July 27, 1976
Page 23948
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1976
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 3219, which the clerk will state by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3219) to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, yesterday I had printed in the RECORD my full opening statement which would have consumed the rest of this morning if I were to read it. I hope Members find it useful. In any case, I thought I would begin today's debate with a brief summary of that statement.
Mr. President, in 1970 we enacted the landmark clean air amendments, which had three basic objectives: first, to achieve air quality which would protect public health; second, to establish specific regulatory requirements and precise timetables for achievement of those long term public policy goals for air quality programs.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was a new departure.
We knew our goals. They had been established in 1967 when Congress asserted a national interest in achieving health related air quality standards in our Nation's urban industrial areas and in maintaining clean air in regions in which air was still pristine.
We proposed and saw enacted two basic tools — controls on emissions and establishment of deadlines. Emission controls replaced air quality standards as the enforcement mechanism; and deadlines provided the public with a basis against which to judge progress. For autos this translated into statutory emission standards and fixed deadlines.
The 1970 amendments have brought considerable progress in controlling air pollution. Total emissions of some pollutants have been reduced. We should take pride in these accomplishments. But in most cases, these improvements will be temporary. By mid-1975, the national ambient air quality standards for all pollutants have been fully achieved in only 91 of the Nation's 247 air quality control regions. Emissions from new growth will reverse this progress unless further efforts are made to control pollution.
The real test of pollution control comes now — years later. Whether or not the legitimate gains made can be held is uncertain. Those victories and those precedents are now under attack.
In order to assure the Congress that the requirements of the 1970 act were justified, the Senate Public Works Committee contracted with the National Academy of Sciences for a $500,000 studyof air quality standards.
The Academy reached these conclusions :
First. Evidence accumulated since the enactment of the 1970 amendments supports the ambient air quality standards which were promulgated as a result of that act;
Second. Safety margins associated with those standards are only marginally adequate;
Third. Susceptible groups in the population which may be adversely affected by unhealthy air constitute about 40 million people;
Fourth. Best estimates indicate that air pollution causes 15,000 excess deaths per year, 15 million days of restricted activity per year, and 7 million days spent in bed; and
Fifth. Health effects of automobile pollution alone cause 4,000 deaths per year and 4 million illness restricted days per year.
The Nation still experiences the problems which led Congress to adopt the firm approach of the 1970 amendments:
In the summer of 1975, the State of Iowa experienced its first air pollution alert.
In the summer of 1975, the Washington, D.C., area suffered its highest recorded single day level of photochemical smog in history. The 8-day alert was the area's second longest ever.
The New York Times reported on November 20, 1975, that as many as 30 industrial plants in the Pittsburgh area cut back operations to alleviate emergency levels of air pollution which were the highest concentrations ever recorded in Allegheny County since the establishment of its monitoring system in 1971. An alert is called when the air quality index reaches 100; the readings from November 17 through 20 reached 249.
The challenges to the premises of the act have been limited, but there has been a campaign to eliminate the regulatory and enforcement tools necessary to achieve those public policy objectives.
The bill before the Senate reflects these conflicting pressures. We voted to give cities more time to utilize new transportation modes — and to provide transportation alternatives.
We voted to give the auto industry 2 more years to achieve statutory standards.
We revised the enforcement sections of the act — revisions which are encouraging.
This year the committee voted to make specific the requirement that clean air areas be protected.
We determined that each new major plant should be required to use the best pollution control technology available and that the impact of each new plant's emissions should be evaluated against a national nondegradation standard.
This decision was a victory for environmental quality. It comes at a time when Congress is being asked to sacrifice environmental initiative for economic recovery even though there is little demonstrable relationship between the two.
I would like to turn, if I may, to the subject of nondegradation which appears to be the most controversial aspect of these amendments.
The committee unanimously agreed that the prevention of deterioration of clean air areas should be resolved by the Congress and not by the courts. Having reached these conclusions, the committee worked for many months to develop a consensus regarding the most useful method for prevention of deterioration.
Let me emphasize again the twin objectives of the Clean Air Act from the first one, which was written in 1963 but specifically from the 1967 amendments. The twin objectives were these: To clean up the areas which were already dirty and thus hazardous to the public health and public welfare of the Nation.
