June 10, 1977
Page 18472
UP AMENDMENT NO. 387
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, I send to the desk an unprinted amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 387:
On page 18, line 15, after "ment" insert "or innovative fuel combustion techniques".
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, the proposed provisions for application of best available control technology to all new major emission sources, although having the admirable intent of achieving consistently clean air through the required use of best controls, if not properly interpreted may deter the use of some of the most effective pollution controls.
The definition in the committee bill of best available control technology indicates a consideration for various control strategies by including the phrase "through application of production processes and available methods systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment."
And I believe it is likely that the concept of BACT is intended to include such technologies as low Btu gasification and fluidized bed combustion. But, this intention is not explicitly spelled out, and I am concerned that without clarification, the possibility of misinterpretation would remain.
It is the purpose of this amendment to leave no doubt that in determining best available control technology, all actions taken by the fuel user are to be taken into account — be they the purchasing or production of fuels which may have been cleaned or upgraded through chemical treatment, gasification, or liquefaction; use of combustion systems such as fluidized bed combustion which specifically reduce emissions and/or the post-combustion treatment of emissions with cleanup equipment like stack scrubbers.
The purpose, as I say, is just to be more explicit, to make sure there is no chance of misinterpretation.
Mr. President, I believe again that this amendment has been checked by the managers of the bill and that they are inclined to support it.
Mr MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have also discussed this amendment with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I think it has been worked out in a form I can accept. I am happy to do so. I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back on both sides?
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
The amendment was agreed to.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 388
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, I send to the desk a third amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON) proposes an unprinted amendment No. 388.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, 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 48, line 17, after "is" insert "(A) ".
On page 48, line 19, after "Act" insert "or (B) the administrative order on consent issued by the Administrator on April 1, 1976, requiring compliance with sulfur dioxide emission limitations or standards at least as stringent as those promulgated under section 111".
On page 48, line 21, after "1979," insert "except such administrative order or consent,".
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, this amendment is a very narrowly drawn amendment to prevent the inequitable imposition of noncompliance penalties against the Louisville Gas & Electric Co. which has entered into an agreement with the Government for the development and experimentation of scrubber technologies. As I say, it is a very narrowly drawn amendment. It simply avoids an inequity that could occur.
Mr. President, my amendment is aimed at correcting an inequity fostered by the penalty provisions for noncompliance with applicable emission limitations. In no way is it inconsistent with the other purposes of the section of S. 252 dealing with compliance orders. As I understand it the penalty provisions of section 11 would impose a penalty for noncompliance "in an amount equal to the cost of actual compliance by such facility in any economic value which may accrue to the owner or operator." I believe that the rationale for such a penalty is clearly and correctly that noncompliance offers a competitive advantage to the owner or operator of a noncomplying facility in comparison to other such facilities in a similar field and comparable market area.
My amendment would exempt the Louisville Gas & Electric Co. has been recognized by EPA as the preeminent leader in the electrical utility industry in the effort to develop sulfur dioxide removal systems. As early as 1967 the company built a 65 megawatt generator and installed its first SO2 scrubber as a basis for a cooperative research program in SO2 removal and sludge disposal. Certainly, undertaking a test of good faith in the case of L.G. & E. would require no "excessive burden on the manpower and resources of the States and the EPA" as is the fear expressed in the committee report.
While L.G. & E. funded the program on its own at the outset, in the fall of 1975 a contract was signed with EPA for $1 million worth of Federal funding of the research program in SO2 removal. Concurrently, L.G. & E. initiated a fullscale demonstration program in 1973 and in October 1976 the company received a $1.8 million grant from EPA for developing disposal methods for the sludge from the SO2 removal system. It is this private-Federal cooperative effort which provided the basis for the present compliance schedule for L.G. & E. which was negotiated in November 1975. The compliance schedule extends to 1985, some 6 years beyond the July 1, 1979 date set out for compliance in S. 252. Though special provisions are made for cases when innovative technology is used, this extension, according to new information could extend only until 1981. Even if L.G. & E. should qualify for the extension, this leaves some 4 years in which L.G. & E. must pay compliance penalties. It has been estimated that unless my amendment is adopted, L.G. & E. would be penalized at the rate of $1.5 million per month during this period.
