscriminate pumping of waste into the air. We know this as individuals who have experienced discomfort from foul odors, had our eyes burn from smog or looked at the color of a white shirt after a day in any of our industrial cities.

At the same time popular concern for air pollution control has risen dramatically as the result of increased leisure time, greater publicity, increased awareness of health problems and a variety of other reasons. There is a demand for action, and all the evidence received by the Public Works Committee this year in 18 days of hearings, in consultations and in research supports that demand.

Mr. President, S. 780, as amended by the committee, is complex, as are the problems of environmental control. The problem of air pollution is neither local nor temporary. It is a universal problem, and, so long as our standard of living continues to increase, it will be a permanent threat to human well-being.

The committee's recommendations provide far-reaching opportunities for a comprehensive, broad-based attack on the Nation's air pollution problem while expanding the potential of control technology and identifying the health and welfare effects of air pollution. The objective of S. 780 is the enhancement of air quality and the reduction of harmful emissions consistent with maximum utilization of an expanding capacity to deal with them effectively. At the same time, it provides authority to abate any pollution source which is an imminent danger to health, by whatever means necessary.

The Air Quality Act of 1967, therefore, serves notice that no one has the right to use the atmosphere as a garbage dump, and that there will be no haven for polluters anywhere in the country.

The committee believes that, to date, public and private efforts to accomplish air quality objectives have been inadequate. Research has been insufficient, with little significant development of new and improved methods for controlling or eliminating air pollution. As each day passes there is a greater urgency for closer cooperation between government and industry in an effort to make substantial inroads on air pollution control and abatement.

I would like to point out, for clarification, that the bill as reported by the committee is the entire Clean Air Act as amended by this years' action. Because the amendments are complex and because they recast the force and effect of the Federal air pollution control effort, the committee thought it wise to present to the Senate a complete act containing both the amendments and previously adopted language which was not changed. The Cordon print beginning on page 63 of the report indicates the changes in existing law.

In order to facilitate the objective of a national abatement program which will enhance the quality of our Nation's air, the proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act provide the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with the following authority:

First. To request an immediate injunction to abate the emission of contaminants which present "an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons," anywhere in the country;

Second. To designate "air quality control regions" for the purpose of implementing air quality standards, whenever and wherever he deems it necessary to protect the public health and welfare.

Third. In the absence of effective State action in accordance with the provisions of the act, to establish ambient air quality standards for such regions.

Fourth. In the absence of effective State action in accordance with the provisions of the act, to enforce such standards.

Fifth. In the absence of action by the affected States, to establish Federal interstate air quality planning commissions.

It should be emphasized that it is the intent of the committee to enhance air quality and to reduce harmful pollution emissions anywhere in the country, and to give the Secretary authority to implement that objective in the absence of effective State and local control. It is believed that the Air Quality Act of 1967 carries out that intent.

The committee recognizes the potential economic impact, and therefore economic risk, associated with major social legislative measures of this type. But this risk was assumed when the Congress enacted social security, fair labor standards, and a host of other legislation designed to protect the public welfare. Such a risk must again be assumed if the Nation's air resources are to be conserved and enhanced to the point that generations yet to come will be able to breathe without fear of impairment of health.

S. 780 is a logical expansion of the Clean Air Act of 1963 as amended. In the basic act the Congress provided for development by the Public Health Service of "air quality criteria" to identify the effects of pollutants on health and welfare. To date, one such set of criteria relating to oxides of sulfur has been issued and the committee understands that criteria on several other contaminants including carbon monoxide, particulates, and oxidants will be released within the next 6 months.

The committee recognizes this activity and has encouraged its expansion under S. 780. In addition to continuing the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative effects of air pollution under strengthened and refined procedures of evaluation, the committee bill authorizes two new areas of activity. A first and important step will be the identification of those areas of the Nation which have significant air pollution problems. The designation by the Secretary of these problem areas will trigger the setting of air quality standards related to those pollutants for which criteria have been developed.

In concert with expanded criteria development will be the compilation of information of methods of pollution control, which will be a publication of the technology and economically feasible methods of control of pollutants subject to criteria. This information will be designed to assist the States in carrying out their responsibility to control air pollution within their respective boundaries.

These three steps, designation of air quality control regions, criteria development, and publication of control technology information are the tools for development of air quality standards and an early warning system to those industries and others in problem areas who will be required to control their emissions.

The committee does not suggest that, with one fell swoop, the air pollution problems of the Nation will be solved. Development of the above-mentioned information will require a time equivalent to that considered in the initial administration proposal for uniform national emission standards. And after the information is available and the States adopt standards, there will be the necessary time to achieve desired emissions control.

But we will have a national program of air quality. The States will retain the primary responsibility to determine the quality of air they desire. In no event, however, will the Federal Government approve any air quality standard or plan for implementation of that standard which does not provide for protection of the public health and welfare of all citizens within the air quality region.

Moreover, in the absence of effective State action the bill gives the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the authority to set standards in such regions.

In addition, new industries, wherever they locate, will know that control is inevitable and plan for it. The fact that an area is not now a problem area will not mean that controls will never be required. When the air quality of any region deteriorates below the level required to protect public health and welfare, the Secretary is required to designate that region for the establishment of air quality standards, enforceable by the Federal Government if the States fail to act. It should be pointed out in this connection that the Public Health Service has expressed the view that every urban area of 50,000 or more population now has an air pollution problem. There are also population areas under that size which clearly have problems related to particular pollution sources and conditions.

Considerable attention was given, in the hearings and also in informal conferences and executive sessions, to the concept of national emission standards. Such standards were urged by the administration first, 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, second, 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:

First. 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 resources 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).

Second. 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.

Third. 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.

Fourth. 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.

Fifth. 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.

Sixth. 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.

Seventh. 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 relate to that problem only 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.

The committee does recognize the need for national action on sources of pollution which move in interstate commerce. For the purpose of further consideration of national emission standards, for moving and stationary sources, the committee bill directs the Secretary to undertake a 2-year study of the concept and the full range of its implications.

Basic to any understanding of what the committee has done is comprehension of the concept of air quality criteria and standards. Dr. John Middleton, Director of the National Center for Air Pollution Control, provided the committee with an excellent definition of the difference between standards and criteria:

Air quality criteria are descriptive -- that is, they describe the effects that can be expected to occur whenever and wherever the ambient air level of a pollutant reaches or exceeds a specific figure for a specific time period. Air quality standards are prescriptive -- they prescribe pollutant levels that cannot legally be exceeded during a specific time period in a specific geographic area. Ideally, the area should be the entire region that shares a common air supply and thus shares the impact of pollution from all sources in the region.

Criteria then become the essential first function of any standards setting procedure whether those standards are air quality or emission. The latter point is verified in my earlier discussion of national emission standards.

Without criteria, any air quality program would be without scientific basis or rationale. Therefore, it is important that any criteria developed accurately reflect the best available information of the effects of pollutants on health or welfare.

Because of this requirement and a general feeling that the criteria presently available can be improved the committee has included language which directs the Secretary to reevaluate all criteria issued precedent to enactment to this act in accordance with the new provisions and, if necessary, to reissue those criteria.

It is expected that those criteria presently nearing completion will be issued only after careful consideration of the directives contained in section 107(b). Early consideration of these directives, even though this legislation may still be pending, will mitigate against unnecessary modification or reissuance of such criteria. Active reconsideration of those criteria already issued, without awaiting final congressional action, could facilitate the effectiveness of this legislation.

The committee also strongly urges the Secretary to move as quickly as practicable to develop information required by section 107(c). Recommended control techniques are essential to the establishment of meaningful air quality standards and therefore should be made available to the States and local government as soon as possible giving due consideration to the need for developing the best available information.

The committee has purposely not required a specific order for release of criteria and control techniques. While requiring that both be available to a Governor before a standard setting procedure can be triggered, it is recognized that these scientific and technical documents are more than just the tools for a standard setting procedure.

Criteria and recommended control requirements are advance warnings to industries or other sources of contamination of what will be expected of them. On the basis of any criteria issued, an industry can begin to analyze its pollution problem and plan to meet its responsibility. After receiving the latest and best information on control techniques and alternatives, an industry can begin to plan its control program. Both of these activities will facilitate achievement of ambient air quality standards at such time as those standards are established.

The committee recognized that criteria of ambient air quality which define health and welfare effects of air pollution do not and should not take into consideration the technological and economic feasibility of achieving such air quality. It is further recognized that existing control technology is not adequate in many areas; however, the best available control methods must be implemented as soon as economically feasible and technologically available. As an aid to air pollution control agencies in the formulation of plans, including time schedules to implement emission control standards, the bill directs the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate advisory committees and Federal departments or agencies, to issue recommended control techniques which reflect current technology and the economic feasibility of achieving various levels of air quality as specified in the criteria, including alternative control techniques and their economic feasibility. Such recommendations shall include such data as are available on the latest available technology and economic feasibility of alternative methods of prevention and control of air contamination, including cost-effectiveness analyses.

Thus, the bill directs the Secretary to: First, designate air quality control regions; second, publish criteria; and, third, publish information on the best available control technology. Whenever a Governor has received the latter two documents, he must then move to establish air quality standards for any designated air quality control region within his State. A Governor is given 90 days to file a letter of intent to establish State standards consistent with the purposes of this act for the air quality control regions in his State. The standards must be set, after public hearings, within 6 months after he files the letter of intent. The time schedule and plan for implementing such standards must be filed within 6 months thereafter.

If a State fails to: First, file a letter of intent within 90 days; second, to establish standards within 180 days; or, third, file a plan for implementation and enforcement within 180 days, the Secretary is authorized to perform these functions for the air quality control regions within that State.

When standards have been set, either by a State or by the Federal Government, the Federal Government will have authority to enforce the standards in the absence of effective State action. These are the three additional extensions of control and abatement authority S. 780 gives to the Secretary.

The Secretary will approve the State standards if he finds, first, the air quality standards are consistent with the air quality criteria and recommended control techniques which he published; second, the plan is consistent with the purposes of the act, including assurances of achieving such standards of air quality within a reasonable time; and third, a means of enforcement by State action, including authority comparable to the imminent endangerment provisions of this bill is provided. If the above conditions are met, such State standards and plan shall be the air quality standards applicable to such State.

Effective action in an air quality region will not depend upon the availability of technology which has not been developed. If the problem in a given region happens to be critical, such alternatives as have been used already will be applied. These include, for example, substitute fuels, plant location, and other techniques which are clearly available. These, then, are the major provisions and the major thrust of the legislation. There are, however, other significant changes in the act which, in an effort to conserve time, I will summarize:

First. Specific directive to the Secretary to continue to use existing enforcement procedures as may be necessary to protect public health or welfare during the standards development period; and provision for participation by interested parties in an abatement conference.

Second. An expanded research and demonstration program to advance the technology for controlling pollution from fuels and vehicles, including specific authorization of $375 million for 3 years -- through 1970.

Third. Federal preemption of the right to set standards on automobile exhaust emissions, with waiver of application of preemption to any State (California) which had adopted standards precedent to promulgation of Federal standards.

Fourth. Expanded State and local program grants provision to encourage comprehensive planning for air quality standards.

Fifth. Establishment of a statutory President's Air Quality Advisory Board and such other advisory committees as may be necessary to assist the Secretary in performing the functions authorized.

Sixth. A study of the concept of national emission standards, including an analysis of the health benefits to be derived, as well as the economic impact and costs.

Seventh. Federal assistance to the States to develop motor vehicle emission and device inspection and testing systems.

Eighth. Federal registration of fuel additives.

Ninth. Comprehensive cost analyses of the economic effect on the Nation, industries, and communities of air pollution control, and a report thereon to Congress and the President.

Tenth. Comprehensive reports to the Congress.

Eleventh. Three-year authorization of $325 million for programs other than research on control of pollution from fuels and vehicles -- total authorization, including research, $700 million.

Improvement of man's environment centers on the enhancement of the quality of human life.

This was appropriately stated by Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon General of the United States:

Thanks to many advances in protecting people against disease, we are able in the health professions to think about the positive face of health -- the quality of individual living. The healthy man or woman is not merely free of specific disability and safe from specific hazard. Being healthy is not just being unsick. Good health implies, to me, the full and enthusiastic use by the individual of his powers of self-fulfillment.

