TITI, UMTEH STVTES ENVIRONMENTAL PH( >TK(7l 'ION U;ENCY
Statutes and Legislative History-
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
I
55
\
m
CD
Supplement II
Volume I
General
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
I
LU
CD
Supplement II
Volume I
General
230 South Dearborn Street
Cn/cago, Illinois 60604
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, B.C. 20402
Price: $10.25 per set of 3 parts. Sold in sets only.
Stock Number 5500-00127
-------
FOREWORD
America's journey to environmental awareness has been a
relatively recent one. Not so many years ago Americans were
still living under the illusion that a land as vast as ours was
blessed with indestructible natural resources and beatuy.
We continued the exploitation of those resources and scattered
unplanned communities across huge areas of open space. Large
amounts of fuel were needed for the autos that took us to work
from distant suburbs, and the air became laden with their dense
emissions. Pesticides were used indiscriminantly by persons un-
aware of their effects on the food chain of plants and animals.
Our rivers became contaminated with waste from home and
industries. Our landscape was marred by litter.
As an environmentalist movement gained impetus, attention
was focused on these matters. Rachael Carson's book, Silent
Spring, in 1962 awakened Americans to the hazards of pesticides.
The oil spills of the Torrey Canyon in 1967 and at Santa Barbara,
California in 1969 dramatized another environmental hazard.
The first Earth Day on April 20, 1970, a coordinated program of
teach-ins across the nation, helped to focus Congressional atten-
tion on the strength of the environmental movement.
Congress responded by approving the President's Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 which expanded the federal commitment to en-
vironmental concerns and consolidated 15 Federal organizations
under the Environmental Protection Agency.
At the same time, Congress began enacting far-reaching legisla-
tion to provide EPA with specific authority for controlling pollu-
tion. These measures included the Clean Air Amendments in 1970,
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, Federal
Environmental Pesticide Control Act, the Noise Control Act, and
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, all in 1972.
Congress also passed the Resource Recovery Act in 1970 and
extended the Solid Waste Disposal Act in 1973.
As the Agency began taking action under these laws, Americans
gradually realized that very real changes were required in our
accustomed ways of doing business. We realized that our effort
iii
-------
frequently conflicted with powerful and legitimate interests in
both the public and private sectors. Our administrative, judicial
and political processes now have the task of resolving these
conflicts. They must do so by weighing all the interests which
are affected in a sensitive and informed manner. Quick access
to the legal dimensions of these problems is essential if conflicts
are to be efficiently and fairly resolved.
The work of the present day environmentalist is less glamorous
than that of four or five years ago, but it is essential if we are
to face the continuing challenge of protecting our fragile and
perishable natural resources—and ultimately ourselves—from de-
struction. I hope you will find this manual helpful as we strive
to create a society where we can live and work in harmony with
the natural world surrounding us.
Russell E. Train
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IV
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 govern-
mental units with their functions and legal authority to create
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major
laws were cited in the Plan, it was decided that a compilation
of EPA legal authority be researched and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a work-
ing document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as
a research tool for the public.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome
task of developing a better environment.
LANE R. WARD, J.D.
Office of Executive Secretariat
Office of Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
v
-------
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are for the general use of per-
sonnel of the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set
out by the President in creating the Agency. This work is not
intended and should not be used for legal citations or any use
other than as reference of a general nature. The author disclaims
all responsibility for liabilities growing out of the use of these
materials contrary to their intended purpose. Moreover, it should
be noted that portions of the Congressional Record from the 93rd
Congress were extracted from the "unofficial" daily version and
are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their
legislative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and
Reports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal
Compilation is divided into the seven following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste
SUPPLEMENT II
This edition, labelled "Supplement II," contains the additions
to and alterations of EPA legal authority not included in the
original set or Supplement I of the EPA Legal Compilation.
Therefore, this edition updates the Compilation through the 93rd
Conress, First Session.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compi-
lation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative
History begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Thus, any l.la, l.lb, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws compris-
ing the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legisla-
vii
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
tive history. The legislative history in each case consists of the
House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report (where applica-
ble), the Congressional Record beginning with the time the bill
was reported from committee.
Example:
1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §169 (1969).
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, De-
cember 30, 1969, P.L. 91-172, §704, 83 Stat. 667.
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969).
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1969).
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No.
91-552, 91st Cong., Sess. (1969).
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
91-782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969) :
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House, pp.
22746, 22774-22775;
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and
passed Senate, pp. 35486, 37321-37322,
37631-37633, 37884-37888,
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 40718;*
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees to
conference report, pp. 40820, 40900.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for
legislative history, but indicates the procedure where only one
section of a public law appears. You will note that the Congres-
sional Record cited pages are only those pages dealing with the
discussion and/or action taken pertinent to the section of law
applicable to EPA. In the event there is no discussion of the
pertinent section, only action or passage, then the asterisk (*)
is used to so indicate, and no text is reprinted in the Compilation.
In regard to the situation where only one section of a public law
is applicable, then only the parts of the report dealing with that
section are printed in the Compilation.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS ix
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than
have this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary
statutes have been included where practical. These secondary
statutes are indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by
a bracketed cite to the particular section of the major Act which
made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used
throughout the Statute section of the Compilation. In four Stat-
utes, a parallel table to the Statutes at Large is provided for your
convenience.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1,
2.2, etc.).
REGULATIONS
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2,
etc.). Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which
the Agency has direct contact.
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.).
In this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of
EPA, published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than
EPA's and inter-depai'tmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency dis-
tribution and made available through the U.S. Government
Printing Office in order to provide a current and accurate work-
ing set of EPA Legal Compilation.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Volume I
GENERAL
Page
1. Statutes and Legislative History
1.6 Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 3
§109(h), (i), (j), (1973).
1.6b Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, August 13,1973,
P.L. 93-87, § 114, 165, 87 Stat. 257, 282. 5
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 93-61, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 7
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R.
REP. No. 93-118, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.(1973). 20
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
39-410, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 28
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973): 34
(a) March 14, 15: Considered and passed
Senate, pp. S4724-S4730, S4734-S4738,
S4741, S4745-S4749, S4752-S4782; 34
(b) April 17-19: Considered and passed
House, amended, pp. H2916-H2917,
H2923, H2930-H2933, H2941, H2947,
H2985-82989, H2990-H2992, H3033-
H3034; 122
(c) August 1: Senate agreed to conference
report, pp. S15331, S15355, S15345,
S15357; 134
(d) August 3: House agreed to conference
report, pp. H7392-H7398*. 137
1.7 Airport and Airway Development Act, 49 U.S.C. §§
1712(f), 1716(c) (4), (e) (1973). 138
1.7b Airport Development Acceleration Act of 1973, June 18,
1973, P.L. 93-44, § 4, 87 Stat. 89. 138
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 93-12,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 139
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 93-157, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.
