December 18, 1970
Page 42381
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1970 – CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 17255) to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for a more effective program to improve the quality of the Nation's air.
I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. EAGLETON). Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.
(For conference report, see House proceedings of Dec. 17, 1970, pp. 42283-42294, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it is with considerable satisfaction that I report to the Senate that the Senate conferees on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 have returned, just in time for Christmas, with the package ordered unanimously by the Senate on September 22.
This was a long conference with the House conferees. There were many points at issue, many provisions in the Senate bill which were not considered at all by the House committee or by the House, nor reflected in the House version of this bill. The conferees worked long and hard on resolving these differences and dealing with the House problem of including in the bill provisions which the House had not considered. I think that what we have is a tough bill.
I commend to all of my Senate colleagues the result of the conferees' painstaking efforts over the past 3 months. It is a strong, tough, air pollution control agreement. It will enable the country to clean up the air and protect the public health.
The conferees' agreement, no less than the Senate bill, intends that all Americans in all parts of the country shall have clean air to breathe within the 1970's.
The conferees' agreement, no less than the Senate bill, carries the promise that ambient air in all parts of the country shall have no adverse effects upon any American's health.
The conferees' agreement, no less than the Senate bill, faces the air pollution crisis with urgency and in candor. It makes hard choices, provides just remedies, requires stiff penalties.
The conferees' agreement, no less than the Senate bill, calls for the money and the manpower required to clean up the air. A threefold increase in manpower and a total of $1.1 billion in funding over 3 years are authorized.
Mr. President, I am convinced that nothing short of this kind of commitment to the fight against dirty air, against environmentally induced disease, will be enough.
That is why I am greatly encouraged by the support given to this legislation by the Senate and House conferees, and I am particularly grateful to each of them for his contributions to our work during these 3 months.
Let me now review briefly where we were in September, what we had learned from our experience with the existing law, what we felt was needed for a successful effort to obtain clean air and to protect public health, and what the conferees accomplished.
There was little doubt in the Senate, in September, that the country was facing an air pollution crisis. Cities up and down the east coast were living under clouds of smog and daily air pollution alerts. More than 200 million tons of contaminants were being spilled into the air annually.
The costs of air pollution were being counted in death, disease, and disability. The National Institute of Environmental Health scientists estimated the cost of environmentally induced disease at $38 billion a year. A 50-percent reduction in urban air pollution, it was estimated, would result in a saving of $2 billion a year in health care costs.
It was clear that the country was falling behind in its struggle for clean air. Automobiles were putting out 64 percent of the carbon monoxide and 50 percent of the hydrocarbons. Two steel companies in the Chicago area spilled 3,500 more tons of pollutants into the air in 1968 than they had spilled in 1963.
It was clear, too, that the new legislation then being considered would have to go beyond the limited objectives of the Air Quality Act of 1967. Senators will recall that the 1967 act was drawn to enhance air quality, to reduce harmful emissions, and to "give the Secretary authority to implement that objective in the absence of effective State and local control."
The 1967 act established procedures for the achievement and maintenance of federally approved regional standards of ambient air quality. These standards, based on Federal criteria documents describing the effects of pollutants on health and welfare, are adopted and enforced on the State and local level. In the event that adequate standards are not developed or enforced, the Federal Government assumes the responsibility.
The underlying wisdom of the original legislation was confirmed. We learned from the criteria documents issued for five pollutants that more decisive action must be taken. We learned from the standards-setting process that public participation is important. We learned from experience with implementation of the law that States and localities need greater incentives and assistance to protect the health and welfare of all people.
The effectiveness of existing law depends in great part on the willingness of people to make tough decisions concerning the quality of air they want to breathe. It depends on their willingness to make their wishes known in public hearings on the local level.
This experiment in public participation worked. People became involved in the standards-setting process. They learned of the threats to their health and they sought to make the program responsive to their needs.
From citizen concern and corporate resistance, we learned that air pollution is more severe, more pervasive and growing faster than we had thought. Unless we recognized the crisis and generated a sense of urgency, national lead times to find and apply controls measures could melt away without any chance for a rational solution to the air pollution problem.
It is also clear that ambient air quality standards which will protect the public health must be set as minimum standards for all parts of the Nation, and that they must be met in all areas within national deadlines.
Congress adopted emissions standards as the basic control technique for moving sources in 1965, because they are not controllable at the local level. Here we learned that tests of economic and technological feasibility applied to those standards compromise the health of our people and lead to inadequate standards.
In 1963, the Congress recognized that the Federal Government could not handle the enforcement task alone, and that the primary burden would rest on States and local governments. However, State and local governments did not respond adequately to this challenge. Enforcement had to be toughened. More tools were needed. The Federal presence and backup authority had to be increased.
Finally, no level of government has implemented the existing law to its full potential. On all levels, the air pollution control program was underfunded and undermanned. Greater financial commitments had to be made and met at all levels.
With these lessons in mind last September, the Senate laid down in its bill five sets of requirements for tougher standards and tighter enforcement against air pollutants and air polluters.
First, the bill provided for national ambient air quality standards for at least 10 major contaminants that must be met by national deadlines. This meant that in every region of the country, air quality had to be better than that level of quality which protects health.
Second, national air quality goals protective against any known or anticipated adverse environmental effects were to be set for the major pollutants and had to be achieved within specific time frames on a regional basis. These goals were especially important because some pollutants could have serious effects on the environment at levels below those where health effects occur.
Third, the bill provided that newly constructed sources of pollution had to meet rigorous national standards of performance. While we cleaned up existing pollution, we were determined to guard against new problems. Those areas which have levels of air quality better than the national standards should not find their air quality degraded by the construction of new sources.
Fourth, the bill provided the Administrator authority to prohibit emissions of hazardous substances. The committee had received strong evidence that any level of emissions of certain pollutants might produce adverse health effects that could not be tolerated.
Fifth, the bill provided the Administrator with the authority to set emission standards for selected pollutants which cannot be controlled through the ambient air quality standards and which are not hazardous substances. These pollutants could later be covered by either ambient air quality standards or by prohibitions as hazardous substance.
The Senate also recommended significant changes in title II of the act dealing with moving sources, and especially with automobiles.
In 1968, moving sources were responsible for more than 42 percent of the total emissions of the five major pollutants.
In health effects, these pollutants mean cancer, headaches, dizziness, nausea, metabolic and respiratory diseases, and impairment of mental processes. Clearly, solving the air pollution problem depended on the achievement of significant reductions in the emissions from automobiles. Clearly, protection of the public health required quick and drastic reductions.
Since legislation to deal with the problem of automotive emissions was first introduced in 1964, the industry had known that they would have to develop the solutions to the problem. In 1965 they announced that national standards could be met in the fall of 1967.
It was clear that continued reliance on gradual reductions in automotive emissions would make achievement of the ambient air quality standards impossible within the national deadlines established in title I of the Senate bill. More important, it would continue hazards to health long after they should have been eliminated.
In order to maintain those standards set under title I – standards which are necessary to protect the public health and which must be met in the next 5 years – the emissions standards for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides which have been projected for 1980 had to be met earlier. The bill required that this be done by 1975.
To insure that production line vehicles perform adequately, the Senate bill required that each vehicle manufactured comply with the standards for a 50,000 mile lifetime. The manufacturer was required to warranty the performance of each individual vehicle as to compliance with emission standards.
The Senate in setting the 1975 deadline made every effort to make that requirement consistent with what the industry had testified on many occasions over the years: It provided 2 years for research and development of the necessary technology, and 2 years to apply that technology in the mass production of vehicles.
In response to claims that these requirements could not be met, the Senate included in the legislation an opportunity for an administrative review of the 1975 deadline. A 1-year extension would be necessary and justified. The bill also provided for a review of that decision by an appellate court.
The Senate was aware of the problems these requirements might create for individual companies. Therefore, the bill provided a procedure for mandatory licensing which would make available patents necessary to achieve compliance to any manufacturer who could show a need and to whom the information was not otherwise available. This provision was also applied to stationary sources.
Predictions of technological impossibility of infeasibility were not considered sufficient reasons to avoid tough standards and deadlines, and thus to compromise the public health. The urgency of the problems required that the industry consider, not only the improvement of existing technology, but also alternatives to the internal combustion engine and new forms of transportation. Only a clear cut and tough public policy could generate this kind of effort.
The third major area in which the Senate recommended significant changes is the area of enforcement. Standards alone would not insure breathable air. All levels of government had to be given adequate tools to enforce those standards.
The Senate remains convinced that most effective enforcement of standards would take place on the State and local levels. It was here that the public could participate most actively and bring the most effective pressure to bear for clean air.
Public participation is still important in the development of each State's implementation plan.
These plans do not involve technical decisions; they do involve public policy choices that citizens should make on the State and local level. They should be consistent with a rational nationwide policy and should be subject to the approval of the Administrator.
However, the powers to enforce these standards had to be increased for the State and local governments as well as the Federal Government. The bill thus required adequate State enforcement authority as a part of implementation plans and provided that abatement orders could be issued by the Administrator or his representative. Violations of these orders were to be punishable by statutory penalties of as much as $25,000 for each day of a first violation.
The bill also provided the Federal Government with the authority to use the influence of the Federal contract as an incentive to compliance with standards.
Federal contracts could be awarded only to facilities which were in compliance with the standards and requirements of this act.
The bill extended the concept of public participation to the enforcement process. The citizen suits authorized in this legislation would apply important pressure. Although the Senate did not advocate these suits as the best way to achieve enforcement, it was clear that they should be an effective tool.
Mr. President, those were the basic and principal portions of the package taken by the Senate conferees to the first meeting with the House conferees on October 8. On several of those points, the House bill was silent. I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD at the end of my remarks a summary of provisions of the conference agreement.
I ask unanimous consent that a discussion of the key provisions of this agreement and the implications of those provisions be included immediately following the summary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no doubt that this legislation, like its predecessor, will be subject to criticism. Already the auto industry has indicated it is unacceptable. Others will focus on its limitations and still others will find fault for political purposes.
That is the democratic process. It is not in the public interest that all critics be satisfied. But false implications are not needed. This is not a political measure – it had unanimous support from the Senate conferees – some of whom had differing views on specific language but all of whom knew that a public demand needed a stern response.
One issue on which there will be repeated interpretation and misinterpretation involves the deadline for achievement of emissions standards for passenger cars. The Senate did not get all that it wanted here. The Senate conferees had to accept two major changes in order to preserve the deadlines in the Senate bill and to obtain conference agreement.
First, the House insisted that an application for suspension from the effect of the deadline must be made earlier than 24 months before the effective date of the standard in question.
Second, the administration is required to make this decision within 60 days after receipt of such an application for suspension.
Conversely, two improvements were made. First, the Administrator no longer can be forced to rely upon the auto manufacturer to determine whether technology is available. He must test engine systems developed by private parties to ascertain whether they meet standards; thus, all available technology will be known. When a breakthrough occurs, the administration will know, and standards can be toughened even beyond the degree of control required by this statute.