Therefore in controlling air pollution for the benefit of health we are working toward an environment that is not only safe but conducive to good living. I know that you and the members of this committee share this aspiration.

For this reason, if for no other -- and there are a great many others -- I urge enactment of this legislation.

Mr. President, in closing I wish to express my appreciation for the outstanding leadership provided by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], and his counterpart on the Republican side, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], without whose assistance the work would have suffered in quality.

I wish especially to express appreciation to the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] for his continuing contribution to the work of this committee and to all other members of the committee and subcommittee who have given an unusual amount of thought, attention, and active participation not only to the consideration of this bill but also to its shape and form. This contribution has been so unusual as to require this special comment.

Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to the staffs of the full committee, the subcommittee, and the individual Senators who have worked together in an unusually effective cooperative effort to help the Senators put this bill together. I could not begin to list them all by name, but this has been a nonpartisan and wholehearted contribution at the staff level and at the committee level and the bill bears testimony to the quality of that effort.

Mr. President, I would like also to pay a special tribute to the senior Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] who authored the first Federal air pollution legislation in 1955. Though Senator KUCHEL is no longer on the Public Works Committee we continue to seek his guidance and he continues to give his full support and assistance. For this we on the committee are always appreciative.

Mr. President, at this point I yield to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator MUSKIE, for his leadership in bringing this measure to the Senate. The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has had a productive record in the field of pollution control legislation. It is my firm belief as chairman of the full committee that this bill is the most significant step toward pollution abatement and control in the subcommittee's history.

I express also my appreciation to Senator BOGGS and Senator COOPER, the ranking minority members of the subcommittee and full committee, respectively, for their continued support and for their assistance in drafting the revised bill.

The record shall show my personal and official appreciation to all the Members who have contributed proposals -- often criticism, but always constructive deliberation -- as we have developed this measure. The complexities of this legislation reflect the intricate problems involved in air pollution control and abatement.

The pending measure has grown out of extensive revision of the original bill and of my amendments and others as the subcommittee and full committee worked diligently and patiently to provide the most effective course for control and abatement of pollution through reasonable, responsible, and enforceable standards. The committee staff, and the staff of members of the committee, have labored long and hard with us in pursuit of a realistic proposal, and they deserve commendation. A considerable amount of patience and understanding has been exhibited by many, many persons.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, John W. Gardner, for his counsel and cooperation and for the assistance and advice his staff has supplied to the committee. Our informal discussions on July 11 with Secretary Gardner were very helpful and informative, and his response to this measure, as expressed in his letter of July 12, 1967, to me reflects the cooperative spirit which has guided the working relationship of our committee and the executive branch. I ask unanimous consent that the letter received from Secretary Gardner be included in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE SECRETARY of HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.,

July 12, 1967.

Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR JENNINGS: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the air pollution bill with you and your colleagues. Your full and careful consideration of the very difficult issues involved in air pollution legislation deserves warm praise.

As I told you, the bill which the Subcommittee reported to the full Committee does not provide everything the Administration requested, but it does represent a very important and constructive, forward step in the continuing development of effective legislation to deal with a serious national problem.

Your hearings have been thorough and complete. Your consideration of this legislation has been responsive and thoughtful. We are appreciative of the fine cooperation we have received from the members of the Committee and from your fine staff.

You will agree with me, I am sure, that continued consideration of air pollution problems will occupy the attention of your Committee and of the Department for years to come. We welcome this latest legislative proposal as another indication of the seriousness of purpose with which you have approached the problem.

Sincerely,

JOHN W. GARDNER,

Secretary.

Mr. RANDOLPH. We have had deliberations as we should have. I call attention to the 4 volumes of hearings before the subcommittee. I do not know the number of pages. Has the Senator from Maine counted the number of pages?

Mr. MUSKIE. There are 2,694 pages.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The hearings reflect 2,694 pages of testimony and material pertinent to this subject.

Now, when we reflect, as we do in drafting this legislation, on these intricate problems we realize that even though the problems are compelling, the reason for a solution to the problems is even more compelling because the people of the United States and our citizenry generally believe we must present legislation in the national interest, keeping in mind the public health and welfare, and also the legitimate rights and responsibilities of those who are engaged properly in manufacturing industries and in other vital segments of our business complex in the United States.

Mr. President, I draw particular reference to one provision of Senate 780 as reported.

(At this point Mr. TYDINGS took the chair as Presiding Officer.)

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, before my colleague gets into that area of his speech, I wonder whether he would yield to me briefly?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am delighted to yield to my colleague from West Virginia. Although he is not a member of our committee, as a leader in the Senate, and as a West Virginian, he is faced, as I have been, with attempting to be reasonable and realistic and yet pass effective legislation. We have discussed some of these matters informally and I appreciate his keen attention to this problem and am happy to yield to him at this point.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to compliment my senior colleague from West Virginia, who is chairman of the Committee on Public Works, and also to compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], who is chairman of the subcommittee which has brought the bill to the floor, on the very extensive and thorough hearings conducted by that subcommittee.

My colleague has just indicated that the four volumes of hearings which are on the desk of each Senator number virtually 2,700 pages. Looking at the list of witnesses, I note that scores of competent witnesses appeared and that scores and scores of statements were submitted to the subcommittee. I have also noted that the hearings were held all over the country; so, indeed, this subject has had the most comprehensive and thoroughgoing study of this subject which is of such vital importance to all our people.

I feel that the subject matter of this legislation is of the most vital importance to the health of our people and the well-being of our industries. I hope that the Senate, if not unanimously, will overwhelmingly support the legislation, because the legislation is so vitally needed.

Again, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I assure him of my support for the pending legislation.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The expressed words of my colleague are characteristic of his attention to legislation of this kind. Those of us who have labored in the committee and subcommittee are grateful to him for his comments on this occasion.

Now, I had previously called attention to a provision in Senate 780 as reported which gives authority to the Secretary to enjoin pollution sources that present an imminent and substantial danger to public health.

The Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has properly emphasized that this authority is necessary. I ask the Senator, The Secretary did not ask for this authority? In effect, the committee proposal would give the Federal executive branch greater authority in this respect than the administration requested?

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Senator. As Senator MUSKIE has emphasized, this authority the Secretary does not now have, and it is, I think, the most significant enlargement of his authority that is contained in this measure. It is my feeling that when we deal with an emergency there must be lodged within a responsible official of the Government the desire, the determination, and the decision to think in terms of public interest, and the authority to implement his decisions. Has the Senator from Maine any further comment to make on that statement?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Mr. President, I made reference to this in my prepared remarks this afternoon. It is the objective of this legislation, as the Senator has said, to, first of all, provide adequate authority to deal with emergency situations. The committee realized that conditions exist in many parts of the country which, with a shift in meteorological conditions, could bring about emergencies overnight resulting in the death of many, many people.

At the present time authority to deal with that kind of situation does not exist at the Federal level, and it should exist, particularly since so many of these potentially dangerous conditions are interstate in character. I think the intent is very clear.

Second, the committee felt it necessary to create authority which would come to grips with the long-range problems of lower level, more subtle exposure to air pollution and the effects on those who are chronically ill and, indeed, on those who are healthy.

While these policies unfold, the committee has made it clear that existing authority continues while standards are in the process of being developed and while public policies are developed by the Secretary.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his further emphasizing this point.

AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 780) to amend the Clean Air Act to improve and expand the authority to conduct or assist research relating to air pollutants, to assist in the establishment of regional air quality commissions, to authorize establishment of standards applicable to emissions from establishments engaged in certain types of industry, to assist in establishment and maintenance of State programs for annual inspection of automobile emission control devices, and for other purposes.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the committee recognized the need for participation by all segments of our national economy if air pollution control and abatement are to be achieved. For this reason there has been provided in the bill a 15-member President's Air Quality Advisory Board to advise and consult with the President, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Congress on matters of policy relating to the programs administered by the Secretary under the provisions of this act.

Appointed members are to be selected so as to be representative of State, interstate, and local governmental agencies and of public or private interests demonstrating an active concern for the various aspects of air pollution prevention and control and related problems, not excepting individuals from the professions and industry who are expert in the field of air pollution.

Additional technical advisory committees are authorized to assist the Secretary in the development and implementation of air quality criteria.

The committee has included language which requires that all ambient air criteria previously issued prior to this act -- oxides of sulfur only, at this time -- must be reexamined and reevaluated in accordance with the updated provisions of this act, and, if necessary, that they be modified and reissued.

The economic and technological information which the Secretary must provide as a part of the recommended control techniques to accompany the criteria is expected to reflect the same careful study and preparation as do the medical and scientific data relating to air quality criteria. In the report of the committee, the Secretary is urged to encourage and support continued efforts on the part of industry to develop economically feasible methods for the control of air pollution to improve air quality. Emphasis must be placed on technological advances, too.

State, regional, and local authorities throughout the United States will be moving forward toward achieving cleaner air in reliance upon these data air quality criteria and recommended control techniques -- using such data to measure the extent of their pollution problems, the technical feasibility of abating that pollution, and the economic costs involved. Therefore, it is most important that the Secretary furnish to the States, and to regional and local authorities, the air quality criteria defining health and welfare effects and recommended control techniques, as well as associated technological and economic data based on substantial studies and reliable evidence.

Recognizing the need for an accelerated Federal program directed at the control of emissions from the combustion of fuels, the committee has included in the reported bill the research amendment which I offered. Representing an expansion of research authority in the act, the provision stresses the urgency of the problem, and the amount of resources that the committee thought should be devoted to the task. With regard to appropriations, it is for the administration to decide the priorities against other Federal requirements. But, as far as the committee is concerned, the measure before the Senate includes the authorizations which we considered necessary to accomplish the task.

I ask that I may have the attention of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] at this point, because he has been very intimately acquainted and associated in this matter. We considered very carefully the matter of authorization of dollars. We have authorized a program of $700 million over a 3-year period. We feel that such an expenditure is necessary. We believe that the impact must be felt, the job must be done, and we must not fragmentize it.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President. I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], that he is absolutely correct, in my judgment, in the statement he makes. It was the committee's concept of this broad plan to attack the air pollution problem that we should provide the authorization, as realistically as possible, to meet the problem. I believe that is what the committee has done.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Senator. I think there was general agreement that this amount of money would be needed. We do not, of course, want money appropriated which cannot be used.

Certainly this was considered very carefully. We attempted to think in terms of the potential for improving the quality of our air without inordinately disturbing the economic balance. Enactment of this measure is in the public interest, from the standpoint of improving the public health and the general welfare. So I urge the Senate to give to us what I hope will be not only overwhelming, but unanimous support.

Mr. President, S. 780 as reported by our Committee on Public Works, in my judgment, is a thoughtfully and rationally conceived legislative instrument which I recommend to my colleagues with confidence as to its workability, its potential for advancing the quality of the Nation's air without inordinately disturbing economic balances, and its applicability in the public interest from the standpoints of both improving the public health and the public welfare. I urge the Senate to give its overwhelming support and endorsement to this significant measure and I hope it will merit affirmative action in the House of Representatives.

Again, I commend the dedication, the diligence, and the wisdom of the distinguished manager of this legislation, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and I appreciate and applaud the nonpartisanship on this issue primarily made possible by the helpfulness and the cooperation of the managers on the part of the minority, especially the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the ranking members of the subcommittee and the full committee.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works, the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] have effectively outlined the provisions of S. 780. I certainly agree with the points they have made.

It is clear to me that the proposed Air Quality Act of 1967 reflects the urgent need to step up our national effort to improve the quality of our air.

It is legislation of concern to the health and well-being of all Americans. Even those fortunate enough to be in an area where air pollution is not a problem travel to our urban areas; and, in the opinion of the Public Health Service, every urban area of 50,000 or more population now has an air pollution problem.

Air pollution is an unwelcome companion to our Nation's growth and prosperity. Those now living, as well as the generations to come, are dependent on action now if we are to make our air healthy again. This is a fight we simply cannot lose.

As in the original Clean Air Act of 1963, the proposed amendments again stress the fact that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments.

This provision is highly important. Our emphasis on it is further evidence of our belief in a strong Federal system in which each level of government carries out its responsibilities.