However, in the present instance it should be clear the consent decree and the compliance schedule of the Louisville Gas & Electric Co. requires the company to meet more stringent standards of sulfur dioxide emissions than those applicable to any other electrical generating facility in the market area. L.G. & E. has agreed to meet new source performance standards for sulfur dioxide emissions for all existing facilities for its entire system under its present compliance schedule.
Thus, if the proposed amendment is not adopted the present language of S. 252 would, in the instance of L.G. & E., stand on its head the economic rationale for the penalty provisions of section 11. Additionally, I am at a complete loss to understand the equity in a situation where perhaps the leading innovator of the electrical utility industry in the field of pollution control should be penalized for the employment of new techniques, for it is the installation of these new techniques that caused the compliance schedule to run until 1985.
Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill if my amendment is acceptable.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. President, I have also discussed this matter with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. As I understand it, the Louisville Gas & Electric Co. is under a court order. They did so in good faith. They complied with it and they are moving faster than many other companies in similar situations to adopt scrubbers and clean up their pollutants.
The Environmental Protection Agency, as I understand it, has signed that order and it is agreeable to this proposal.
With all that, I think the public interest is safeguarded and it is agreeable to me to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back on both sides?
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I am concerned with parts of section III of the original Clean Air Act which are not addressed by the proposed Senate amendments: My concerns are directed at the promulgation of "New Source Standards of Performance" applicable to facilities that research and demonstrate new energy technologies.
In the realm of energy development, R. & D. progresses carefully before becoming commercially developed. Pilot plants are process research and development tools; demonstration plants are designed to further enhance the commercial viability of developing fossil energy technologies. And both types of facilities research and demonstrate technical feasibility, while gathering information necessary for optimizing environmental control strategies.
EPA is mandated by the Clean Air Act to develop NSPS for all "major emitting facilities." While I certainly agree that NSPS should be promulgated for all proven technologies, I fear that NSPS applied prematurely to unproven technologies could result in either hindering the progress of necessary research and development on the technology, or eliminating investigation of the technology entirely.
I envision cases in which EPA might attempt to set NSPS for new energy technologies before adequate research and demonstration has been completed. Such standards promulgation, without the necessary range of information completed, would serve no purpose but to arbitrarily regulate a process before it is either necessary or advisable. At best, such regulation represents a standard setting process which bases itself on inadequate information.
In light of our energy goals, I do not feel that we can afford to let such a situation affect our energy development programs. Avoiding the problems I have described would be most easily executed through an exemption mechanism directed at research and demonstration facilities. However, in view of our equally important environmental goals, I realize that such a mechanism may not satisfy the intent of our present amendments.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky that there is no point in setting binding standards that are without adequate foundation, or when the commercial implementation of a new technology remains some time away. Certainly we do not want to preclude any technical option on energy production through implementation of poorly formulated standards.
However, we must avoid certain past mistakes which placed technology goals ahead of environmental goals within our Federal research and development programs. We need only look at our nuclear program to recognize these dangers. I feel that it is important that the formulation of NSPS should proceed as the information available from R. & D. is realized so that assurances must be given that R. & D. is equally directed at securing optimum control strategies for the technologies in question. We cannot afford to allow environmental quality to take a backseat to our need for energy development.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. My colleague has made an excellent point, and, perhaps having learned from past misjudgments, I believe we are making progress toward assuring that energy research and development and environmental goals are balanced.
Through legislation enacted over the past several years, we have given the Energy Research and Development Administration a fourfold mission: to develop all energy sources necessary to meet the needs of present and fixture generations, to increase the productivity of the national economy and make the Nation self-sufficient in energy, to protect the environment, and to assure public health and safety with regard to use of these energy sources. Through such legislation, we have explicitly mandated that technology research, development, and achievement of necessary environmental goals coincide.
As an internal mechanism for fulfilling its environmental responsibilities, ERDA has established environmental development planning in all its R. & D. programs. The EDP — the document which articulates the environmental goals of a program — is designed to insure that all technology development is accompanied by simultaneous environmental R. & D. These guidelines are intended to assure that all environmental goals are met by each stage of technology development, up through commercialization.
