# Exhibit 2

## December18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

- SENATE

craft, so that we finally ended up with

agood aircraft instead of a bad one, a? well as thecancellation ofthe Navyversion,which thenledtothe Navy designing a plane thatit could use. Certainly, billions of dollars were saved to the United Statesbecauseofthe actions taken andprecipitated solelyby the investigation undertaken by the senior Senatorfrom Arkansas on the TFX. He, indeed,has rendered a great service tothe Nation. It has resulted in a saving of billions of dollars, and we should all be gratefulforit.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the distinguished Senator, andIextend my appreciation for the cooperation he has given tothe chairman notonly in thisinvestigation butin others aswell sincehe 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 fullfacts.

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.TheNavy wastestifying in favor of the money, for the plane. At the Armed Services Committee hearings on the military authorization bill, we got two or threeofthe admirals before us at the same time and asked them a se- quence of questions about the plane; thatled tothe answers that causedus to strike out the plane entirely and todeny the requestedfunds.That isthe onlyway it could have been stopped. Of course, theplane was not inproduction at that time, andwe substitutedtheF-14,which isnow inprogress.

Mr. McCLELLAN. The Secretary of the Navy was testifying forit. Secretly, however, Navy officials were telling Mr. McNamara that the plane would not work.Wefound thatout,andwerealized then with what we were confronted.

Mr.STENNIS. I commend theSenator very highly for the report.

With regardto 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 designandplan, andthatknowledge is worth a great deal, too.

Ithank theSenator. 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 theprevious 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- CONFERENCEREPORT
Mr.MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit

a report ofthe committee of conference

on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses onthe amendment ofthe 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 askunanimous consentfor thepresent consideration ofthereport.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. EAGLETON). 

### IS there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider thereport.

(Forconference report,seeHouse proceedingsofDec. 17, 1970,pp.42283-42294,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)



### Mr.MUSKIE. Mr.President,it iswith considerable satisfaction thatIreport 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 billwhich were notconsidered at all by the House committee or by the House, norreflectedin theHouse version of this bill. The conferees worked long and hard on resolving these differences and dealing with the House problem of including in thebill provisions whichthe House had not considered. I think that what we have is a tough bill.

I commend to all of my Senate colleagues theresultofthe 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, nolessthan the Senate bill, intends that all Ameri-

cans in all parts of the country shall have clean air to breathe within the 1970's.

Theconferees' agreement, nolessthan the Senate bill, carries the promise that ambient air in all parts of the country shall have no adverse effects upon any American'shealth.

Theconferees' agreement, noless than the Senate bill, faces the air pollution crisis with urgency and in candor. It makes hard choices, provides just reme- dies, requires stiffpenalties.

Theconferees' agreement,noless 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, willbe enough.

Thatis 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 3months. 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, andwhat thecon

### ferees 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 ofEnvironmental 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 yearin healthcare costs.

It was clear that the country was falling behind in its struggle for clean air. Automobiles were putting out 64 percent ofthe carbon monoxide and50 percent ofthe 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 thenew legislation then being considered would have to go beyond the limited objectives of the AirQuality Actof 1967. Senators will recall that the 1967 act was drawn to enhance air quality, to reduce harmful emissions, and to "give the Secretaryauthority to implement that objective in the absence of effective State and local control."



### The 1967 act established procedures for theachievement 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 cfall 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,morepervasive 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 arational solution to the air pollution problem.

It is also clear that ambient air quality standards whichwillprotectthe public health must be set as minimum standards forallpartsof theNation, and that they mustbe met in all areaswithin national deadlines.

Congress adopted emissions standards

asthe basic control technique formoving

sourcesin 1965, because theyare not controllable at the local level. Here we learned that tests ofeconomic and tech

### nological feasibility applied to those standards compromise the health of our peopleand lead to inadequate standards.

In 1963, the Congress recognized that theFederal Governmentcould nothandle theenforcement task alone, andthatthe 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 financialcommitments 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 standardsforat 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 newproblems. Those areaswhich have lvels of air quality better than the national standards should not find their air quality degrade by the construction ofnew 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 betolerated. 

### Fifth, the bill provided the Administratorwith the authority to setemission standards for selected pollutants which cannot be controlled through the am- bientairqualitystandards andwhich are not hazardous substances. These pollutants could later be covered by either ambient airquality standards orbyprohibitions as hazardous substance.

The Senate alsorecommended significantchangesin titleIIofthe actdealing withmoving sources, andespecially with automobiles.

In 1968, moving sources were responsibleformore than42percent of the total emissionsofthefivemajor pollutants.

In health effects, these pollutants

mean cancer, headaches, dizziness, nau- sea, metabolic and respiratory diseases, and impairment of mental processes. Clearly,solvingthe airpollutionproblem depended on the achievement of significant reductions in the emissions from automobiles. Clearly, protection of the public health required quick and drastic reductions.

Since legislationtodeal withtheproblemofautomotive emissionswas firstintroduced in 1964, the industry had known that they would have to develop thesolutionstothe problem.In 1965they announcedthatnationalstandards could be met in the fall of 1967.

It wasclear thatcontinued relianceon gradual reductions in automotive emissions would make achievement of the ambient airquality standards impossible withinthenationaldeadlines established in title I of the Senate bill. More important, it would continue hazards to health long afterthey should have been eliminated.

Inorder 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 standardsfor car- bon monoxide, hydrocarbons, andnitrogen oxides whichhavebeenprojectedfor 1980 had to be met eariler. The bill re- quiredthatthisbe done by 1975.

To insure that production line ve- hicles perform adequately, the Senate bill required thateach 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 withemission 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

overthe years:It provided 2years forre- search anddevelopmentofthe 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 andjustified.Thebillalso provided for a review of thatdecision by an appellate court.