Also essential if the national effort is to be successful is the cooperation of industry and private citizens.

Because of the national, as well as local problem inherent in air pollution, the Federal Government has its clear responsibility in this field. This legislation intends to meet this by first giving the States every opportunity, plus financial assistance, to set up air quality standards. Only if States fail to act will the Federal Government set up the necessary air quality standards.

It is my hope and belief that, with the States moving expeditiously to carry out the task of devising air quality standards, the Nation as a whole will have a network of State and National quality standards in 5 years or less which will have been developed by and tailored to the different areas of our country.

I think it is also significant that this legislation strengthens research in air pollution. As we have delved into the problem in the last 4 years, it has become increasingly evident that we have much more to learn; and technological developments are constantly posing new threats to our environment.

The distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has again demonstrated his leadership and dedication in this field and it has been a personal pleasure to work with him in considering this important legislation.

The whole Public Works Committee, and especially its able chairman from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] and the ranking minority member from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], have been helpful in developing this bill. In this connection, I would particularly like to recognize the contributions by the other subcommittee members on the minority side, Mr. MURPHY and Mr. BAKER.

And I also want to compliment the staff, including my own legislative assistant, Mr. Hildenbrand, for the great effort they have made in working out the details and compromises involved in a significant piece of legislation such as the bill we are now considering.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the pending measure embodying amendments to the Clean Air Act is a revision of the administration's proposal. It is a revision which every member of the committee, without any preconception, agreed upon after long hearings and a most thorough consideration as being a more effective means of securing clean air than the administration proposal.

This bill recognizes and declares again that air pollution is a critical, national problem. It provides in the view of the committee a practical and effective method to obtain timely and substantial control of air pollution. It is my judgment that under the program provided by the bill, substantial accomplishment can be secured in the prevention and control of air pollution -- and within a period of 5 years.

I have never seen in my service in the Senate a better demonstration of the committee legislative process than in its consideration and development of this measure. The record testifies to the thoroughness of the hearings. The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and his staff gave our committee fine support. The research and work of the committee staff were outstanding.

The interest of the chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], led to its emphasis upon research -- research in basic knowledge and in the technology that will be required for effective air pollution control. And his initiative led to the authorization of necessary funds to support adequate research and its application.

From the outset, Senator RANDOLPH recognized the importance and impact of the proposed legislation. The development of the bill rests in great measure upon his industry and good common sense and his leadership of the full committee.

The distinguished junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] led the minority subcommittee members -- not on a partisan basis, for air and water pollution are hardly partisan.

The junior Senator from Delaware deserves great credit for his thorough, faithful, and statesmanlike work on this measure.

We are proud of the contributions of the minority members, the Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY] and the new Member, the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER].

I pay special tribute to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], who has taken the initiative in the field of air pollution control and abatement. It is fair and proper to say that he has brought before Congress and before the Nation as has no other Member of Congress, the importance and necessity of obtaining control of air pollution for the benefit of the people of this country. His successful work on water pollution control over a number of years, and now his work upon air pollution control, should give him great pride and satisfaction not merely as a personal achievement, which he deserves, but as a notable achievement for our country and its people. His work will benefit our country in all the years to come.

It came to my mind today in the course of a meeting of the Committee on Public Works on another subject that in the last few years our committee has accomplished a great deal in the way of legislation for the benefit of the country. We regularly consider bills apportioning funds for our great system of highways throughout the country and for the regular authorization of public works projects in the country, with tremendous impact upon the Nation's economy. In late years we have added to those measures bills such as the Highway Safety Act, which will reduce the fatalities and injuries on our highways; the Highway Beautification Act, which is having some trouble but which will come along to protect and enhance the beauty of the countryside; the Economic Development Act, which assists in providing systems of water and sewage for our communities; the Appalachian Regional Development Act, a new initiative in Federal-State partnership in the field of economic development of backward areas; the Water Pollution Control Act, and the Air Pollution Control Act. These measures will have tremendous impact upon the economic growth of our country, the conservation of the resources of our country, and the betterment of the good health of the people of our country. The sociological consequences and influences of these measures will continue for years.

I am very proud of the work that the Senate Committee on Public Works is doing, and chiefly because of the thought and nonpartisan work of its members, both Democrats and Republicans, and the staff.

I pay tribute again to the junior Senator from Maine who has shown such vision and initiative in this work.

Mr. President, the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] and the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] have detailed in their speeches the provisions of the pending legislation. I shall not go over that ground. However, I have a statement which gives my views on the important features, and the concept of the pending bill, and the differences between the approach that the committee has taken and the original approach suggested by the administration.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR COOPER ON S. 780

The Air Quality Act of 1967 -- developed after thorough hearings, months of study and full consideration -- provides a practical and effective means of dealing with the serious problem of air pollution. It is recommended unanimously by the membership of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and of the full Committee on Public Works.

The revised bill S. 780 is an example of constructive development through the Committee legislative process. It is a strong bill, comprehensive, and can bring into full play the resources of the States and the Federal Government. It provides 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. The first initiative and responsibility are local. But if the States fail to act, the bill provides authority for the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to do so.

S. 780, as written and recommended by the Subcommittee, is quite different from the bill proposed by the Administration in its concept and in the mechanism which it provides for the attainment of its objectives. In addition to placing the first responsibility on the States, it offers a far more realistic and orderly means than the Administration program toward securing the objective of clean air.

The Administration's proposal contained two principal provisions. First, the establishment by the Secretary of emission standards for designated emissions from designated industries -- such as steel, cement, pulp mills, oil refineries and power generating plants with authority for the Secretary to issue cease-and-desist orders against any establishment violating such standards.

Second, it proposed the establishment by the Secretary, upon request or his own initiative, of Regional Air Quality Commissions under the control of and creatures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to establish air quality standards more stringent than those otherwise prescribed by the Secretary, and also enforceable by cease-and-desist orders issued by the Secretary.

The Administration proposal failed to take into account local differences in climate, weather, topography, and the concentration of industry and population. It failed to take into account the availability and development of alternatives to stack emission controls, such as tall stacks and the dispersal of new industry so as to avoid air pollution. It gave little recognition to the fact that in the case of many pollution agents, the technology of removal from flue gases, or from the fuels themselves, has not yet advanced to the point where methods and devices are available to control their emission.

In effect, the Administration bill could have set requirements impossible or impractical of being met. Not the least of its difficulties was the prospect of attempting Federal abatement action against every source of pollution in the nation. The Committee considers that the problems of air pollution, the cost of their solution, and the scope of the Administrative tasks of securing prevention and enforcing control, are too large to be handled except through the cooperation and participation of Federal, State and local government -- and of industry. But we believe the Committee bill offers the means to actually accomplish air pollution control, rather than imposing national stack emission standards which could not be met, or setting minimum national emission standards which would be ineffective in the very areas where pollution problems are most serious.

The Committee bill, in contrast to the proposed uniform national emission standards and Federal enforcement plant by plant, directs its attention to the air we breathe in each locality of the country. For it is the quality of the air which is important -- not a doctrinaire plan of Federal control.

These localities differ in their topography, in their weather -- and in their degree of urban-industrial concentration and patterns of growth which determine the effect of emissions on the quality of air in the locality.

The Committee bill places upon the States and municipalities the final responsibility for determining the quality of air, 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 HEW, the four functions which the Committee believes most appropriate as the Federal responsibility in providing assistance to the States and local communities:

1. The definition of air quality control regions, with the expectation that the Secretary will give priority in defining those regions to the areas in which air pollution problems are acute and most demanding of action.

2. The collection, analysis, publication, and dissemination to State and local control agencies of the health and welfare effects of specific pollution agents which may be the subject of emission controls or abatement action -- to be known as "air quality criteria."

3. The collection, appraisal and dissemination of the existing technology, and of the developing and promising technology, for the prevention of pollution and control of the sources of pollution -- including the latest data on methods, processes and devices, together with their relative effectiveness and costs of application in different situations and under different requirements of control.

4. The active development, through independent research and cooperation with industry and others, of improved techniques and methods, including pilot plant applications and large-scale demonstration units.

The Committee bill also provides for the establishment of regional planning commissions, to recommend standards of air quality to the States and the Secretary. And very important, it provides for assistance to and the utilization of existing planning agencies such as metropolitan, regional and interstate bodies, which need to take into account the quality of air as they pursue area-wide planning to accommodate industrial development, the growth of cities, mass transportation, recreation, and other aspects of orderly growth.

Next, the Committee bill provides ample authority for the Secretary to establish regional planning commissions, to establish regional air quality standards, and to enforce those standards or the State standards, in the event the States fail to act within a reasonable time.

Finally, in one of the most important provisions added by the Committee, the bill authorizes the Secretary to act immediately in potential disaster situations, by seeking an injunction where there is imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons.

In our judgment, this concept for the achievement of clean air; this mechanism for the accomplishment of that objective through Federal-State cooperation; and this division between Federal, State and local authority of the primary responsibilities for research and development, for the analysis and distribution of information, for the definition of geographic regions in which air pollution problems require action, for regional planning, for establishment of the standards of quality of the air we breathe, and for enforcement of those standards, represents a comprehensive approach, and program for effective air pollution control. It is flexible, practical, and orderly -- and offers the certainty of substantial accomplishments in achieving its important national goal -- but, I believe, within 5 years.

Under the plan of action provided by the Committee bill, the Public Health Service and the Department of HEW, regional planning agencies, State and local control agencies -- and certainly those industries which must take the steps necessary to prevent air pollution -- all have a large and demanding task. That task will require the best efforts of all and the application of substantial investments -- investments of knowledge and experience, and the wise investment of resources -- and research to achieve cleaner air for the people of the nation wherever pollution is now or might otherwise become a problem.

It is the desire of the Committee that this promise be realized for the benefit of the public health and welfare, and I hope the Senate will approve the Committee bill, that it will become law, and will be effectively administered.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, our approach takes into account the features of weather and climate, topography, concentration of industry, and other factors, and really goes to the means of securing clean air rather than adopting doctrinaire national standards.

Our bill provides emergency powers to the Secretary, as has been outlined by the Senator from Maine and the Senator from West Virginia, to take whatever action he thinks necessary in situations where the health of the people is endangered.

The committee approach also provides an orderly and systematic means of engaging as a matter of first responsibility the action of the States and local communities, backed up with the authority of the Federal Government to act, if local government does not act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a statement on the need of tax incentives for industry, which I think must come into play at a later date, if we are to reach as quickly as possible adequate prevention and abatement of pollution control.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR COOPER

In concluding my remarks I would like to draw the Senate's attention to page 58 of the Committee Report which comments on the number of witnesses, especially those representing industry and industrial organizations, discussing the need for various types of tax incentives to assist industry in meeting the economic costs of facilities and equipment for the control and abatement of air pollution. The Report further emphasizes the Committee's position in urging the appropriate committees of the Congress to consider tax incentive legislation applicable to the industrial use of air pollution control equipment.

Last year in recommending amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Report of the Senate Committee on Public Works also included a strong recommendation to the Senate Finance Committee to consider tax incentives as an aid to meeting the serious problems of water pollution.

When the Senate-House Conferees filed their Conference Report last year on the amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Senate conferees agreed to an amendment of the House which would require the Secretary of the Interior to make a study of methods of providing incentives to assist industry in the construction of facilities and equipment designed to abate or reduce water pollution.

In describing the purpose of the House Amendment, the Conference Report made the following comment:

"Section 211 of the House amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make a full and complete investigation and study of methods for providing incentives to assist in constructing facilities and works by industry to reduce or abate water pollution, including possible use of tax incentives. In making this study he is required to consult with the Secretary of the Treasury as well as other department and agency heads. The report shall be submitted to Congress on this study not later than January 30. 1968."

Although the amendment is limited in its application to the Secretary of the Interior's study and recommendations of incentives to industry in the field of water pollution, it is my feeling that when his report is submitted to the Congress next year that Congress should seek the recommendations of the Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare, concerning similar incentives to industry in the field of air pollution controls.