(1973). 140
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 93-225, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 142
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973): 143
(a) Feb. 5: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S2088-S2101;* 143
-------
xii CONTENTS
Page
(b) May 2: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. H3258-H3273;* 143
(c) May 30: House agreed to conference report,
pp. H4088-H4089;* 143
(d) June 5: Senate agreed to conference report,
pp. S10378-S10380.* 143
1.12 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 203,
215, 241, 242, 242b,c,d,f,i,j, 243, 244, 244a, 245, 246, 247,
264, (1973). 143
1.12af Health Programs Extension Act of 1973, June 18, 1973,
P.L. 93-45, §§ 102, 103, 104, 106, 87 Stat. 91. 148
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 93-87, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 150
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
(1973). 155
merce, H.R. REP. No. 93-227, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973): 163
(a) March 13, 27: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S4510-S4513, S5704-S5741;* 163
(b) May 31: Considered and passed House, amended,
H4140-H4164;* 163
(c) June 5: Senate concurred in House amendments,
pp. S10400-S10405.* 163
1.17 Appropriation Bills
1.17c Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, July 1, 1973,
P.L. 93-50, Title I, 87 Stat. 100. 164
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP. No.
93-350, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 164
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973):
(a) June 29: Considered and passed House and Sen-
ate, pp. S12582, H5659-H5687.* 168
1.17d Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection Ap-
propriation Act, October 24, 1973, P.L. 93-135, Title III,
87 Stat. 481. 168
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP. No.
93-275, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 171
(2) Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. REP. No.
93-253, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 217
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 93-520,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 232
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973): 245
(a) June 15: Considered and passed House, pp.
H4767-H4768, H4770-H4771, H4778, H4782-
H4785, H4802, H4805-H4808, H4813-H4814; 245
(b) June 28: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. S12374-S12376, S12378-S12383,
S12390-S12394; 268
-------
CONTENTS xni
Page
(c) Sept. 25: House agreed to conference report,
concurred in Senate amendments with amend- 287
ments, pp. H82S9-HS348-*
(d) Oct. 10: Senate agreed to conference report and
agreed to House amendments, pp. S1897S-
S18979, S18981>. 288
1.17e Supplemental Appropriations Act, January 3, 1974, P.L.
93-245, 87 Stat. 1071. 295
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP No.
93-663, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 295
(2) Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. REP. No.
93-614, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 299
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 93-736,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 303
(4) Committee of Conference. H.R. REP. No. 93-745,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). 304
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 119 (1973):
(a) Nov. 30: Considered and passed House, pp.
H10424, H10426-H10429; 305
(b) Dec. 12: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S22682-S22685, S22700; 313
(c) Dec. 19: House recommended conference report,
pp. H11698, H11702-H11703; 320
(d) Dec. 20: House agreed to further conference
report and concurred in certain Senate amend-
ments;* 322
(e) Dec. 21: Senate agreed to conference report and
House amendments, pp. S23809-S23810, S23816. 322
2. Executive Orders
2.5 E.O. 11749, Consolidation of Functions assigned the Sec-
retary of Housing and Urban Development, December 10,
1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 34177 (1973) superceeding E.O. 11575,
Administration of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 as
amended by E.O. 11662. 327
2.10 E.O. 11647, Federal Regional Councils, February 10, 1972,
37 Fed. Reg. 3167 as amended by E.O. 11731, July 23,
1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 19903 (1973). 329
2.11 E.O. 11742, Delegating to the Secretary of State Certain
Functions with Respect to the Negotiation of International
Agreements Relating to the Enhancement of the Environ-
ment, October 25, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 29457 (1973). 331
2.12 E.O. 11743, Modifying Proclamation No. 3279, as amended,
with Respect to the Oil Policy Committee, October 25, 1973,
38 Fed. Reg. 29459 (1973). 332
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
2.13 E.G. 11752, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environ-
mental Pollution at Federal Facilities, December 19, 1973,
38 Fed. Reg. 34793 (1973). 333
3. Regulations
3.1 Reorganization and Republication, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 36 Fed. Reg. 22369 (1971). 341
3.2 Statement of Reorganization and General Information,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1.1—1.43
(1972). 341
3.3 Public Information, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§ 2.100-2.111 (1973). 341
3.4 Employees Responsibilities and Conduct, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 3.100-3.607 (1973). 342
3.5 Interim Regulations and Procedures for Implementing the
Uniform Allocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisi-
tion Policies Act of 1970, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.263 (1971). 343
3.6 Tuition Fees for Direct Training, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 5.1-5.7 (1973). 346
3.7 Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 6.10-6.95
(1973). 346
3.8 Administrative Claims Under Federal Court Claim Acts,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 10.1-10.11
(1973). 348
3.9 Security Classification Regulations Pursuant to Executive
Order 11652, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§ 11.1-11.6 (1972). 348
3.10 Certification of Facilities, Environmental Protection Ag-
ency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 20.1-20.10 (1971). 349
3.11 General Grant Regulations and Procedures, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 30.100-30.1001—3 (1972). 349
3.12 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 35.001—35.955 (1973). 352
3.13 Research and Demonstration Grants, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 40.100-40.165 (1973). 357
3.14 Training Grants and Manpower Forecasting, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 45.100-45.155
(1973). 358
3.15 Fellowships, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§ 46.100—46.165 (1973). 359
3.16 General, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§
15_1__15_1.53 (1973). 359
-------
xv CONTENTS
Page
3.17 Procurement by Formal Advertising, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 41 C.F.K. §§ 15-2.406—15-2,407—8 (1972). 361
3.18 Procurement by Negotiations, Environmental Protection
Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§ 15-3.103—15-3.5100 (1972). 361
3.19 Special Types and Methods of Procurement, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§ 15-4.5300—
15-4.5303 (1972). 362
3.20 Procurement Forms, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§ 15-16.553-1—15-16.701-50 (1973). 362
3.21 Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, 41
C.F.R. §§ 15-19.302—15-19.305 (1972). 362
3.22 Contract Financing, Environmental Protection Agency,
41 C.F.R. §§ 15-30.1—15-30.104-1 (1973). 363
3.23 Contract Financing, Environmental Protection Agency,
41 C.F.R. §§ 15-30.403 15-30.412-2 (1973). 363
3.24 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Internal Rev-
enue Service, Department of Treasury, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.169
(1972). 363
3.25 Statutory Provisions; Additional First-Year Depreciation
Allowance, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treas-
ury, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.179-1.179—4 (1972). 363
3.26 Amortization Deductions, Internal Revenue Service, De-
partment of Treasury, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.642(f)-1.642(f)-l
(1971). 363
3.27 Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guide-
lines, Council on Environmental Quality, 40 C.F.R. § 1500
etseq. (1973). 363
Volume II
4. Guidelines and Reports
4.1 The President's Environmental Program.
4.1c
The President's 1973 Environmental Program, compiled by
the Council on Environmental Quality, April 1973, pp.