The second was to protect those areas of the Nation in which the air was still relatively clean so that it would not deteriorate to the condition of the dirty air areas of the country. It is that latter objective which is the subject of controversy in the nondegradation issue.
The nondegradation provisions in the bill do these things :
First. Place primary responsibility and authority with the States, backed by the Federal Government;
Second. Apply only to new major emitting facilities, not affecting existing facilities ;
Third. Require that large, new sources use the best available technology to minimize emissions, determined by each State on a case-by-case basis ;
Fourth. Provide a margin of safety to protect national ambient air quality standards, assuring prudent consideration of any major emitting facility that may threaten that air quality;
Fifth. Require the Federal Government, as a property owner, to protect the values related to air quality on certain Federal lands under the stewardship of various Federal agencies;
Sixth. Eliminate the so-called buffer zones that were hypothesized around various land classifications;
Seventh. Affect only those areas where air quality is cleaner than the present primary or secondary standards;
Eighth. Establish a permit process, managed by the State, which is included in an analysis of the air quality impact of new, major emitting facilities;
Ninth. Require that the permit application should include data on background air quality and potential associated growth in order to better understand the overall air quality implications of the new facility; and
Tenth. Establish that there should be a nationally applicable maximum level of change in the air quality of clean air regions — the so-called class II increments — which would be a measure in the change in air quality permitted in any given area as a result of the operation of one or more new, major emitting facilities.
The bill's procedures to prevent significant deterioration apply only to new, major emitting facilities and do not affect existing facilities or new facilities which are not specified as major by this bill or by subsequent EPA regulations.
Major emitting facilities are only those 28 industrial sources identified by category in the statute — or later identified by EPA — and which have the potential to emit more than 100 tons of a pollutant per year. These do not include houses, dairies, farms, highways, hospitals, schools, grocery stores, and other such sources.
Once the State adopts a permit process in compliance with this provision, the Environmental Protection Agency role is to seek injunctive or other judicial relief to assure compliance with the law.
III. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
The 1970 Clean Air Act established a deadline for achieving public health related, air quality standards. While substantial progress has been made in bringing many sources into final compliance, an improved mechanism must be established to handle sources presently not in compliance.
The committee recognizes that some of the facilities are in compliance and that other facilities are on compliance schedules. These sources deserve praise.They have made or committed investments. They have cleaned up their emissions or are in the process of cleaning up their emissions.
The committee bill provides for delayed compliance orders and delayed compliance penalties as a new strategy to enforce applicable emission limitations and to address the problem of those existing sources which are out of compliance. This provision allows a State or EPA to issue enforcement orders to sources not in compliance with applicable emission limitations. Such orders will require compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than January 1, 1979.
The committee bill also authorizes the Administrator to seek civil penalties for violation of emission limitations or schedules and timetables of compliance.This authority is independent of the deadline extension and the delayed compliance penalty. If a State has not issued a delayed compliance order with a new time schedule, the Administrator is required to seek an injunction against the noncomplying source and is authorized to seek civil penalties for noncompliance. In addition, the Administrator is authorized to seek additional penalties against sources which are subject to the delayed compliance penalty.
IV. EXPANSION IN NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD AREAS
Under present law, facilities that want to expand at their present locations face a very stringent review test if they are located in areas where ambient standards are presently exceeded. In many cases, this means that under the law, expansion at that site is precluded until the ambient standard is attained.
The reported bill provides some new flexibility in this area, but it is carefully contained and strictly limited. The new amendment would allow expansion at an existing site if a new facility uses the best available control technology, if existing sources meet all applicable emission limitations, and if total cumulative emissions will be sufficiently less to represent reasonable progress toward attainment of the standards.
V. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONTROLS
Transportation and land use controls were authorized as air pollution control mechanisms by the 1970 act. When carried out properly, such controls are a positive tool. The requirements of the 1970 act could have been the stimulus for beneficial uses of land and transportation in environmentally compatible ways. This opportunity was not seized. In order to adjust the transportation control requirements to the difficulties of implementing such policies, the committee has adopted an amendment which provides more flexibility, more local involvement, more time, and more State discretion in fashioning these strategies. The bill requires the adoption as rapidly as practicable of all reasonable transportation control measures in areas where such measures are necessary.