Let me say, with respect to the conference agreement as it relates to the Senate agreement, that the Senate did not get all it wanted. It was necessary to compromise. Yet, in many instances, the compromise resulted in a stronger bill than either the Senate or the House bills. The key decision, the one on which the committee focused most oven the past few months, was the deadline for the cleanup of the internal combustion engine in the passenger automobile.
The deadline has been retained. That deadline is January 1, 1975, for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, and January 1, 1976, for oxides of nitrogen. I repeat, that deadline has been retained.
The Senate bill provided, in addition, the possibility of an extension of 1 year beyond each of the deadlines. The limitation of a 1-year extension has been retained without change, except for the
fact that the judicial review provisions of the Senate bill have been eliminated. There has been one change made, upon House insistence. The date for applying for that 1-year extension of the deadline has been advanced by 1 year.
Mr. President, the Administrator would make the decision on whether an additional year should be granted on the basis of a review of the National Academy of Sciences on technological developments in the field as well as other information available to him. If the Administrator decides the deadline cannot be met, he must impose interim standards, achieving as high a level of emission control as technological developments permit. This advances the date for applying for the 1-year extension by 1 year, but no further extension is possible.
May I say that, in my judgment, the pressure is on the automobile industry. The deadline of 1975 and 1976 is still in the law, and only Congress can change it.
If the review procedure is followed and results in an extension, the maximum extension permitted for is 1 year, as was the case in the Senate bill. Any extension beyond that can be provided only by action of Congress. That has not been changed by the conference agreement.
I think the action we have taken on the automobile deadline is a reasonable compromise, in light of the fact that the House bill contained nothing of the sort in its legislation. The House moved, I think, close to 100 percent toward the Senate provision. In other respects, the Senate bill is, I think, as tough now, following the agreement with the House, as it was when it left the Senate Chamber.
Other important features of the Senate bill were retained. Each individual manufacturer must, if suspension of the deadline is considered essential, apply to the Administrator and make the necessary showing. This means that the lack of technology or the lead time to the smaller companies cannot be used as a justification for suspension by the major manufacturers.
Further, the companies must provide the Administrator with the information needed to judge their technical capability. The Administrator should require periodic reports on the progress of technology from each company – such reports and comments thereon should be a part of the report the Congress required by this section.
As in the Senate bill, the Administrator retains certain discretionary authority. He must, for example, prescribe the actual standard which the automobile must achieve to meet a 90-percent reduction from 1970-71 vehicle emission levels.
This technical judgment could be viewed as a way to vitiate the effect of the deadline by adjusting the measurement technique. This has been done once this year. Before the Senate completed action on this bill and before the decision to write a statutory standard for motor vehicles, the National Air Pollution Control Administration proposed a new measurement technique for vehicles.
The new technique had the effect of increasing the allowable emissions for 1970-74 passenger cars. By the seemingly simple method of revising the base on which standards were calculated – new technology made pollutant quality and quantity easier to measure – the amount of allowable pollutants was increased.
The conference committee was aware of the potential for adjustment. The conference agreement mandates that measurement techniques be determined within 6 months after enactment. Should the base be adjusted again; that is, should a new measurement technique be adopted for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons so as to increase the amount of emissions and thus alter the circumstances on which our judgment has been made, oversight hearings, and if necessary, corrective legislation will be the result.
Mr. President, this legislation is the product of an effort which involved many people over an extended period of time. The members of the Senate Committee on Public Works and their staffs deserve particular praise. Our hearings were numerous and there were more executive sessions. The members were patient, attentive, cooperative, and not partisan.
Chairman RANDOLPH and Senator COOPER, both of whom sit with the subcommittee, helped guide the bill through the full committee. Senators BOGGS, BAYH, MONTOYA, SPONG, EAGLETON, BAKER, and DOLE worked long hours on this bill and the final version represents their individual commitments to the goal of a clean environment.
Mr. President, there were many conferences with the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The chairman, HARLEY O. STAGGERS of West Virginia, who served as chairman of the conference, guided the legislation well. His constant reminder of the need to get a good, strong, reasonable bill helped maintain our determination. Representative PAUL ROGERS of Florida provided key proposals to break deadlocks and Representatives JOHN JARMAN, BILL SPRINGER, and ANCHER NELSEN worked diligently and patiently to formulate the compromise. The House conferees were ably and faithfully assisted by Kurt Borchardt and Bob Nordhaus, and without their cooperation with the Senate conferees' staff, this bill could never had been produced.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to emphasize again that committing the Congress with this legislation cannot be, and will not be, enough. In this Chamber, we can make promises to provide the funds and the manpower necessary to set and enforce the standards. That is not enough. We must carry our commitment through to the appropriations of those funds.
This program requires a commitment not only from the Congress and the Executive. It also requires a commitment from the people. And from all of us, it requires a new perspective. We all must recognize that the quality of our air is most valuable, most essential, to the quality of our environment and to the quality of our lives upon this planet.
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY OF THE PROVISIONS OF CONFERENCE AGREEMENT ON THE CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS of 1970
STATIONARY SOURCES
Air quality control regions: The agreement provides that areas of states not designated will be considered as air quality control regions and provides authority for Administrator to designate interstate regions.
Air quality criteria and control techniques: The agreement requires issuance of remaining air quality criteria for major pollutants within 13 months of date of enactment.
National ambient air quality standards: The agreement establishes procedures for setting primary national ambient air quality standards to protect public health and secondary national quality standards necessary to protect public welfare. Following promulgation of the standards (four months after issuance of criteria), the States will have nine months to develop and to adopt, after public hearings, a plan to implement the primary standards. Additional time will be provided to set implementation plans for secondary standards.
Implementation plans: The Administrator has six months to approve a submitted implementation plan or if no plan is submitted or the plan is inadequate, to substitute a plan of his own. The plan must be designed to achieve the level of air quality established by the primary standard within three years, and must include a description of steps which will be taken, including transportation and land use controls, emission requirements, and other enforcement procedure.
State standards: The agreement enables the State or local subdivision to adopt air quality emission standards that are stricter than the national standard.
New source performance standards: The agreement authorizes regulations to require that new major industry plants such as power plants, steel mills, and cement plants achieve a standard of emission performance based on the latest available control technology, processes, operating methods, and other alternatives.
Hazardous substance emissions: The agreement requires the administrator to regulate emissions of pollutants found to be hazardous to health.
Federal enforcement: The agreement prohibits violation of any air quality implementation plan, emission standard, etc. It provides criminal penalties and the authority to issue abatement orders. The agreement requires record keeping, authorizes subpoenas, requires emission monitoring, and authorizes right of entry.
Federal facilities: The agreement requires Federal facilities to control air pollution.
MOVING SOURCES
Standards: The agreement requires emission standards based on protection of public health and welfare without regard to the propulsion system and provides that the 1975 model cars must achieve at least a 90% reduction from emissions of the 1970 models. This would approximate the 1980 standards projected currently for automobiles. The agreement prohibits violation of standards.
Aircraft emissions: The agreement provides for regulation of aircraft emissions and Federal preemption of authority to regulate such emissions. Aviation fuels regulation is authorized also.
Penalties: The agreement sets penalties of up to $10,000 per vehicle and provides authority to seek injunctions against violators.
Certification: The agreement authorizes the Administrator to test any new vehicle submitted for certification for compliance with standards and authorizes certification for a year. It also provides for production line testing of vehicles.
On the road testing and compliance: The agreement requires warranty of 50,000 miles on emission system performance. The Administrator can test cars on the road, and can require recall if a representative sample fails the test.
State grants for vehicle inspection: The agreement authorizes 2-1 grants to the States for developing emission inspection systems.
Preemption: The agreement preempts State emission standard-setting authority, except for California.
Low emission vehicle: The agreement authorizes certification and purchase of Low-emission Vehicles.
GENERAL
Research: The agreement authorizes $75 million for fiscal 1971, $125 million for fiscal 1972, and $150 million for fiscal 1973 research relating to fuels and vehicles. It authorizes research concerning the health effects of air pollution and authorizes an additional $15 million for long-term contracts to carry out these investigations.
State planning grants: The agreement provides 3 to 1 funding to states with a bonus now available only to interstate and intermunicipal programs; it also provides for the option of assignment of Federal personnel in lieu of cash grants.
Emergency powers: The agreement gives the Administrator authority to abate any pollution that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to health.
Citizens suits: The agreement permits citizens suits to enforce violation of standards. Suits against the Administrator are limited to mandatory functions.
Federal contract compliance: The agreement prohibits the Federal Government from signing contracts with any company convicted of violation of air quality laws. The agreement authorizes the President to issue an executive order to provide uniform contract compliance language.
Judicial review: The agreement permits review of the standards, implementation plans, or other action taken pursuant to the Act.
Mandatory licensing: The agreement authorizes mandatory licensing of patents, on technology not otherwise reasonably available to facilitate compliance with provision of this Act.
Authorization: The agreement authorizes $850 million for three years for purposes other than Section 104.
Environmental policy: The agreement requires the Administrator to review any National Environmental Policy Act statements and major Federal actions and make his comments public.
Noise pollution: The bill establishes an Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the Environmental Protection Agency and authorizes $30 million to carry out functions.
DISCUSSION OF KEY PROVISIONS
Section 107-108. The conference agreement requires the designation of air quality control regions and the issuance of air quality criteria and control technique information within a statutory deadline. These are necessary administrative preconditions on which much of the rest of the agreement depends, and the conference committee felt it desirable to speed up their availability. Criteria have already been issued for five pervasive pollutants: sulfur oxides. particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and photochemical oxidants. Within the 13-month deadline, the Congress expects criteria to be issued for nitrogen oxides, fluorides, lead, polynuclear organic matter, and odors, though others may be necessary.
Section 109. Under section 109 of the agreement, national ambient air quality standards must be established, either within one month of enactment or simultaneously with any criteria issued. For each pollutant subject to a criteria document, there will be a primary ambient air quality standard, set at the level of air quality adequate to protect the public health, and a secondary ambient
air quality standard to eliminate adverse effects on welfare.
Section 110. Section 110 requires each State to develop an implementation plan which assures the attainment of the primary ambient air quality region within three years from the date the plan is approved. The plan also must provide for reaching the generally more restrictive levels of air pollution of the secondary standards within a reasonable set time period and should be related to the difficulties with which a particular region is confronted.
With up to four months for the final promulgation of national standards, up to nine months for the States to develop their plans and up to four months for the Administration to either approve a State plan or decide to substitute his own authority in promulgating a plan, approval of plans for major pollutants is no more than 17 months away. Within four and one-half years, the level of air quality in American cities, as to these major pollutants, should be adequate to avoid adverse effects on public health.
In order to implement the national ambient air quality standards, these plans must provide for emission limitations on all services in the region covered by the plan, together with schedules and timetables of compliance, systems for monitoring both ambient air and emissions from individual sources, and adequate enforcement authority (including special provisions for air pollution emergencies). Implementation plans must provide that when adequate on-the-road motor vehicle emissions tests are developed, the State will have a system for periodic inspection. Federal grants are available to develop such inspection programs.