1-585. 367
Volume III
4.2 Council on Environmental Quality, Annual Reports, as
required by National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
42 U.S.C. § 4341. 953
4.2d
The Fourth Annual Report of the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality, April 1973, pp. 1-404. 953
-------
CONTENTS xvi
4.3 Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality
Reports to the President and the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, as required by E.O. 11472, § 102 (c). 1357
4.3c
Report to the President and the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, Citizens' Advisory Committee on
Environmental Quality, October 1973. 1357
-------
Statutes
and
Legislative
History
-------
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 3
1.6 Federal Aid Highway Act, as amenedd, 23 U.S.C. § 109 (1973).
§ 109. Standards
[See main volume for text of (a)]
(b) The geometric and construction standards to be adopted for the
Interstate System shall be those approved by the Secretary in cooperation
with the State highway departments. Such standards, as applied to each
actual construction project, shall be adequate to enable such project to
accommodate the types and volumes of traffic anticipated for such proj-
ect for the twenty-year period commencing on the date of approval by
the Secretary, under section 106 of this title, of the plans, specifications,
and estimates for actual construction of such project, Such standards
shall in all cases provide for at least four lanes of traffic. The right-of-
way width of the Interstate System shall be adequate to permit construc-
tion of projects on the Interstate System to such standards. The Secre-
tary shall apply such standards uniformly throughout all the States.
[See main volume for text of (c) to (f)"\
(g) The Secretary shall issue within 30 days after the day of enact-
ment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 guidelines for minimizing
possible soil erosion from highway construction. Such guidelines shall
apply to all proposed projects with respect to which plans, specifications,
and estimates are approved by the Secretary after the issuance of such
guidelines.
(h) Not later than July 1, 1972, the Secretary, after consultation with
appropriate Federal and State officials, shall submit to congress, and not
later than 90 days after such submission, promulgate guidelines designed
to assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects
relating to any proposed project on any Federal-aid system have been
fully considered in developing such project, and that the final decisions
on the project are made in the best overall public interest, taking into
consideration the need for fast, safe and efficient transportation, public
services, and the costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects
and the following:
(1) air, noise, and water pollution;
(2) destruction or disruption of man-made and natural resources,
aesthetic values, community cohesion and the availability of public
facilities and services;
(3) adverse employment effects, and tax and property valiv
losses;
(4) injurious displacement of people, businesses and farms; and
(5) disruption of desirable community and regional growth.
Such guidelines shall apply to all proposed projects with respect to which
plans, specifications, and estimates are approved by the Secretary after
the issuance of such guidelines.
(i) The Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Federal, State,
and local officials, shall develop and promulgate standards for highway
noise levels compatible with different land uses and after July 1, 1972,
shall not approve plans and specifications for any proposed project on
any Federal-aid system for which location approval has not yet been se-
cured unless he determines that such plans and specifications include
-------
4 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
adequate measures to implement the appropriate noise level standards.
The Secretary, after consultation with the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and appropriate Federal, State, and local offi-
cials, may promulgate standards for the control of highway noise levels
for highways on any Federal-aid system for which project approval has
been secured prior to July 1, 1972. The Secretary may approve any proj-
ect on a Federal-aid system to which noise-level standards are made ap-
plicable under the preceding sentence for the purpose of carrying out such
standards. Such project may include, but is not limited to, the acquisition
of additional rights-of-way, the construction of physical barriers, and
landscaping. Sums apportioned for the Federal-aid system on which such
project will be located shall be available to finance the Federal share of
such project. Such project shall be deemed a highway project for all
purposes of this title.
(j) The Secretary, after consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall develop and promulgate guide-
lines to assure that highways constructed pursuant to this title are con-
sistent with any approved plan for the implementation of any ambient air
quality standard for any air quality control region designated pursuant to
the Clean Air Act, as amended.
(k) The Secretary shall not approve any project involving approaches
to a bridge under this title, if such project and bridge will significantly
affect the traffic volume and the highway system of a contiguous State
without first taking into full consideration the views of that State.
As amended Pub.L. 89-574, §§ 5(a), 14, Sept. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 767,
771; Pub.L. 91-605, Title I, § 136(a), (b), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat.
1734; Pub.L. 93-87, Title I, § § 114, 152(2), 156, Aug. 13, 1973, 87
Stat. 257, 276, 277.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1.6b FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973
August 13, 1973, P.L. 93-87, § 114, 165, 87 Stat. 257.
To authorize appropriations for the construction of certain highways in
accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the "Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1973".
[p. 1]
NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
SEC. 114. Subsection (i) of section 109 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"The Secretary, after consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and appropriate Federal,
State, and local officials, may promulgate standards for the con-
trol of highway noise levels for highways on any Federal-aid
system for which project approval has been secured prior to July
1,1972. The Secretary may
[p. 2]
approve any project on a Federal-aid system to which noise-level
standards are made applicable under the proceeding sentence for
the purpose of carrying out such standards. Such project may
include, but is not limited to, the acquisition of additional rights-
of-way, the construction of physical barriers, and landscaping.
Sums apportioned for the Federal-aid system on which such
project will be located shall be available to finance the Federal
share of such project. Such project shall be deemed a highway
project for all purposes of this title."
[p. 3]
BUS AND OTHER PROJECT STANDARDS
SEC. 165. (a) The Secretary of Transportation shall require
that buses acquired with Federal financial assistance under (1)
subsection (a) or (c) of section 142 of title 23, United States
Code, (2) paragraph (4) of subsection (e) of section 103, title
-------
6 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
23, United States Code, or (3) section 147 of the Federal-aid
Highway Act of 1973 meet the standards prescribed by the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under sec-
tion 202 of the Clean Air Act, and under section 6 of the Noise
Control Act of 1972, and shall authorize the acquisition, wherever
practicable, of buses which meet the special criteria for low-
emission vehicles set forth in section 212 of the Clean Air Act,
and for low-noise-emission products set forth in section 15 of the
noise Control Act of 1972.
(b) The Secretary of Transportation shall assure that projects
receiving Federal financial assistance under (1) subsection (a) or
(c) of section 142 of title 23, United States Code, (2) paragraph
(4) of subsection (e) of section 103, title 23, United States Code,
or (3) section 147 of the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973 shall
be planned and designed so that mass transportation facilities
and services can effectively be utilized by elderly and handicapped
persons who, by reason of illness, injury, age, congenital mal-
function, or other permanent or temporary incapacity or dis-
ability are unable without special facilities or special planning or
design to utilize such facilities and services as effectively as per-
sons not so affected.
[p. 8]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1.6b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S.REP No. 93-61, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess, (1973)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973
MARCH 13, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BENTSEN, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 502]
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
(S. 502), to authorize appropriations for the construction of cer-
tain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States
Code, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill as amended do pass.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The Congress last year attempted to revise the Federal-Aid
Highway Program in line with our changing transportation
needs. A number of critical issues were addressed. Completion of
this legislative effort was not successful prior to the adjournment
of the 92nd Congress. Many of the provisions of this bill, how-
ever, received extensive consideration during 1972. This measure,
therefore, benefits from the advantage of a second round of de-
liberations and an additional assessment of changing conditions.
[p. 1]
The principal objective of this bill is to provide, within the
Federal-Aid Program, the flexibility required by a diverse
modern society. It continues and strengthens roadbuilding pro-
grams for rural areas; it gives to urban areas the opportunity to
use highway funds for public transportation; it grants to large
cities direct expenditure of Federal highway funds; it strength-
-------
8 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ens environmental controls over roadbuilding; it permits urban
areas to re-examine the need for controversial freeways; it
strengthens the program of highway beautification; and it au-
thorizes highway programs for 3 years instead of the customary
2 years.