Last year, in reporting out H.R. 17607, a bill to temporarily suspend the investment credit and accelerated depreciation, the Senate Finance Committee recognized the importance of the continued availability of the investment credit for the acquisition of air and water pollution controls, and exempted this form of investment credit from the provisions of the bill. In testifying before the Finance Committee at that time, I stated:

"I am hopeful that when the present inflationary pressures in our economy have subsided this Committee will consider increasing the present investment credit or provide additional tax incentives to industry to assist in the acquisition and installation of pollution controls. But for the present, however. I believe it would be a backward step for the Congress not to continue at least the present investment credit as provided in the House bill."

In retaining this form of investment credit, the Committee report makes the following comments:

"5. Exemption of water and air pollution control facilities.

"An amendment adopted on the floor of the House specifies that water and air pollution control facilities are, under certain conditions, not to be considered suspension period property even though constructed or ordered during the suspension period. Thus, facilities of this nature will continue to remain eligible for the investment credit.

"The exception is provided in recognition of the importance of stimulating private industry to undertake expenditures for facilities which will help to abate water and air pollution. There is a clear need to step up efforts to purify the air we breathe and the water in our streams and lakes.

"Suspension of the credit, even for a short time, would discourage private efforts to abate water and air pollution and would simply impose a larger direct burden on the government."

On January 31 of this year, I introduced for myself and on behalf of Senators Randolph and Morton, S. 760. a bill to increase investment credit allowable with respect to facilities to control water and air pollution. This bill would increase the present investment credit from 7% to 14%, for those industries purchasing and installing facilities and equipment controls that would combat or eliminate water or air pollution. The bill with the exception of several technical changes is similar to S. 2857, which I introduced on February 1 of last year.

In addition to my bill, many members of the Senate Public Works and Finance Committees have introduced or cosponsored bills in this session of Congress which would amend the Internal Revenue Code so as to give some form of tax incentive to assist industry in obtaining pollution control facilities.

On January 7, Senator Smathers introduced S. 187 which would permit a tax credit for expenditures incurred in constructing air and water pollution facilities of 20% of the expenditures incurred.

On January 31, Senator Carlson, for himself and 38 other members, introduced S. 734, the Pollution Abatement Incentive Act, which provides an incentive tax credit with respect to water and air pollution facilities and permits the amortization of the cost of construction of such facilities over a period of from 1 to 5 years.

On February 9, Senator Ribicoff and 19 other members, including Senators Randolph, Muskie and Boggs of the Public Works Committee, introduced S. 950, which provides for the amortization on the straight-line method of the adjusted basis for air or water pollution facilities over a period of 36 months and further provides that the Secretary set minimum performance standards and certify the abatement facilities.

On April 6, Senators Randolph and Muskie introduced S. 1466, which would provide an amortization on the straight-line method of the adjusted basis for air pollution facilities over a 36-month period.

It has been my view that we must do more to increase the participation of private industry to combat and control air pollution. One way of increasing the participation of private industry is to give industry a financial incentive to purchase and install facilities for the control and reduction of air pollution. It is only proper where companies purchase expensive equipment and facilities to reduce pollution -- which facilities bring no financial return on the investment but are devoted to the greater public benefit -- that some tax incentive should be provided.

While many of these bills differ as to method or approach, each has the purpose of providing industry with an incentive for acquiring and installing necessary equipment. I cannot predict which method the Congress may prefer -- increased investment credit, accelerated depreciation, a combination of these two methods, or some other method of financial assistance. I do know that some form of incentive is necessary.

AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 780) to amend the Clean Air Act to improve and expand the authority to conduct or assist research relating to air pollutants, to assist in the establishment of regional air quality commissions, to authorize establishment of standards applicable to emissions from establishments engaged in certain types of industry, to assist in establishment and maintenance of State programs for annual inspection of automobile emission control devices, and for other purposes.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the pending bill, S. 780, the Clean Air Act of 1967, which it is my privilege to cosponsor, and which was reported unanimously by the Senate Public Works Committee on which I serve.

This measure represents a major step toward restoring clean air in America, where now smog and contamination all too often befoul our environment.

It is urgently needed to help protect the health of millions of Americans, particularly those in urban areas.

It is urgently needed to reduce the billions of dollars of economic loss every year resulting from harmful pollutants in the air.

But important and forward-moving as this bill is, it is not by any means the total answer. And we should not delude ourselves that it is. A great deal more must be learned and must be done if we are to clean up our dirty air.

The task of purifying air in our Nation's cities and polluted areas is exceedingly complex and difficult. But, for health's sake, if for no other reason, we cannot tolerate further delay in air pollution control.

I doubt if the Founding Fathers in all their wisdom would have anticipated that the States and Federal Government would one day have to take steps to regulate the air which the people of our land breathe. But today it is literally becoming more and more difficult to find a place to draw a breath of fresh air.

In a sense, the problems of air pollution are part of the price paid for the phenomenal success of the American economy and for the tremendous growth of our Nation.

Because so many people drive so many cars and trucks, because so many airplanes traverse the airbases, because so many trains crisscross the continent, because so many forms of transportation emit noxious gases, we have harmful amounts of pollutants damaging the air.

Because so many factories produce so much for America's nearly 200 million people, we have intolerable amounts of pollutants contaminating our air.

The pulsing heartbeat of America's industrial areas serves our people remarkably well, but in the process many byproducts befoul the air we must breath to live.

And so, as we have progressed, our Nation has increasingly despoiled one of our essential resources, a resource indispensable to life itself-pure air.

When the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. John W. Gardner, testified on this bill before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution earlier this year, he described in broad strokes the dismaying picture of air pollution in America:

More often than not, an ugly shroud of pollution hangs over the New York area. This shroud thins out a bit now and then and here and there -- but most of the time it covers most of the eastern seaboard.

Along the shores of the Great Lakes, from Buffalo and Cleveland to Chicago and Milwaukee, where one metropolis barely ends before another begins, dozens of communities are fouling their own and their neighbors' air. The boundary lines that divide city from city and State from State are no obstacle to the flow of polluted air.

In Florida, as your subcommittee found when it visited there 3 years ago, fluoride pollution from the manufacture of fertilizer threatens to wipe out the cattle and citrus industries that once flourished in Polk and Hillsborough Counties.

In Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cleveland, and many other communities, people are beginning to recognize that their old-fashioned smoke-abatement programs are inadequate to cope with the more serious and complicated air pollution problems now confronting them.

There is not enough air in the big sky over Texas to thin out the pollutants which pour upward from many of the State's thriving metropolitan centers.

Air pollution is a growing problem in places such as Tucson and Phoenix, whose once salubrious atmosphere had long made them a haven for people afflicted with respiratory diseases.

And in California, the air pollution problem threatens to halt progress and growth, despite valiant efforts by State Government and particularly by the county of Los Angeles.

It is not only in our large urban areas that polluted air damages property and endangers health. It is a problem in many smaller communities as well. and its impact is felt in agricultural and recreational areas where it damages farm crops. timber, and plants of all kinds.

Every community in America with 50,000 or more people has an air pollution problem. Many smaller communities also have serious air pollution problems.

We can only hazard an estimate as to the total amount of illness and suffering and number of deaths in our land attributable to our contaminated air.

More and more people are increasingly aware of the irritation to eyes, throats, lungs from breathing harmful contaminants in the air: carbon monoxide from gasoline, diesel, and jet engines; sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons and a variety of other compounds from a variety of sources.

We are convinced that poisons in the air aggravate respiratory problems, such as asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and emphysema. The lung disease emphysema is one of the fastest growing causes of death in the United States. More than a thousand workers are forced into early retirement every month by emphysema.

Added to the damage to health is the damage to homes, apparel, and other property from air pollutants.

Economic losses attributable to pollution exceed several billion dollars a year, according to estimates.

The total cost of air pollution in terms of health damage and economic damage is staggering.

The cost to clean up our air will be staggering.

But it is a cost we must bear and a cost we must share.

For the sake of health of the millions of men, women, and children in America, we must make the effort and we must pay the price to purify the air and keep it that way.

It is the committee's particular concern with protecting the health of Americans from polluted air that impelled us to write the pending bill, which goes considerably beyond existing law in means to attack air pollution.

In his message to the Congress on January 30 this year, the President declared:

The pollution problem is getting worse. We are not even controlling today's level of pollution.

Ten years from now, when industrial pollution and waste disposal have increased and the number of automobiles on our streets and highways exceeds 110 million, we shall have lost the battle for clean airiness we strengthen our regulatory and research efforts now.

The pending bill does both.

It strengthens regulatory measures to prevent and to abate pollution of the air.

It strengthens research into the causes of, and control measures for, pollution of air.

In the field of regulation and abatement, the bill provides as follows:

First. When health of persons is imminently and substantially endangered, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is empowered to go immediately to court to seek an injunction against the emission of contaminants responsible for the danger. At such times of imminent and substantial hazard to people's health, as in Donora, Pa., a few years ago and in New York City last Thanksgiving, the Federal Government could move swiftly to curb the source or combination of sources of pollutants causing the hazard.

Second. As air pollution knows no city or State boundaries, the bill provides for establishment of Federal interstate air quality planning agencies if the States involved do not request that a planning agency be designated for an interstate air quality control region.

Third. The bill provides for the Secretary to designate air quality control regions and to designate air quality criteria. If a State fails to adopt air quality control standards within 15 months after receiving criteria and recommended control techniques from the Secretary, then the Secretary could set standards and implementing programs.

These provisions assure air quality standards and implementation programs for all States within a couple of years after enactment of the bill.

Fourth. The bill also permits the Secretary to go to court after 180 days' notice to enforce any violation of standards in any designated air quality control region. In addition, there is a specific directive to the Secretary to continue to use existing enforcement procedures as necessary to protect public health and welfare during the period standards are being developed.

Fifth. The bill provides for an expanded research and demonstration program to advance technology for controlling pollution from fuels and vehicles. The total authorization is $375 million for 3 years-through 1970.

Sixth. The 3-year authorization is $325 million for air-pollution programs other than the just-mentioned research program. This brings to $700 million the total authorized in the bill to fight air pollution.

Seventh. To encourage comprehensive planning for intrastate air quality standards the bill expands the grant program for State and local agencies.

Eighth. Also provided is a study of national emission standards and a study of the economic impact of pollution control. The study is to be submitted within 2 years.

Ninth. Federal assistance would be available to States to develop inspection and testing systems for motor vehicle emission and emission devices to control exhaust gases and byproducts of motor vehicles.

Tenth. Federal registration of fuel additives is also required.

Those are the highlights of the bill in brief.

It is true, powers granted to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare are considerable. In most cases, however, the bill gives the States and local communities first opportunity to control and abate air pollution.

The bill underscores what is a crying need: a national air pollution prevention and control program.

We are moving in a field about which we know too little and in which we have too few skilled personnel.

But move we must, for the hazards are too great and growing.

The clock is ticking, but time is not on our side.

We have no choice except to intensify research and intensify control efforts. S. 780 represents the studied efforts of the members of the Public Works Committee to provide the tools and the impetus, the fuel and the thrust to move ahead in a desperate race against catastrophe.

The approach is sound. The need is urgent.

I strongly support enactment of S. 780, and ask my colleagues to join in passing the bill.

Before closing, I want to pay particular tribute to the chairman of the subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and to the ranking minority member, the junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], for their diligent efforts to devise a workable and effective bill to advance the struggle for clean air in America.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for his generous comments. I yield to the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, my distinguished senior colleagues on both sides of the aisle have already outlined in some detail the nature and proportions of the country's compelling and increasingly severe air pollution problem. They have further described the way in which the proposed Air Quality Act of 1967 addresses itself to the abatement and control of the various pollutants which contaminate our limited air resource. I will not prolong this debate by repeating or elaborating upon what has already been adequately stated.

I do wish at this time, however, to express formally my full support of the bill which is now before us. While we would be ill-advised and quixotic to regard these amendments as a panacea, the bill is a good bill. It is a strong bill, a bill with teeth.

As all Senators know, hearings on S. 780 have been virtually exhaustive, given the state of the art at this point in time. Under the energetic leadership of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], some 18 days of hearings have been held from coast to coast. Such extensive investigation was not only warranted by but also dictated by the unusual gravity and complexity of the problem to which our committee has addressed itself.