Implementation of standards will require changes in public policy: land use policies must be developed to prevent location of facilities which are not compatible with implementation of national standards. States must review the location of every new stationary source before construction to assure no interference with attainment of the standards.
Transportation policies must be developed or improved to assure that the impact of pollution from existing moving sources is reduced to the minimum compatible with the needs of each region. Construction of urban highways and freeways may be required to take second place to rapid and mass transit and other public transportation systems. Central city use of motor vehicles may have to be restricted. In some congested areas the number of operations of aircraft into an airport may need to be limited, or steps taken to reduce emissions while aircraft are on the ground. If such controls are required, the plan for implementation should so provide. If the plan is approved, the Congress expects the Federal regulatory agencies to take the steps necessary to assure compliance with the plan.
The conference committee was convinced that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency would work closely with the States and the Environmental Protection Agency to attain these controls when necessary.
If, at the time of plan approval, it appears impossible to bring specific sources into compliance within three years, the Governor of the State may request an extension of the deadline up to two years. The Administrator must be satisfied that alternate means of achieving the standard have been considered (including closing down the source in question), that all reasonable interim measures will be applied, and that the State is justified in seeking the extension.
A Governor may also apply for a postponement of the deadline if, when the deadline approaches, it is impossible for a source to meet a requirement under an implementation plan, interim control measures have reduced (or will reduce) the adverse health effects of the source, and the continued operation of the source is essential to national security or the public health or welfare of that State. Such a postponement is subject to judicial review.
Section 111. The conference agreement, as did the Senate bill, provides for national standards of performance on emission from new stationary sources. Included under this section would be emissions from new or modified installations of major industries. These sources, important in themselves and involved in industries of national scope must be controlled to the maximum practicable degree regardless of their location. Standards of performance must be set at the greatest degree of control attainable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which has been adequately demonstrated.
Sources for which the Congress would expect standards of performance to be established include:
Cement manufacturing;
Coal cleaning operations;
Coke byproduct manufacturing;
Cotton ginning;
Ferro alloy plants;
Grain milling and handling operations;
Gray iron foundries;
Iron and steel operations;
Nitric acid manufacturing;
Nonferrous metallurgical operations (e.g. aluminum reduction, copper, lead, and zinc smelting) ;
Petroleum refining;
Phosphate manufacturing;
Phosphoric acid manufacturing;
Pulp and paper mill operations;
Rendering plants (animal matter);
Sulfuric acid manufacturing;
Soap and detergent manufacturing;
Municipal incinerators; and
Steam electric powerplants.
Section. 112. Under section 112, the Administrator must set emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, after public hearings on proposed standards. The standards must be set to provide an ample margin of safety to protect the public health. This could mean, effectively, that a plant would be required to close because of the absence of control techniques. It could include emission standards which allowed for no measurable emissions.
New sources of such pollutants may be constructed only if they meet the standards. Within two years, if installment of control equipment takes that long, existing sources must meet the standards, and during any delay in meeting the standards, alternate means must be used to protect the health of persons from imminent endangerment. Examples of substances which the Administration informed the Senate were likely to be controlled under this provision are beryllium, asbestos, mercury, and cadmium.
Section 113. Federal enforcement under section 113 leaves the primary responsibility with the States for enforcing requirements under implementation plans. The Administrator can issue an abatement order to a polluter or go to court seeking an injunction only after 30 days' notice to an individual polluter, or 30 days after notifying the State that the Federal Government is generally assuming enforcement powers in that State because of a widespread failure of State enforcement. This gives States 30 days in which to take appropriate action themselves.
For Federal standards of performance for new sources and emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, the Administrator may enforce without delay by either issuing an order to abate or seeking an injunction in court. This authority may be delegated to States but the Administrator retains authority to act directly without notice to the State.
The conference agreement retains the existing abatement conference procedure for international pollution and for pollutants not subject to ambient air quality standards or emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The effect of past enforcement actions is preserved.
Knowing violations of an order issued by the Administrator or of State implementation plan requirements (where the violator has received notice) or of Federal standards of performance for new sources or of Federal emission standards for hazardous emissions shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year. For second or subsequent violations, the fine is not more than $50,000 and imprisonment for not more than 2 years.
Section 114. The conference agreement grants authority to the Administrator or his authorized representatives to enter the premises of any emission sources, to require the owner or operator of any source to install and maintain emissions monitoring equipment (and to protect it against tampering), to require sampling of emissions, and to require records and reports. Violations of this provision are subject to restraining orders and knowing falsification of records, reports and other information required by this Act is subject to criminal penalties of $10,000, or imprisonment of six months, or both.
Section 202. The Administrator is directed to establish emission standards for pollutants from new motor vehicles or engines which are likely to endanger the public health or welfare. Such standards are to be applicable for the useful life of the vehicles or engines. The statute specifies that "useful life" shall be a period of use of at least five years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first. The effective date of the standards is to depend on the period necessary to develop the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of complying by such date.
Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions from light duty vehicles for 1975 model year and thereafter are to be reduced at least 90 per centum over 1970 standards for these pollutants.
Oxides of nitrogen emissions from light duty vehicles for the 1976 model year and thereafter are to be reduced by at least 90 per centum over the actual emission of these pollutants from 1971 model vehicles, which were not subject to Federal or State standards for such emissions.
Any manufacturer may apply to the Administrator within specified time limits for a one-year suspension of the statutory time limits, and the Administrator is to issue interim standards if he approves such application. Such interim standards are to reflect the greatest degree of emission control which is achievable by application of technology determined by the Administrator to be available. The Administrator is to take into consideration whether the manufacturer has met statutory requirements relating to public interest and public health and welfare, availability of technology, and good faith efforts to meet standards.
The Administrator is to enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the feasibility of meeting statutory deadlines for the 1975 and 1976 model years. In entering into such arrangements, the Administrator is to request the Academy to submit its first report not later than July 1, 1971. The Administrator is directed to use all information-gathering authority granted to him to furnish to the Academy any information requested by it.
Section 207. The provisions for warranty of vehicle emission control systems or devices, contained in section 207 of the conference substitute, are among the most important in the Act. Standards for new cars will have little impact if we cannot assure compliance with those standards over the useful life of those vehicles. Testimony required by the Committee indicated significant deterioration from expected performance levels as between prototype models and production vehicles. According to information provided by the National Air Pollution Control Administration from the record of the Senate hearings:
"The production fleet data indicate that air quality in 1985 will be 25 percent higher in hydrocarbons and 13 percent higher in carbon monoxide than it would have been if there were no discrepancy in emissions rates. Oxidant concentrations are approximately a direct function of hydrocarbon concentrations, as indicated in the "Air Quality Criteria for Hydrocarbons." Thus the oxidant levels in 1985 will also be approximately 25 percent higher. This analysis is based on data gathered from 1968 and 1969 model year cars. To the extent that production fleet performance can be made to approximate prototype emissions more closely in 1970 and later model years, the discrepancies in the projected curves can be reduced." (Volume 1, p. 372.)
This information, in addition to data which shows significant deterioration from the standard after a vehicle accumulates mileage, suggests that the investment in emission systems by the American public will be of no purpose and that the air quality objectives of existing and proposed legislation will have failed unless better performance is required.
The responsibility of the industry cannot stop at the factory gate. Without some degree of quality control which can only be assured through individual vehicle compliance, the motorists cannot be required to maintain emission performance – vehicle emission inspection programs will be meaningless – and air quality will not be maintained.
Conversely, by requiring the manufacturer to warranty performance, margins of safety will be built into each vehicle to insure better than required performance, systems will be designed to minimize deterioration, State vehicle emission inspection programs can cause proper maintenance to be observed by the motorists and the air quality objectives of this legislation will be implemented.
To achieve this, the conference agreement provides that motor vehicles be warranted by the manufacturer to comply with emission standards for 5 years or 50,000 miles. This performance warranty is in addition to a statutory warranty of freedom from defects in materials and workmanship.
The performance warranty cannot be enforced until the Administrator establishes methods for on-the-road testing of vehicles and states have individual vehicle compliance inspection systems and programs. A warranty will not become effective until the vehicle's deviation from the standards subjects the owner to some sanction, such as a fine or ban from the road. Proper operation and maintenance according to the manufacturer's reasonable instructions is a precondition to the warranty, but all repair work under the warranty, as in the case of vehicles recalled because of non-conformity with the standards, must be at the cost of the manufacturer.
Section 211. Section 211 of the conference substitute authorizes the Administrator to control or prohibit the manufacture or sale of motor vehicle fuels or fuel additives. This is combined with added information-gathering powers in the registration of all fuels and fuel additives. The Administrator may impose such controls or prohibitions if emission products of a fuel will endanger public health or welfare, or if the fuel or additive impairs to a significant degree a vehicle emission control system in general use; as long as the control of a fuel does not result in a greater danger to public health or welfare from a substitute fuel.
The concept of a control or prohibition should be taken to include requiring design changes in motor vehicles, as well as fuel handling equipment, to ensure maximum compliance with regulations specifying acceptable fuel use for various classes of vehicles. In developing any controls, the Administrator should consider the fuel needs of existing motor vehicles, as well as future production.
While the conference substitute specifies procedures under section 211 which the Administrator will use in determining whether to prohibit or control fuels or fuel additives, the conference committee wishes to call the Administrator's attention to the relationship between his functions under this section and the emission deadlines stipulated in Section 202. It is not the intent of the Congress to create a cumbersome, time consuming administrative procedure which will delay necessary controls on fuels and fuel additives required to meet these deadlines.
Neither is it the intention of the Congress to lock the Administrator into a rigid economic interpretation of the cost benefit analysis specified in this section in making his determination to prohibit or control fuels or fuel additives.
Rather, the conference committee wishes to call the attention of the Administrator to the broad environmental, esthetic and health considerations underlying the enactment of this legislation which should be kept in mind making these determinations.
States and localities are preempted from presenting or enforcing controls or prohibitions not identical to those of the Federal government, unless an approved State implementation plan under section 110 provides for fuel or additive control in order to attain the national ambient air quality standards. California, however, is free to have any regulation of fuels or additives it finds necessary.
Sec. 231-234. A new Part B of Title II, added by the conference agreement, provides authority for the Administrator to prescribe emission standards for civil aircraft and aircraft engines. This he must do after no more than 180 days of study and after public hearings in critically affected regions. The Secretary of Transportation, through the Federal Aviation Agency, will enforce the standards. States and localities are preempted from adopting or enforcing any but identical standards. The Administrator is also authorized to recommend standards for aviation fuels, which must be prescribed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency.
The conferees expect that critical standards for aircraft will go considerably beyond the present smoke reduction program which is being carried out for three-engine jets. To limit the standards to certain aircraft is unacceptable. To rely on smoke reduction alone ignores other, perhaps more important pollutants, which will have to be controlled as a part of the national ambient air quality standards program.