The Senatewas awareof theproblems theserequirements mightcreate forindividualcompanies.Therefore, thebillprovided aprocedure formandatory 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 ofinfeasibility were notconsidered sufficient reasons to avoid tough standards anddeadlines, and thus tocompro- mise the public health. The urgency of the problems required thatthe industry consider, not only the improvement of existing technology,butalso 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 Senaterecommendedsignificantchanges is the area of enforcement. Standards alone would not insure breatheable air. Alllevels ofgovernment hadtobe given adequate tools to enforce those standards.

The Senate remains convinced that most effective enforcement of standards would take place on the State andlocal levels. It was here that thepublic could participate most actively and bring the most effective pressure to bear forclean 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 shouldmakeonthe Stateandlocal level. They should be consistent with a ra- tional nationwide policy and should be subject to the approval of theAdministrator.

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 ofasmuchas $25,000 foreachdayofafirstviolation.

Thebill alsoprovided theFederalGovernment 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 requirementsofthisact.

Thebill extended theconcept ofpublic participation to the enforcement proc- ess. The citizen suits authorized in this legislation would apply important pres-
sure. Although the Senate didnot advocatethesesuitsas thebestwaytoachieve enforcement, it was clear that they should be an effective tool.

Mr.President,thosewere thebasicand principalportions of the package taken by the Senate conferees to the first meeting with the House conferees on October8.Onseveralof thosepoints,the House bill was silent. I ask unanimous consent to include in theRECORD atthe end of my remarksa 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 andthe implications of those provisions be included immediately following the summary.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection,itis soordered.

(Seeexhibit 1.) Mr. MUSKIE. I have no doubt that thislegislation, like its predecessor, will besubject tocriticism. Already theauto industryhasindicated itisunacceptable. Others willfocus on its limitations and still others will find fault for political
purposes.

That is the democratic process. It is
not inthepublicinterest that all critics be satisfied. But false implications are notneeded. This isnot apolitical measure-ithadunanimoussupportfrom the Senate conferees-some of whom had differing views on specific language but allof whom knew that a public demand neededasternresponse.

One issue on which there will be repeated interpretationand misinterpretationinvolves thedeadline forachievementof emissions standardsforpassenger cars. The Senate did not get all thatitwanted here.The Senateconfereeshad 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 applicationfor suspension from the effect of the deadline must be made earlier than24months before the effectivedate ofthe standardin question.

Second, the administration isrequired 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-

ercan be forced to rely upon the auto manufacturer to determine whether technology is available. He must test engine systems developed byprivatepar- 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 bythisstatute.

Let me say, with respect to the con- ference agreement as it relates to the Senate agreement, that the Senate did notgetall it wanted. It wasnecessary to compromise. Yet, inmany instances, the compromise resulted in a stronger bill thaneither theSenate orthe Housebills. 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 1year 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.

Therehasbeen one changemade,upon House insistence. The date for applying for that 1-year extension ofthe 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 thefield aswell 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.Thisadvances thedatefor 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 thelaw, andonly Congress can change 

### it.If thereview procedureisfollowed and 

### results in an extension, the maximum extension permittedforthe 1 year aswas the case in the Senate bill. Any extension beyond thatcanbe providedonly by action of Congress. That has not been changed bythe conference agreement.

I think the action we have taken on the automobile deadline is a reasonable compromise, in lightof thefact thatthe 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 Senatebill is,I think, as tough now,followingthe 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. Thismeans thatthe lack of technology or the leadtime to the smaller companies cannot be used as a justification for suspension by themajor manufacturers.

Further, the companies must provide the Administrator with the information needed to judge their technical capability.TheAdministrator shouldrequire periodic reports on the progress of technology from each company-such reports and comments thereon shouldbe 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 measurementtechnique. This hasbeen doneonce 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

newmeasurement technique for vehicles. 

# 42383

The new technique had the effect of increasing the allowable emissions for 1970-74passenger cars. Bythe 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 wasincreased.

The conference committee was aware ofthepotentialfor adjustment.Thecon- ference agreement mandates thatmeas- urementtechniques bedetermined within6months after enactment. Shouldthe base beadjusted again; that is, should a new measurement technique be adopted for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons

soas toincrease theamount ofemissions and thus alter the circumstances on which our judgment has been made, oversighthearings, andifnecessary,cor- rective legislation will be the result.

Mr. President, this legislation is the productofan effortwhichinvolvedmany people over an extended period of time. The members of the Senate Committee

on PublicWorks and their staffs deserve particular praise. Our hearings were numerous andthere weremoreexecutive sessions.The members were patient, attentive, cooperative, and not partisan.

Chairman RANDOLPH and Senator COOPER, both ofwhom sit with the subcommittee, helpedguide thebill through the full committee. Senators BOGGS,

BAYH, MONTOYA, SPONG, EAGLETON, BAK

### ER, and DOLE worked long hours on this bill and thefinal versionrepresents their individual commitments tothe 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 agood, strong,reasonable bill helped maintainourdetermination.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 faithfullyassisted byKurt Borchardt and BobNordhaus, andwithout their cooperation with the Senate conferees' staff, this bill couldnever had been produced.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to emphasize again that committing the Congresswith this legislation cannot be, andwillnotbe.enough. InthisChamber,

we can make promises to provide the funds andthemanpower necessary to set and enforce the standards. That is not enough.Wemust carry our commitment through to the appropriations of those funds.

This program requires a commitment notonly 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 mostvaluable,mostessential,tothequality 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 THECLEAN AIRAMENDMENTS

or 1970
STATIONARY SOURCES Air qualitycontrol regions:Theagreement provides thatareas of states not designated will be considered as air qualty control regions and provides authority for Administratorto designate interstate region.

Airqualitycriteria andcontroltechniques: The agreement requires issuance of remaining air quality criteria for majorpollutants within 13 months of date of enactment.

National ambient air quality standards: The agreement establishes procedures for setting primarynational 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.

Implementationplans:The Administrator has six months to approve a submitted implementation planor if no planis submitted

or the plan is inadequate, to substitute a plan of his own. The planmust be designed

to achieve the level of airquality established by the primary standardwithin three years, and must include a description of steps which will be taken, including transportation andland use controls, emission requirements, and other enforcement procedure.

