Exhibit 2
December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

craft, so that we finally ended up with

a good aircraft instead of a bad one, a?

well as the cancellation of the Navy version, which then led to the Navy designing a plane that it could use. Certainly,

billions of dollars were saved to the

United States because of the actions taken and precipitated solely by the investigation undertaken by the senior Senator from Arkansas on the TFX. He, indeed, has rendered a great service to the

Nation. It has resulted in a saving of

billions of dollars, and we should all be

grateful for it.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the distinguished Senator, and I extend my appreciation for the cooperation he has given

to the chairman not only in this investigation but in others as well since he became a member of the subcommittee.

I yield to the distinguished Senator

from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, as I

have said before, the Senator from Arkansas and his colleagues on the com- mittee have rendered an outstanding

service, a very timely service, and have

been, as always, effective in developing

the full facts.

With reference to the Navy plane to

which the Senator from Arkansas has

referred, the legislative branch of the

Government declined to authorize more money for that plane. The Department

of Defense was still asking for the

money. The Navy was testifying in favor

of the money, for the plane. At the

Armed Services Committee hearings on the military authorization bill, we got

two or three of the admirals before us at

the same time and asked them a se- quence of questions about the plane;

that led to the answers that caused us to

strike out the plane entirely and to deny

the requested funds. That is the only way

it could have been stopped. Of course,

the plane was not in production at that

time, and we substituted the F-14, which

is now in progress.

Mr. McCLELLAN. The Secretary of

the Navy was testifying for it. Secretly,

however, Navy officials were telling Mr.

McNamara that the plane would not

work. We found that out, and we realized

then with what we were confronted.

Mr. STENNIS. I commend the Senator

very highly for the report.

With regard to the commonality question, regardless of who was honest and

who was right and sincere in the

beginning, this proves that a common plane is not possible now, on the same general design and plan, and that knowledge is worth a great deal, too.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the distinguished Senator.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair wishes to announce that, under

the previous order, the Senator from Indiana was to have been recognized. In

his absence, that order is vitiated, and

the Chair recognizes the Senator from

Maine.

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 con- trol agreement. It will enable the coun- try to clean up the air and protect the

public health.

The conferees' agreement, no less than

the Senate bill, intends that all Ameri- cans 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 reme- dies, 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 cf 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 wllingness

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.

42381
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 18, 1970

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 goalsprotective 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 lvels of air quality better than

the national standards should not find

their air quality degrade 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 am- bient 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, nau- sea, 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 car- bon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides which have been projected for

1980 had to be met eariler. The bill re- quired that this be done by 1975.

To insure that production line ve- hicles 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 perform- ance of each individual vehicle as to

compliance with emission standards.

The Senate in setting the 1975 deadline made every effort to make that re- quirement consistent with what the industry had testified on many occasions over the years: It provided 2 years for re- search 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 re- quirements could 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 impossi- bility of infeasibility were not considered

sufficient reasons to avoid tough standards and deadlines, and thus to compro- mise 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 breatheable 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 ra- tional 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 or- ders 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 com- pliance with the standards and requirements of this act.

The bill extended the concept of public

participation to the enforcement proc- ess. The citizen suits authorized in this

legislation would apply important pres- sure. 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.

42382
December 18, 1970

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 long- er can be forced to rely upon the auto

manufacturer to determine whether

technology is available. He must test

engine systems developed by private par- ties 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 con- ference 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 over the past few months, was the deadline for the

cleanup of the internal combustion en- gine 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

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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 the 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 leadtime 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.

42383

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 con- ference agreement mandates that meas- urement 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, cor- rective 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 con- ferences 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.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 18, 1970

EXHIBIT 1

SUMMARY OF THE PROVISIONS OF CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT ON THE CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS

or 1970

STATIONARY SOURCES

Air quality control regions: The agreement

provides that areas of states not designated

will be considered as air qualty control regions and provides authority for Administrator to designate interstate region.

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.

Pre-emption: The agreement preempts

State emission standard-setting authority,

except for California.

Low emission vehicle: The agreement authorizes certification and purchase of LowEmission 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 Yunctions.

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

$650 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 com- ments 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 gen. erally more restrictive levels of air pollution of the secondary standards within a reason. able set time period and should be related to the difficulties with which a particular re. gion Is confronted.

With up to four months for the final pro- mulgation of national standards, up to nine months for the States to develop their plans and up to four months for the Administra. tion to either approve a State plan or decide to substitute his own authority in promul. gating 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 am- bient air quality standards, these plans must provide for emission limitations on all serv- ices in the region covered by the plan, to- gether with schedules and timetables of compliance, systems for monitoring both ambient air and emissions from individual sources, and adequate enforcement author- ity (including special provisions for air pol- lution emergencies). Implementation plans must provide that when adequate on-the- road motor vehicle emissions tests are de- veloped, 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 im- plementation 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 transporta- tion 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

42384
December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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;

Ferroalloy 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

relay 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 States' en- forcement. 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 pro- jected curves can be reduced." (Volume 1, p. 372.)