Section 304. The conference agreement authorizes citizen suits against polluters to abate violations of any emission limitation under the Act (including State Implementation Plans), and against the Administrator to require him to do any of the functions this Act assigns to him. Any polluter, including a government agency, is subject to such a suit after 60 days notice from the citizen-plaintiff. If a government abatement action is being diligently pursued in a United States or State court, a citizen action cannot be filed, but an interested party may intervene as a matter of right. There is no delay or notice requirement for violations of the Administrator's order or a violation of a hazardous pollutant emission standard. Cost of litigation, including attorney's fees and expert witness fees, could be awarded to either party, as the court thinks appropriate.
The Courts should recognize that in bringing legitimate actions under this section citizens would be performing a public service and in such instances the courts should award costs of litigation to such party. This should extend to plaintiffs in actions which result in successful abatement but do not reach a verdict. For instance, if as a result of a citizen proceeding and before a verdict is issued, a defendant abated a violation, the court may award litigation expenses borne by the plaintiffs in prosecuting such actions. However, there is no question that some persons may use section 304 to bring frivolous and harassing actions. In such case, the court could award costs of litigation to defendants as it is in the public interest to avoid such actions. This should have the effect of discouraging abuse of this provision, while at the same time encouraging the quality of the actions that will be brought.
Section 305. An important provision of the conference agreement is section 305, granting the Administrator the authority to represent himself in court if the Attorney General does not notify him that he will enter the case within a reasonable time. This is necessary if the Administrator is to have effective control of enforcement actions under this Act. The Administrator is required to initiate enforcement actions; this allows him to satisfactorily carry them out.
Section 308. In order to prevent the stringent standards of the Act from contributing to monopolist concentrations in any industries, the conference agreement provides for a limited mandatory licensing of the technology necessary to meet automobile emission standards, emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, or new source standards of performance, if covered by a U.S. patent. If rights under such a patent are not reasonably available, or the technology not commercially available through purchase of control equipment, the Attorney General may certify to a district court that some lessening of competition will result and seek a license on reasonable terms and conditions.
Section 310. The conference agreement instructs the Administrator to review and comment on Federal actions which affect environment and make such comments public upon completion of his review.
This policy conforms with Sec. 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act and was discussed with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, William D. Ruckelshaus, at his confirmation hearing on December 1, 1970.
The conference agreement thus removes the ambiguity concerning the public release of such reviews and comments which has emerged during the debate on appropriations for the supersonic transport. Those comments must be made public when the Environmental Protection Agency completes its review – not when the environmental impact agency decides the public should be informed.
Authorizations. The conference substitute adopts the House amount for Fiscal Year 1971 for Sec. 104 and Sec. 309 – a total of $200 million. For Fiscal Year 1972 the conference agreement provides for a total of $350 million, of which $125 million is for research on fuels and vehicles. For Fiscal Year 1973 the authorization is $150 million for research under Section 104, out of a total of $450 million. In addition the conference substitute retains $15 million for long term contracts for air pollution effects research under Section 103, $30 million for funding the Office of Noise Abatement in the Environmental Protection Agency, and $55 million for low emission vehicle procurement, $5 million of which is authorized for Fiscal Year 1971 and $25 million each for Fiscal Years 1972 and 1973.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Missouri and commend him for his invaluable assistance in the committee, on the floor, and in the conference.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Senator from Maine. I should like to propound to him a few brief questions just to illustrate further the significance and the parameters of this very noteworthy piece of legislation.
Before doing so, I wish to praise his enormous efforts in this valuable piece of legislation. But for the Senator from Maine, but for his diligence, his persistence, his persuasiveness, we would not have as good a bill as we today have before us.
We all recognize that this bill has great significance for our national effort to clean up the air pollution that afflicts virtually every citizen in the United States. I think we should also pause to record that this bill also marks a very significant step forward in the continuing development of more responsive and responsible relationships among the Federal Government and the State and local governments of our country. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for his vigorous and enlightened leadership on this less conspicuous but singularly important aspect of this bill. Would the Senator from Maine agree that this bill has very broad significance in the area of Federal-State relations?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. May I say to the Senator that during the deliberations on the bill I have been very much interested in preserving "local option" features, so that State and local authorities would be able to pursue options among a broad array, seeking a possible way of controlling or preventing air pollution that is most responsive to the nature of their air pollution problem and most responsive to their needs. In my judgment, the bill will give State and local authorities sufficient latitude in selecting ways to prevent and control air pollution.
Mr. EAGLETON. It seems to me that even with the strong provisions in this bill concerning automobiles, it will be necessary for us to devote more of our national resources to alternative ways of transporting people, particularly transporting them to and from our cities and within those cities, at less than supersonic speeds. Would the Senator from Maine care to comment on this proposition?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I would. There is a tendency to focus upon the new car provisions in the bill, and understandably so. Nevertheless, what really moved the committee, the Senate, and the conferees to go in the direction of a tough deadline for new cars is the fact that there are used cars, and the used car population creates a problem. There are 100 million to 110 million automobiles that are moving about, heavily concentrated in the large urban centers and beyond the reach, really, of any effective technological control development.
Further, if we are to deal with the used car problem, we need a new car deadline in order to begin the process of cleaning up new used cars. We still have existing a mass of used automobiles to deal with. The bill before us deals with that problem by the requirement of national ambient air quality standards geared to help.
Those standards, realistically applied, will require that urban areas do something about their transportation systems, the movement of used cars, the development of public transit systems, and the modification and change of housing patterns, employment patterns, and transportation patterns generally. All of that is implicit in the concept of implementation plans for national ambient air quality standards and what they mean for the used cars in our country.
Mr. EAGLETON. Would the Senator from Maine agree with me that this bill is intended to afford to the citizens of the United States very broad opportunities to participate in the effort to prevent and abate air pollution? Are not the citizen suit provision and the requirement for public hearings on State implementation plans likely to result in higher quality and better air pollution control programs across the Nation than would likely be the case if there were less opportunity for citizen participation?
Mr. MUSKIE. That was the thrust of the Senate bill in many respects, and although we did modify the citizen suit provision I feel that thrust is retained. The Senate committee felt it would be impossible to do the total job of air pollution cleanup relying wholly upon the Federal bureaucracy.
This is why we emphasized the necessity for developing State and local programs. But in addition, this bill provides for other participation by citizens in various ways. We regard that as a key element in the successful prosecution of the air pollution goals which this bill undertakes.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, long after the Senate had completed action on the air pollution bill, well after administration representatives had been invited to react to the Senate's air pollution bill, and even after an announced agreement had been reached on the vital auto deadline, to which the Senator from Maine has already referred, the Nixon administration wrote an 11th-hour letter to the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee. In my view, that letter can only be interpreted as an attempt on the part of some in the administration to weaken the strong Senate bill and the tentative conference compromise.
Does the Senator from Maine think that the Richardson letter is an indication that we should carefully review implementation of this program in mid-1971 to be sure that the regulations are not weakened in application?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I agree. The Richardson letter was badly timed. It did complicate the work of the conference and make it more difficult to reach agreement and to achieve what we ultimately achieved in the conference agreement.
On this point I concur with the Senator. We should carefully review the implementation of this program next year to insure that it is moving along in accordance with our interpretation of what we think the Senate is doing in this piece of legislation.
Regulations are not to be used to dilute and water down the strong policy which the Senate is adopting.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I am not familiar with everything the conferees did. But I think that there is some confusion as to what department would be the enforcement agency.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. MAGNUSON. What about the Department of Transportation? Would it have something to do with it, or the Motor Safety Division?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator refers to the low-emission vehicle program which the Senator from Washington introduced and of which I was a cosponsor. We had joint hearings on it with the Committee on Commerce. And it was reported out of the Committee on Commerce. It was passed as separate legislation. Then it was included in this bill. It is retained in the conference report.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I thoroughly agree with the Senator from Maine. We can set a deadline and then no one has any oversight over what is going on. So we come to the deadline and someone will say, "We have not done it."
They give us all the rigmarole and the reasons why they have not done it.
I am concerned about having some kind of surveillance over this as we move along toward the date decided by the conference. We could do that later. But we should have the legislative oversight committee or someone do it. Perhaps it should be the new Environmental Control Committee on which we will meet this afternoon. They might do that. I do not know.
Mr. MUSKIE. This could be within their area of jurisdiction. I think it might be useful to read this provision from the House RECORD of yesterday:
There is established a Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board to be composed of the Administrator or his designee, the Secretary of Transportation or his designee, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality or his designee, the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau in the Department of Transportation, the Administrator of General Services, and two members appointed by the President. The President shall designate one member of the Board as Chairman.
Mr. MAGNUSON. This is the sort of thing we have to keep on top of.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Otherwise we will wake up on a given date and they will say, "Well, we have not been able to do it." They will give all kinds of reasons why they have not been able to do it. There will then be an outcry to extend it.
I think we have to be sure that someone is on top of this thing all the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I shall ask the able chairman of the subcommittee several questions. The Senator from Maine who served so effectively as chairman of the Senate conferees, has, not only during this conference, but also during several years past, given much of himself to the development of this legislation. It is as he said in commenting on the conference report, good strong legislation.
I respectfully disagree with the words of the Senator from Maine and the words of the Senator from Missouri in reference to the appropriateness of the communication from Secretary Richardson.
Each person places his own interpretation on the content of the letter. I do not say this today for the first time. I said it when we discussed the matter within the Public Works Committee and when we discussed it within the conference. I am only repeating what I have said before.
I am very frank to say that I think the letter should have come to us sooner. This is something that I want the RECORD to reflect. I also want the RECORD to indicate that there had been no final decisions made here on Capitol Hill in reference to this important legislation at the time the communication was received. The democratic process is at work. The legislative process is at work. The advice from the executive branch is at work in reference to the finalization of this important legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, to clarify my position with reference to the administrator's prerogative to comment on this legislation or any legislation, it is not my intent in the remarks I made earlier that the administration does not have that prerogative. From the time we reported this bill out of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, we publicly and in other ways solicited the administration's position on the provisions of the bill.
It would have been useful to have had the administration position in the course of the floor debate. We speculated about it, but we did not know what it was.
We went to conference, I think, about October 8 or 9. We reached a tentative agreement on the auto emission deadline on that day. The letter from the Secretary of HEW is dated November 17, some 6 weeks later. It is that to which I direct my criticism. Six weeks after we started the conference we got this letter on the administration's position. Certainly it is the administration's prerogative to send it up at any time it wishes. They could have sent it today. I am talking now about the very disruptive effect the timing had.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I have agreed with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Maine, that I felt the letter was late in arriving. I made that statement at the very outset. But I do not look on a letter from the administration setting forth its views as disruptive.
I look on it as a further indication of the interest of the parties who are in the Federal Government either officially or indirectly, and that, I think, is the democratic process.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The floor is held by the Senator from Maine, who had yielded to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I have some further remarks I am going to make in reference to the conference report, but I have just called attention to the colloquy here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the floor so the Senator from West Virginia can have the floor in his own right for the purpose of yielding to other Senators.