Statestandards:The agreementenables the State orlocal subdivision to adoptairquality emission standards thatare stricterthanthe national standard.

New source performance standards: The agreement authorizes regulations to require thatnewmajor industryplants such aspower 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.

Hazardoussubstanceemissions:Theagreement requires the administratorto regulate emissions ofpollutants foundtobehazardous to health.

Federalenforcement: The agreement prohibitsviolation of any airquality 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.

Federalfacilities:The agreement requires Federal facilities to control air pollution.

Moving sources: Standards-The agreement requires emission standards based on protection ofpublic health andwelfare without regard tothe propulsion system andprovides thatthe 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 ayear. It also provides forproduction line testing ofvehicles.

On the road testing and compliance:The agreement requires warrantyof 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 grantsfor vehicle inspection: The agreement authorizes 2-1 grantsto the States for developing emission inspection systems.

Pre-emption: The agreement preempts State emission standard-setting authority, except for California.

Low emissionvehicle: The agreement authorizes certification and purchase of LowEmissionVehicles.

GENERAL

Research: The agreement authorizes $75 million for fiscal 1971, $125 million for fiscal 1972, and $150 million forfiscal 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.

Stateplanninggrants: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.

Citizenssuits: The agreementpermits citizens suits to enforce violation of standards. Suits against the Administrator are limited tomandatoryYunctions.

Federal contract compliance: The agreementprohibitsthe FederalGovernment from signing contracts with any company convicted of violation of air quality laws. The agreement authorizes the President to issue

an executive orderto provide uniform contract compliance language.

Judicial review:The agreement permitsreview ofthe standards,implementation plans,

or other action taken pursuantto the Act.

Mandatory licensing: The agreement authorizes mandatory licensing ofpatents, on technology not otherwise reasonably available to facilitate compliance with provision ofthis Act.

Authorization: The agreement authorizes $650 million for three years for purposes other than Section 104.

Environmentalpolicy: The agreement requires the Administrator to review any National Environmental Policy Act statements andmajorFederalactions andmake hiscom- ments public.

Noise pollution: The bill establishes an Office of Noise Abatement andControl in the Environmental Protection Agency and authorizes $30 million to carry out functions.

DIscussION OFKEY PROVISIONS Section 107-108. The conference agreement requiresthe designation of airquality 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, andtheconference committee felt it desirable to speed up their availability. Criteriahave 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 benecessary.

Section 109. Under section 109 of the agreement, national ambient air quality standardsmustbe established, either within

one month of enactment or simultaneously with any criteria issued. For each pollutant subject to a criteriadocument, therewill be

a primary ambient air quality standard,set at thelevel of airquality adequate to protect the public health, and a secondary ambient air quality standard to eliminate adverse effects onwelfare.

Section 110. Section 110 requires each State to develop an implementation plan which assures the attainmentof theprimary ambientairquality region within threeyears from the date the plan is approved. The plan also mustprovide for reachingthe gen. erally more restrictive levels of airpollution of the secondary standards within a reason. able set time period and should be related to the difficulties with which a particularre. gion Isconfronted.

With up to four months for the finalpro- mulgation of national standards, up to nine months for the States to develop theirplans and up to four months for the Administra. tion to eitherapprove a State planor decide to substitute his own authorityin 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 airquality 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 monitoringbothambient 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 grantsareavailable 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 withim- 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.

Transportationpolicies 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 motorvehicles may have to be restricted. In some congested areas the number of operations of aircraftinto an airportmay need to be limited,or stepstakento reduce emissionswhile 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 thesteps necessary toassure compliance withthe 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 intocompliance withinthree years, the Governor of the State may request anextension ofthe deadline upto two years. The Administrator must be satisfied that alternate

means of achieving the standardhave been considered (including closing down the

source in question), that all reasonable interimmeasures will be applied, andthatthe Stateis justifiedin seeking theextension.

A Governormay also applyfor 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, andthe continued operationof the source is essential to national security or the public health or welfare of that State. Such a postponement is subject

tojudicial 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 sectionwould beemissions fromnew ormodified 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 oftheirlocation. Standards
of performance must be set at the greatest degree of control attainablethroughthe 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; Cokebyproduct manufacturing; Cotton ginning; Ferroalloy plants; Grainmilling and handling operations; Gray iron foundries; Iron and steel operations; Nitric acidmanufacturing; 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 includeemission standards which allowed for no measurableemissions.

New sources of such pollutants may be constructed only if theymeet 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 ofsubstances which the Administration informed the Senate were likely to be controlled under thisprovision 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 goto court seeking an injunction only after 30 days' notice to an individual polluter, or 30 days after notifying the State that theFederal Government is generally assuming enforcement powers in that Statebecause of a widespread failure of States' en- forcement. This gives States 30days in which to take appropriate action themselves.

For Federal standards of performance for

new sources and emission standards forhazardous 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.

Theconference agreementretains theexisting abatement conference procedure for internationalpollution and for pollutants not subject to ambient air quality standards or emission standards forhazardous 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
notmore than 2 years.

Section 114. The conference agreement grants authority to the Administrator or his authorized representatives to enter the premises of anyemission 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 ofsix 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 fromlight duty vehicles for 1975 model
year and thereafter are to bereduced at least 90 per centum over 1970 standards for these pollutants.Oxides ofnitrogenemissions 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 standardsfor 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 ofemission control which is achievable by application of technology determined by theAdministrator 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 requestedby it.

Section 207. The provisions for warranty of vehicle emission control systems or devices, contained in section 207 of the conference substitute, areamong the most important in the Act. Standardsfor new cars will
have little impact if we cannot assure compliance with those standards over the useful lifeof 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 approximatelya direct functionofhydrocarbon concentrations, as indicated in the "Air Quality Criteria for Hydrocarbons." Thusthe 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. Tothe 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 ofexisting and proposed legis- lation will have failed unless better perform-

ance is required.