The abatement and control of air pollution is closely bound up with two instances of critical equilibrium and balance in our national life. First, the need for control measures reflects a tension between the economic well-being and the well-being of our highly mobile, mechanized and urbanized society. Second, control measures and their enforcement have obvious implications in regard to the balance of power among our Federal, State, and local governments.

The problem of pollution control is further complicated by seemingly responsible estimates of its nature and severity which are at variance with each other. Another area of disagreement and controversy is the adequacy of current technology to deal with the problem. Another is the inequitable impact on certain industries in certain locations.

To be perfectly frank, had I been told in January that a bill as effective as the one which the Senate is considering today would be ready for enactment in July, I would have been skeptical. The subcommittee's extensive work and deliberation have improved, I think, the proposal submitted at the first of the year.

The bill's hallmark is flexibility -- not weakness -- I am quick to emphasize, and not vagueness but flexibility. It recognizes, as uniform national standards could not have done, that the chemical nature and quantitative nature of pollution problems are not the same all over the country. The bill recognizes that much remains to be done in developing technology and in exploring other avenues of research; authorized funds and methods of assistance in research have been greatly expanded. The bill respects, insofar as it could, the prerogatives of the State and local governments. There can be no doubt that, while the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is given greater and more far-reaching authority, the responsibility and initiative for action lie in the statehouses, the city halls, and the county courthouses of the Nation.

One very important aspect of air pollution abatement and control which is not within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee is the question of tax relief. Many of the control measures which will be applied in the coming years will be costly; many of them will produce little if any return on capital invested. Some polluters, I am sure, will be hard pressed or unable to comply with necessary regulations. I strongly urge that the Committee on Finance and the Senate as a whole give thorough and sympathetic consideration to a variety of measures now pending which would provide additional relief for capital investment in pollution control devices and techniques.

I close, Mr. President, by expressing my great admiration for Senator RANDOLPH and Senator MUSKIE and their tireless efforts in developing this legislation. I also commend Senator COOPER, the ranking minority member of the full committee, and Senator BOGGS, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. They have provided valuable guidance for me in this intriguing work. Each member of the committee, along with an exceptionally capable staff, has devoted long hours of honest and bipartisan effort to developing this practical, workable step forward toward the control of a critical national problem.

Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, the Air Quality Act of 1967 authorizes a 3-year program designed to eliminate pollution from the air that Americans breathe. This meritorious legislation is of vital importance to the well-being of every inhabitant of the land. The bill reflects many hours of painstaking work by members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works. The members of the subcommittee and its chairman, the distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], are to be commended on their efforts. Also all members of the Senate Committee on Public Works gave time and consideration to this proposal.

Mr. President, more than 60 percent of all Americans live in areas afflicted with impure air. In most cities clothes drying on lines are dirty again by nightfall. New buildings are grimy before they are occupied. More than 135 million tons of aerial garbage is released into the bright, clean air every year. Half comes from automobiles. Americans are now beginning to clean up this mess. Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon General of the United States, has said:

The problem of air pollution is a health challenge of the first magnitude confronting the American people.

For many years Congress has been reluctant to enforce strict air pollution controls, hoping that local and State governments would handle the problem. Our hopes have not been realized. Furthermore, since dirty air does not respect political boundaries, one community's ordinances are not sufficient to control air pollution in an entire area. Air pollution is a national problem. The proposed bill will go far toward helping solve it.

Mr. President, the answer to this problem is by no means simple to find. The fact is that our great productive capacity contaminates our air, water, and land faster than nature and man can cleanse them. One cannot just simply eradicate the sources of pollution, for the very activities that contribute to pollution are the lifeblood of a modern civilization. However, there are acceptable ways of reducing and controlling the sources of pollution without disrupting our economy, without stopping the forward progress of technology, and without depriving Americans of the conveniences of a modern society.

For the thousands of years that man has inhabited the earth, he has treated his environment as a dumping ground for his wastes, confident in its ability to absorb them. Several hundred years ago, North America was a fair and unspoiled land, wild and beautiful; a land where the air was clean and the water of its rivers and lakes pure. Today, each year the sky darkens. The precious cover of air supporting life on this planet becomes dangerously soiled and poisoned. Life itself is menaced. People living in our cities are afflicted with lung cancer to a greater degree than those in rural areas. Of course, effective air pollution control involves added costs to both government and industry. Americans without doubt are willing to bear these additional costs if only they can once again breathe fresh air and enjoy clean water.

Mr. President, we must accelerate the war on air pollution, a war of far more importance to the welfare of Americans than the miserable war in Vietnam which we have made an American ground and air war. The problems will be many, and each must be met with strong programs to remove contamination, to restore a safe environment, and to conserve our natural heritage.

Mr. President, the rate at which we Americans are destroying our environment is astounding. Air pollution can no longer be considered as a problem to deal with only at the crisis level. We must not legislate on air pollution only when our major cities are choking to death. We must not wait to enact water pollution legislation only when all living organisms are dying in our rivers and lakes, and when our water is unfit for human consumption.

We must take action to avert impending disaster. We should create a system which will help us to foresee these hazards and prevent them from getting out of hand.

Today, 70 percent of our people live on only 10 percent of our country's land. By 1980, our population will rise to approximately 235 million. By the year 2000, we will have supercities stretching from Boston to Washington, from Buffalo to Milwaukee and from San Francisco to San Diego; in addition to other giant urban areas. The pollution problem, if not tackled adequately now, will have expanded to enormous proportions.

Mr. President, Americans make up only 6 percent of the world's population. Yet, we produce 50 percent of the world's goods and services, and more than half of the world's trash. The rate at which we are destroying our environment is incredible. For example, we are pouring 24 million tons of sulfur oxides every year into the air we breathe. Without controls this figure will double by 1980.

This year 90 million motor vehicles in this country will burn 60 billion gallons of gasoline. In simpler terms, this means that each automobile will discharge more than 1,600 pounds of carbon monoxide, 230 pounds of hydrocarbons, and 77 pounds of oxides of nitrogen.

We Americans are applying annually 600 million pounds of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to soil and crops. The problems created in doing so will haunt us in the years to come.

The biological effects of all these hazards will continue to grow slowly and silently over decades and generations. They may reveal themselves only after their impact has become irreversible.

The Air Quality Act of 1967 is an important step toward helping to eliminate air pollution and to safeguard future generations of Americans -- to conserve our natural heritage not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren and for all Americans to follow us.

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, we have finally reached the point in the development of our society where air pollution has ceased to be the invisible danger. Today, everyone can see it, feel it and smell it. More than 7,000 communities across the Nation are affected by it. It is a cause for national concern. But the magnitude of the problem has also given rise to a national determination to take the action necessary to stop the contamination of the atmosphere.

The distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has been a leader in the battle for clean air. For the third consecutive year he has reported legislation to the Senate which makes a major advance toward this goal. I commend him for his outstanding efforts to purify the skies.

The Clean Air Act of 1967 is the product of 18 days of comprehensive hearings held in five cities. The bill is broad in scope. For the most part it vests initial regulatory authority in the States, but reserves ultimate power to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to control air pollution.

This legislation is a timely, logical, and responsible expansion of the Clean Air Act of 1963, which I sponsored. It contains four principal provisions: First. It requires the Secretary of HEW to define air quality control regions. All air pollution programs will be geared to these atmospheric units. Second. It grants the Secretary authority to create interstate air quality planning commissions, if the States do not do so. These commissions will assist the States and the Federal Government in developing air quality standards. Third. It permits the Secretary to establish and implement air quality standards for the control regions, if the States do not take such action within 15 months after these regions are designated and after the Secretary has issued criteria for air quality and information on abatement techniques. These standards will set limits on the pollution in every atmospheric area of the country. Fourth. The Secretary is authorized to initiate court proceedings to halt any pollution that creates a substantial and imminent public health danger anywhere in the country. This will enable the Secretary to act immediately to prevent a recurrence of the air pollution disasters of Donora, Pa., in 1948 and New York City in 1953 and 1966.

The bill provides $700 million over a 3-year period for program support and research. This will include an expanded research and demonstration program to advance the technology of controlling pollution from fuels and vehicles and an enlarged program of grants to encourage States and local governments to begin comprehensive planning for intrastate air quality standards. The bill also directs the Secretary of HEW to conduct a 2-year study of national emission standards for industry.

Mr. President, the Public Health Service has reported that every urban area of 50,000 or more population now has an air pollution problem. In the coming years we can expect conditions to worsen as urban population increases, industrial production grows, and use of motor

vehicles rises. To avoid a series of national air pollution tragedies our research and regulatory activities must be strengthened. We must insure that all our technological resources are brought to bear on this problem and that we exercise every economically feasible method of control.

The legislation now before us fulfills these objectives. It gives us a national program to upgrade the quality of the air we breathe. With this legislation we move beyond simply controlling and reducing air pollution. We have begun to direct our efforts toward establishing an environment that is conducive to good living. I support S. 780 and urge its passage.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, at the outset I want to congratulate Senator MUSKIE and Senator BOGGS for once again steering through the Senate Public Works Committee, a bill which I believe represents a great, giant step forward in our Nation's battle against air pollution.

In addition, I believe S. 780 evidences the legislative branch's responding to a clear need in the most responsive manner. And, Mr. President, the record is clear that it has been the Congress that has taken the initiative in the country's battle against pollution, both air and water. In fact, many of us in the Congress have been greatly disappointed in the administration's budget requests in the pollution area.

To the credit of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and to the ranking Republican member, Senator BOGGS, this committee held most exhaustive hearings and developed an outstanding record. This record clearly documents the danger and suggests the direction in which the Nation should move in order to combat pollution. Subsequently, in executive session, the subcommittee hammered out and shaped the form of S. 780 that we now have before the Senate today.

It is a good bill; it merits the support of the entire Congress; it will receive the thanks of a concerned citizenry. Last year in a statement before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, I stated:

In my judgment the pollution problem is one of the most serious domestic problems facing our country today. While serious, it is not yet critical. The time is not on our side. It is running out.

The delay will not only be costly in terms of dollars, but even more important, will be the possible detriment to human health and the interference with the general well-being of our society.

Mr. President, this bill, while recognizing the critical nature of the pollution problem, adopts a rational and reasonable approach to the pollution problem. It should do the job. It recognizes the legitimate and primary responsibility of the State and local governments in the field of air pollution but yet the message of the legislation is clear. Although we are going to give the States and the local governments the initiative in the pollution field, we will not permit inaction. The battle against pollution will and must be won. For while we are fully aware that cleaning up the air will be costly, an article in the Harvard Business Review estimated that expenditures of some $105 billion will be necessary over the next 30-year period to provide clean air. While costly, we recognize clearly that we cannot afford to do less.

Mr. President, we already know much about the damage that pollution causes to both property and, more importantly, to persons. It has been estimated that property damages resulting from air pollution in the United States is $11 billion annually. Agricultural losses in my State total approximately $132 million each year. In addition, we know that pollution contributes to the deterioration and corrosion of our physical structures. As consumers, we can see the effects of pollution by the need for more frequent trips to the laundry and the need for more frequent car washes. Even more important, Mr. President, are the adverse effects that pollution may have on human health. Evidence continues to grow associating air pollution with certain respiratory disorders, such as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer. Surg. Gen. William H. Stewart on April 19, testified before the subcommittee and he centered his remarks on the adverse effects or air pollution on public health. Dr. Stewart, after discussing the types of evidence available linking air pollution and "specific health detriment" declared emphatically that air pollution was a health hazard and that the evidence created a "disturbing and convincing portrait of a major health menace."

It is clear, Mr. President, that we cannot wait until conclusive evidence is produced for it is obvious that air pollution does not do anyone any good. Therefore, it behooves us to clean up the air. Since my father was one of the Nation's outstanding track coaches, I naturally have an interest in track. I read with interest a March 30 study which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which concluded that high levels of smog have a negative effect on the performance of long distance runners.