In developing the bill, the Committee also considered the neces-
sity to act responsibly concerning the relationship of the highway
program to the general fiscal condition of the Federal Govern-
ment. The authorizations in this bill reflect the Committee's as-
sessment of highway transportation needs, but the total cost is
reasonable and well within the capacity of existing revenue
mechanisms.
The Interstate System continues to be the largest single high-
way activity. In 1970, authorizations for the system were pro-
vided through 1976 with the knowledge that further extension
would be necessary to complete the system. The bill reduces the
annual authorization level, but it does so in a manner that will
not inhibit the current rate of development of the Interstate
System.
The Committee's most extensive debate was given to various
proposals related to the availability of urban system funds. Rec-
ognition was given to the desirability of large cities having direct
control over highway fund spending, and to the need to assure
that major urban areas receive their fair share of Federal high-
way assistance.
The most controversial aspect of the legislation relates to the
use of highway funds for public transportation. The Committee
reaffirmed its decision of 1972 that expenditure of highway funds
for highway-related public transportation is both desirable and
proper.
The highway safety program will be considered in separate
legislation so that proper attention and emphasis can be accorded
this subject.
HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Transportation conducted 4 days of hear-
ings this year on all aspects of the Federal-Aid Highway Program
and related activities. A total of 39 witnesses were heard, and
many additional statements and supporting materials were filed
with the Subcommittee.
The hearings began on February 7, 1973, and were concluded
on February 16,1973.
In his opening remarks, the Chairman of the Subcommittee
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 9
outlined six major issues to be considered: the proper authoriza-
tion levels for the various Federal-aid programs, interstate,
primary, secondary, and urban; the value of retaining the
various categorical programs as opposed to encompassing them
under three or four general headings; the use of highway trust
funds for public transportation purposes, including rail transit;
the so-called "pass through" of highway funds to urban areas;
the transfer of interstate mileage and the substitution of alter-
native mileage and the substitution of alternative segments
[p-2]
by the States; and the advisability of the so-called "priority
primary" system in last year's House bill, which would have
authorized a new 10,000-mile system to approximate interstate
standards using selected, heavily traveled roads.
In addition, in 1972 the subcommittee conducted 8 days of
hearings preparatory to reporting the Federal-Aid Highway Act
of 1972. A total of 74 witnesses were heard, and 74 additional
statements were filed with the subcommittee, discussing many of
the subjects dealt with in this bill.
tP-3]
TRANSPORTATION AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Under the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, ambient air quality
standards were established for several air pollutants contained in
motor vehicle emissions. That law requires each State (or the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, where a
State's action is inadequate) to develop an implementation plan
to achieve primary ambient air quality standards protective of
public health by mid-1975 and maintain those standards there-
after. It is possible under the Clean Air Act for communities
with especially difficult problems in meeting the standards to gain
an extension until as late as mid-1977.
Even in that time, however, it will be necessary for States and
cities to take fairly drastic steps in controlling transportation to
attain these standards. In the report of the Senate Committee on
Public Works accompanying S 4358, which became the Clean Air
Amendments of 1970, the Committee stated:
In addition to direct emission controls, other potential
parts of an implementation plan include land use and
air and surface transportation controls. These should
insure that. . .
[p. 7]
-------
10 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
moving sources will be located and operated so as not
to interfere with the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of any applicable air quality standard or
goal. . .
The Committee recognizes that during the next
several years, the attainment of required ambient air
quality in many of the metropolitan regions of this
country will be impossible if the control of pollution
from moving sources depends solely on emission con-
trols. The Committee does not intend that these areas
be exempt from meeting the standards. Some regions
may have to establish new transportation programs and
systems combined with traffic control regulations and
restrictions in order to achieve ambient air quality
standards for pollution agents associated with moving
sources.
The Committee realizes that changes or restrictions
in transportation systems may impose servers hard-
ship on municipalities and States, and it urges that
agencies of the Federal Government make available
any relevant program assistance to the States and
regions to meet these obligations. The highway pro-
gram, various housing and urban development pro-
grams and other sources of assistance should be ex-
amined in this connection.
The Committee has accepted its responsibility to make the
Federal-aid highway program reflect and help implement the
policy established in the Clean Air Act. The Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1970 included a new section 109(j), title 23,
U.S. Code, requiring the Secretary of Transportation to develop
guidelines to assure that highways be constructed consistent with
any approved plan for the implementation of an ambient air
quality standard.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, testified in the hearings on S. 502 that—
Currently, we estimate 26 metropolitan areas, in-
cluding eight of the Nation's ten largest cities, will
need some form of transportation controls if air quality
standards are to be met by 1977. ... In most of the
26 regions, . . . motor vehicle travel must be cur-
tailed .... (and) adequate alternative modes of trans-
portation . . . made available.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 11
In addition, implementation plans adequately providing for
the maintenance of such standards, according to an advance
notice of proposed rule making issued by Administrator
Ruckelshaus on March 2, 1973, will be required to include
controls on the construction and operation of "complex sources"
involving increased motor vehicle activity. This would include
controls on the location and operation of parking facilities and
highways, as well as many other developments.
Therefore, the Committee included in S. 502 two provisions
(in addition to "Urban Highway Public Transportation", sec-
tion 131) relating the Federal-aid highway program to those
problems of air quality control regions which under the Clean
Air Act must impose transportation controls. First, for highway
programs and projects approved after June 30, 1973, section
109 (j) is amended to require the
[p. 8]
Secretary to first find that such a program or project is in
conformity with the guidelines he has issued under section 109
(j) (1) before he can approve it. In addition, for air quality
control regions needing transportation controls, a proposed
program or project cannot be approved by the Secretary unless
it is consistent with the Clean Air Act implementation plan
approved or promulgated by the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency for the region.
It is important to observe several points about this amend-
ment. The Committee intends that it be primarily a clarifying
amendment to 23 U.S.C. 109(j), carrying out the intention of
the 1970 Act. This language, however, to the extent it deals
with those air quality control regions requiring transportation
controls, is prospective only; that is, it covers only programs and
projects approved after June 30, 1973, and not those projects
already approved for such regions, whether or not construction
has actually begun. Consistency with such an implementation
plan can be required only in a region where transportation
controls have actually been promulgated, and not on an ad hoc
basis in regions where controls on transportation are not yet
developed.
Highway construction is often said to promote the use of
motor vehicles and increase traffic in areas already congested
and suffering from air pollution from motor vehicle emissions.
If proper land use controls are established by local authorities
(as are required by the Clean Air Act), this will not occur.
Improvements in the highway transportation system can then
-------
12 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
handle existing traffic loads more effectively, and in fact reduce
emissions by allowing more efficient speeds of travel.
In the view of the Committee, it is critical that the require-
ments of such transportation controls be considered when the
priorities are established for projects through the metropolitan
area comprehensive transportation planning process required by
23 U.S.C. 134. The Secretary should take all necessary steps to
assure the consideration of Clean Air Act implementation plan
requirements in the planning processes of affected urbanized
areas.