If an area is implementing transportation control measures and all requirements for stationary sources that emit mobile source related pollutants, but still cannot meet the deadline, it may receive a 5-year extension to achieve primary standards for the applicable mobile source related pollutant. A second 5-year extension is available for the few most difficult problem areas. This means that deadlines for those areas could extend to May 31, 1987.
The key tests are that all reasonable requirements are contained in the plan and are implemented as expeditiously as practicable.
The reported bill revises the basis on which land use controls are to be used to assure that land use decisions be made at the local level. The 1976 amendments place EPA's authority to promulgate land use regulations in a new perspective. Land use questions are to be resolved at the State and local level. Federal action is to occur only when the State fails to act or there is a demonstrated inadequacy in the State program to achieve or maintain a health related level of clean air.
VI. OTHER ISSUES
The 1970 clean air amendments included a requirement that State implementation plans impose "emission limitations." This term has been the subject of controversy, litigation, and dispute.
These 1976 amendments provide a statutory definition of the phrase "emission limitation." Intermittent controls or dispersion techniques are unacceptable as a substitute for continuous control of pollutants under this act.
As the courts have held, the act prescribes how air quality standards must be met — neither EPA nor the States may permit a proposed plan to meet the requirements by using tall stacks or other dispersion devices or systems. A policy of encouraging "tall stacks" will increase the burden of pollution. Long range transport of pollutants will be exacerbated. There is no support in the Clean Air Act for such a policy. Certainly such a policy would be wholly inconsistent with the policy to prevent significant deterioration.
VII. AUTO EMISSIONS
In 1970, the Clean Air Act established statutory standards for automobiles because it was recognized that the automobile presented the single most difficult national pollution problem.
This legislation continues that policy.
The committee has made two modifications of the statutory standards adopted in 1970. First, a new standard for oxides of nitrogen emissions is proposed which increased by 2¼ times the level of emissions of that pollutant which will be permitted. Second, except for a minimum number of vehicles, the achievement of that new statutory standard for oxides of nitrogen has been delayed until 1980.
The committee bill requires compliance with the statutory standards of .41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx. in 1980.
Also, the committee bill requires manufacturers to produce 10 percent of their 1979 fleet at the statutory levels required for all cars in 1980. This phase-in is intended to provide a period during which new emission control systems meeting the statutory requirements can be introduced and modified if necessary before 1980.
The requests for a 5-year freeze in auto emission standards were rejected by the committee after careful analysis.
Such a delay would merely give the automobile industry further time to continue to lobby Congress for further extensions.
Such a delay would remove the kind of pressure that has been absolutely essential in forcing the adoption of improved auto emission pollution control technology.
Such a delay would demoralize many local communities which have made efforts to develop control strategies to reduce auto emission pollution in their area.
Such a delay is not needed for energy or economic reasons.
The auto industry is well on the road to recovery. Industry sales as of December 1975 were up 30 percent over those of a year earlier. According to the Journal of Commerce, retail sales are expected to exceed the 1973 record of over11 million units by 1977 or 1978, and should rise to over 13 million units before the end of this decade.
Since the energy crisis, there has been a great deal of discussion of the need for fuel economy in automobiles.
The fact is that the actual fuel economy depends on the choice of technology. The tightening of the emission standards in 1975 had a favorable impact on fuel economy, which improved 14 percent over 1974. Now the 1976 model cars obtain 26 percent better gas mileage than the 1974 models, while continuing to meet more stringent emission standards.
The committee believes that this bill sets standards that will require a new level of technology. Hopefully, this will result in a significant reduction in emissions from cars on the road — not just in the certification stage.
The performance warranty provides the ultimate test of whether the manufacturer is carrying out its responsibility to build cars that will meet the emission standards for their useful life. The manufacturer under this bill is exposed to financial responsibility if a vehicle fails to do so.
Without a performance warranty, the natural tendency will be to cut corners.
If there is an anticompetitive aspect associated with this requirement in present law, then the committee amendments should be more than adequate to correct it.
The committee clearly wanted to take every reasonable step to protect the aftermarket industry and the consumer against monopolistic practices by the automobile manufacturers. As a result, this bill includes three new provisions to enhance competition in aftermarket parts and services.