Mr. BAKER. I wanted to make sure who had the floor so that I know to whom I should address my inquiry so that I might comment on the colloquy between the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, because of the colloquy which has ensued, I yield next to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Senator. As the Senator from West Virginia knows, the air pollution bill was pending before the Committee on Public Works for many months.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. EAGLETON. And on numerous occasions representatives of the administration, Dr. Middleton, and others in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, either testified before the Committee on Public Works, and I refer to the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of that committee, or had conferences and communications with that committee.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. EAGLETON. It is well known that as the bill evolved through the committee process, in subcommittee, in full committee, in markup, and so forth, and it was widely disseminated in the public press that the Senate committee was considering a 1975 model year cutoff with respect to new cars.
Mr. RANDOLPH. At this point the able Senator knows that much of what is printed in the press on so-called executive sessions, and conversations of Members, is a constant problem, not that the press should not inform its readers. I commend the media for attempting to be accurate. But I think there is a constant question mark in stories of this kind. I would not say that what we were doing was precisely set forth.
Mr. EAGLETON. Passing for a moment from what had or had not been published in the press, it was abundantly well known in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that the
Senate committee was considering and leaning strongly toward a 1975 cutoff with respect to new cars. Is that correct?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. EAGLETON. Then, I would like to ask this question, without for a moment wishing to detract from the excellent bipartisan cooperation in the committee and in the Senate which has made this bill possible: No one questions the prerogative of any Cabinet official to write a letter to any Senator or Representative at any time he is predisposed to do so; but what is raised by the timing of this letter is more significant than the content of the letter. Bear in mind that we worked on this bill for many months and that we had gone through laborious executive sessions in the Committee on Public Works, and we had Mr. Middleton for a part of those sessions, and the bill was reported to the floor. On the floor it was vigorously debated, and, in particular, the provision on automobiles was debated between the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Michigan.
Then the bill went back to conference. There was a tentative agreement, and it was printed in the press before the election recess that the tentative agreement had been reached on this portion of the bill. After all of that, we hear in writing from Secretary Richardson for the first time after the election recess that he has some objection to the 1975 cutoff deadline.
The point I am trying to make is that I do not question Mr. Richardson's ability or authority to write the letter. But with that history behind this bill I do question why it took him until November 1970 to make his position clear with respect to this single most contentious portion of the bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I wish to reply. I have said that it would have been much better if the letter from Secretary Richardson had come sooner.
Frankly, in the matter of a conference report I am not interested in attempting to charge the administration with being weak. I am not attempting to charge them with being weak or strong on this subject matter. The Senate acted, the House acted, and now Congress is acting.
It is my feeling that that which has gone before – the expression of various viewpoints and possibly the late timing of the expression by the Secretary – are matters that perhaps are not as important as what we have done. That is why I have said it is a matter of interpretation. I respect my colleagues in their discussion of the matter and I understand they have their reasoned judgment on the matter. I am sure other members of the committee and of the Senate have their feelings with respect to the situation.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
(At this point Mr. EAGLETON assumed the Chair.)
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I was a conferee in connection with this bill. I am a member of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and have been since I came here in 1967. I have served with great pleasure under the chairmanship of the chairman of the subcommittee and the distinguished chairman of the full committee.
As far as I can recall, this is the first time the purposes of an air quality bill, or for that matter a water bill, have been subordinated in debate on the floor, or in committee, for political purposes. I feel that was the case in the colloquy that just took place between the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Missouri.
I feel the Senate passed a meaningful, worthwhile and strong bill. I think it will contribute materially to the business of cleaning up air in this country and taking care of the problem of automobile emissions. That has been accomplished because Republicans and Democrats on that committee for many years have cooperated not only between each other but at the staff level.
Under the leadership of our chairman on the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, staff members have cooperated, and there has also been cooperation with the agencies of government in the executive department which, for weeks, months, and years on end have conferred almost constantly with staff members on the minority side and the majority side as to how best to arrive at sound conclusions. This cooperation has been so close that some of these discussions are discernible in the platforms of both major parties and in the state of the Union message of the President of the United States. That is no small accomplishment for a committee or a subcommittee.
The Senator from Maine is to be commended without restraint for his leadership and motivation to the rest of us in this field. That makes it all the more tedious for me to sit in this Chamber on the eve of the adoption of a conference report underscoring a good bill and hear a political purpose being served by a bill that was worthwhile, notable, and nonpolitical, even under circumstances which might understandably have been suspect of producing a different atmosphere and a different set of circumstances.
If the Senator from West Virginia will yield for a moment more I wish to clarify my statement. I am referring specifically to the remarks, as I understood them, by the junior Senator from Missouri to the effect that the Richardson letter, referring to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Elliot Richardson, dated November 17, 1970, and I quote: "must be interpreted as an attempt on the part of the administration to undercut the strong Senate bill."
Now I had not proposed to say anything about the automobile section at this time as the Senate considered this proposal because I believe my colleagues who were conferees on this bill will recall that I was the only conferee in the House or the Senate who did not agree and specifically voted against the first weakening of this bill.
I think my conferee colleagues might also agree that I have contended from the very beginning that Congress ought to do what we apparently have not chosen to do in this case, and that is to remove the serious business of deciding whether or not the automobile industry has made a good faith effort to comply with the bill's requirements beyond the tender mercies and the political motivations of a future Congress, and, rather, vest it in the independent judiciary to gather those facts and resolve those conflicts and decide, in 1976, a Presidential year, an election year for a third of this body and all of the House of Representatives.
The legislative department will be called upon to sit as a fact-finding body to decide whether or not the automobile industry will be permitted to continue manufacturing automobiles, assuming it has not fully met this statutory deadline. I think it is a horrible prospect. I think it would be difficult enough for the independent judiciary to undertake it.
All of that, I say again, I have subordinated to the desires of the majority of the conferees, and I felt, and I still feel, we have a good bill, but I also feel that it is unfair to overlook the weeks and months of coordination between the members and staff of this committee and this administration and the previous administration, and the weeks and months and even years of nonpartisan cooperation between the members and the staff of this committee, and the inspired leadership of our committee chairman and our subcommittee chairman in trying to unravel probably the most delicate and complex domestic problem that has confronted the country in 100 years, and do it in a spirit of give and take; and then as we get to final passage of the bill, with a few Senators on the floor, we hear the charge that the position of the administration is to undercut a strong Senate position.
I submit that is not worthy of the effort that has gone into this legislation thus far and into previous legislation in previous sessions of the Congress.
Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. COOPER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I wonder if I might complete a very brief comment on the conference report.
Mr. COOPER. I wanted to comment on the point just made.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to my able colleague from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I know the Senator from West Virginia will point out the constructive work the Senate and House conference have done on this most important bill. But before he speaks, I want to respond to the statements that have been made that the letter from the Honorable Elliot Richardson indicates that the administration will try to undercut this bill. I must say I have found nothing in the letter which supports the statement. In fact, while the letter disagreed with the Senate and House versions of the bill on some points, the letter states that the administration wants a strong bill. Secretary Richardson, said this in the closing paragraph of his letter:
In conclusion we would like to reiterate the Administration's strong support for the effective control of air pollution by legislation embodying the major features of the House and Senate bills. Accordingly, we recommend the enactment of such legislation, incorporating the recommendations made above, during this session of the Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of Secretary Richardson's letter be inserted at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C.,
November 17, 1970.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to present the views of the Administration to the conference committee considering the House and Senate versions of H.R. 17255, amendments to the Clean Air Act.
To begin with, it is extremely gratifying to note that all of the major Clean Air Act amendments proposed by President Nixon in his February 10, 1970 environmental message to the Congress are reflected in both versions of the bill. I refer specifically to the President's proposals regarding national air quality standards, State adoption of implementation plans covering the whole area of every State, emission standards applicable to major new stationary sources of air pollution and to hazardous emissions from all stationary sources, expanded and streamlined enforcement powers, assembly-line testing of motor vehicles, and regulation of fuels and fuel additives.
We are, therefore, fully in accord with the objectives and the essential features of both the House and Senate bills. In our judgment, however, both bills have certain provisions that should be modified in the manner recommended below. While this letter makes reference to the Secretary of HEW throughout, as do both bills, we note that the Senate bill has the effect of vesting these authorities in the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as contemplated by Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1970.
Automobile Emissions. The Senate bill would require, under provisions that have no counterpart in the House bill, that certain automobile emissions be reduced by 90 percent from the 1970 levels by 1975, unless the Secretary of HEW extends this period for one year, which extension would be subject to judicial review.
The objective of these provisions is to accelerate substantially the current timetable for controlling automobile emissions. The Senate bill does this by making effective in 1975 the standards administratively projected to take effect no later than 1980. We fully support the objective of accelerated control of automotive air pollution and support the proposed establishment of 1975 as a target date for achieving the proposed 90 percent reduction.
Based on the information available to us at this time, we are uncertain whether the requisite control technology will be developed and reduced to commercial practice on a mass-production basis by 1975-76. This presents the Federal government with a dilemma. On the one hand, if, despite a maximum effort, the necessary control technology cannot be developed and put into production, then emissions cannot in fact be reduced to the levels sought. On the other hand, the prospect of repeated deadline extensions based simply on the absence of control technology gives rise to an understandable concern that automobile manufacturers may not press the development of such technology and its application as rapidly as they should to meet air quality requirements.
The Senate bill would resolve this dilemma by providing an absolute statutory deadline of 1976, despite the fact that the very basis the bill provides for the single extension from 1975 to 1976 – that all good faith efforts have been made to meet the standards, but no effective control technology has been developed – would logically justify additional extensions for a manufacturer on the basis of similar findings.
We believe that provision for additional extensions of the deadline can be made while at the same time assuring maximum effort by the manufacturers, as sought by the Senate bill. To accomplish this, we suggest that, using the 1975 standards as a yardstick. the manufacturers' efforts be examined periodically by a highly competent, impartial body outside of Government – the National Academy of Sciences and/or the National Academy of Engineers would be eminently qualified to play such a role. (We understand the conferees are interested in using the Academies in a manner that may be related to this proposal.) Such examination should involve periodic determinations of the manufacturers' level of effort and judgment as to the progress in developing adequate control technology, and its application to mass production. The results of such examinations would keep the Congress and the Secretary informed of the manufacturers' efforts and progress toward meeting the standards and provide the Secretary with a basis for determining whether to grant or deny any extension which a manufacturer might seek. It seems to us that such a procedure would provide a more orderly and equally beneficial process for achieving the results sought by the Senate bill.
We would also favor two other changes in the provisions of the Senate bill with respect to automobile emission standards. First, there is a serious question whether the bill,. in fixing January 1, 1973 as the earliest time a manufacturer could seek a deadline extension, gives proper recognition to automotive production lead times. Establishing any specific date in the bill seems unnecessary to us, however, and we recommend that this matter be left up to the judgment of the Secretary. There is clearly a natural regulator at work here, since the earlier a manufacturer might seek an extension, the less credible would be its claim that it had made a good faith effort to meet the standards. Second, we also recommend that, instead of providing for essentially de novo judicial review of the Secretary's decision with regard to an extension request, the bill should provide for the customary more restrictive scope of judicial review.
Warranty of Automotive Pollution Control Systems. In provisions that again have no counterpart of the House bill, the Senate bill requires, effective 90 days after appropriate test procedures have been established, that the automobile manufacturers warrant that their pollution devices will meet prescribed emission standards for 50,000 miles.