In addition, and equally important, many mechanisms are being used to insure coordination between ERDA and EPA on environmental matters. They range from interagency agreements to technical discussion by telephone. And, they include planning, field projects, and interagency reviews and meetings.
Through such guidelines and the cooperation I have mentioned, I think that the proper relationship between NSPS promulgation, new technology R. & D., and environmental goals can be maintained. However, I feel that it is our responsibility to monitor this interaction to assure that concerns from all parties on this matter are properly addressed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think we can both agree that a way to both fulfill our energy R. & D. goals, and simultaneously insure protection of our environment is through interagency cooperation between ERDA and EPA on the matter of NSPS coordination and promulgation. Furthermore, I would stress that we look to EPA and ERDA to provide that cooperation, and to the Congress to insure its obligations.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in the interest of saving time, because other Senators with amendments are not in the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska be recognized in order to bring up his amendment out of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Does that leave the Senator from South Carolina in the same order?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 389
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS), for himself and Mr. ZORINSKY, proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 389.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the amendment be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows;
On page 107, line 11, insert the following new section 38, and renumber all succeeding section accordingly:
Sec. 38. Section 211 of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding a new subsection (g) as follows:
"(g) (1) For the purposes of this subsection:
"(A) The terms gasoline and 'refinery' have the meaning provided under regulations of the Administrator promulgated under this section.
"(B) The term 'small refinery' means it refinery producing gasoline which
"(i) is only that fraction of the capacity of which was in operation or under construction on October 1, 1976, and
"(ii) has a crude oil or bona fide feed stock capacity (as determined by the Administrator) of 50,000 barrels per day or less, and
"(iii) is owned or controlled by a refiner with a total combined crude oil or bona fide stock capacity (as determined by the Administrator) of 100,000 barrels per day or less.
"(2) No regulations of the Administrator under this section (or any amendment or revision thereof) respecting the control or prohibition of lead additives in gasoline shall require a small refinery prior to October 1, 1982 to reduce the average lead content per gallon of gasoline refined at such refinery below the applicable amount specified in the table below:
"(3) Effective on the date of the enactment of this subsection, the regulations of the Administrator under this section respecting fuel additives (40 CFR part 80) shall be deemed amended to comply with the requirement contained in paragraph (2.).
"(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt the right of any State to take action as permitted by Section 211(c) (4) (C) of this Act."
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, this amendment is sometimes referred to as the small refineries amendment. We have only one refinery in Nebraska. It is a very small one. Many of these small refineries would have to be totally rebuilt if they were going to comply with everything that might be imposed upon them. They do not have the capitalization to do that. At the same time, were they to be closed, the surrounding territory would suffer a great deal.
The distinguished Congresswoman from Nebraska offered an amendment, which was adopted unanimously, in connection with small refineries. My information is that it would meet with considerable opposition to the Senate. As a result, the language before the Senate is very much restricted. It is restricted to a refinery that has a crude oil or bona fide feedstock capacity, as determined by the Administrator, of 50,000 barrels per day or less and is owned and controlled by a refiner with a total combined crude oil or bona fide feedstock capacity, as determined by the Administrator, of 100,000 barrels per day or less.
It also grants this relief only until October 1, 1982; and it is further restricted in its subject matter over the House amendment.
It is my understanding that the distinguished chairman of the committee, who is in charge of the bill, has examined this amendment and is willing to accept it. In that case, I am ready to submit it and yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have examined the revised amendment proposed by Senator CURTIS on small refineries and am prepared to accept it.
The Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated lead phase-down regulations requiring a maximum average lead content for each refinery of 0.5 grams per gallon by October 1, 1979. This is a health-based regulation intended to insure a positive and lasting reduction in lead emissions to the ambient air. It is a result that will benefit the health of many people and I firmly support it.
However, this regulation places a heavier burden on smaller refineries. To meet that level a refinery must either produce large volumes of unleaded gasoline or reduce the lead content of leaded gasoline, or both.
Some small refineries may be too small to produce unleaded gasoline or to install the equipment to lower the lead content to the level in existing regulations on the same schedule as large refineries.
The amendment provides a temporary relaxation in the average lead requirement for small refineries for 3 years, until October 1, 1982. This will allow time for them to install the necessary equipment to produce gasoline with lower lead content or to make alternate plans. EPA has authority to provide for a permanent standard for small refineries.