These actions include:
First, requiring all owners' manuals to contain instructions that maintenance does not have to be performed by the dealer or with the manufacturer's own parts;
Second, making illegal any warranty provision that attempts to tie coverage to the use of the dealer's service and parts;
Third, establishment of a program which will enable aftermarket parts manufacturers to certify that their parts perform as well as the auto manufacturer's — the auto manufacturers have no role in approving such certification; and
Fourth, a Federal Trade Commission study of any possible anticompetitive effect.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Congress asserted in 1967 a Federal interest in protecting the public's health from the adverse impact of air pollution and a national policy to protect air quality in clean air areas. Congress recognized that a national regulatory framework with basic minimum standards and an aggressive Federal agency would be necessary.
We must not disband that effort.
I support much of this bill. There are improvements. There are causes of concern. There are provisions which, if enlarged in later actions, will lead to delay, reductions of efforts, and the inevitable conclusion that environmental goals and public health protection will not be accomplished. That possibility we must not forget.
It is in that spirit, Mr. President, that the committee virtually unanimously reported out and supported this bill, the details of which, I must say, were subject to much controversy among committee members until we were finally able to resolve our differences and present a package to the Senate which we thought made sense and which was viable.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to my good friend from New York.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I wish simply to echo the sentiments expressed here this morning by the chairman of the subcommittee.
I spoke at much greater length on yesterday, than I intend to do this morning, detailing the philosophy behind this bill. I do reemphasize, as has the Senator from Maine, that this is the product of a tremendous amount of work over a period of many months, that there are features in it that are compromises, frankly, compromises with which people may not be entirely happy, but I believe we have achieved a fair compromise. I believe it is workable. I believe, whereas it may put back certain specific goals, it will not really slow the momentum to achieve the goals of clean air throughout this country.
I believe, too, that although there is the possibility the Senator speaks of — that people might say, "Aha! They pushed back certain guidelines; let's try to mobilize pressure for more"— it is quite clear that the deadlines that we are establishing in this bill are reasonable and attainable.
There should be no excuse for anyone to start dragging their heels in anticipation of further delays. I will work with the Senator to see that there are no further delays.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from New York, who has been a strong supporter of the objectives of the Clean Air Act since he has been a member of the committee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution. We appear to take the same point of view this morning which I think we have taken throughout the consideration of this bill.
Mr. President, there are approximately 24 amendments at the desk, and I hope they will be offered by the sponsors as rapidly as possible. I know that the leadership would like to proceed with this measure as rapidly as possible.
In that connection, I am happy at this point to yield the floor, so that the Senator from New Mexico may bring up the first of his amendments..
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of and votes on the present matter, the Clean Air Act, Mrs. Judy Hefner, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lee Rawls and Janice Cohen, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor during the entire deliberation of this bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Charles Gentry, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor for that portion of the debate that concerns the ozone depletion and the regulations under that section.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 1623
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up my printed amendment No. 1623.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEAHY) . Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 20, line 22, insert "(a)" after "SEC. 7.".
On page 28, after line 7, insert the following:
"(b) Section 110 of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding a new subsection as follows:
"'(i) In carrying out the requirements ofsubsections (a) (2) (B) (i) and (ii), (g), and (h) of this section and subsections (d) and (g) of section 113, the State shall provide a satisfactory process of consultation with general purpose local governments and designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Administrator to assure adequate consultation. Such regulations shall be promulgated after notice and opportunity for public hearing and not later than four months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1976. The Administrator may disapprove any portion of a plan relating to any measure described in the first sentence of this subsection or to the consultation process required under this subsection if he determines that such plan does not meet the requirements of this subsection. Only a general purpose unit of local government, regional agency, or council of governments adversely affected by action of the Administrator approving any portion of a plan referred to in this subsection may petition for review of such action on the basis of a violation of the requirements of this subsection.' ".
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that the distinguished floor managers — for both the majority and the minority — are aware of this amendment.
It is my honest belief that the subcommittee and the committee touched on the purposes and intent and requirements of this amendment at various times in the many months of deliberation. I believe that when we have a chance to discuss it, they will agree with me that it is consistent with the theory and intentions of this bill; that perhaps it was an oversight or perhaps in the business of so many issues, we thought we had covered this matter either with report language or with the substantive amendments that are before us.