In testimony before the Senate committee the Administration supported the principle of requiring a manufacturer's warranty of control devices, and we continue to support this principle. However, we regard the 50,000 mile warranty as inappropriate and unrealistic in the light of known technology and experience.
At the present time neither the Federal government nor the manufacturers have sufficient or reliable knowledge as to why, in some cases, a particular automobile in actual use fails to meet emission tests. This being the case, substantial and no doubt lengthy research and studies would have to be undertaken before the Secretary could, with any confidence, promulgate defensible test procedures, which under the bill would make the manufacturers liable for the satisfactory performance of emission devices for 50,000 miles. Thus, the provisions of the Senate bill could have the unintended result of actually delaying the imposition of any warranty requirements for a long period of time. If on the other hand the Secretary were to promulgate test procedures before the Government or the manufacturers better understand why some automobiles fail to meet emission requirements, manufacturers would almost certainly price the warranty at a level which would fully protect them from this lack of knowledge. Also, the manufacturers could understandably specify extremely stringent maintenance requirements as a condition of the warranty. Since most car owners would have little incentive to comply fully with all of these requirements, the warranty would be unenforceable in many cases and would make virtually no contribution to control of air pollution.
We favor including a provision in the bill which would authorize the Secretary to impose warranty requirements on the manufacturers as he determines that such requirements can be justified on the basis of adequate operating knowledge that has become available. Such warranty requirements could be made more stringent as more knowledge and experience in these matters are gained, with a view toward progressing to the goal of a 50,000 mile warranty requirement on all new automobiles. We also favor requiring from the outset a manufacturer's warranty against defects in material and workmanship.
State Vehicle Emission Standards. The Senate bill, in provisions not contained in the House bill, would empower States to fix special emission standards for new vehicles more stringent than the standards fixed by this legislation if the States could prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such action were necessary to meet air quality standards in regions within their jurisdiction.
We believe that existing law properly provides for Federal preemption of emission control standards for new vehicles, in recognition of the need for uniformity and the inability of manufacturers to produce different types of vehicles for a number of States. In addition, as a practical matter there would appear to be very little further reduction in automobile emissions available to the States, in view of the stringent Federal emission standards contemplated by the Senate bill for 1975. We recommend that the present Federal preemption concept be retained without change, and that the States attain air quality standards by the ample variety of other means contemplated by the bill – including control of emissions from other than new cars, and, if necessary, traffic controls.
Export Vehicles. The Senate bill would eliminate a provision in the existing Clean Air Act which exempts new motor vehicles and engines manufactured solely for export and sale abroad from applicable emission standards. The House bill would make no change in existing law in this regard.
We are unaware of any rationale to support this proposed change, and we believe that the considerations which supported the present export exemption provision are still valid. The emission standards adopted by a number of foreign countries on the basis of their air pollution control needs probably will continue to be significantly less stringent than the emission standards contemplated by the Clean Air Act. American motor vehicles are required, of course, to comply with applicable foreign emission standards, and requiring them to comply with the differing American standards could seriously prejudice their competitive position abroad.
Mandatory Licensing. The Senate bill compels holders of patents, trade secrets, or know-how on pollution control devices to grant licenses to all applicants for the use (upon payment of reasonable royalties) of these devices, if the Secretary of HEW determines that this is necessary to facilitate compliance with air pollution standards for automobiles, aircraft, and vessels, for hazardous facilities, or for new stationary sources. There are no comparable provisions in the House bill.
The constitutionally-recognized protection which patents afford has been a key element in encouraging innovation, and we are seriously concerned as to what the ultimate effects of this major change in policy might be. In particular, we are uncertain as to its possible deterrent effects on the incentive to invent in the pollution control field, where the need for innovation is so great.
Moreover, we are not aware of the basis for assuming that developers of essential air pollution control technology would refuse to make it available either by license or direct sale to the users.
We recognize that this authority is permissive, and that the report of the Senate Public Works Committee emphasizes that very restrictive use should be made of it. Despite this, we are not convinced of the need for such a basic change in policy in light of its potential adverse effects and in the absence of known abuses. If in the future a situation arises in which a refusal to make technology available threatens to jeopardize the national air pollution control effort, Congress can then legislate to meet the particular problem.
Citizen Suits. The Senate bill authorizes citizens to bring civil actions against alleged polluters (including governmental entities) or against the Secretary of HEW to enforce compliance with the requirements of the Act. There are no comparable provisions in the House bill.
In authorizing citizen suits directly against alleged polluters, this provision builds on the trend of existing law, and we do not object to its enactment. Such suits can contribute to the effective enforcement of air pollution control measures.
However, the authorization of citizen suits against the Secretary to force him to take enforcement action in a particular case would have the unintended result of reducing the overall effectiveness of our air pollution control efforts by distorting enforcement priorities that are essential to an effective national control strategy. Therefore, we recommend the deletion of that portion of the provision authorizing suits against the Secretary. This deletion will not affect the right of citizens to move directly against alleged polluters, including Federal agencies.
We note that the Senate bill contains no express provisions either requiring bonds to be posted as a condition for granting preliminary injunctions (i.e., injunctions granted before full hearings) or explicitly stating the authority of the courts to fit final relief to the equities of the case. Adequate bonds and flexibility of relief can be very important in cases of this type. However, we trust that the courts will exercise their existing authority to fix preliminary injunction bonds at levels sufficient to protect any defendants later found upon full hearing to have complied with the Act and to frame final orders that fully take into account all of the circumstances of the case.
State Implementation Plan Deadlines. The Senate bill provides that within nine months after promulgation of any national ambient air quality standard each State is to submit to the Secretary for approval an implementation plan for each air quality control region providing for the attainment of the standard within three years after approval of the plan. In addition to limited Secretarial authority for extensions based on new information, provision is made in the bill for judicially-granted one-year extensions of the three-year deadline, upon petition of the Governor of the State concerned (subsequent to the approval of the implementation plan) if the Court determines that such relief is in the paramount interest of the U.S. and that means to control the emissions have not been available for a sufficient period of time. The House bill contains no such provisions.
In providing for extensions of this deadline subsequent to approval of the implementation plan, the Senate bill plainly concedes that cases may very well arise where marginal or inadequate emission control technology would render it impossible to meet the standard within the three-year period. Although both the State and the Secretary might agree that this is so at the time an implementation plan is submitted for approval, the Senate bill forbids the Secretary from approving anything but a three-year implementation plan, which in due course probably would be appealed by the Governor. The net effect of the bill's provisions in such cases would be to place both the Secretary and the State concerned in the untenable position of approving an implementation plan they know is unrealistic and probably unworkable.
To avoid this type of situation we favor an amendment which would, in the few cases where it might be necessary, permit the Secretary to extend the deadline at the time the State's implementation plan is being reviewed and approved. Such extensions should only be made if the Secretary determined that adequate control technology is not available and is not likely to be available, and he should be required to make public his determination and the specific grounds on which it rests. Moreover, once beyond the three-year period the Secretary should determine periodically whether adequate control technology is available and make known his findings and any requisite compliance determinations resulting therefrom.
Certification of New Sources. The Senate bill establishes a Federal requirement (which could be delegated to the States) to certify that all new stationary sources of emissions meet Federal performance standards reflecting the latest available control technology and processes. Such certification would involve (a) preconstruction review of locations and design of any new source, (b) performance tests within a reasonable time after operation commences, (c) methods to identify violations and enforce compliance, and (d) methods to assure that any new source will not prevent implementation of national air quality standards or goals. The House bill contains no comparable provisions.
We feel that this certification procedure is overly elaborate and would impose a heavy and unnecessary burden on both the Government and industry. Moreover, industry would appear to have ample incentive for preconstruction consultation with responsible officials even without this special mechanism. We see no reason why performance requirements could not be established and enforced in the same manner as other emission requirements. If compliance with performance standards were made part of a State's implementation plan, these adverse consequences would be avoided and there would also be the additional benefit of placing the basic enforcement responsibility in the State, as is generally the case under the Act, rather than in the Federal Government, as the Senate bill provides.
While we recommend that basic enforcement of performance standards should be in the States, we favor retaining the provision of the Senate bill which allows the Secretary to enforce these standards without being required to make a finding that a State has failed to perform adequately. We also would favor a similar pattern for the enforcement of emission standards established under section 114 of the Senate bill.
We can see merit to a statutory requirement that the emissions from all new sources would have to be measured at the time (or within a reasonable time thereafter) they begin operations, and we would support the retention in the bill of provisions to accomplish this purpose.
National Security Exemptions. The Senate bill authorizes the President to exempt Federal property, facilities, vehicles, or vessels from applicable emission standards, whenever he determines that this is necessary in the paramount interest of the United States. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to defer for one year, if necessary for the purpose of national security, the applicability of emission standards to military aircraft and vessels. The comparable provision in the House bill, which covers only emissions from new stationary sources, carries out the Administration's recommendations for exemptions by the Secretary of HEW when he determines they are necessary for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or for reasons of national security.
We would support the approach of the Senate bill, if aircraft are included under the Presidential exemption provision, since the reasons for authorizing exemptions for all other Federal facilities. vehicles, and vessels are equally applicable to aircraft, particularly combat aircraft. We also believe that the Presidential exemption should be made applicable to non-Federal facilities, since there could conceivably be instances where their exemption would be as much in the paramount interest of the U.S. as would be the exemption of Federal facilities.
Hazardous Emissions. The Senate bill requires zero emissions from facilities determined by the Secretary of HEW to be emitting pollutants hazardous to health even in trace amounts, with a specified timetable for compliance and enforcement, unless the owner of such facility can demonstrate that continued operation (under applicable emission standards) will not endanger the public health. The House bill contains no comparable provisions.
Of course, hazardous emissions should be effectively and quickly controlled, as was recognized in the Administration's bill. Because the Senate bill in Section 114 gives the Secretary general authority to set emission standards, down to zero levels, for all facilities, we think the Secretary should have the flexibility to deal with hazardous emissions on a priority basis within this general authority. In fact, the Secretary could move more swiftly and equally effectively under such general authority, in Sections 114 and 116 of the Senate bill, than he would be able to under the special hazardous emission control procedures contained in Section 115. Accordingly, we recommend deletion of Section 115 of the Senate bill, and any necessary modifications of Section 114 to fully cover hazardous emissions.
Low Emission Vehicle Procurement. The Senate bill requires the Federal Government, in provisions not contained in the House bill, to procure vehicles determined to be "low emission", and authorizes premium prices to be paid for such vehicles.
These provisions were contained in a separate bill added by amendment on the Senate floor. We had recommended a number of modifications in these provisions in comments on both that separate bill and a comparable bill in the House. We continue to support these changes, and particularly feel that there should be discretion in the President with respect to procurement of these vehicles in order to assure realistic accommodation to budgetary priorities and the special vehicular needs of the Government, and to permit orderly procurement should there be a number of "low emission" vehicles to select from.