The amendment is sharply limited. It applies only to existing small refineries with 50,000 barrels per day or less crude oil capacity and that were in operation or under construction October 1, 1976. It only includes those that are owned by small refineries, with 100,000 barrels per day crude oil capacity or less. There are about 66 small refineries covered.
Altogether, these refineries produce about 5 percent of the U.S. gasoline. Thus, the net increase in national average lead levels will be moderate, from 0.5 grams per gallon up to 0.55 grams per gallon.
EPA is required to establish lead requirements for those refineries which produce more than 15,000 barrels per day of gasoline but have crude oil capacity of 50,000 barrels per day or less. According to a report by Sobotka and Company, most of these refineries have processing configurations similar to these in larger facilities and thus would be able to meet the lead requirements as easily as large refineries. The others could add the necessary facilities at a cost equivalent to adding them to large refineries. EPA could take these facts into account in setting lead requirements in this category.
For small refineries, the standards set by the amendment are reasonable. For those with 1976 gasoline production up to 5,000 barrels per day, 2.5 grams per gallon; for those between 5,000 and 10,000 barrels per day, 2.0 grams per gallon; and for those between 10,000 and 15,000 barrels per day, 1.5 grams per gallon.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, on behalf of the minority, we also are prepared to accept the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank my distinguished colleagues very much, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 390
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 390.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 30, line 13, after "(6) (A)" insert the following: "Within six months after the enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1977, for each region subject to this subsection the State and elected officials of affected local governments shall jointly determine which elements of a revised implementation plan will be planned for and implemented or enforced by the State and which such elements will be planned for and implemented or enforced by local governments or regional agencies, or any combination of local governments, regional agencies, or theState.".
On page 30, line 18, strike "recognized" and insert in lieu thereof "certified".
On page 30, line 23, after "local governments," insert "and in accordance with the determination under the first sentence of this subparagraph,".
On page 30, line 25, after "area" insert "or a State agency".
On page 32, line 10, after "title 23, United States Code," insert the following: "other than for safety, mass transit, or transportation improvement projects related to air quality improvement or maintenance,".
On page 32, line 11, strike "State" and insert in lieu thereof "air quality control region (1)".
On page 32, line 12, after "attained," insert "(ii)".
On page 32, strike lines 14 through 17 and insert in lieu thereof "(iii) where the Administrator finds after January 1, 1979, that the Governor has not submitted an implementation plan which considers each of the elements required by paragraph (2) of this subsection or that reasonable efforts toward submitting such an implementation plan are not being made (or, in the case of a revised implementation plan required by paragraph (3) of this subsection, after July 1, 1982).".
On page 32, line 23, strike all after "section," through page 33, line 10, and insert in lieu thereof "including any requirement for a revised implementation plan under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Administrator shall not make any grants under this Act".
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I submit today an amendment to the committee bill to cover two problems with the section on implementation plans, section 110 (h) — intergovernmental relations and sanctions for failure to submit implementation plans in a timely fashion. Much concern has been expressed about the fact that the committee bill as it stands on these two questions is unduly harsh. The National Conference of State Legislatures strongly supports my amendment. The National Association of Counties and the National Governors' Conference both support my amendment as an acceptable compromise to the committee bill. I am of the opinion that the amendment will satisfy the vast majority of the concerns expressed to date.
Mr. President, for too long State and local governments have been faced with the problem the Federal Government dictating how State and local governments should interact particularly with regard to areawide programs. My amendment would follow the example set by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1977 by allowing State and local governmental bodies to decide how best to address the questions of planning, enforcement,. and implementation. State and local governments can sit down together to decide which level of government should handle which facets of planning. Similar decisions will be made with regard to enforcement and implementation. It gives me pleasure to encourage this form of governmental interaction without imposing upon the State and local bodies the ominous presence of the Federal Government. This portion of the amendment should continue to provide the appropriate level of government the ability to handle problems where they should be handled.