The responsibility of the industry cannot stop at thefactory 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 airquality 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 warrantyis in additionto

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 andmaintenance according to the manufac- turer'sreasonable 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 prohibitionsif 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

## CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

- SENATE 

## 42386

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 onfuels andfuel 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 toprohibit or control fuels

or fuel additives.

Rather, the conference committee wishes to call the attention ofthe Administrator to thebroad environmental, esthetic and health considerations underlying the enactment of thislegislation which should bekept 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 undersection 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 offuels 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 hemust 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 andlocalities are preempted from adopting or enforcing any butidentical 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 onsmoke 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 diligentlypursued 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 andharassing 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 onreasonable 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 hisconfirmation 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 thedebate 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, ofwhich $125 million is for research

on fuels and vehicles. For Fiscal Year 1973 the authorization is $150 million forresearch 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 

### theSenatorfromMaineyield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yieldto theSenator fromMissouri andcommend himfor his invaluable assistance in the committee, on the floor, and inthe con- ference.

Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Senator from Maine. I should like to propound tohima fewbriefquestionsjust toillustrate further the significance and the parameters ofthisvery noteworthypiece of legislation.

Before doing so, I wish to praise his
enormous effortsin thisvaluablepieceof legislation. But for the Senator from Maine, but forhis diligence, hispersistence, 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 forour national effort to clean upthe airpollution 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 amongtheFederal Government and theState andlocal 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 thisbill. Would the Senator from Maine agree thatthis bill has very broad significance in the area of Federal-State relations?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. May I say to the Senatorthat duringthe deliberationson thebillIhavebeenvery much interested in preserving "local option" features, so thatState andlocal authorities wouldbe able to pursue options among a broad array,seeking a possible way ofcontrolling or preventing air pollution that is most responsivetothe natureoftheirair pollution problem and most responsive to their needs. In myjudgment, thebill will give State and local authorities sufficient latitude in selecting ways toprevent and control airpollution.

Mr. EAGLETON. It seems to methat

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 ourcities 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 isa tendency to focus uponthe newcarprovisions in the bill, and understandably

so. Nevertheless, what really moved the 

### committee, theSenate, andtheconferees togoin the directionof atough deadline for new cars is the fact that there are 

### used cars, and the used car population creates a problem. There are 100 millionto 110 million automobiles that are moving about, heavily concentrated in thelarge 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 tobegin the process of 

## December 18, 1970

## December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

- SENATE

cleaning upnew used cars.We still have existing a mass of used automobiles to deal with. The billbefore us deals with thatproblemby therequirementof national ambient air quality standards geared tohelp.

Those standards, realistically applied, will require that urban areas do something abouttheirtransportationsystems, the movement of used cars, the developmentofpublictransit systems, andthe modification andchange ofhousing patterns,employment patterns,and transportation patterns generally. All ofthat isimplicit in the concept of implementation plans for national ambient air quality standards and what they mean fortheusedcarsin ourcountry.

Mr. EAGLETON. Would the Senator from Maine agree with me that thisbill is intended to afford to the citizens of the United States very broad opportunitiestoparticipateintheeffort toprevent andabate air pollution? Arenot the citizen suit provision and therequirement forpublichearingson State implementationplanslikelyto resultinhigher qualityand better air pollution control programs across the Nation than would likely be the case if there were less opportunityfor citizenparticipation?

Mr.MUSKIE. Thatwas 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 airpollution cleanup relying wholly upon the Federal bureaucracy.

This is why we emphasized thenecessity for developing State and local programs.Butin addition, thisbill 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 Senatorknows,long aftertheSenatehad completed actionontheairpollution bill, wellafter administration representatives hadbeeninvited toreact to the Senate's air pollution bill, and even after an an- nounced agreement had been reached

on thevital 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 onlybeinterpreted as anattempt onthe 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 isan indicationthat we shouldcarefully review implementation of this program in mid1971 to be sure that the regulations are notweakenedin application?

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President,I agree. The Richardson letter was badly timed. Itdid complicate thework ofthe confer-
ence andmake it more difficultto reach agreement and to achieve what we ultimately achieved in the conference agreement.

On this pointI concurwith the Senator. We should carefully review the implementation of thisprogram next year to insurethatit is moving along in accordance withourinterpretation ofwhat

we think the Senate is doing in this piece of legislation.

Regulations arenottobeusedtodilute and water downthe strong policy which theSenateisadopting.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr.MUSKIE.I yield. Mr.MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I am not familiarwith everything theconfer-

ees did. But I think that there is some confusion as to what departmentwould betheenforcement agency.

Mr.MUSKIE. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency.

Mr.MAGNUSON. Whatabout 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 theSenator fromWashington introduced and ofwhich I wasa 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 inthe conference report.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I thoroughly agree withthe 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 doneit."

They giveus allthe rigmarole andthe

reasons why they have not done it.

I am concerned about having some kind ofsurveillance overthisaswe 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 shouldbethe newEnvironmental Control Committee on which we will meetthis afternoon.They mightdothat. Ido notknow.

Mr. MUSKIE. This could be within their area of jurisdiction. I think it might be useful to read this provision from theHouseRECORD ofyesterday:

There is established a Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board to be composed of the Administrator or his designee, the Secretaryof Transportationor 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 Adminis

### tratorofGeneral 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 wehaveto be surethat someone is on top of this thing all the time.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank theSenator from Washington.

Mr.President,I now yield to the Senatorfrom WestVirginia. Mr.RANDOLPH.Mr.President,Ishall 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 onlyduring 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 ontheconference report, goodstrong 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 ofthe 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 withinthe PublicWorks Committee and when we discussed it within the confer-

ence. I am only repeating what I have said before.

I amvery frank tosaythatI thinkthe letter should have come to us sooner. This is something that I want the RECORD toreflect. Ialso wantthe RECORD to indicate that there had been no final decisions made here on Capitol Hill in reference tothis 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 ofthis importantlegislation.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senatoryield?