Fuels and Fuel Additives. The House bill contains a number of restrictive provisions on the authority to fix standards respecting the composition of fuels or fuel additives. For example, standards on fuels and fuel additives could be fixed under this authority only if the Secretary could show that it is not otherwise technologically or economically feasible to achieve automobile emission standards. The Senate does not contain similar restrictions.
The Administration recommended broad authority to regulate fuel and fuel additives, because it believed that such authority, in conjunction with controls over sources using such fuels, is necessary in order to mount the most effective overall attack on air pollution. We recommend, therefore, that these provisions be modified to conform with the Administration's air pollution bill, the essential provisions of which on this matter are incorporated in the Senate bill.
Also in connection with fuels, we would recommend that authority over aviation fuels and additives be lodged in the Secretary of HEW, who will have jurisdiction over all other fuels and additives, rather than being placed in the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. as the House bill provides.
Personnel. Two troublesome provisions of the Senate bill, relating to personnel who would be authorized to participate in carrying out the Act's requirements, raise serious precedential and administrative problems and we urge their deletion. There are no comparable provisions in the House bill.
Section 10 of the Senate bill would authorize a sweeping exemption from the customary Civil Service appointment and classification laws, as they relate to the procurement of personal services to carry out the Act's requirements. We believe that the personnel needs of the air pollution control program, like similar needs in other urgent Federal programs, can be met within the Civil Service framework. In addition to creating a most undesirable precedent, this provision would constitute a marked departure from a longstanding Federal policy against the performance of clearly governmental functions by non-governmental personnel, which is of particular concern in this instance due to the important regulatory and enforcement actions to which such work could give rise.
The Senate bill provides in various sections, but most notably in proposed Section 305 of the Act, that attorneys appointed by the Secretary would be authorized to represent him in suits brought by or against the Government under the Act's provisions. Such authority is at odds with long-standing Federal policy of this and prior Administrations of placing litigating authority in the Attorney General, to be exercised as he deems appropriate. This policy derives from the sound administrative practice of relying on the Justice Department's established legal expertise and resources, rather than promoting the duplication of such expertise and resources in each of the Federal departments and agencies. We favor deleting Section 305 (as well as making comparable conforming changes in other provisions of the bill), the result of which would be that in actions instituted under this Act, officers of the Department of Justice under the direction of the Attorney General would appear for and represent the United States or any officer or agency thereof, including the Secretary.
Procedural and Technical Changes. We believe that there are a number of places in both the Senate and House bills where changes in procedural and technical provisions would avoid unintended results and materially improve the legislation. We would like to furnish such changes to the conferees informally along with the revisions needed to carry out the amendments recommended in this letter. In view of the sweeping and widespread implications of this bill, and in order to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, litigation that could slow down its implementation, we believe you will agree that its complex provisions need to be drafted with the greatest possible care and precision.
In conclusion, we would like to reiterate the Administration's strong support for the effective control of air pollution by legislation embodying the major features of the House and Senate bills. Accordingly, we recommend the enactment of such legislation, incorporating the recommendations made above, during this session of the Congress.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that enactment of H.R. 17255, if amended as recommended in this letter, would be in accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
ELLIOT RICHARDSON, Secretary.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, Elliot Richardson is a man of quality and integrity. He would not make statements to the Senate and to the Senate Public Works Committee which were in contradiction to his deeply held views.
The administration has made, from time to time, recommendations relating to the whole field of the environment and particularly on pollution control. It has responded more to these problems than any administration we have known.
I have always, and do now, pay tribute to the chairman of the subcommittee, whose leadership in this field is known not only to Congress but to the country. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Public Works Committee. I have served on this committee, I suppose, longer than anyone else on the committee. I served 2 years in the Senate in 1947 and 1948, and I was on that committee. We passed in 1948 the first pollution control bill. It was small in scope, but a good one, and was sponsored by the late Senator Robert Taft of Ohio and the late Senator Alben Barkley of my State of Kentucky.
We have been fortunate that Democrats and Republicans have served together under fine leadership. We have laid aside political matters. We have worked openly and honestly with each other. For that I am thankful, and I am sure that the Senate is thankful. But, in my opinion, I must say I think it is unfortunate to interject political views as we come to the point of approving what has been termed as the most complex, and one that will perhaps have greater significance and impact than any bill in this century. So I regret that those speculations have been made. I hope we will continue to go forward and work as we have in the past.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I made the statement earlier that I was disturbed by the Elliot Richardson letter, and I was. But I concede that to discuss it, in connection with this conference report is unfortunate. Whatever opinions we had about it we could discuss elsewhere, and we could discuss them as we wished. I wish the issue had not arisen most of all because the Republican side of this subcommittee and this committee has cooperated so wholeheartedly over so many years in the development of this legislation. I refer to the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Florida, and the Senator from Kansas. There has never been the slightest bit of partisanship in any of our committee deliberations or in our conference work with each other over a period of some 7 or 8 years now. I want to underscore what my good friends from the Republican side of the aisle have said on that point this afternoon.
I want to say to them that I do regret that this argument has arisen this afternoon. I hope we will proceed now to dispose of the conference report.
I know the Senator from West Virginia desires to put some questions to me.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; I do wish to do that.
Before doing so, I repeat that this legislation represents a significant achievement in the evolution of our national environmental policy – an evolution which has been carried forward, in great degrees, by the leadership of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE). I think that we have to insure the protection of the health of the citizens of this Nation, and we have to protect against environmental insults – for when the health of the Nation is endangered, so is our welfare, and so is our economic prosperity.
I think that the emphasis here on the health benefits that will follow when implementation of the bill becomes law is very important.
I now ask the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee whether it is not a fact that, when we have dealt with previous legislation, we have concentrated primarily on the immediate problems of air pollution control and the environment, and it seems to me now that we are providing additional enforcement for those existing sources of air pollution, but, more significantly, we are providing effective means of prevention of future air pollution problems.
Is that the feeling and the understanding? I believe the record should reflect it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I think that to a greater extent than we might have in past legislation, we are undertaking to deal with the long-term aspects as well as the short term. I would agree with that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And provision is made for performance standards for new stationary sources, to make sure that no industrial development will degrade the quality of the air so as to endanger public health and welfare, or interfere with and restrain further economic growth. I know at times on the subcommittee and on the committee we have talked about the economics of this legislation as well as the health standards of the legislation, and I know that the Senator from Maine has been one of those who have recognized that this legislation is both an economic measure and an air pollution measure.
I believe that is correct; may I inquire whether the Senator shares that view?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. It undoubtedly will have an economic impact all across this country.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, it will, and it will be costly. And yet the ugly face of pollution must be erased.
The implementation of the policies that are contained in this measure will test the determination in this country to achieve a livable environment, not only for ourselves but for future generations.
In turn, the legislation will test the willingness of the citizens – not just the various levels of government, but the citizens of this country – to control, abate, and prevent environmental pollution. And I wish to compliment the Senator from Maine that, in his addresses throughout the country, in his presentation of these problems before audiences on college campuses and elsewhere, he has emphasized the personal obligation which must be recognized – a rebirth, I should say, of responsibility on the part of the individual citizen of this country.
Is that the feeling of the Senator from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. Completely, may I say to the Senator. We cannot clean up the pollution problem with a piece of legislation. There has to be commitment to it by every citizen, not only with respect to the activities of others, but with respect to each citizen himself, to deal with this problem.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. I appreciate the Senator's attitude.
I conclude by saying that ultimately each and every person will be called on to pay the increased costs – and we must not forget it – associated with the achievement of an environment that, at a minimum, does not endanger public health, for, frankly, if we do endanger public health, we shall have degraded the environment. Effective implementation will require a major commitment, as the Senator from Maine has said, of Government and of industry, of course, but also – and I appreciate his stressing its importance, as I have – of each individual citizen.
I am pleased that the House conferees have made an authorization of $1.1 billion for fiscal years 1971 and 1972. These figures represent the magnitude of the commitment that will be necessary to meet the challenge that is ahead. The next step must be to provide Federal staffing – and I think this is most important – commensurate with the effective implementation of what we are doing today. We must not allow under staffing – the Senator from Maine has discussed this matter in our subcommittee and our committee, and in conference of this Federal program, because if that happens, it will be a major interference with the implementation of the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, as was the case, very frankly, in connection with the Air Quality Act of 1967.
I commend all those who have worked within the conference and all those who have worked within the House of Representatives and the Senate, and especially I commend the chairman of the conference, Representative HARLEY O. STAGGERS, who was a strong advocate, a fair negotiator, and a patient chairman. I commend also the very able chairman of the Senate conferees, my friend, Senator MUSKIE, and all the members of the Committee on Public Works and their staff, both majority and minority, who have put so many long hours into a bipartisan effort to bring forth what will be the most effective pollution control legislation yet enacted by the Congress.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the conference report before the Senate, when fully implemented, will assure an accelerated rate of progress in our national effort to improve the quality of our air environment.
The Senate conferees acceded to several modifications in the bill approved unanimously by the Senate on September 22, 1970, but the final product is an effective and far-reaching environmental protection measure.
The conference report would establish as 1975 standards the automobile emission goals previously proposed for 1980 for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. We have accelerated by 1 year the date on which automobile manufacturers may seek an extension of that deadline. By allowing such applications to be filed on January 1, 1972, we have taken into fuller account the lead time problems of the automobile industry.
The report also would enable the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to set interim standards in the event he finds technology is not available to meet the standard provided by law. The Administrator, in making a decision on interim standards, would have the benefit of reports from the National Academy of Sciences on the progress that has been made in the development of technology and knowledge of the good faith effort of the industry to meet the 1975 deadline.
The report sets a deadline of 1976 for meeting the standard for oxides of nitrogen, with provision for a 1-year extension. Automakers could apply for that extension on January 1, 1973.
The thrust of the section of the Senate bill requiring the establishment of national emission standards for hazardous substances has been changed. The Senate measure required the publication of a proposed prohibition of emissions of hazardous substances. The conference report requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish a list of pollutants which in his judgment is extremely hazardous to public health. He would subsequently publish proposed regulations establishing emission standards. The modified provision requires the Administrator to "establish any such standard at the level which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such extreme hazard."
The conference report retains concurrent Federal-State jurisdiction over enforcement activities, although the final product is a combination of the Senate and House approaches to the matter.
We agreed that in situations where a State has primary enforcement responsibility, the Administrator of EPA would be required to give the State 30 days notice before issuing an order or seeking court action. The Administrator may act without notice to the State in cases where
the Federal Government has primary enforcement responsibility.
Both bills provided for the establishment at the Federal level of national ambient air quality standards, and that concept is of course in the conference report. Implementation plans to be prepared by the States to meet the standards must provide for achieving the standards within 3 years. Again, there are provisions for an extension in the event technology is not available.
I wish to emphasize, Mr. President, that the implementation plans to be prepared by the States to meet the primary national air quality standards must include provision for land use and transportation controls. In my judgment, the term transportation controls is not restricted to motor vehicles. For some areas, the implementation plans may well specify a limitation upon the number of civil aircraft which may land at any airport within such areas. Such restrictions may be necessary in certain metropolitan areas in order to meet the ambient air quality standards.