Mr. President, as a Californian, I am very proud of the State's pioneering efforts in the field of air pollution. I am, however, as are most Californians, not satisfied with the quality of air that we have achieved. We can and we must do better. In Los Angeles County a vigorous and effective program to abate air pollution from stationary sources is paying off. Aimed at reducing the air pollution levels from stationary sources to those existing in 1940, the goal has almost been reached. Los Angeles County's control program for stationary sources has kept more than 5,000 tons of contaminates out of the air daily. Los Angeles County has demonstrated that pollution from stationary sources can be controlled. Los Angeles County and the State of California, for that matter, have demonstrated that local and State governments can, and are willing to, adopt and enforce standards to control pollution.

I only wish, Mr. President, that the State of California was making as rapid progress in controlling the pollution from the automobile as we have made in controlling the pollution from stationary sources. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Although we are making progress, the truth of the matter is that we have to run as fast as we can to stand still. This is so because of our rapidly growing population which is expected to double by the end of this century, and the increasing number of automobiles.

On May 27, 1966, the Air Pollution Control District of the County of Los Angeles issued its report to the board of supervisors regarding the status of air pollution control in Los Angeles County and the prospects of success of the current control program. Their conclusions were:

First, current motor vehicle control programs will not achieve acceptable air quality in Los Angeles in the next decade, and second, control of motor vehicle emissions must be intensified and accelerated if Los Angeles County is to have acceptable air quality by 1980.

In California, Mr. President, it is estimated that emissions from the motor vehicles are responsible for approximately 80 percent of the Los Angeles problem, and I am certain that the automobile is a substantial contributor elsewhere. In 1966, all new cars were required by California law to be equipped with devices limiting the amount of hydrocarbons that can be emitted from 275 parts per million and carbon monoxide to 1.5 percent. Effective in 1970, standards have been adopted to further reduce the exhaust emissions in the case of hydrocarbons from 275 parts per million to 180 parts per million, and carbon monoxide from 1.5 percent to 1 percent. These statistics document the tremendous challenge the State of California will face in the next few years and the next decade as we attempt to clean up the air of the State of California.

The extraordinary and compelling circumstances that have existed in California have prompted the State to move into uncharted areas. By so doing, the State and many of its citizens have provided the Nation with many of the tools, many of the ideas and with many of the competent personnel necessary to zero in on the Nation's pollution problem. That California has developed the needed expertise is readily apparent by counting the number of Californians that have been called upon by the Federal Government to serve in positions of leadership and responsibility in the Federal air pollution program.

It is because of the extraordinary and compelling problem that has existed and that exists in the State of California that the State has had to make a great effort in the past and will undoubtedly be called upon to make even greater efforts in the future, in order to assure that the citizens of the great State of California will have acceptable and clean air. Because of the efforts the State has made, and because of the very serious problem that exists, I naturally, was very concerned and very disturbed when the committee was considering the question of Federal preemption on the right to such standards of automobile exhaust emissions. I also, of course, recognize that industry's argument that they could not live with 50 different standards of 50 different States was not without merit.

I am particularly grateful for the recognition that the committee has given to the State of California by accepting an amendment offered by me which recognizes the State's unique problems and pioneering efforts by granting a waiver from the Federal preemption to the State of California, and thus insuring that the State will be able to continue "its already excellent program to the benefit of the people of that State." Because of the importance of this issue, Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that this portion of the committee's report dealing with the question of Federal preemption be printed in full at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

To date only California has actively engaged in this form of pollution control and, in fact, the initial Federal standard is based on California's experience. The Federal standard will be applicable to all 1968 model automobiles sold in the United States. Other States have enacted legislation and regulations governing crankcase emissions but this control method has been in general use throughout the United States since 1963.

On the question of preemption, representatives of the State of California were clearly opposed to displacing that State's right to set more stringent standards to meet peculiar local conditions. The auto industry conversely was adamant that the nature of their manufacturing mechanism required a single national standard in order to eliminate undue economic strain on the industry.

The committee has taken cognizance of both of these points of view. Senator Murphy convinced the committee that California's unique problems and pioneering efforts justified a waiver of the preemption section to the State of California. As a result, the committee incorporated in section 202 (b) a waiver amendment offered by Senator Murphy. It is true that, in the 15 years that auto emission standards have been debated and discussed, only the State of California has demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances sufficiently different from the Nation as a whole to justify standards on automobile emissions which may, from time to time, need be more stringent than national standards.

This situation may change. Other regions of the Nation may develop air pollution situations related to automobile emissions which will require standards different from those applicable nationally. The committee expects the Secretary to inform the Congress of any such situation in order that expansion or change in the existing waiver provision may be considered.

Until such time as additional problems of this type arise it seemed appropriate that the waiver provision of subsection (b) should be limited solely to California. This approach can have several positive values:

1. Most importantly California will be able to continue its already excellent program to the benefit of the people of that State.

2. The Nation will have the benefit of California's experience with lower standards which will require new control systems and design. In fact California will continue to be the testing area for such lower standards and should those efforts to achieve lower emission levels be successful it is expected that the Secretary will, if required to assure protection of the national health and welfare, give serious consideration to strengthening the Federal standards.

3. In the interim periods, when California and the Federal Government have differing standards, the general consumer of the Nation will not be confronted with increased costs associated with new control systems.

4. The industry, confronted with only one potential variation, will be able to minimize economic disruption and therefore provide emission control systems at lower costs to the people of the Nation.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, at one time, air pollution in this country was thought to be a peculiar phenomenon which everyone associated with Los Angeles. Now, we are told that every city in the Nation with a population of 50,000 or more has an air pollution problem.

I have had the privilege and pleasure, Mr. President, of traveling across this great country and countless times. Over the past years my eyes have witnessed what the experts tell us -- the pollution problem is a growing one and can be seen in every State.

On top of this, the leading authorities tell us that we will see a doubling of the population in the urban areas of our Nation in the next 40 years. The number of automobiles is expected to grow at an even faster rate. The challenge to the Nation is great. But we have no choice, Mr. President, if we are to assure to the American people the quality of air and the quality of life that they expect and deserve.

Early in this century, a great American, Teddy Roosevelt, very disturbed over the manner in which the Nation was allowing its land and its other natural resources to waste, led us on a great conservation movement. An equally great challenge faces us today.

Mr. President, air and water are also precious natural resources, which we have been neglecting for too long. All of us are guilty, and as the Los Angeles Times in a March 19 article, entitled, "Let's Clean Up Spaceship Earth," observed:

Spaceship Earth is a "closed space capsule." Only sunlight gets in; nothing leaves. Getting "rid" of waste often is merely the redistribution of it within our "capsule." But it stays with us in our journey through space.

I am encouraged, Mr. President, for I can sense a crusading spirit and a determination by all segments of our society that the Nation can and will be victorious in its battle against pollution. A Harris poll of April 3 indicated that there was more public support for accelerated Federal pollution control than any other single domestic program. Over one-half of the persons queried indicated that they wanted more action by the Government. One-third supported action at the current level.

One seldom picks up a newspaper, a magazine, or a trade journal, Mr. President, without seeing an article on the pollution problem. Businessmen throughout the country recognize that we must win the battle against pollution and that we cannot afford to do otherwise.

Having the greatest of faith in our system of government and in the judgment of the American people, Mr. President, I firmly believe that what the American people want and demand will be accomplished.

Also, having the greatest of confidence in the genius and capacity of American industry, I am convinced that technology and know-how, where not presently existing -- and much of it is already in existence -- can be developed. Industry should aim high; it should aim at completely or nearly eliminating pollution. The automobile industry, for example, should not rest until it produces a pollution-free engine. This does not suggest that we panic, for we cannot demand that which is not technologically or economically feasible.

Mr. President, we should not leave the impression that the bill we are enacting today will clean up the air overnight. It will provide a framework for effective action by State and local governments. I urge States to make maximum utilization of this bill's provisions and incentives, and I have a feeling that those elected representatives who do not heed the cry of the American people for clean air may not be elected officials too long. The bill rightly gives the State and local governments the opportunity to exercise leadership and to face up to the challenge and responsibility of cleaning up the Nation's air. By combining our resources of government, industry and individuals, I for one am confident that we can clean up the air.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a staff analysis of S. 780 be printed in full at this point.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PROVISIONS of S. 780

S. 780, as ordered reported includes the following provisions:

1. Authority for the Secretary to go immediately to court in the event that he finds a particular pollution source or combination of sources, wherever such source or sources may be located, is presenting an "imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons" to seek an injunction against the emission of such contaminants as may be necessary to protect public health.

2. Provision for establishment of the Federal interstate air quality planning agencies if the States do not request designation of a planning agency for an interstate air quality control region.

3. Provision for the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to set ambient air standards in any designated air quality control region, if the States fail within 15 months after receiving a criteria and recommended control techniques, to adopt such standards and an acceptable plan for implementation.

4. Provision for the Secretary to go to court, after 180 days notice, to enforce any violation of standards in any designated air quality control region.

5. Specific directive to the Secretary to continue to use existing enforcement procedures as may be necessary to protect public health and welfare during standards development period; and provision for participation by interested parties in an abatement conference.

6. A three-step approach to development of air quality standards including (1) designation, by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, of air quality control regions based on the need for pollution control and protection of health and welfare; (2) expansion of the existing provision for development and issuance of criteria as to the health and welfare effects of pollutants or combinations of pollutants; and (3) publication of information on the control technology required to achieve various levels of air quality.

7. An expanded research and demonstration program to advance the technology for

controlling pollution from fuels and vehicles including specific authorization of $375 million for three years (through 1970).

8. Federal preemption of the right to set standards on automobile exhaust emissions with waiver of application of preemption to any State which had adopted standards precedent to promulgation of Federal standards (California).

9. Expanded State and local program grants provision to encourage comprehensive planning for intrastate air quality standards.

10. Establishment of a statutory President's Air Quality Advisory Board and such other advisory committees as may be necessary to assist the Secretary in performing the functions authorized.

11. A study of the concept of national emission standards and a study of the economic impact of pollution control.

12. Federal assistance to the States to develop motor vehicle emission and device inspection and testing systems.

13. Federal registration of fuel additives.

14. Comprehensive reports to the Congress.

15. Three year authorization of $325 million for programs other than research on control of pollution from fuels and vehicles. (Total authorization including research $700 million.)

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, I am pleased to make a statement in support of the air quality bill of 1967. Air pollution, along with many other far distant and not readily visible evils, is often lamented, but too seldom acted upon.

The Committee on Public Works has in the air quality control bill taken vital steps toward furthering public authority to curb air pollution. The committee deserves to be commended on the comprehensive and ambitious bill that it has presented to the Senate.

S. 780 recognizes that air pollution can only be abated by a total effort on all fronts and that a truly effective program to get cleaner air requires a combination of immediate action and long-range research. Both parts are essential to a formula for curing one of our Nation's most acute ills. The committee that has presented us with this bill did not shirk from its overwhelming task, despite the tremendous economic, administrative, and technological problems inherent in the implementation of the desired programs to control air pollution.

The air quality bill of 1967 proposes that minimum standards of air quality be set by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and establishes the regulatory equipment necessary to see that the clean air standards are enforced across the country. Besides coping with the obvious immediate problems that have aroused the greatest public attention, like the stifling smog in the larger industrial cities of our Nation, this bill also provides for research into the probable disastrous consequences of prolonged, unchecked pollution of the air. Such research will, no doubt, be of great help in discovering the relationship between the quality of the air and the health of the population. It is certainly the time for updating the now inadequate earlier measures for insuring the future safe content of our most vital resource-the air.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of so comprehensive, broad-based, and yet flexible bill which attempts through regulation and research to alleviate the all too prevalent blight of air pollution.

AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967-MANDATE FOR ACTION

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, the Air Quality Act of 1967 represents a significant legislative victory in the continuing battle for clean air. It was more than 12 years ago that the first Federal legislation was enacted by the Congress dealing with the problem of air pollution.

As a member of the Committee on Public Works at that time, it still is a matter of deep personal pride that I authored the initial legislative effort -- the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. That proposal authorized the first program of research and technical assistance to devise and develop methods for the control and abatement of air pollution. But that bill, as does the one now before the Senate, recognized that the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution rests with State and local government as well as private industry. The Federal Government, as a consequence of the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the amendments that have been adopted since that time, has a mandate to provide leadership and assistance in the national effort to control this growing menace, but the real job has always been in the hands of the States, communities, and industries that create and are affected by pollution. And yet, despite the public and private efforts in this area, despite the volumes of research and the thousands of dollars of assistance, despite the controls that have been established, and the standards that have been developed, air pollution continues to grow and to threaten the environment of our Nation.