The second portion of my amendment deals with the question of sanctions for failure to submit implementation plans in a timely fashion. My amendment would not require penalizing the entire State for the failure of a single air quality control region. Only that region would suffer. But they would not suffer when incomes to those aspects of transportation funds that are related to safety, mass transportation, or improvement projects related to air quality improvement or maintenance. To penalize a region by deleting funds in those areas that are the subject of this act makes no sense. We need to encourage these three areas, rather than penalize regions violating the requirement for submittal of plans.
My amendment would do one more thing. Instead of requiring what some people are concerned would be the impossible, my amendment would set a deadline of January 1, 1979, unless a showing can be made that reasonable efforts are being made to submit an implementation plan. We should not penalize those regions that are in the process of submitting, or have made best efforts to submit, a plan, but have not yet done so for some legitimate reason. Thus my amendment offers an element of commonsense.
Mr. President, all this amendment does is to tighten up, quite properly, language that was accepted by the committee as punishment for the lack of adopting a plan. Rather than denying other moneys, we would deny highway moneys if an area did not adopt a plan.
The amendment that was accepted in committee dealt with an entire State, and this amendment would add technical language that would limit the punishment area to a quality control region itself, so that the whole State would not suffer punishment if it did not come up with a plan. That precise area would suffer punishment if it did not come up with a plan. Rather than deny all highways moneys, it was felt that it would be more proper not to deny moneys that dealt with safety, that dealt with mass transit; and it dealt, in point of fact, with improvements in air quality.
So we have precisely limited it to the moneys that have been designed for a region. If it did not come up with a plan, it would be moneys that they would be expending from normal highway transportation system funds, which obviously would be an occasion for further pollution. That precisely is what should be punished, and we should not use a broad brush, which is the way we had it defined in the proposal accepted by the committee.
I hope the managers of the bill will accept this amendment. It is technical in nature. It does more certainly what should properly be done in this regard.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures which supports my amendment, the National Association of Counties, which also supports my amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, N.W.,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
June 9, 1977.
Hon. Mike GRAVEL
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR GRAVEL: On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures and as Chairman of its Committee on Natural Resources, I want to thank you and offer our strong support for your amendment to the transportation control planning provisions of S. 252.
We are especially pleased at the language allowing state and local governments to determine for themselves what level of government is best equipped to assume what responsibilities for transportation control planning and implementation. This buttresses one of the fundamental principles of the Clean Air Act: that the prevention and control of air pollution is "the primary responsibility" of state and local governments. State and local leaders are in the best position to know each others' strengths and weaknesses, and while the federal government may tell states and localities what must be done, it does them and the nation a desservice when it attempts to dictate how they must work together. Your amendment goes far to remove some of the vexing intergovernmental difficulties that have plagued transportation control programs in the past.
The National Conference is also pleased that you have seen fit to modify the funding sanctions for nonimplementation and failure to comply with requirements for amending state clean air plans. In principle, NCSL is opposed to any sanctions, on the ground that they are often worse than the deficiencies they are designed to remedy. We also believe that sanctions are inequitable here, since the successive relaxation of auto emission requirements has already shifted a heavy burden onto state and local governments to implement more stringent transportation controls. We recognize, however, that reasonable men can argue that some sort of penalty is essential to assure that this difficult job is done, and we see your amendment as a thoughtful compromise.
By protecting safety, mass transit, and air quality related transportation improvement projects, the amendment assures that the sanction does not impair funding for projects that are essential to the abatement of the pollution problem. The amendment also assures that an entire state does not lose funds for the failure of one metropolitan area to develop adequate controls. Finally, your amendment recognizes that the Administrator is in the best position to decide whether the sanction should be applied for a state's failure to make reasonable efforts to amend its clear air implementation plan.
For an these reasons, we appreciate your efforts to make such a politically and administratively nettlesome clean air requirement more workable. While we have reservations about the equity and reasonableness of funding sanctions generally, in the spirit of compromise we wish you every success in your efforts to secure your colleagues' assent to your important amendment. Sincerely,
Senator BERNARD C. SMITH,
Chairman, NCSL Committee on Natural Resources,
New York State Senate Committee on Conservation and Recreation.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION of COUNTIES
Washington, D.C.,
June 9,1977.
Re Clean Air Act Amendments S. 252.
Hon. MIKE GRAVEL,
U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR GRAVEL: The National Association of Counties would like to take this opportunity to express our support for the amendment that you are sponsoring to the transportation control provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments S. 252.