The second amendment included by the Committee to facil-
itate the implementation of the Clean Air Act authorizes the
Secretary to require a State to use all the urban extension
funds apportioned to it for needed transportation controls.
States will ordinarily be able to transfer up to 30 percent of
urban extension funds into the urban system. Under this
amendment, for air quality control regions requiring transporta-
tion controls, the Secretary can require all of those funds to be
applied to the solution of the problems of affected areas.
[p. 9]
HIGHWAY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Of the many problems that beset America's urban communi-
ties, those of providing safe, reliable and efficient transportation
at reasonable cost are among the most difficult to resolve.
In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970, the Congress
approved legislation authorizing the use of specified highway
funds for the construction of such transit-oriented facilities as
exclusive or preferential bus lanes, passenger loading facilities,
and fringe or corridor parking areas. At that time, the com-
mittee observed that development of urban transportation sys-
tems had been relatively neglected while emphasis was placed
on construction of the national highway network, particularly
the Interstate System. In this bill, the Com-
[p. 13]
mittee recognizes the interrelationship between public transpor-
tation and the highway program, further expanding the uses
for highway funds to strengthen public transportation, to obtain
the maximum benefits from the heavy public investment in
urban highways.
Recognizing a continuing need for improved movement of
people and traffic in urban areas, the bill would expand the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 13
availability of Federal-aid urban system and urban extension
funds to include the purchase of passenger equipment other than
rolling stock for fixed rail. The Committee considers public bus
transportation to be a high priority highway-related activity,
and that the expenditure of highway funds for this purpose is
justified.
The 1956 Highway Revenue Act, which established the Trust
Fund, authorized expenditures from the fund only for the
purpose of meeting obligations incurred under the Federal-Aid
Road Act of 1916, as amended, "which are attributable to
Federal-Aid highways."
The Committee considered proposals to use highway funds for
construction of fixed rail transit systems. The Committee recog-
nizes, however, that it would be impractical to attempt to
finance all highway and all urban mass transit activities with
revenues from the Highway Trust Fund. It chose to emphasize
highway-oriented transit to supplement funds provided under
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. The
funds authorized for this purpose in this bill should in no way
be used as a justification for reducing assistance under the
Urban Mass Transportation Act.
The Committee believes that costs of rail systems are so high
that the Highway Trust Fund would not be able to bear any
substantial share without seriously impairing its ability to meet
the highway needs of the Nation.
Expanded authority to strengthen urban bus systems can have
an immediate impact on transportation needs in cities. Such
expansion is necessary to assist cities in reducing air pollution
under implementation plans under the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970. ?At least 26 metropolitan areas must curtail
motor traffic as part of their overall strategy.
26 METROPOLITAN Am QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS NEEDING
TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS BY 1977
Fairbanks Boston
Phoenix-Tucson Minneapolis-St. Paul
San Francisco Bay Area, Metropolitan New York
Los Angeles Dayton
San Diego Portland, Oregon
Sacramento Valley Philadelphia
Denver Pittsburgh
Metropolitan District of Columbia Austin-Waco
Chicago Corpus Christi-Victoria
Baltimore Houston-Galveston
-------
14 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Dallas-Fort Worth Salt Lake City
San Antonio Seattle
El Paso-Las Cruces- Puget Sound
Alamogordo
[p. 14]
Buses can be made available quickly to utilize existing urban
highways, whereas rail transit, in addition to being costly, has
a long development time.
As an alternative means of transportation, each conventional
passenger bus could carry enough passengers to replace twenty
or more automobiles. Buses purchased under this provision would
have to meet standards prescribed by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under the Clean Air Act and the Noise Control
Act of 1972 and, wherever practicable, the special criteria for
low emission vehicles set forth in those Acts.
Because of public transportation needs in rural areas, the
Committee included a provision authorizing a highway public
transportation demonstration program in rural areas.
Local rural public transportation needs have been neglected in
the past. Hearings conducted by the Chairman of the Committee,
Senator Randolph, in West Virginia during October, 1971,
developed considerable evidence on the special transportation
problems of the elderly and the poor in rural areas. That tes-
timony was supplemented by additional statements of the
National Catholic Rural Life Conference presented before the
Senate Subcommittee on Roads during hearings in May, 1972.
The bill would also require the Secretary's assurance that
subsection (a) of section 16 of the Urban Mass Transportation
Act of 1964, as amended, requiring the planning and design of
mass transportation facilities to meet the special needs of the
elderly and the handicapped, would be implemented in carrying
out section 142. It is also intended that the Secretary shall obtain
certification from the Secretary of Labor that Section 13(c) of
the Urban Mass Transportation Act has been met. The language
giving the Secretary certain discretion is not intended to permit
the Secretary to waive, dilute, or otherwise overlook the require-
ments of Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act.
[p. 15]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 15
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, FEDERAL AID
HIGHWAY ACT OF 1972
TITLE I
Section 113.-Apportionment
Section 113 amends the Federal-aid primary formula to sub-
stitute the phrase "intercity mail routes where service is per-
formed by motor vehicles" for the words "star routes" as a more
accurate description. Provision would also be made to establish
a minimum of one-half of one percent for each State's apportion-
ment of funds for the Federal-aid urban system and changing
the word "urbanized" to "urban". This assures the apportion-
ment of urban system funds on the basis of population in urban
areas of over 5,000 in population, as denned in 23 U.S.C. 101
(a). The authority to transfer apportionments between the
Federal-aid primary and secondary systems, is increased from
20 to 30 percent. Authorization to transfer up to 30 percent of
urban extension funds to the urban highway system is also
provided. A conforming amendment deleting the last sentence of
section 104(c) would also be made.
In addition, in any State in which the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency has certified that one or more
air quality regions would fail to achieve by July 1, 1975,
specified standard air quality levels under the Clean Air Act, the
Secretary is authorized to require the State to transfer all urban
extension sums apportioned to such State to the account of
urbanized areas within such designated air quality region for
emergency assistance for transportation system improvements.
[p. 31]
It would also prohibit the initiation of any highway program or
the construction of any highway project approved under title
23 after June 30, 1973, unless it is in conformity with guide-
lines promulgated by the Secretary to assure attainment of
ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and consistent with implementation plans approved by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for
air quality control regions requiring transportation controls.
[p. 32]
-------
16 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF MR. MUSKIE, MR. CLARK, MR.
BIDEN, MR. BAKER, MR. BUCKLEY, AND MR. STAFFORD
We support strongly most of the provisions of this bill, which
go far toward a more effective national transportation policy.
Nevertheless, we believe the bill fails in one essential aspect.
It does not extend to urban areas the broad flexibility they must
have to establish improved transportation systems that will
serve all of the American people.
Specifically, we believe that funds authorized for the urban
highway system ($850,000,000 annually) should be available for
construction of fixed-rail systems (subway, etc.), if a State or
a community finds such construction best meets its transporta-
tion needs.