Basically, amendment 1623 establishes a consultive framework between State and local government for other portions of the law, including nondegradation and stationary sources, as with transportation control plans. I see such local involvement as an absolute prerequisite to establishing the kind of grassroots support that will insure the success of the Clean Air Act. Without local support, I feel that we may be conducting a noble but futile effort, and I urge that the amendment be adopted.
Basically, Mr. President, I am saying here that, along with the other requirements in this bill, the States shall provide a satisfactory process of consultation with general purpose local government and designated organizations of elected officials of local government in accordance with regulations promulgated by the administrator to assure adequate consultation.
Mr. President, as this committee proceeded through deliberations in connection with the Clean Air Act Amendments for this year, it was obvious that in many areas local government is expected to lead the way; local government is expected to be up front in terms of leading their populace in the very difficult and sometimes almost impossible implementation of the Clean Air Act.
What I have done here, on behalf of the mayors of our country, on behalf of the Association of County Officials, is merely to build into the process of evaluation the process of contact with local government, the processes whereby the Governor and the State do certain things with reference to SIPS, with reference to nondegradation, with reference to planning or control under that section for transportation control planning — that we require that the process has an acceptable consultive process for local government.
This amendment, I say to the distinguished Senator from Maine, is not the one that sets up the mechanism to do the planning, but merely requires that a consultation mechanism with general purpose local government be established. The floor managers of the bill, both for the majority side and the minority side, have heard of the need for this, and I hope they will support it. It is my effort to put into language what we, as a committee, really believe should be part of the process.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I read the amendment, its purpose is to insure that States provide for satisfactory consultation with local governments in carrying out land use, transportation controls, nondegradation, in issuing delayed compliance orders, and in implementing the steel amendment. That is to be done, I gather, under regulations to be published by EPA to insure adequate consultation.
I understand, also, that the amendment provides that the Administrator may disapprove plans that have not complied with regulations; finally, that such disapproval can be petitioned only by local government.
It is a very carefully worded amendment. I believe it is consistent with the philosophy of the bill. It is the kind of consultation which is consistent with the intent of the transportation control and land use provisions of the bill. Further, I think it is a useful expansion of that approach to apply it to delayed compliance orders and the amendment.
Finally, I gather that the amendment is supported by the National Association of Counties, the League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, without whose support the objectives of the Clean Air Act could not be advanced effectively.
I do not know whether the Senator from New York has any questions about the amendment.
However, on all those counts I think it is a consistent amendment, and I am prepared to accept it.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I shall not oppose this amendment, but I do want to express perhaps a reaction.
I believe that the Senator from New Mexico is totally correct when he states that transportation plans, for example, simply will not work without public support and that public support is best elicited by having locally elected officials totally involved from the beginning to the end.
However, I have seen many examples of where we create unnecessary problems when the Federal Government dictates to a State that it will work with its local officials. I prefer that we leave it entirely to the States to work things out with their local officials, in accordance with their own constitutional systems. I hate to see us expanding the areas in which we have dictation from Washington to a State, even though I totally agree with the objective of the specific amendment as a practical matter.
Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator indicate that he would oppose the amendment?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I will not oppose it.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think the Senator's question and concern are very relevant.
In this amendment, I do not intend to give the Administrator of EPA any more authority with reference to what goes into the plan or plans or process. I envision that EPA merely would have a kind of checklist and say, "Is there a consultive process?" I know of no other way, having heard the testimony that not only is the Federal Government the usurper of local involvement but the States are as well, in many instances. They have a State umbrella, and they come down all of a sudden and tell the city, "This is your plan. This is what youare going to do."
I am trying here to say that everyone knows that without local consultation, local knowledge on the part of elected, local, general purpose government leaders, these kinds of impositions, these kinds of changes in the way we are going to do business, our constituents or our institutions will not work. I do not envision a mammoth, detailed involvement by the national Government, but, rather, that they will be sure there is a consultation process with local government.
I thank the Senator for raising the issue.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I understand the point that is being raised by the Senator from New Mexico, but this amendment would, nevertheless, dictate to the State that it must consult.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is true.
Mr. BUCKLEY. This, to my mind, is an infringement on what ought to be within the independence and sovereignty of the State, the right to make mistakes.