Mr.RANDOLPH.I yield. Mr.MUSKIE. Mr.President, toclarify my position with reference to the administrator's prerogative tocomment on thislegislationor anylegislation,it isnot myintent inthe remarks I made earlier that the administration does not have that prerogative. From the time we re- portedthisbilloutoftheSubcommmittee

onAir and Water Pollution, we publicly and in other ways solicited the administration'sposition ontheprovisions ofthe bill.

It would have been useful to have had the administration position inthe course ofthe floor debate.We speculated about it, butwe did not know what it was.

We went to conference, I think, about October 8 or 9. We reached a tentative agreement onthe autoemission deadline

onthat day. The letter from the SecretaryofHEW isdatedNovember 17, some 6weeks later. It is thatto whichI direct my criticism. Six weeks after we started the conference we got this letter onthe 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 aboutthe very disruptive effectthe 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 forthitsviewsasdisruptive.

I look on it as a further indication of the interestofthepartieswho are inthe Federal Government either officially or 

## 42387

## CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE December 18, 1970 indirectly, and that,Ithink,isthedemocratic process.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

ThePRESIDING OFFICER.The Senator will state it.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, who has the floor?

The PRESIDING OFFICER.The floor isheld by the Senator from Maine, who had yielded to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr.RANDOLPH.Mr.President,Ihave

some furtherremarks Iamgoingtomake in referenceto theconference report,but I have just called attention to the colloquy here.

ThePRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenatorfrom Mainehas thefloor.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the floor so the Senator from West Virginia can have the floor in his own rightforthepurpose ofyieldingto 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 betweenthe Senator fromMaineand 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, IyieldnexttotheSenator fromMissouri.

Mr. EAGLETON. I thankthe Senator. As the Senator from West Virginia knows, the airpollution billwaspending 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 onPublic Works, and I refer to the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of thatcommittee, or hadcon- ferences and communications with that committee.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.

Mr.EAGLETON. It iswellknown that

as the bill evolved through the committee process, in subcommittee, in full committee, in markup, andso forth,and it was widely disseminated in the public press that the Senate committee was considering a 1975modelyear cutoffwith respecttonewcars.

Mr. RANDOLPH. At this point the able Senator knows that much of what is printed in the presson so-called exec- utive sessions, and conversations of Members,is a constantproblem,notthat 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 notsay thatwhatwewere doingwaspreciselysetforth.

Mr. EAGLETON. Passing for a mo- ment from what had or had not been published in thepress, it was abundantly well known in the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare thatthe Senate committee was considering and leaning strongly toward a 1975 cutoff withrespect tonewcars.Isthatcorrect?

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 whichhas made thisbillpossible: No one questions theprerogative of anyCabinet officialto write a letter to any Senator or Representative at any time he is predisposed to do so; but whatis raised by the timing ofthis letterismore 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 PublicWorks,and wehad 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 thebill 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 pointI amtrying tomake isthat I donot question Mr. Richardson's ability or authority to write the letter. But with that history behind this bill I do question whyittook himuntilNovember 1970to make his position clear with re- specttothis singlemostcontentious portionofthebill.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I wish to reply. I have said that it would have been much betterif 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 withbeing weak.I amnot attemptingto charge them with being weak or strong

on this subject matter. The Senate acted, the House acted, and now Congressisacting.

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 ofthematter andIunderstand theyhave their reasonedjudgment on the matter. I am sure other members of the committee and of the Senate have their feelings with respect tothesituation.

Mr.EAGLETON.I thank the Senator. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senatoryield?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

(At this point Mr. EAGLETON assumed 

### theChair.)

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 herein 1967. I have served with great pleasure under the chairmanshipofthechairmanofthesubcommittee and the distinguished chairman ofthefullcommittee.

As far as I canrecall, this is thefirst time the purposes of an air quality bill, or for thatmatterawater bill,havebeen 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 airin this country and taking careof the problem of automobile emissions. Thathas beenaccom- plished because Republicans andDemocratson thatcommittee 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 ofthesubcommittee staff members have cooper- ated, andthere has also been coopera- tion withthe 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 soclose thatsome ofthese discussions are discernible in theplatforms of both major parties and in the state ofthe Union message ofthe Presidentof the United States. That is no small ac- complishment for a committee or asubcommittee.

TheSenator fromMaine istobecom- mended without restraintforhis leadership and motivation to the rest of usin this field. That makes it all the more tedious forme to sit in this Chamberon the eve of theadoption of aconference reportunderscoring agood bill andhear

apolitical purpose being served bya bill thatwas worthwhile, notable, andnon- political, even under circumstances which might understandably have been suspect ofproducing a different atmosphere and a different set of circumstances.

Ifthe SenatorfromWestVirginia will yield foramomentmoreI wishtoclarify my statement. I am referringspecifically to theremarks,as I understoodthem, by thejunior Senator from Missouri to theeffect thattheRichardsonletter,re- ferringto the Secretary of Health,Education, and Welfare, Elliot Richardson, dated November 17, 1970, and I quote: "mustbe interpretedas an attempton thepartof theadministrationtoundercut the strong Senate bill."

Now I had not proposed to say anything about the automobile section at this time as the Senate considered this proposalbecause Ibelieve mycolleagues 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 ofthisbill.

Ithink my conferee colleagues might also agree that I have contended from the very beginning that Congress ought 

# 42388

## December 18, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

- SENATE

todowhatweapparentlyhavenotchosen
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 thepolitical motivations of a future Congress, and, rather, vest it in the independent judiciary to gatherthose factsandresolve thoseconflicts and decide, in 1976, a Presidential year, an election year for a third ofthis bodyand allofthe House ofRepresentatives.

The legislative department will be called upon to sit as a factfinding body todecide whether or not the automobile industry will be permitted to continue manufacturing automobiles, assuming it hasnotfullymetthis statutorydeadline. Ithink 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 andmonths ofcoordination between the members and staffofthiscommittee and this administration and theprevious administration, and theweeks and months and even years of nonpartisan cooperationbetween themembers andthe staff ofthiscommittee, and theinspired leadership of our committee chairman and

our subcommittee chairman in trying to unravel probably the most delicate and complex domesticproblem that has con- fronted thecountry in 100 years, and do itin a spirit ofgive and take; and then

as we get to final passage of the bill, withafew Senators onthefloor,wehear the charge that theposition of the administration is to undercut a strong Senate position.