To implement this approach, we supported an amendment
offered by Senators Muskie, Baker and others in Committee:
On Page 97, (1) amend line 5 through 8 to read:
"(a) To encourage the development, improvement, and use of
public mass transportation systems for the transportation of
passengers within urban areas,"
(2) on line 19, strike "and"
(3) after line 19, insert:
"(2) sums apportioned in accordance with paragraph (6) of
subsection (b) of section 104 of this title shall be available to
finance the Federal share of the costs of projects within urban
areas for the construction of fixed rail facilities and for the
purchase of passenger equipment, including rolling stock for
fixed rail; and"
(4) on line 20 strike "(2)" and insert "(3)"
(5) on lines 1 and 4, strike "highway"
This flexibility has been supported strongly by President
Nixon. In his recent environmental message, the President
declared:
As we have learned in recent years, we urgently
need a mass transportation system not only to relieve
urban congestion but also to reduce the concentrations
of pollution that are too often the result of our pres-
ent methods of transportation. Thus I will continue
to place high priority upon my request to permit use
of the Highway Trust Fund for mass transit pur-
poses and to help State and local governments achieve
air quality, conserve energy, and meet other environ-
mental objectives.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 17
But the amendment failed on a vote of 6-8. We believe this
amendment will not impact the Federal-aid highway program
adversely. It does not mandate the spending of a single dollar
on fixed-rail mass transit. It does not alter in any way the al-
location of funds between urban and rural road systems.
Rather, it would give the communities of America the option
they need to balance the various alternatives when planning the
best pos-
[p. 51]
sible transportation system serving various urban areas. Many
communities may wish to continue the construction of needed
highways. Others may allocate a portion of their funds to buses
and exclusive bus lanes, as now permitted under the language
of the reported bill.
We believe that each community should have the added
option, with the same funds, to develop or improve a transit
system running on fixed rails, if such a system would more
economically and effectively serve the public.
This amendment would be additional to the existing funding
under the Urban Mass Transportation Administration program,
as would be the highway-related transit provisions in the
reported bill. In his testimony in support of our amendment,
Secretary of Transportation Brinegar said that flexibility in the
use of urban systems monies is "not intended as a substitute
for the UMTA capital program."
Some opponents of flexibility argue that such a fixed-rail ex-
penditure would break a trust with those who have paid gaso-
line taxes that havo hpen dedicated since 1956 to highway-related
construction.
There are two compelling arguments against this allegation,
we believe. First, many of the gasoline and other taxes predate,
by decades, the creation of the Trust Fund. Those taxes were
then deposited with general revenues, and the Federal-aid
highway program was financed out of general revenues.
As Secretary of Transportation Brinegar testified in hearings
before the Public Works Committee.
To show the significance of this historical pattern,
if we today computed the share of the 1974 trust fund
monies that came from general fund sources prior to
1956, we find the total to be approximately 50 percent.
Thus, on grounds of equity it seems fair to consider
that a sizable amount of trust fund monies could be
-------
18 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
legitimately used for transportation purposes that
broadly benefit a large segment of the population.
Second—and far more important—the flexibility to construct
a fixed-rail transit system in many major urban areas would
increase dramatically the usefulness of existing and new high-
ways by attracting travelers off those roads. These roads will
once again serve the purpose for which they were designed—
safe and rapid travel—rather than engender the extreme con-
gestion we see in nearly all our cities today.
Secretary Brinegar and his predecessor, John Volpe, have
given their strong support to the concept of increased flex-
ibility in the use of the relatively small urban-system program.
A majority vote of the Nation's Governors back this position.
Strong support for flexibility has been received from the Na-
tional League of Cities-U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William D.
Ruckelshaus argued for flexibility to achieve and maintain
health-related air quality standards in urban areas, but he
emphasized that air pollution control is only one aspect of the
challenge of a balanced transportation system.
Even if we could eliminate all vehicle emissions, we
would still be faced with a host of transportation
related problems—noise, waste of fuel resources, con-
gestion, deteriorating cities,
[p. 52]
unemployment and under-employment, and physical
alienation.
Motor vehicles are consuming ever-increasing
amounts of petroleum products. This comes at a time
when the Texas fields have been producing at capacity
for almost a year and yet their capacity to meet the
demand continues to decline. Naturally, fuel imports
are increasing. With those increased imports come the
dual problems of balance of trade deficits and national
security considerations. This increasing dependence on
foreign fuel places the United States in an increas-
ingly difficult position.
With sufficient incentives and flexible funding, we
could provide buses and commuter trains that are fast,
safe, reliable, and convenient. Mass transit as a part
of a sensible long-term solution to communities' modern
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 19
transportation needs must be included as a major el-
ement in the design of more efficient cities.
And the Senate approved virtually identical language (the
Cooper-Muskie Amendment) last year by a vote of 48-26, after
the Committee rejected it, 8-7. We urge the Senate to support
this amendment again when it is brought to the floor.
The Greek statesman, Pericles, many years ago referred to
"a certain happy flexibility of nature" among the Athenians,
which gave them lucidity of thought, clearness and propriety
of language, freedom from prejudice and stiffness, openness of
mind, and amiability of manners.
We believe flexibility in the Highway Trust Fund will have
a far more practical effect in 20th Century America, giving new
life and freedom of movement to our cities.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE
DICK CLARK
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr.
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr.
JAMES L. BUCKLEY
ROBERT T. STAFFORD.
[p. 53]
-------
20 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.6b(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 93-118, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973
APRIL 10,1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. BLATNIK, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 502]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the
bill (S. 502) to authorize appropriations for the construction of
certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United
States Code, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and
inserts a substitute text which appears in italic type in the
reported bill.
INTRODUCTION
The Federal-aid highway legislation normally is considered in
the even numbered years, and was so considered last year, but
Congress did not reach a conclusion before adjournment, al-
though extensive hearings, floor debate, and the conference with
the Senate had been completed with the Conference Report on
the floor at the time of adjournment sine die. Another week of
daylong hearings was conducted this year before the Committee
in subsequent public 3-day markup sessions agreed upon the
bill now being recommended. The focus of effort in both years
has been to bring the highway program into complete conform-
ity with current national policies concerned with protection of
the environment, assistance to the urban citizenry, reduction of
pollution, conservation of energy sources, greater
[P- 1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 21
participation of citizens in the planning and development stages
of public works programs and highway safety. What was con-
sidered by the Congress last year to have been a good approach
to these and other elements of the program has been further
refined in this year's bill with a series of amendments made to
the bill of last year, together with inclusion of a new Title
providing extensive assistance to urban mass transit, with
financing from General Fund in the Treasury. This provision,
both in amount of funds authorized as well as with General
Funds as the source, is in the agreement with the recommenda-
tions of the Administration for legislation on this subject, and
the proposals contained in the Budget submission of the
President for fiscal year 1974.