We are especially pleased that the amendment provides language to ensure that states and local governments will have the opportunity to plan for and implement transportation control measures. This language is very important to remedy the past situation where the federal government has actually dictated transportation control programs for states and local governments to implement. Not only has this past policy been contrary to the spirit of sound intergovernmental cooperation but it has also resulted in strong protests and reactions from state and local officials who are forced to implement these measures.
Transportation controls will not be successful unless they are supported and prepared by the officials who are most intimately involved with the nature of the community.
We are also pleased that the amendment seeks to modify the funding sanctions that are now contained in the bill S. 252 for local governments which fail to implement or comply with the transportation control plans. NACO is opposed in principle to sanctions as a means of forcing local governments to comply with federal programs. We do not believe that sanctions will, in fact, force local governments to comply with federal programs. Instead, we favor positive incentives to assist local governments meet the mandates of the federal government. We believe the latter approach ensures more of a partnership between federal. state and local governments.
We are especially opposed to sanctions in this instance because we are being penalized for the failure of the automobile industry to comply with the statutory emission standards.
Transportation controls are necessary to compensate for the excess pollution in our urban areas that results from dirty cars. Thus, not only are we being forced to compensate for the failure of the auto industry by instituting these transportation controls, but we are also being threatened with severe financial sanctions if we cannot comply with the measures in the time that Congress has provided.
We believe it would be more equitable for the Congress to first require the automobile industry to comply with the statutory emission standards before they begin discussing sanctions to local governments. .
While we would favor total deletion of the sanctions, we do believe your amendment, by lessening the possibilities that the sanctions win be applied, strikes the most reasonable compromise possible.
We appreciate your efforts to assist us in this regard.
Sincerely,
CAROL SHASKAN,
Legislative Representative.
Mr. STEVENS. President, has the amendment been agreed to?
Mr. MUSKIE. I was about to indicate my acceptance of it.
Mr. STEVENS. I just wanted to ask a question, to make sure I understand this.
I have an amendment which would go partially in this direction. Do I correctly understand my colleague's amendment means that if you have an implementation plan, whether you implement it or not, there will be no loss of highway funds?
Mr. GRAVEL. That is right. Not even that, but if you are making an effort to arrive at an implementation plan, there will be no loss of highway funds.
There is a terminal effect: If you do not make any effort at all by 1979 to come up with a plan, if there are no best efforts, then we stick it to you in a very surgical way.
Mr. STEVENS. I am sure the Senator knows that Fairbanks has a problem, and it is a naturally caused problem. I do not know of any solution to it yet.
Mr. GRAVEL. The fact that we are thinking of a solution and working on one will give it umbrage, under this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. But if we cannot find a way by 1979 to solve it
Mr. GRAVEL. If we cannot find a way by the year 2000, we still will not get hurt.
Mr. STEVENS. This means that the State of Alaska will not lose those funds if we cannot solve the ice fog problem?
Mr. GRAVEL. If that happens, I will come to the floor of the Senate and slash my wrists.
Mr. STEVENS. I do not want the Senator to slash his wrists. I just want to make sure that he will not slash my wrists. [Laughter.]
Mr. MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, we will ask him to slash them on the streets of Fairbanks.
Mr. President, as I understand the amendment, it is a reasonable modification of the committee amendment. It still retains some sanctions for those jurisdictions which make no effort, undertake no effort, to put together implementation plans, and so I am ready to accept it.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the amendment offered by Senator GRAVEL to eliminate the highway fund sanction for failure by a State to implement a transportation control plan.
I do not believe that the Federal Government should seek to enforce a clean air program under the threat of a disruption of another virtually important program. Transportation projects are essential to the economic health of the States — they improve the efficiency of the movement of goods and people, they serve the national defense and they provide substantial employment opportunities.
I think that it is important also that we undertake to enforce all necessary clean air strategies. But the sanction retained by the Gravel amendment of a curtailment of Federal funds to State air quality agencies is in my opinion sufficient and certainly more appropriate.
I therefore shall vote for the Senator from Alaska's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. MUSKIE I yield back my time.
Mr. GRAVEL. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska.
The amendment was agreed to.