Today, the threat of a contaminated environment for mankind has become a real and major concern for all people. Science has deduced that the pollutants in the air strike at virtually everything that exists. In economic losses alone, air pollution costs the country billions of dollars a year through injury to vegetation and livestock, corrosion and soiling of materials and structures, depression of property values, and interference with ground and air transportation. Of even greater significance are the adverse effects on human health. Pollution has been related to a growing number of ailments-asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer and emphysema. The Surgeon General's office has indicated that:

In the not-too-distant future, if present rates of national growth are sustained. air pollution will reach truly critical proportions.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare states:

What is already known about the relationship of air pollution to illness, disability, and premature death, together with considerations of prudence in the protection of public health, leave no doubt that the contemporary air pollution problem is a threat to the lives and health of millions of people in all parts of the country.

As the hazards increase, the Nation gropes for any effective answer or solution which can meet the challenge of air pollution. The American public, to whom the Congress is ultimately responsible, is no longer content with efforts which are not equal to the challenges of the present and the future.

The bill that is today before the Senate -- S. 780 -- reflects a fuller appreciation of what really is at stake and seeks to provide unprecedented opportunities for effective action at all levels of government. The Air Quality Act of 1967 broadens air pollution programs at all levels of government in an effort to protect and enhance the quality of the environment.

But the creation of a national program of air quality is not in any sense intended to relieve State and local government as well as industry of its responsibilities in this area. The committee clearly points out in its report:

The States will retain the primary responsibility to determine the quality of air they desire.

I was particularly pleased to see that the committee has recognized the outstanding efforts of my own State of California in attempting to control this growing hazard. California was one of the first to grant local jurisdictions the authority to regulate factories and other sources of atmospheric contamination through the establishment of air pollution control districts. In 1959, the State legislature directed the State department of public health to establish standards for the air and created a motor vehicle pollution control board to test and, if necessary, require control devices; devices which in fact are today required on all cars sold in California. It is because of my State's pioneering efforts in this area that the committee accepted an amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Senator GEORGE MURPHY, which allows California the power to continue to control its own standards on automobile emissions.

The true success of this legislation will be measured not by the Federal enforcement provisions that are established but by the response of local and State government and private industry to this mandate for action. It is clear that the efforts of all concerned have proven inadequate in the past.

As I stated before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution in February of this year:

What is needed to meet this challenge to human environment is an attack equal to the threat .... the time has arrived for an enlightened overview of the problems of the human environment and of measures and plans for solution of these problems, both immediate and long range.

Mr. President, the ultimate solution of present and future environmental problems will have to be generated out of a collaboration between government and industry the equal of which may be unprecedented, but the pattern for which is neither new nor controversial. The Air Quality Act of 1967 states, in effect, that the time for such action by government and industry alike is now. The protection of our human environment cannot, indeed, must not, be delayed any longer.

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, today we are considering the Air Quality Act of 1967 which would amend the Clean Air Act.

This bill, S. 780, represents another positive forward step toward our long-range goal of restoring the pure quality of the air we breathe.

During recent months, I have been disturbed by reports from knowledgeable scientists that we are losing ground in our fight for clean air. It is simply getting dirtier at a faster rate than we are cleaning it up.

The air of most of our large cities, as well as many of our smaller ones, is filled with tons of polluting agents. As President Johnson has pointed out, this polluted air not only aggravates respiratory diseases in man such as asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and emphysema; but it also corrodes machinery and defaces buildings. The cost estimates for other forms of air pollution do exist, and they are staggering-$12 billion annually about $65 per person. Federal money in air pollution programs is not money being poured down the drain. It is an investment, and it is an investment on which we can expect a substantial return.

I recognize that this bill will have a great economic impact, and have cosponsored legislation (S. 734 and S. 950) which would provide tax exemptions to encourage industries to institute pollution controls. These bills should go hand in-hand with the Air Quality Act of 1967.

This bill, while it would increase Federal activity in the field of air pollution, is a vital support for those States and local communities that are moving aggressively to meet the challenge. It would

First. Provide for the establishment of a regional approach to air quality planning;

Second. Provide authority for the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to go to court to seek an injunction against the emission of such contaminants as may be dangerous to the public health, or to enforce a violation of standards in any designated air quality control region;

Third. Begin to develop a set of air quality standards;

Fourth. Authorize increased research relating to pollutants from fuels and vehicles;

Fifth. Establish Federal standards on automobile exhaust emissions. Beginning with the 1968 model cars, antipollution control devices will be standard equipment; and

Sixth. Provide increased Federal funds for State and local clean air programs. Air pollution control is a project which we must begin now before the air we breathe becomes so dirty and so toxic that the problem is entirely uncontrollable. The final bill which has been reported by the Committee on Public Works is slightly different from the original bill that I cosponsored.

However, I think that this present bill is more workable. The committee deserves thanks for the careful consideration it gave to this measure. I urge my colleagues to pass this essential legislation.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, there are few commodities as precious in our society as the air we breathe. There are a few problems confronting us in our rapidly urbanizing society which deserve our attention more immediately, and to whose solutions we should be more attentive, than the rapidly multiplying and compounding problem of air pollution control. Accordingly, Mr. President, I wish to emphasize my enthusiastic support of the Air Quality Act of 1967.

This legislation will provide a broad base of support for an effective, coordinated nationwide program. The facts and figures on the amounts and kinds of refuse and choking filth daily poured into the air around us are truly staggering. We must act now, and act with increasing effectiveness at all levels of government if we are initially to bring the problem under control, much less start the long process of improving the present quality of the air around us.

Accordingly, I commend the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, and its chairman, the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] for the quick and thorough action taken on this bill, which bears so extensively the imprint of its ambitious multi city hearings and deliberations on the original administration measure. And I particularly commend the Committee on Public Works for its sensitivity to the necessity for balance between Federal and State and local government action in seeking and implementing antipollution programs, devices, and techniques. For the essential responsibility for checking air pollution is at the local level. As the experience of my own city of Chicago has shown, this is the most effective level at which to start to turn back the menace which, though concentrated in our cities, is rapidly spreading across the face of the land.

I say "start to turn back," because as countless examples show, few pollution problem areas are limited to a single political subdivision. Regional problems, such as those in Chicago-Gary area and the New York City-New Jersey complex, confirm the need for the regional conferences and regional standards that the Air Quality Act proposes.

I might say in this regard that I hope the interest expressed by this body in consideration and passage of this Air Quality Act will have the effect of expediting executive approval of the Illinois-Indiana air pollution compact, S. 470, and other similar measures now pending executive approval. Where the States have acted, in my view, the Federal Government should not delay in adding the necessary approval to implement these State laws. In the case of S. 470, executive action is long overdue.

Additionally, the support indicated in the committee report for incentive assistance for industries in meeting its costs of pollution control is most gratifying. As a cosponsor of S. 734, the Pollution Abatement Incentive Act of 1967 originated and introduced by the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], I join in urging the Committee on Finance to hold hearings on these measures, so that this effective avenue of attack on pollution of both air and water may be opened.

Mr. President, in stressing the need for initiative and ingenuity at the local level, I do so from a home base of the experiences of Chicago in this field. one of the most advanced cities in combating pollution, the effectiveness of the Chicago program is compromised to a

great extent by high-pollution areas in nearby Indiana, which have not yet had the relative success we in Chicago have enjoyed. In order that others may have the benefit of it, I ask unanimous consent that the initial presentation of our experienced and distinguished mayor, Richard J. Daley, to the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution be included in the RECORD at the close of these remarks. I call particular attention to a significant aspect of the Chicago story highlighted in this presentation which points out the voluntary effort of the industries located in the area which have recognized and responded to community responsibility to assist in solving the problem.

The Air Quality Act of 1967 is truly universal legislation in the promise of benefits it holds out to all our citizens. We can do no less, in providing for the needs of our present and future constituents, than to enact immediately these concrete, effective measures to continue efforts to control the pollution of a precious and limited resource, the air around us.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DALEY, MAYOR, CHICAGO, ILL., IN BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mayor DALEY. Very happy to be here.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee today to testify in support of S. 780, the President's proposed Air Quality Act of 1967.

I am appearing today not only as mayor of Chicago but also on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors of which I am a past president.

This committee has already had extensive testimony and it is not necessary for me to discuss the principle and purpose -- the need and urgent necessity -- of the Air Quality Act.

I believe, however, that it would be a help to the committee to discuss Chicago's air resource management program and how specific proposals in the bill would directly aid our activities to control and eliminate air pollution in our city, as well as to achieve the same objective in urban centers throughout the Nation.

In your opening statement on April 19. Mr. Chairman, you stated that the committee was particularly interested in the status of ambient air quality criteria development, pointing out that such criteria is essential to the establishment of meaningful air quality goals.

You properly noted that it is of the highest importance to determine what is required to control emission to the point that people can be assured of a supply of clean, healthful air.

The Chicago program defines sources, transport, and effects of air pollution.

An emission inventory was started in 1964. A total of 7,300 questionnaires were mailed to manufacturing establishments in the Chicago area employing five or more persons. The air pollution sources were followed up by plant visits by qualified engineers to evaluate potential pollution.

The first step of this program was completed in 1965, and complete fuel burning information is now available. Plants are being inspected on a regular basis and control programs for industry are being implemented. Additional studies for solid refuse disposal practices are now completed and new legislation is being proposed.

To determine the surrounding ambient air quality in Chicago, the department established an air monitoring program consisting of four networks.

The dust fall monitoring network accumulates on a monthly basis the large particulates from 20 stations.

The gas monitoring and suspended particulate network reports the sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate levels three times a week from these 20 stations.

The fourth network was pioneered by Chicago and is the only operating telemetered air monitoring network in the Nation.

This network indicates wind direction. wind speed, and sulfur dioxide levels on a continuous basis. The wind direction and wind speed provides the department with the necessary information to point directly to the source of this pollutant.

This information is fed directly into a central computer system which provides a continuous evaluation of the sulfur dioxide level and also indicates the source of the contamination.

We have also developed new techniques which will enable us to include in this data acquisition system the measurement of suspended particulates, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide at expressway interchanges. This information will provide a continuous evaluation of the ambient air quality.

The emission inventory and the application of emission standards to operations are the most difficult elements of an air resource management program. Our department has taken the initiative to provide a methodology that will lend itself to machine handling and can be upgraded on a continuous basis. Methods are being developed to correlate pollution directly with production and Gross National Product estimates, the Standard Land Use Coding Guide, and Standard Industrial Classification Numbers.

The classification of control equipment and the indexing of emissions by chemical identification number, have been incorporated into machine language that can be applied on a continuous basis.

The department is now engaged in two additional studies. The "Lake Breeze Study" consists of nine stations recording temperature and relative humidity throughout the year. This data will be used to determine duration and extent of stagnation periods Caused by the "Lake Breeze" effect.

It will also be used to design fuel use strategy.

The telemetered network information is currently being correlated with a health study to determine effects of air pollution on excess mortality and morbidity. A 2-year study in Chicago indicates some correlation.

In addition to the quantitative measurements an "Eye In the Sky" program has been designed and is now operational. Here we are using a closed circuit television unit with full 360 degrees scanning capability and a 10-to-1 zoom for pin-pointing violators. The unit has been proven to be very effective as a deterrent and enforcement tool. and is used to dispatch 12 radio cars. We plan to add three additional television units to this system.

The primary metal industry is one of the greatest economic resources of Chicago. At the same time, however, the industrial processes are a major source of suspended particulate emission. The steel industry was responsible for 90.000 tons of suspended particulates from steelmaking processes. This was more than half of the total particulate pollution in the city.

In 1963, we began discussion with Chicago steel industry representatives concerning their responsibility in controlling air pollution. In July of 1963 the Chicago Air Pollution Control Ordinance was amended to provide an industry emission standard for the production of steel.

The five major steel producers agreed to a combined program whereby they would spend $50 million over a 7-year period to eliminate pollution from steelmaking facilities by 1971. The program is reviewed on an annual basis with plant visits. The companies are meeting their commitment and are more than halfway through their program. Thus far, pollution from the steelmaking facilities has been reduced upward to 50 percent.