The conference substitute retains the Senate provision for citizen suits against violators, although suits against the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency are limited to actions in which there is an alleged failure by the Administrator to perform mandatory duties imposed by the statute. Before a suit can be brought, 60-day notice must be given to the alleged violator, the Administrator and the State. The courts are given discretionary authority to award costs, including reasonable attorney and witness fees, to any party.
Mr. President, I understand the purpose of that section of the report which establishes a mechanism for the licensing of patents to those subject to emission standards to be set under the legislation. It is our intent to provide an assured supply of technology to all needing it to comply with the standards.
After reflecting upon the implications of the section, I would have preferred that the issues involved be reviewed by the Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights.
However, the conference report language on the matter is an improvement over the provisions in the Senate-passed bill. The section will not become generally operative for at least 2 years, and in the interim I would hope that the issues involved will be the subject of hearings and review.
Mr. President, the conference committee has devoted many hours of arduous work on its report.
It has been a rewarding personal experience because of the dedication of those involved to see the objective of protecting the public health. I wish to thank and commend the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) and the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the distinguished chairmen of our committee and subcommittee, for their leadership during the development of this legislation. I also wish to pay tribute to the invaluable contributions of the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER).
Mr. President, I wish to echo what has been said about the bipartisan approach to this legislation. As a member of the subcommittee and as a conferee, I can attest that Senators on both sides of the aisle have participated on a nonpartisan basis.
I should like to ask the Senator from Maine to answer one question. Section 110 of the conference report requires the development of implementation plans by the various States, and the approval of such plans by the Administrator. Paragraphs 2 and 2(B) of the section, governing those plans, read as follows:
(2) The Administrator shall, within four months after the date required for submission of a plan under paragraph (1), approve or disapprove such plan or each portion thereof. The Administrator shall approve such plan, or any portion thereof, if he determines that it was adopted after reasonable notice and hearing and that
(B) it includes emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of such primary or secondary standard, including, but not limited to, land-use and transportation controls;
I should like to know if, in the opinion of the Senator from Maine, the term "transportation controls" is limited to motor vehicles.
Mr. MUSKIE. No; I think that that phrase ought to be considered in a much broader context, if we are to fully understand what the intent of the legislation is.
It seemed to the committee that transportation policies must be developed or improved to insure that the impact of pollution from all existing moving sources – automobiles, aircraft, trains, vessels, and so on – is reduced to the minimum compatible with the needs of each region.
For example, construction of urban highways and freeways may be required to take second place to rapid transit and other public transportation systems. The use of motor vehicles may have to be restricted and, in some congested areas, the number of operations of aircraft into an airport may need to be limited, or steps taken to reduce emissions while aircraft are on the ground.
If such controls are required, the committee believes the plan for implementation should so provide. If the plan is approved, Congress expects the Federal regulatory agencies to take the steps necessary to assure compliance with the plan; because what is involved in these greater urban areas, from the standpoint of air pollution, is the whole complex of residential patterns, employment patterns, and transportation patterns – the way in which people move about, go to their work, and live – and all of this ought to be subject to modification, and must be modified if the objective of clean air is to be achieved.
Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
I wish to express strong support for the conference report on these amendments to the Clean Air Act. This bill, I think, is the most far-reaching and important legislation for the control of air pollution ever to be considered by the Congress.
In time, it will bring our Nation clean air and a healthier environment.
It should be pointed out that this bill follows closely the concepts created in the legislation passed in September by the Senate. Further, it adheres in many details to the concepts and recommendations offered by the administration as long ago as last February.
Mr. President, I share the thoughts of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee – I know how sincere and dedicated he is – when he stated that he regrets the partisan nature of the discussion of Secretary Richardson's letter. I share his feelings. I, too, am sorry that occurred. The chairman has pointed out, as have others, that we have maintained an absolutely bipartisan approach on environmental questions, certainly a major problem confronting our country. I have every confidence that it will continue to operate in a bipartisan manner. Therefore, I stand with the chairman of my subcommittee in regretting that the incident occurred.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I commend the leadership and cooperation offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works, Mr. RANDOLPH, the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the distinguished ranking Republican member of the committee, Mr. COOPER, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), and the distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE). Each has been most cooperative and helpful in studying a very difficult and complex subject. This legislation is going to involve not only the Federal Government but every other level of government – the States, the cities, the counties – as well as public and private organizations. In actuality, it will affect and benefit every individual in our country.
In addition, I wish to commend Representative STAGGERS of West Virginia, the chairman of the House committee, and the other conferees on the part of the House. And I thank the staffs of both the committees and the Members for their excellent assistance.
The conference was long and painstaking. It has produced a conference report that I believe will bring to the Nation effective control of air pollution. This bill is a credit to the country. I strongly commend it to my colleagues.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleagues, the Senate conferees, for the compromise legislative product which is now before us.
I would have liked to have had more opportunity to review the House-Senate conference report and all the details of these very important amendments to the Clean Air Act, but I recognize that expedition is mandatory if we are to deal with the major items of legislation still before the Senate at this session.
I did take the time to study the bill carefully to ascertain that the new amendments to the Clean Air Act will not interfere with or change the present statutory framework and implementing regulations for controlling radiological effluents from nuclear facilities. The new Environmental Protection Agency and the Atomic Energy Commission now have certain authorities and responsibilities with respect to such matters as radiation protection standards or the regulation and control of radiological effects from nuclear facilities. Under our present statutes we have very excellently safeguarded health and safety in regard to the use and regulatory control of nuclear facilities, and in my judgment it would have been unwise and potentially dangerous for a generally comprehensive legislative measure such as the one before us to dilute or interfere with our presently governing requirements.
I again want to congratulate my distinguished colleagues for bringing about this compromise, for doing a splendid job, and for rendering such an excellent public service.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He has accurately stated the effect of the bill on the point he has raised. I am happy to endorse his view of it.
I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, today the Senate members of the Conference Committee on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 bring back for final action a bill which has been described as perhaps the most significant domestic legislation of the decade. The action today represents the culmination of a thorough exercise of the legislative process, beginning with 20 days of hearings in the subcommittee, followed by more than a dozen executive sessions of the subcommittee, more than 10 executive sessions of the full committee, 2 days of debate on the Senate floor in September and, finally 12 conference meetings with the House in order to bring to the Congress this conference report.
I would like to note for the RECORD that the number of conference meetings with the House was in no way related to any attempt or desire to obstruct or delay on the part of any Member of the Senate or the House conferees. Rather, it simply reflects the degree of the differences between the House and Senate bill and the great scope of the legislation. Every Member had the same objective, and the conference report before the Senate is truly a historically significant bill.
Great credit is due to the co-chairmen of the conference committee of both Houses, Representative STAGGERS of West Virginia and Senator MUSKIE. Of course, special credit is due to Senator RANDOLPH, chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, and to Senator BOGGS, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.
But I would like to add that this conference was very well attended by all Members and I am especially proud that Senator BAKER and Senator DOLE on the minority side contributed so much in the development of this conference report.
The staffs of both committees also deserve special credit, for not only has the work been difficult and heavy with responsibility, but also, the parliamentary situation has compressed the time available and they have performed magnificently. Their work was most helpful, and I think their names should be placed in the RECORD.
It would be difficult to single out any provision in this bill for special attention. I think it represents a firm application of pollution control procedures, while at the same time being just and incorporating throughout, due process and fairness. The bill provides many procedural protections and involves the judicial branch of Government to a degree never before attempted in programs to achieve environmental quality.
The bill will place great responsibilities on nearly every aspect in our society. It certainly will place great burdens on industry, it will place great burdens on Government, both at the State and Federal level, and it will place great burdens on the people generally for they will ultimately have to bear the expense and, for the first time, possibly experience inconvenience so that we might achieve clean and healthful air. The provisions ask for the highest quality of Government activity, and I am pleased that the bill will become law nearly coincident with the establishment by the President of the Environmental Protection Agency. The administration of that agency is entrusted to Mr. Ruckelshaus, who I believe is an excellent choice to control the exercise of the many duties and responsibilities of the Federal Government under this law.
With the passage of this bill the time for resolute action has come, action that must not be based on recrimination or punishment, but based on the fair application of the law. The burdens are great and I trust that the Federal Government, State government, industry, and the people will ail work together to achieve this goal.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator. As he has said, the staff work has been superlative throughout the consideration of this measure.
In addition to the work of committee, Chief Clerk Richard Royce, Minority Clerk Bailey Guard, and Counsel Barry Meyer, the staff of the subcommittee including Leon Billings, Dick Wilson, Dick Grundy, Phil Cummings, Becky Beauregard, Frankie Williams, Sally White, Eleanor Putz, and the minority staff including Tom Jorling, Harold Brayman, Adrien Waller, Hester Dungan, and Ann Brown are to be congratulated.
Several staff members of Senators were also essential in the development of this legislation including Eliot Cutler of my staff, Allen Jones of Senator SPONG'S staff, Bob Maynard of Senator EAGLETON'S staff, Jim Jordan of Senator BAKER'S staff, and Ward White of Senator DOLE'S staff.
Mr. BOGGS. I share your views of the staff and their performance. It has been terrific.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I concur in the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
My staff and I have had occasion from time to time to consult and work with members of the staff of the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee. They are all superbly able and cooperative and are making a great contribution to the environmental problems presented to that subcommittee.
I did not know that the conference report was going to be brought up today, so I did not have an opportunity to prepare any remarks. However, I do wish to say that the committee members on both sides of the aisle are to be commended for coming up with such a landmark piece of legislation.
I particularly want to say that this bill is a great credit to Senator MUSKIE, whose record in terms of his concern, his activities, and his constructive efforts in the environmental field are unexcelled by anyone else in public life. Today we see before us another solid environmental achievement from Senator MUSKIE and a landmark piece of legislation. I join all those who are concerned about the environment in commending him for his tremendous contribution.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. My greatest regret in the work of this committee was that the Senator from Wisconsin left the committee several years ago. Yet, he has not abandoned his interest in this field. Indeed, he has continued to be a leader nationally in all environmental questions. It is always helpful to have his close interest and attention – and even prodding from time to time – to help us in our work.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in urging approval of the conference report on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.
We are all familiar with the need to prevent the further deterioration of our air. Early this year, President Nixon devoted a major portion of his environmental message to the problem of air pollution.
The need was clear, and in response, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and the full Public Works Committee carefully considered and reported out a bill we felt would contribute to preserving and protecting our environment. Amendments were accepted on the Senate floor which improved that bill. But the legislation we have before us today combines the best elements of the House and Senate bills.
Everyone will not be completely satisfied with the final version of H.R. 17255, but it represents our best efforts to act with the knowledge available to us at this time in an affirmative but constructive manner. It is possible that we will face unanticipated problems in the future, but the Congress will have the opportunity to review the Clean Air Act upon its expiration.
I would point out that the passage of this act does not mean we will eliminate air pollution overnight. It would be impossible to physically accomplish that fact. But it does mean we have taken a substantial first step. It is now up to government at all levels, private industry, and every individual American to make this act work.
I commend my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee for their long but fruitful work on this important legislation, and urge approval of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The report was agreed to.