I submit that is not worthy of the effortthat has gone into thislegislation thus far and into previous legislation in previous sessions ofthe Congress.

Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. COOPER addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I wonderifI mightcomplete a very brief comment onthe conference report.

Mr. COOPER. I wanted to comment on thepointjust made.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to my able colleague fromKentucky.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I know the Senator from West Virginia will pointouttheconstructive work theSenate 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 Richardsonindicatesthatthe administration willtry toundercut this bill.I mustsay Ihavefound nothing intheletter which supports the statement. In fact, while theletter disagreed with the Senate and Houseversionsofthebillonsomepoints, theletter states that theadministration wants a strong bill. Secretary Richardson, said this in the closing paragraph ofhisletter: 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 pointin theRECORD.



### There being no objection, the letter

wasordered tobeprinted in the RECORD,


### asfollows:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, ANDWELFARE, Washington, D.C., November17,1970.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman, CommitteeonPublicWorks, 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 totheClean 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 versionsof 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, fullyin 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 Senatebill has the effect ofvesting 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 subjecttojudicialreview.

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 thestandards 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 andreduced 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 maynot pressthe development ofsuch technology and its application as rapidly as they should to meet air quality requirements.

The Senate bill wouldresolve 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 ofthe 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 involveperiodic determinations ofthe 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 usthat such a procedure would provide a more orderly and equally beneficial process for achieving the results sought by the Senate bill.

We would alsofavor two other changes in the provisions ofthe 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 atwork here,since theearlier a manufacturer might seek an extension, the less credible wouldbe 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 forthe customary more restrictive scope ofjudicial review.

WarrantyofAutomotivePollutionControl 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 andexperience.

At the present time neither the Federal government northe manufacturers have sufficient or reliable knowledge as to why, in

some cases, a particular automobile in actualusefails to meetemission tests.Thisbeing 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 wereto promulgatetest procedures before the Government orthe 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 fromthis 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 ofair pollution.

We favor including a provision in the bill which would authorize the Secretary to impose warranty requirements on the manufacturers ashedetermines 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 providesforFederal preemption ofemission control standards for new vehicles, in recognition of the need for uniformity and the inabilityof 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 tothe States, in view of the stringent Federal emission standards contemplated bythe Senate billfor 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 theHouse 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 areuncertain 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

ordirectsale tothe 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 tojeopardize thenational airpollution control effort, Congress can thenlegislate to meet the particularproblem.

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 therequirements ofthe 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 ofair pollution control measures.

However, the authorization ofcitizen 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 thatare essential to aneffective 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 thatthe Senate bill contains no express provisions eitherrequiring 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 importantin 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 thatfully takeinto account all of the circumstances of the case.

StateImplementationPlanDeadlines.The Senate billprovides thatwithinnine months after promulgation of any national ambient air quality standard each State is to submit
to theSecretaryfor approval animplementation plan for each air quality control region, providing for the attainment of the stand- ard within three years after approval ofthe plan. In addition to limited Secretarial au- thority for extensions based on new infor- mation, provisionis made in the billfor ju- dicially-granted one-year extensions of the three-year deadline, upon petition of the Governor of theState concerned (subsequent to the approval ofthe implementation plan) if the Court determines that such relief isin 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 theyknow is unrealistic and probably unworkable.

To avoid this type of situation we favor

an amendment which would, in the few

cases where it might benecessary, permit the Secretary to extend the deadline at the time the State's implementation plan is being reviewed and approved. Suchextensions 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 makeknown his findings and any requisite compliance determinations resulting therefrom.

Certificationof New Sources. The Senate billestablishes 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 basicenforcement responsibilityin the State,

asis generally the case under the Act,rather thanin the Federal Government, asthe Senatebill provides.

While we recommend that basic enforcement of performance standards should be in
the States, we favor retaining the provision ofthe 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 ofemission standards established under section 114of the Senate bill.

We can see merit to a statutory requirement that the emissions from allnew 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.

NationalSecurity 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 alsobelievethat 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.

HazardousEmissions.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 ofthe Senate bill, than he wouldbe able to underthespecial hazardousemission con- trol procedures contained in Section 115. Ac- cordingly, werecommend 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 billrequires 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 hadrecommended anumber 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 ofrestrictive 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 withcontrols over sources using such fuels, is necessary in order to mount themost effective overall attack on airpollution. 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 andadditives be lodged in the Secretary ofHEW, who will havejurisdiction 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 ofthe Senate bill would authorize a sweeping exemption fromthe 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 additionto 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 undertheAct's provisions. Such authorityis at oddswith long-standing Federal policy of this andpriorAdministrations 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 andresources, ratherthanpromoting the duplication of such expertise andresources 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 appearfor and represent the United States or any officer or agency thereof, including the Secretary.

Procedural andTechnicalChanges.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 andprecision.

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 programof the President, Sincerely, ELLIOT RICHARDSON, Secretary.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, Elliot 

### Richardson is a man of quality and integrity. Hewouldnotmake 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 donow, 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 ofOhio and the lateSenator 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 andimpact 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 earlierthatI was disturbed bythe ElliotRichardsonletter,andI 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 December18, 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 fromFlorida, andthe Senator from Kansas. There has neverbeen the slightestbit ofpartisanship in any ofour committee deliberations or in our conference work with each other over a period of

some 7 or 8 years now. I want to underscore whatmy 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 knowthe SenatorfromWest Virginia desires toput some questions to me.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; I dowish to do that.

Before doing so, I repeat that thislegislation represents a significant achievement in the evolution ofour 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 ofthe citizens ofthis Nation,and

wehaveto protect against environmental insults-for when the health of the Nationis endangered, so is our welfare, and

so isour economic prosperity.