The Federal-State highway program has developed rapidly and
achieved much for the nation since it was launched in 1916, and
the construction of Federal-aid highways has been accompanied
by a myriad of social, environmental, and safety benefits. The
ability to change program direction and emphasis and to accept
new responsibilities, as needed, has historically been a hallmark
of the Federal-aid highway program, and one of the basic reasons
for its success over the years. But even as late as 1960 there was
no funded program for highway safety, although this was one
of the principal indirect as well as direct criteria which governed
all policy considerations of the program since its beginning;
urban planning was optional, although it too was then and had
been for many years a fundamental operative policy, developed to
a high degree of sophistication and providing the largest planning
activity within government; relocation assistance was just being
thought of as a routine part of federal assistance programs
which subsequently has been provided in all Federal and Fed-
erally assisted programs after having been first developed in the
1968 highway legislation; and environmental protection, though
practiced in many ways, even as is done at present, was not
known by this name, nor did it have the degree of support and
program influence now given to it. Principal program manage-
ment considerations were concentrated on the technical problems
of obtaining a high quality product at low costs. Indeed, this
was the major part of the consideration given to all of the
public works programs brought before the Congress and this
Committee by all agencies in the Executive branch.
But today, title 23 of the U.S. Code reflects the deep concern
which the Nation has for maintaining, through the highway
program, conditions under which man cannot only have mobility
-------
22 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
but also have a safe, sanitary, and decent place in which to live,
and an opportunity to obtain beneficial uses of the environment
without degradation, risk to health or safety, or loss of his
inalienable constitutional rights as a citizen and member of his
community. Protection of the environment and civil rights are
major program objectives.
In a dramatic shift of emphasis, the highway program has
now been directed to helping to solve the problems of the cities.
Perhaps the single most outstanding characteristic of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1970 was its concentration on new and inno-
vative ways to solve the transportation problems of the Nation's
major cities. This reflected the growing need of the Federal
Government, and the Fed-
[p. 2]
eral-aid highway program in particular, to devote more attention
to urbanized areas where demands are increasing rapidly.
The 1970 Act authorized a completely new Federal-aid urban
system of streets and highways carrying the major portion of
city traffic, and funding therefor; and this year's bill extends
and strengthens this provision together with an increase in fund-
ing from the $100 million authorization in 1970 to $700 million
per year in this year's bill. The 1970 Act gave principal authority
for selection of this new system and the program for its improve-
ment to local government officials; required the Secretary of
Transportation to promulgate regulations to insure maximum
effective participation by citizens in the planning and decision-
making processes concerning this new system of streets and high-
ways; required conformance in design and planning with local
goals and objectives; provided for the establishment of noise
standards and protection of environmental and historic features
assured that no highway projects could be advanced without
concurrence of the local government authorities; required the
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate guidelines which
would assure that possible adverse social, economic, and environ-
mental effects relating to any highway project would be given
full consideration during the project development stages, includ-
ing such factors as air, noise, and water pollution, the destruction
or disruption of man-made and natural resources, aesthetic values,
community cohesion, adverse employment effects, tax and prop-
erty value losses, injurious displacement of people, businesses,
and farms, and disruption of desirable community and regional
growth plans and patterns. Provisions were also included to re-
quire that the Secretary of Transportation develop guidelines to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 23
assure that highways approved under the highway legislation
would be consistent with any approved plans for ambient air
quality standards of the Environmental Protection Agency un-
der the Clean Air Act. These and many other similar provi-
sions contained in the 1970 Act are now being implemented in
the program and their effects are now being realized. The Com-
mittee also called on the Secretary of Transportation in the 1970
Act to continue the biennial reports of progress and studies of
highway transportation needs, together with a special study of
how the highway program could most effectively assist in solv-
ing the mass transit problems of the cities.
Thus the Committee has had before it during the hearings and
consideration of this bill in 1972 and this year much new and
updated information on needs and operation of the program. It
is against this comprehensive background of long and wide-
ranging studies and oversight of the highway program that the
Committee brings this bill to the House.
The 1972 National Transportation Report submitted to the
Committee by the Department of Transportation shows that
highway needs during the 1970-90 decades total about $600 bil-
lion and mass transit needs are about $63 billion. This report
contained the first all-inclusive tabulation of transportation
needs ever made, and includes estimated needs of other forms of
transportation such as rail and air, in addition to highway and
mass transit needs. The Committee has made an effort in this
bill to meet as many of the highway and mass transportation
needs as possible within fiscal resources of the Federal, State,
and local governments involved.
[p. 3]
The report also shows that highway travel dominates the na-
tion's transportation by all modes in a ratio of about 10 to 1,
with 93% of all person-miles of travel in the nation by all
modes being performed by highway vehicles, both automobile
and buses; and that within our urban areas, the ratio is even
higher. 98% of all person-miles of travel within urban areas is
by highway (94% by automobile and 4% by bus). Even in our
largest cities where rail and bus mass transit is available, the
person-miles of travel by both these modes combined is only 5%
of the daily travel. While large shares of the travel to the central
business district during the "rush hours" occur by mass transit,
it represents only a small portion of the total travel within the
area. Freight and service vehicle movements within urban areas
-------
24 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
depend almost 100% on the availability of a street and highway
network.
Person-miles of travel and reported highway and street needs
are about evenly divided between urban and rural areas, and so
the authorizations have been provided in equal amounts for
these two areas. Payments made into the Highway Trust Fund
likewise are about equally divided between rural and urban areas,
so that the bill being reported fairly balances all these factors.
The greatest concern about the highway program during the
past few years has involved its urban portions and particularly
the debate about "flexibility" in the use of highway funds for
either mass transit or highways. It is clear to the Committee
that it is not simply a question of these being alternatives one to
the other, but that provision needs to be made for the separate
financing of both types of transportation independently of each
other, so that both needs can be met simultaneously without one
need having to be sacrificed to meet the other one as would be
the case if only one choice could be made. The Committee there-
fore, has developed the reported bill to permit both needs to be
met at the same time.
Proposals that have been made to stop highway construction
and to use the Highway Trust Fund for mass transit do not pro-
vide an acceptable answer to the urban areas' needs for trans-
portation of persons, goods, and services. We must continue to
provide our urban areas with the modern system of highways
and streets that are their very lifelines—because in all of our
major urban areas, due to economic, geographic, and populations
reasons, highways will continue into the foreseeable future to
serve as the principal means of transportation for people, and
the sole means of transportation for most or all goods and service
functions.
The Committee therefore, has significantly increased the fund-
ing level for the new Federal-aid urban system while at the
same time liberalizing the criteria for providing public mass
transportation facilities, such as special bus lanes, traffic control
devices, passenger loading areas, shelters, and parking facilities,
all from the apportioned highway funds. This Committee recog-
nizes that bus mass transit is now, and will undoubtedly in the
future continue to be, the major part of all mass transit (it is
% at present), and because of its operational flexibility is emin-
ently suitable for utilizing the vast capital investment repre-
sented by the nation's highways and streets. A healthy urban
transit program can only be achieved in concert with a healthy
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 25
urban highway program. There are already in operation at the
present time.
[p. 4]
a number of successful exclusive or preferential bus highway
projects, such as the Shirley Highway project in northern Vir-
ginia, and projects in Seattle, Newark, Boston, New York City,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Louisville, San Juan, Miami, and
Dallas; with others being in the developmental stage. These
highway type improvements are proving beneficial to the overall
health of the transit industry, and serving to reduce costly high-
way needs. Therefore, bus mass transit is a proper concern of the
overall highway program. By inducing some persons to leave their
autos at home during rush hours, transit buses can make an
enormous contribution to relieving urban "rush-hour" traffic con-
gestion. However, while we must give this part of the highway
program increasing support, the highway program must con-
tinue to play the predominant role even though it is recognized
that by itself it cannot possibly solve all of our urban transporta-
tion needs. That is why the Committee has reported a bill which
authorizes a program designed to assist both types of transporta-
tion needs.