But I am not going to press this point, and I offer no objection to the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from New York.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. McCLURE. I think it is possible that some future administrator of EPA might decide he does not like what is in the State plan or some plan for a locality and use the authority that is required under this proposed amendment to say, "Unless you change some details of the plan, I shall certify that there has not been sufficient compliance with this consultative procedure." Certainly it is not the intention of the Senator from New Mexico that the authority of the administrator under this amendment to require consultation could be used in that manner.
Mr. DOMENICI. I concur wholeheartedly with that interpretation and unequivocally indicate that it is not the intention of this amendment to expand upon the authority of the Administrator of EPA with reference to what is or is not in a plan or process or approach other than to find that there is a consulting mechanism.
Mr. McCLURE. If, indeed, an administrator at some time in the future should attempt to use the authority granted under this provision in order to force a change in the detailed plan, that would be a clear abuse of the authority of that office under the conditions of this amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for that clarification.
Mr. DOMENICI. I repeat, I thank the Senator from New York and the Senator from Idaho for raising these issues. If there is anything that we found in the days of hearings with reference to the various changes that have to occur at the local level in order to get our ambient air ultimately to the state that we want it, aside from cleaning up the cars and aside from cleaning up stationary sources, and the other things that are going to have to occur, it is obvious that they are not going to occur by any kind of mandate from an Administrator of EPA on high.
He has tried that. His activities in transportation planning, control planning, have been described as draconian. He has been described in Los Angeles as being some kind of dictator on high, saying we are going to have to take our cars off the street, ration gasoline, retrofit our cars. What we are talking about here is if you want anything to work, including the SIP's as they develop them, be they amendments or the ongoing processof developing SIP's, you just have to consult with the mayors, councilmen, or county commissioners. That is all I intend here, that we have a process whereby they will obtain knowledge because they have been consulted with. They do not even have any authority under this amendment, but they must be consulted with as this law is implemented.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for that explanation. I share some of the philosophical concern that the Senator from New York, very justifiably and understandably, raised.
I share with the Senator from New Mexico the feeling that any of these plans, to be successful, must have local acceptance and local support. It is far too easy for local officials to condemn a plan as being foisted off on them by some national administration if they have not been involved, and it is much more likely to succeed if, as a matter of fact, they are involved in its development and will be involved in its implementation. Then they are a part of it, they are partly responsible for it, they have helped to shape it, they have a stake in seeing that it works. They will attempt
to make it work instead of trying to subvert it.
I think the consultative process is a very valuable and very necessary one. I shall support the amendment, but I do have the recognition that an administrator who would desire to use this authority in some other way might attempt to do so. That is the reason that I asked the question: To make it very, very clear that an administrator who tried to dictate content in the plan by withholding the certification that consultation had taken place would be very clearly abusing the authority granted to him under this amendment.
I think the amendment is a good amendment and I support it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think the amendment has been thoroughly discussed. I am prepared to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 1624
Mr. DOMENICI. I call up my printed amendment No. 1624 and ask that it be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 25, strike lines 3 through 7 and through "purpose." on line 8, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(7) (A) The implementation plan required by paragraph (3) of this subsection shall be prepared by an organization of elected officials of local governments designated by agreement of the local governments in an affected area, and recognized by the State for this purpose. Where such an organization has not been designated by agreement within nine months after the enactment of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1976, the Governor (or, in the case of an interstate area, Governors), after consultation with elected officials of local governments, shall designate an organization of elected officials of local governments in the affected area to prepare such plan.".
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before I discuss this amendment, I wonder if I may have the attention of the floor manager of the bill for just a moment.