I think that the emphasis here on the health benefits thatwill 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 wehave dealtwithprevi-

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 airpollutionproblems.

Is that the feeling and the understanding? I believe the record shouldre

### flectit.

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 fornew stationary sources, to make sure thatno industrial development will degrade the 

### quality ofthe airso asto endanger public health and welfare, or interfere with and restrain further economic growth. I know attimeson thesubcommittee 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 pollu

### tion 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 mustbe 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 gen

### erations. In turn,thelegislation willtest the willingness of the citizens-not just the various levels of government, butthe 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 ofthe Senator from Maine?

Mr. MUSKIE. Completely, may I say to the Senator. We cannot clean up the pollution problem with a piece oflegislation. There has to be commitment to it by every citizen, notonly with respect to the activities of others, butwith 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 wemust 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 ampleased 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 effectiveimplementation ofwhatweare doing today. We must not allow understaffing -the Senator from Maine has discussed thismatter in our subcommittee and our committee, and in conference-of this Federal program, because if that happens,it will bea major interference with the implementation of the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, aswasthe
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 theHouse ofRepre

### sentatives andthe 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 ablechairman ofthe Senate conferees, my friend, Senator MUSKIE, and allthemembers ofthe Committee on Public Works and their staff, both majority and minority, who have putso many long hoursinto abipartisan effort to bring forth what will be the most effective pollution control legislation yet enactedby 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 andfar-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, wehavetaken intofuller
account the leadtime problems of the automobile industry.

The report also would enable the Administrator oftheEnvironmental Protection Agency to set interim standards in theeventhe findstechnology is notavailable to meet the standard provided by law.The Administrator, in makinga decision on interim standards, would have the benefit of reports from the National Academy ofSciences onthe progressthat 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 ofnitrogen, 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 ofemissions of hazardous substances. The conference report requires the Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency to publish a list of pollutants which in his judgment is extremelyhazardous topublic 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 hisjudgment 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 thematter.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 attheFederallevelofnational ambient airqualitystandards, andthatconcept 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 theimplementation plans tobeprepared by the States to meettheprimary national air quality standards must include provision for land use and transportation controls. In myjudgment, the term transportation controls is not restricted to motor vehicles. For some areas, the implementation plans may well specify a limitation upon thenumber 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 ambientair quality standards.

The conference substitute retains the Senateprovision 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 begiven tothe alleged violator, the Administratorand theState.Thecourtsare given discretionary authority to award costs, including reasonable attorney and witness fees, to any party.

Mr. President, I understand the purpose ofthat section of the report which establishes amechanism forthelicensing of patents to those subject to emission standards tobe setunder the legislation. It is our intent to provide an assured supply of technology to all needing itto comply with the standards.

After reflecting upon the implications of the section, I would have preferred that the issues involved be reviewed by theJudiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. However, the conference report language on the matteris animprovement 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 wouldhope that the issues involved will be the subject of hearings andreview.

Mr.President, theconference committee has devoted many hours of arduous work onitsreport.It hasbeen a rewarding personal experience because of the dedication of those involved to see the objectiveof protecting thepublic health. I wish to thank and commend the Sen-
atorfrom WestVirginia (Mr.RANDOLPH) 

### andthe Senator from Maine (Mr. MusKIE), the distinguished chairmen of our committee and subcommittee, for their leadership during the development of thislegislation. I also wishtopaytribute to the invaluable contributions of the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), 

### theSenator 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 ofthe aisle have participated on anonpartisan basis.

I should like to ask the Senator from Maine to answer one question. Section 110 ofthe conference report requires the development ofimplementation 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 toknow 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 tobe considered in a much broader context, if we are to fully understand what the intent of the legislation is.

It seemed tothecommittee 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 eachregion.

For example, construction of urban highways and freeways may be required to take second placeto rapid transit and other public transportation systems. The

use of motor vehicles mayhave to berestricted and, in some congested areas, thenumber ofoperations ofaircraft into

an airport may need to be limited, or steps taken toreduce emissionswhile aircraftare onthe ground.

If such controls arerequired, thecommittee 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 thestandpoint of air pollution, is the whole complex of residential patterns, employment pat

### terns, 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
mustbe modifiedif theobjective ofclean airistobe 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 amend

### ments to the Clean Air Act. This bill, I think, is the most far-reaching and important legislation forthe control of air pollution ever to be considered by the Congress.

In time, it willbring ourNation clean air and a healthier environment.

It should be pointed out that this bill follows closely theconceptscreated inthe 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 aslast February.

Mr. President, I share the thoughts of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee-I knowhowsincere anddedicated he is--when he stated that he regrets the partisan nature of the discussion ofSecretary Richardson's letter. I share his feelings.I,too,am sorrythat 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 ourcountry. Ihave every confidence that it willcon- tinue to operate ina 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 hasbeen most cooperative and helpfulinstudying

averydifficult and complex subject.This legislationisgoingtoinvolvenotonlythe Federal Governmentbuteveryother level of government-the States,thecities,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 theHouse.AndIthank thestaffs ofboth the committees and the Members for their excellent assistance.

Theconference waslong andpainstaking. It nasproduced a conference report that I believe will bring to the Nation effective control ofairpollution.Thisbill is acredit tothecountry.I strongly com- mend ittomy colleagues.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator. I yield to the distinguished Senator fromRhode 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 thesevery important amendments tothe Clean Air Act, but I recognize that ex- pedition is mandatory if we are to deal with the major items of legislation still before theSenate at thissession. 

## 42393

## 42394 CO;

I did take the time to study the bill carefully to ascertain that the new amendments to theClean AirActwill not interfere with or change the present statutory framework and implementing regulations for controlling radiological 

### effluents fromnuclear facilities.Thenew Environmental Protection Agency and the Atomic Energy Commission nowhave certain authorities and responsibilities with respect to such matters as radiationprotection standards or the regulation and control of radiological effects from nuclear facilities. Underour present statutes we have very excellently safeguarded health and safety in regard to theuse andregulatory control ofnuclear facilities, and in my judgment it would have been unwise and potentially dangerous for a generally comprehensive legislativemeasure such asthe onebefore

us to diluteorinterfere withour presently governingrequirements.