This information, in addition tc 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 legis- lation will have failed unless better perform- ance 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 in- spection 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 bet- ter 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 emis- sion standards for 5 years or 50,000 miles.

This performance warranty is in addition to

a statutory warranty of freedom from de- fects 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 manufac- turer's reasonable instructions is a precon- dition 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.

42385
42386 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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 Lhe 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 un- acceptable. 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 au- thorizes citizen suits against polluters to abate violations of any emission limitation

under the Act (including State implementa- tion 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 appro- priate.

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 or 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 con- ference.

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 proposi- tion?

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

December 18, 1970
December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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 an- nounced agreement had been reached on the vital auto deadline, to which the

Senator from Maine has already re- ferred, 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 mid1971 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 confer- ence 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 confer- ees 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 over- sight 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 himeslf 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 Richard- son. 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 confer- ence. 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 re- ceived. 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 re- ported this bill out of the Subcommmittee 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

42387
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 18, 1970

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, be- cause 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 con- ferences 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 exec- utive 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 con- stant 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 mo- ment 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 cor- rect.

Mr. EAGLETON. Then, I would like

to ask this question, without for a mo- ment wishing to detract from the ex- cellent 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 re- spect 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 meaning- ful, worthwhile and strong bill. I think

it will contribute materially to the busi- ness of cleaning up air in this country and taking care of the problem of automobile emissions. That has been accom- plished 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 cooper- ated, and there has also been coopera- tion 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 ac- complishment for a committee or a subcommittee.

The Senator from Maine is to be com- mended 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 non- political, 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, re- ferring 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

42388
December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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 factfinding 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 con- fronted 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 ME. 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 judg- ment, 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, un- less the Secretary of HEW extends this peri- od 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 pe- riodically 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 reg- ulator 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 pre- scribed 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

42389
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 18, 1970

lengthly 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 Veticles. 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 pre- liminary 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 stand- ard within three years after approval of the plan. In addition to limited Secretarial au- thority for extensions based on new infor- mation, provision is made in the bill for ju- dicially-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 dead- line subsequent to approval of the imple- mentation plan, the Senate bill plainly con- cedes that cases may very well arise where mariginal 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 Sec- retary 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 reflecing 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

42390
December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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 emis- sions 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 con- trol procedures contained in Section 115. Ac- cordingly, 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 com- ments on both that separate bill and a com- parable 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

CXVI- 2670--Part 32

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

similiar 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 im- plementation, 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 con- tradiction 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

42391
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 18, 1970

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 previ- ous 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 pol- lution. 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 understaffing

-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 confer- ence, 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 con- ference 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 sev- eral modifications in the bill approved unanimously by the Senate on Septem- ber 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 leadtime 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 goodfaith 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 Sen- ate 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 re- quired 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

42392
December 18, 1970

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 pro- visions in the Senate-passed bill. The

section will not become generally opera- tive 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 Sen- ator 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. BOGos), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.

COOPER), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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 Admimstrator shall approve

such plan, or any portion thereof, if he determines that it was adopted after reason- able notice and hearing and that-

(B) it includes emission limitations,

schedules, and timetables for compliance

with such limitations, and such other meas- ures 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 con- tinue 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 com- mend 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 nas 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 com- mend 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 ex- pedition is mandatory if we are to deal

with the major items of legislation still

before the Senate at this session.

42393
42394 CO;

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 cochairmen

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.

NGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

The staffs of both committees also deserve special credit, for not only has the

work been difficult and heavy with re- sponsibility, 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 all 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.

December 18, 1970

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 Wa- ter Pollution Subcommittee. They are all

superbly able and cooperative and are making a great contribution to the en- vironmental 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 com- mittee 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 con- tinued 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 uest 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
December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

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.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House

had agreed to the following concurrent

resolutions, in which it requested the

concurrence of the Senate:

H. Con. Res. 771. Concurrent resolution

for the printing of environmental report;

H. Con. Res. 785. Concurrent resolution

authorizing the printing as a House document the book entitled "Our American Government and How It Works: 1,001 Questions and Answers"; and

H. Con. Res. 790. Concurrent resolution to

provide for the printing of 5,000 additional

copies of parts I and II of the hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Education

of the Committee on Education and Labor

entitled "Discrimination Against Women."