I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I believe that Senators HUMPHREY and MONDALE have an amendment that specifically relates to this amendment No. 1624. I believe that I can accommodate their amendment by inserting a phrase in mine. I wonder if the manager of the bill has any indication from Senator HUMPHREY or Senator M0NDALE as to their desire with reference to their amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is amendment No. 2084.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico that it would clearly fit in with his amendment and we could dispose of both at once. Perhaps we had better consult with them first.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think what I shall do, Mr. President, is send a modification of my amendment to the desk. We shall discuss it. I assume that the discussion will satisfy the distinguished Senators HUMPHREY and MONDALE. If it does not, they can discuss it with us.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the distinguished Senator, I have to leave the floor briefly. I should like to leave one suggestion: that is that the time frame in this amendment was changed from 9 to 6 months. On page 21 of the bill, on line 9, there is a deadline of June 1, 1978, for the completion of a detailed planning study that evidences public and local governmental involvement. That deadline will be a little tight, I think, with the 9 months of the Senator's amendment. He might consider, while he is discussing it in my absence, changing the 9 to 6 months.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to our distinguished chairman that I have no objection to 6 months. I offer this thought: Many of the dates and months in this bill are out of focus now that we consider the time frame when we originally contemplated it versus when it will finally become law. I assume some of these will be adjusted in conference, in any event, so they will become more realistic.
Mr. President, I shall include in the modification that I have at the desk changing the 9 months to 6. That has been done on the modification. As I understand it, I have the right to modify it without unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. For those who do not have the modification, it is as follows: Change the "nine" on line 9 to "six" and add some language to change the Humphrey-Mondale amendment.
In the fifth line of my amendment, after the word "governments," I would insert: "or by an areawide agency designated under State law to perform comprehensive planning for the affected area."
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 25, strike lines 3 through 7 and through "purpose." on line 8, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(7) (A) The implementation plan required by paragraph (3) of this subsection shall be prepared by an organization of elected officials of local governments or by an areawide agency designated under State law to perform comprehensive planning for the affected area designated by agreement of the local governments in an affected area, and recognized by the State for this purpose. Where such an organization has not been designated by agreement within six months after the enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1976, the Governor (or, in the case of an interstate area, Governors), after consultation with elected officials of local governments, shall designate an organization of elected officials of local governments in the affected area to prepare such plan.".
Mr. STAFFORD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
I ask unanimous consent that Victor Maerki, of my staff, may have the privileges of the floor during the consideration and votes on the pending business before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEAHY). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate has just adopted my amendment 1623 and, when coupled with amendment No. 1624, these amendments are more or less a single legislative package designed to give local government a voice in the implementation of the Clean Air Act.
The absence of a statutory role for local governments in the present Clean Air Act came in for heavy criticism during the committee's 1975 legislative hearings. One local official referred to the intergovernmental provisions of the laws as a "nightmare." Others detailed a growing grassroots rebellion against the act traceable to the lack of local involvement.
During its deliberations on the present amendments, the committee was well aware of the need for upgrading the role of local governments. The committee report explicitly addresses this issue on page 29, where it states:
To date, a major problem has been a deficiency in local involvement in transportation control planning. To correct this, the bill requires that locally elected officials participate in the development of transportation control plans to obtain the post-1977 extension. This recognizes that transportation control planning is a local political process affecting the daily lives and transportation patterns of local voters.
I would like to stress that involving locals in transportation control planning and other aspects of the bill is not simply a matter of intergovernmental comity. It is essential for the protection of the health of the American people. Statutorily, transportation control plans represent the last line of defense in achieving the health goals of the act. They are used when all else has failed. As the report notes, 31 metropolitan areas have already been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as in need of transportation control plans. EPA projects that 63 will need them to meet the national standards by 1985.
Several additional points are in order to highlight the gravity of the situation. A large portion of the debate on the automobile standards has highlighted the improvement being made in the emissions of new cars. Counterbalancing these gains, however, is the continued growth in the automobile population and the poor emission performance of in-use automobiles. The Nation is faced with the prospect that after 1985, the gains made by statutory controls on new cars will be overwhelmed by growth in automobile usage and poor in-use performance. In short, we have less than a decade to amend our errant ways or face the prospect that the present struggle over automobile emissions will have been for naught.
It is because I consider it so critical to engage local government in both the transportation control process and the overall implementation of the act that I offered the two amendments, one of which has been accepted.
The amendments themselves I consider to be of a technical nature, however. As the committee report indicates, we clearly recognized the importance of local participation in the transportation control process. The language of the bill, drawn in large part from an administration proposal, does not fully implement the intent expressed by the report. My amendments remedy the situation in two respects. First, amendment 1624 would clear up the ambiguous designation section of the transportation control section by making it explicit that local elected officials have the first option on doing the planning. The present amendments provide a procedural no man's land that exhort locals to do the planning but leave all authority with the States.