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 viewofit.



### I yield to the Senator from Kentucky. Mr.COOPER. Mr. President,today the Senate members of theConference Committee on the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 bring back for final action a bill which has beendescribed asperhaps the
most significant domestic legislation of the decade. The action today represents the culmination of a thorough exercise ofthe legislative process,beginning with 20 days ofhearings in the subcommittee, followed by more than a dozen executive sessions of the subcommittee, more than 10 executive sessions of thefull 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 dif

### ferences 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 ofWest 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 Airand Water Pollution.But I would like to add that this conference was very well attended by all Members andI am especially proud that Senator BAKER and Senator DOLE on the minority side contributed somuch in the development of this conference report.

## NGRESSIONAL RECORD

- SENATE

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

### work been difficult and heavy with re- sponsibility, but also, the parliamentary situationhas compressed the time available and they have performed magnificently.Their work was mosthelpful, and I think their names should be placed in the RECORD.

It would be difficult to single out any provision in thisbillfor special attention. I think it represents a firm application of pollution control procedures, while at thesame time beingjust andincorporating 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 billwill placegreat responsibilities

on nearly every aspect in our society. It certainly will place great burdens on industry, it will place great burdens on Government, both atthe State andFederal level, andit willplace great burdens

on the people generally for they will ultimately have to bear the expense and, forthe 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 ampleased thatthe bill will become law nearly coincident with the establishment by the President of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. The administration of that agency is entrusted to Mr. Ruckelshaus, who I believe is an excellent choice to control the exercise ofthemany duties and responsibilities ofthe 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 theconsideration of this measure.

In addition tothe 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, andAnn Brown are to be congratulated.

Severalstaff members ofSenators were also essential in the development of this legislation including Eliot Cutler of my staff, Allen Jones of Senator SPONG's staff, BobMaynard ofSenatorEAGLETON'S staff, Jim Jordan of Senator BAKER'S staff, and Ward Whiteof Senator DOLE'S staff.

Mr. BOGGS. I share your views of the staff and theirperformance. It has been 

### terrific.

Mr.MUSKIE. Mr.President, I yieldto the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. 

## December18, 1970

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I concur in theremarksmade bythe distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

My staff and I have had occasion from time to time to consult and work with members of the staff ofthe Airand Wa- terPollution 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 nothave an opportunity to prepare any remarks. However, I do wishto say thatthe committee members onboth 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, andhisconstructive 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 in

### terest in this field. Indeed, he has con- tinued tobe a leader nationally in allenvironmental 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 ofthe conference report on the CleanAir Amendmentsof 1970.

We are all familiar with the need to prevent the further deterioration of our air. Early this year, President Nixon devoted a majorportion ofhis environmental message to the problem of air pollution.

The need was clear, and in response, the Subcommittee on AirandWater 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 wereaccepted on the Senate floor which improved that bill. But the legislation we have before us today combines the best elements ofthe Houseand Senatebills.

Everyone will notbe 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 atall levels,private industry, and every individual American to make thisactwork.

I commend my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee for their long but fruitful work on this importantlegislation, and urge approval of the conference report.

The PRESIDINGOFFICER.Thequestion is on agreeing to the conference report.

Thereport was agreedto.

MESSAGE FROM THEHOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr.Berry,one ofits 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 printingof 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. Concurrentresolution to provide for the printing of 5,000 additional copies of parts I and II of the hearings beforethe Special Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor entitled "DiscriminationAgainst 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 furtherthe 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. Jointresolution fixing the timeof assembly ofthe 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 thereport of theJointEconomic Committee.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS REFERRED
The following concurrent resolutions

were severally referredtothe Committee

on Rules and Administration:

H. Con.Res.771. Concurrentresolution for the printing of environmental report;

H. Con.Res.785. Concurrentresolution 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 partsI andII ofthe 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 thereport ofthecommittee of conference on the disagreeing votesof the two Houseson the amendmentsofthe Senate
to the bill (H.R. 17755) making appropriationsfor the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, andfor other purposes.



### ThePRESIDING OFFICER.Thequestionnow recurs onthe conference report

on theappropriationsbillforthe Depart

### ment of Transportation.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, what is 

### the question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER.The ques

### tion is on agreeing to the conference reporton 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 laybefore the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 719.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPONG) laid before the Senate the amendmentsoftheHouse ofRepresentatives 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 andincluding "Act." in line 11, page 2, andinsert:

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 andminerals 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, andreclamation of mineral
wasteproducts, andthereclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse impact of mineral extraction and processing upon the physical environment that may result from mining ormineral 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 asmay 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 trendin utilization and u depletion of theseresources, together withsuch recommendations for legislative programs as may benecessary to implement the policy of thisAct. Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I will shortly ask that the Senate adopt the amendments ofthe other body to mybill S. 719,butfirst, I believe a fewcomments

arein order.



### There has been some misunderstandingwith 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 thismeasure contained this comment:

One of the chief concerns appeared to be thatthe inclusion of these mineralsin S. 719 would detractfromthe urgency ofestablishing 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 thismaybe theconcern ofsome, 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, thematterof including the energy minerals concerned

me because as the House Report points 

### out:
S.

. The fuel minerals make about 65 percent of the totalvalue of all domestically produced minerals.

To put it another way, two-thirds of

our minerals industry is involved in the production ofenergy.

My concern is that the energy minerals, and especially in light ofthe present energy crisis, will dominate considerations in effecting thepolicy. It isnot 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 con
### cernis thatthe other minerals,so essen- tial toour standard ofliving and national security, will notreceive the attention and consideration they require and deserve.

I expressed this concern during the confirmation hearings onDr. Osborn, the

new Director ofthe Bureau ofMines. Dr. Osborn wasasked ifhe would administer the programs oftheBureau ofMines and propose newprograms under the authority of S. 719 which wouldplace 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 equalor 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