Similar industry-wide abatement programs have been set up with the foundry industry, grain handlers and processors, rendering plants, asphalt botching plants, coffee roasting plants, and the electrical utility industry.

Nearly a decade ago, Commonwealth Edison Co., launched a program to control the emission of particulates from its generating facilities. It spent $48 million to install antipollution devices. Their primary expenditure was for electrostatic precipitators which has almost eliminated particulate emissions. They also constructed extra high stacks which dispersed and diluted combustion gases.

As far back as 1964, the department initiated a program with the utility company to install dual fuel capabilities-gas and coal in their larger plants located in the city. The company has also increased the size of certain transmission lines so that power can be generated from outside the city.

As a result of this program, we have established "Operation Hot Line" -- a procedure whereby during the periods of stagnation power will be supplied from gas-burning facilities or will be generated outside the central city.

Last year, the company launched a new program which will gradually reduce power generation in the city over the next 10 years by increasing its nuclear capacities and by building mine mouth facilities. This is a multimillion-dollar program, and demonstrates that proper long-term planning and implementation can provide meaningful results.

We believe the Chicago program and experience has a direct relationship with the two basic proposals in the bill: the provision for emission standards for certain industries, and the creation of a Regional Air Quality Commission.

A few miles from the steelmaking plants in Chicago are the steelmaking companies located outside the city and in northwestern Indiana. On the Chicago side, harmful pollution is being brought under control with specific programs in defined time periods at a great expenditure to the companies. Outside the city, harmful pollutants are still being emitted, while there is a continual delay in launching a comprehensive program.

This is obviously unfair to the Chicago companies -- and unfair and hazardous to all of the people in the area.

The people of the area share the same air and the same economics. In order to obtain quality air for all the people there must be a regional program establishing the same minimum emission standards for all industry wherever it is located in the air region.

We support the Regional Air Quality Commission described in the bill. We strongly urge, however, that representation of major cities on the Commission be made mandatory in the bill. After all, most of the population of our country are in these urban areas.

The key to air pollution control is effective action at the local level, but only about 40 local governmental air pollution agencies have a budget of $25,000 or more. Fewer than 1,000 people are employed by all local governments to control their air pollution problems, with only about 15 or so air pollution agencies employing more than 10 people.

Only two communities to our knowledge outside of Chicago, in our metropolitan area have full-time personnel engaged in air pollution control activities. Approximately 3 million people in this urban area do not have the benefit of any local air pollution control program.

The first smoke ordinance in the United States was passed by Chicago City Council in 1881. In 1959, the Chicago City Council passed a comprehensive air pollution ordinance which provided for the abatement and control of all types of air pollution in addition to smoke.

The air pollution control department was fully reorganized to implement this new ordinance. At the present time. the department's budget increased from $600,000 to $l.041.000 with a staff of approximately 90 personnel. There is also a Federal appropriation of approximately $450,000 which covers a staff of roughly 30 additional people.

Chicago's smoke abatement program over the years has been successful. Dust fall in the city in 1930 was measured to be an average of 350 ton per square mile per month. Today's dust fall measures are averaging 40 tons per square mile per month. Nearly a tenfold reduction.

Chicago's reduction goal in dust fall is 15 tons per square mile per month and this is now being experienced in some residential areas of our city. But while dust fall has been going down, polluting gases from new industrial processes and power generation have been steadily increasing.

Turning to other sections of the bill, we strongly favor section 208 which deals with State motor vehicle pollution control inspection programs. This pollution program must be combined with the safety inspection program. We are anxiously awaiting Federal leadership in developing standards for this area. We support the registration of fuel additives. which would represent a positive step forward.

Finally, we firmly support accelerated research relating to fuels and vehicles. Emissions from the two sources. especially from coal burning, is a problem which faces many cities in the Nation. Illinois is the largest producer of bituminous coal in the United States. We are anxious for any steps that will seek to preserve and expand the economic use of this great resource.

Mr. Chairman, and committee members, in closing may I state that man must control his environment. He can only do it with the cooperation of industry and government on all levels-Federal, State, county, and local and the private citizen. of course. He is looking for leadership and direction for solving one of the great problems of our day.

We can do much to solve this problem if every sector of our economy and government works together and assumes their respective responsibility. We assure you gentlemen, speaking for the conference of mayors, and the city of Chicago, we are ready, willing and able to assume ours.

Thank you.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I endorse the principles of the Clean Air Act but my vote for this measure should not be construed as a vote for appropriation. The bill does not appropriate any funds, and I would withhold the financial support to carry out its purposes until the need for a tax increase has been eliminated. I oppose a tax increase at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute.

The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The result was announced -- yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

[ROLL CALL VOTE LISTING OMITTED]

So the bill (S. 780) was passed.

The title was amended, so as to read "An act 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."

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, S. 780, the Air Quality Act of 1967, continues this Nation's attack on air pollution in a most effective way. Largely responsible for the overwhelming success of the measure was the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] whose thorough study of all facets of the air pollution problem is carefully documented by exhaustive hearings. Senator MUSKIE has led the way in finding solutions to this grave problem of air pollution and we know the fruits of his strong efforts will forever inure the benefit of this Nation's future.

The chairman of the Committee on Public Works, the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH) and the ranking minority member, the senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], are to be commended for their deep insight into the nature and causes of air pollution. They too have performed truly outstanding services to the country by devoting their tireless energies to the study of the problem and to the discovery of ways to eliminate its devastating effects.

The junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, played a vital role in assuring the Senate's unanimous approval of this measure. Along with Senators MUSKIE, RANDOLPH, and COOPER, his knowledge of the problem, his appreciation of its effects, is unsurpassed. We certainly appreciate his efforts.

Other Senators are to be commended for contributing to this success. Noteworthy were the efforts of the senior Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG], the junior Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY] and the junior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER ].

Finally, the passage of this measure adds impetus to the fight for clean air. It is clear that we have now recognized the problem and that we shall continue to seek reasonable and effective solutions whenever and wherever it occurs.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, our action today in approving by a unanimous vote the Air Quality Act of 1967, is a positive indication of our determination to preserve the quality of our environment. We all know the magnitude of the problem of air pollution. We know of the suffocating haze that blankets our metropolitan areas. We know that our air destroys crops, erodes cars and buildings, and maims or kills thousands of people in every section of the country. We know too of the startling rise in deaths and disability due to air pollution, that deaths from one pollution-related disease, emphysema, have gone from less than a thousand in 1949 to 60,000 last year. We know that control of air pollution is essential if we are to provide for our children an environment not only safe but conducive to good living. And we know of the narrow choices put to us by Secretary GARDNER: to live like moles, indoors for most of the year; to wear gas masks; to dome our cities -- or to clean up our air.

The attack on air pollution must involve the coordinated efforts of local, State and Federal governments. Until now our approach has been piecemeal and inadequate, or nonexistent. And every day, more sulfur dioxide, more carbon monoxide, more particulate matter beclouds our environment. I have said before that the time for studies is past; the time for action is here. With the passage of this bill, we make clear our commitment to expanded research and effective regulation. We give to the Secretary Of Health, Education, and Welfare a firm mandate to progress with diligence in programs of research and scientific analysis of ways to control dangerous emissions. We provide the authority to designate air quality control regions and to set standards in those regions where the local authorities do not act with dispatch. We authorize the Secretary to commence abatement action against health hazards from air pollution where it is expected that the local authority will not act effectively. To accomplish these and other objectives we have authorized the appropriation of $375 million for research and $325 for regulatory programs.

I have written to the Secretary on several occasions urging that he exercise the fullest authority under present law. For these problems need not all be solved at once; and not all of them require long study. The most dangerous pollutant in New York's air today is sulfur dioxide, produced by the burning of coal and oil. But none of this pollution is really necessary. We know how to control sulfur emissions, easily and surely -- using a better grade of fuel. I have urged the substitution of No. 2 oil for the cheaper grade No. 6, which has a sulfur content 10 times as great as No. 2. That simple substitution in New York alone would remove 470,000 tons of sulfur dioxide from the air. The net effect would be to reduce sulfur dioxide emission in New York City by 80 percent. It is for that reason that the abatement provisions of this bill are so important, since they give to the Secretary authority to apply techniques within our knowledge to these problems.

It should be emphasized too that the bill approved today will also not solve all the problems of air pollution. It will not remove the threat to our environment posed with increasing urgency by the emissions of our cars and industries. But we have made a beginning; we have taken the first step toward an effective and national attack on air pollution.

What is needed now is redoubled efforts on the part of Government officials with the active involvement and assistance of individuals and industrial groups. In the balance rests nothing less than the quality of our environment, and the quality of life in that environment. We do have a choice. We can choose a future in which our cities resemble the scene described by F. Scott Fitzgerald after viewing the Flushing land fill:

This is a valley of ashes, a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where ashes take the form of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and, finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air.

Or we can choose to create an urban society that can preserve the quality of its environment, and enhance the quality of life for the people in the society. We owe it to ourselves and to those who follow to make this choice and maintain the commitment to it with the same determination and unanimity that we demonstrated today in taking the first step.

Mr. SPONG subsequently said: Mr. President, official business in connection with the visit of the President of Iceland prevented my being present for the rollcall vote taken earlier today on the Air Quality Act Of 1967.

Mr. President, as a junior member of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, I would like to thank the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE for the diligence and patience he has demonstrated during extensive hearings on this important legislation. He has performed an impressive job in guiding the bill through the subcommittee. I also would extend my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] who has shown a deep understanding of the complex nature of the subject before the Senate today.

This bill, the Air Quality Act of 1967, would give to the States and the localities the initial responsibility and authority to develop standards and enforcement procedures for the abatement and control of air pollution.

I am hopeful that the administration of the act will complement rather than supplant any previously existing State and local efforts to meet this problem.

Our approach must be logical and reasonable, particularly when the problem has no respect for the boundaries of political subdivision. We must, on a cooperative basis, seek to reduce contamination in our air resource to levels approaching those which prevailed before the industrial revolution.

The bill before us would establish a national program of air quality, but for the most part the States would retain the primary responsibility for determining the quality of air they desire insofar as stationary sources of air pollution are concerned.

I believe this approach is much more practical than the concept in the original bill of national emission standards for specific types of industries.

The legislation provides for a national program in that it would empower the Secretary Of Health, Education, and Welfare to designate air quality control regions based on the need for pollution control.

The Secretary also would be authorized to issue air quality criteria which would reflect the latest scientific knowledge available on the kind and extent of health problems that could be expected from certain air pollution agents. Third, the Secretary would issue to the States and the localities the control techniques necessary to achieve the air quality standards set forth in the act.

At each stage in this process the Secretary would consult with appropriate Federal, State, and local authorities. If they are consistent with the purpose of the act, the standards and enforcement plans of each State would then be applicable to that State. It seems to me that this is a sensible and reasonable approach to the problem.

 

After all, air pollution is a regional and interstate problem. Because pollution does not disappear at the city limits and can no longer be regarded as a mere nuisance, efforts to resolve the problem will require the most diligent cooperation by local, State and Federal authorities. This legislation, in my opinion, represents the most practicable approach to the abatement and control of air pollution that can be made within the scope of technology and scientific data presently available.

It should be pointed out that the bill contemplates preemption by the Federal Government of the right to set emission standards for automobiles. In my judgment this is necessary. Our population has become so highly mobile and transient that to do otherwise makes no sense. To subject automobile manufacturers to varied requirements by the several States would constitute an economic hardship that ultimately would be passed on to the purchasers of automobiles.

I would caution against believing that we can effectively combat air pollution from motor vehicles simply by establishing national emission standards for them. We must remember that many States have no compulsory, periodic inspection of motor vehicles. In the absence of such a requirement, it behooves the automobile and petroleum industries to develop antipollution devices that are efficient, economical, and durable.

Another factor to consider is the absence of low-cost instruments to measure emissions from automobiles. I would hope that the research grants authorized by this legislation will facilitate the development of such instruments.

Mr. President, I believe the bill enacted today respects the prerogatives of the States and localities, and offers to them an opportunity to take further initiative in a vital area of national concern.