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED

The message also announced that the

Speaker had affixed his signature to the

following enrolled bills and joint resolutions:

H.R. 6114. An act for the relief of Elmer

M. Grade and for other purposes;

H.R. 6400. An act for the relief of Reddick

B. Still, Jr., and Richard Carpenter;

H.R. 15549. An act to amend title 10,

United States Code, to further the effectiveness of shipment of goods and supplies in

foreign commerce by promoting the welfare

of U.S. merchant seamen through cooperation with the United Seamen's Service, and

for other purposes;

H.R. 17809. An act to provide an equitable

system for fixing and adjusting the rates of

pay for prevailing rate employees of the

Government and for other purposes;

H.J. Res. 1416. Joint resolution fixing the

time of assembly of the 92d Congress; and

H.J. Res. 1417. Joint resolution extending

the dates for transmission to the Congress

of the President's Economic Report and of

the report of the Joint Economic Committee.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS

REFERRED

The following concurrent resolutions

were severally referred to the Committee

on Rules and Administration:

H. Con. Res. 771. Concurrent resolution for

the printing of environmental report;

H. Con. Res. 785. Concurrent resolution authorizing the printing as a House document

the book entitled "Our American Government and How It works: 1,001 Questions and Answers"; and

H. Con. Res. 790. Concurrent resolution to provide for the printing of 5,000 additional

copies of parts I and II of the hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor en- titled "Discrimination Against Women."

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS, 1971

The Senate resumed the consideration

of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two

Houses on the amendments of the Senate

to the bill (H.R. 17755) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for

other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the conference report

on the appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, what is

the question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference

report on the appropriations bill for the

Department of Transportation.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am not

prepared to vote yet.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL

MINING AND MINERALS POLICY

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask the

Chair to lay before the Senate a message

from the House of Representatives on S.

719.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

SPONG) laid before the Senate the

amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 719) to establish a

national mining and minerals policy,

which were, on page 1, line 4, strike out

"1969." and insert "1970".

On page 1, strike out all after line 4

over through and including "Act." in line

11, page 2, and insert:

SEC. 2. The Congress declares that it is the

continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and

encourage private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and stable

domestic mining, minerals, metal and

mineral reclamation industries, (2) the

orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and

environmental needs, (3) mining, mineral,

and metallurgical research, including the

use and recycling of scrap to promote the

wise and efficient use of our natural and

reclaimable mineral resources, and (4) the

study and development of methods for the

disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral

waste products, and the reclamation of mined

land, so as to lessen any adverse impact of

mineral extraction and processing upon the

physical environment that may result from

mining or mineral activities.

For the purpose of this Act "minerals"

shall include all minerals and mineral fuels

including oil, gas, coal, oil shale and uranium.

It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior to carry out this policy

when exercising his authority under such

programs as may be authorized by law other

than this Act. For this purpose the Secretary of the Interior shall include in his annual report to the Congress a report on the

state of the domestic mining, minerals, and

niAneral reclamation industries, including a

statement of the trend in utilization u and depletion of these resources, together with such

recommendations for legislative programs as

may be necessary to implement the policy of

this Act.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I will

shortly ask that the Senate adopt the

amendments of the other body to my bill

S. 719, but first, I believe a few comments

are in order.

There has been some misunderstanding with regard to my concerns over the

inclusion of the energy minerals within

the scope of the National Mining and

Minerals Policy. The House Report on

this measure contained this comment:

One of the chief concerns appeared to be

that the inclusion of these minerals in S. 719

would detract from the urgency of establishing a national energy policy. The Committee

is fully aware of the need and urgency for an energy policy and it is also aware of the numerous studies now underway on the en- ergy situation as well as the legislation now pending in both the House and the Senate to set up a commission to study this problem.

While this may be the concern of some,

it is not my concern. Quite the contrary,

the inclusion of the energy minerals

would be a very positive step toward the

establishment of an energy policy.

Without commenting upon the merits

of a national energy policy, the matter of

including the energy minerals concerned

me because as the House Report points

out:

S. . The fuel minerals make about 65

percent of the total value of all domestically

produced minerals.

To put it another way, two-thirds of

our minerals industry is involved in the

production of energy.

My concern is that the energy minerals, and especially in light of the present

energy crisis, will dominate considerations in effecting the policy. It is not that

I am unaware of the energy crisis-the

whole Government is aware of it. There

are a number of committees, commissions, and other groups, both governmental and non-governmental studying

the problem, and it appears that there

will be more. There seems to be little

doubt that the energy problem will receive the attention it deserves. My concern is that the other minerals, so essen- tial to our standard of living and national security, will not receive the attention

and consideration they require and deserve.

I expressed this concern during the

confirmation hearings on Dr. Osborn, the

new Director of the Bureau of Mines. Dr.

Osborn was asked if he would administer

the programs of the Bureau of Mines and

propose new programs under the authority of S. 719 which would place equal emphasis upon the general mineral industry as on the energy mineral industry.

Dr. Osborn indicated that he thought it

could be done, and affirmed his belief

that it should be done. He concurred in

my concern that the energy mineral extraction industry might tend to overshadow the "hard-rock" or general mineral industry, and confirmed his belief

that the emphasis on each should be

equal or comparable.

The question then is, how best to

achieve this equality or comparability of

emphasis?

There is little doubt in my mind that

the problems of oil and gas are quite

different, in general, from the problems

42395