The highway program as proposed herein will bring sub-
stantial relief to urban congestion problems. In so doing, it will
at the same time bring a reduction in air pollution and petroleum
energy requirements, both of which are directly related to the
number of motor vehicles and their ability to move freely without
stop-and-go and prolonged idling periods. Conversely, stopping the
highway program will only serve to increase and intensify these
and other problems for the cities. Adequate transportation for
our cities is an absolute life-and-death essential; not only in
the movement of "rush-hour" workers to and from the central
city, but elsewhere within and throughout the community, to-
gether with the movement of goods and freight, and providing
public and private services which its citizens must have to exist.
The nationwide debate about public transportation and what
relationship it should bear to the highway program has been
intense during the past few years. The concern for preservation
of a quality environment, as reflected in increased litigation in
the courts, and the problem of "red-tape" delays in the execution
of the Federal-aid highway program have obscured some of the
basic philosophical concepts of this Federal grant-in-aid pro-
gram. This Committee believes it is important that these concepts
be reasserted and this is reflected in provisions on the declaration
-------
26 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
of policy, minimization of "red-tape", certification acceptance and
the Federal-State relationships.
Safety has always been the principal concern of the highway
program, and special effort programs for safety have been au-
thorized in the bill. Substantial increases in funding and in the
scope of the existing safety program to reduce fatalities and
injuries on the highways have been provided in respect to such
things as traffic controls, removal of roadside hazards, drug usage
by drivers, elimination of railway grade crossings, pavement
marking, correction of hazardous locations on the highway,
driver education, court and police enforcement of driving infrac-
tions, statistical studies of significant accident reporting data,
pedestrian safety, and in many other areas of research. A very
substantial part of the funding included in the bill is for this
effort, and it provides the largest concentrated attack on the
highway safety problem which has yet been mounted.
[p. 5]
There is now considerable evidence that the use of computers
to aid in the design, evaluation and construction of highways
can provide a heretofore unattainable level of acceptability, utili-
zation, cost effectiveness and safety. The technology and pro-
grams to do this are ready for application. Their use can assist
in the design of highways from preliminary planning to com-
pleted construction. They can help minimize the cost of right-of-
way acquisition and graphically identify and provide procedures
for evaluating and correcting deficiencies in the driver's view of
roadways, sign posting, lighting, and pavement marking. They
can be used to minimize highway noise and air pollution levels
and, by demonstrating graphically the environmental effects of
highway routing in urban areas, can go far to inform citizens of
the true impacts and effects of highway projects in urban areas.
This bill is actually three major programs in one. First, is the
conventional highway program authorization, greatly altered in
scope and concept to meet the most current needs, with major
new provisions including substantially increased funding for ur-
ban areas; second, a new, enlarged, and comprehensive effort in
highway safety to reduce the annual toll of death, injury, and
destruction to our highways and streets; and third, a new au-
thorization for urban mass transit improvement consonant with,
and complementary to, the urban highway program, which will
permit both needed programs to proceed at the same time,
rather than sacrificing one for the other. The Committee feels
that it is bringing to the House the most advanced, comprehen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 27
sive, and problem-solving highway, mass-transportation, and
safety bill which it has ever reported.
Because no highway law was enacted last year, this bill covers
a three year authorization period, instead of the biennial schedule
of former highway bills.
[P-6]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS—FEDERAL-AID
HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973
TITLE I
Section 115. Highway Noise Levels
Existing law requires that after July 1, 1972, plans, specifica-
tions and estimates for federal-aid highways which are not com-
patible with noise level standards promulgated by the Secretary
shall be disapproved. This provision would permit the Secretary
to promulgate noise level standards for projects approved prior
to July 1, 1972, and also permit the expenditure of federal-aid
funds to make these projects compatible with such standards.
[p. 49]
-------
28 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.6b(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 93-410,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973
JULY 27, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. WRIGHT, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 502]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 502)
to authorize appropriations for the construction of certain high-
ways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and
for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respec-
tive Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following:
TITLE I
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the "Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1973."
[p. 1]
NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
SEC. 114. Subsection (i) of section 109 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the fol-
loiving: "The Secretary, after consultation with the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection Agency and appropriate
Federal, State, and local officials, may promulgate standards for
the control of highway noise levels for highways on any Federal-
aid system for which project approval has been secured prior to
July 1,1972. The Secretary may approve any project on a Federal-
aid system to which noise-level standards are made applicable
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 29
under the preceding sentence for the purpose of carrying out
such standards. Such project may include, but is not limited to,
the acquisition of additional rights-of-waij, the construction of
physical barriers, and landscaping. Sums apportioned for the
Federal-aid system on which such project will be located shall be
available to finance the Federal share of such project. Such project
shall be deemed a highway project for all purposes of this
title."
[p. 9]
BUS AND OTHER PROJECT STANDARDS
SEC. 165. (a) The Secretary of Transportation shall require
that buses acquired with Federal financial assistance tinder (1)
subsection (a) or (c) of section 142 of title 23, United States
Code, (2) paragraph. (4) of subsection (e) of section 103, title
23, United States Code, or (3) section, 147 of the Federal-aid
Highway Act of 1973 meet the standards prescribed by the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section
202 of the Clean Air Act, and under section 6 of the Noise
Control Act of 1972, and shall authorize the acquisition, where
ever practicable, of buses which meet the special criteria for low-
emission vehicles set forth in section 212 of the Clean Air Act,
and for low-noise-emission products set forth in section 15 of the
Noise Control Act of 1972.
(b) The Secretary of Transportation shall assure that projects
receiving Federal financial assistance under (1) subsection, (a)
or (c) of section 14.2 of title 23, United States Code, (2) para-
graph (4) of subsection (e) of section 103, title 23, United
States Code, or (3) section 147 of the Federal-aid Highway Act
of 1973 shall be planned and designed so that mass transporta-
tion facilities and services can effectively be utilized by elderly
and handicapped persons who, by reason of illness, injury, age,
congenital malfunction, or other permanent or temporary inca-
pacity or disability are unable without special facilities or special
planning or design to utilize such facilities and services as effec-
tively as persons not so affected.
[p- 35]
APPORTIONMENT
Senate bill
Section 113 amends the Federal-aid primary formula to sub-
stitute the phrase "intercity mail routes where service is per-
formed by motor vehicles" for the words "star routes" as a more
-------
30 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
accurate description. Provision would also be made to establish a
minimum of one-half of one percent for each State's apportion-
ment of funds for the Federal-aid urban system and changing
the word "urbanized" to "urban". This assures the apportion-
ment of urban system funds on the basis of population in urban
areas of over 5,000 in population, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 (a).
The authority to transfer apportionments between the Federal-aid
primary and secondary systems, is increased from 20 to 30 per-
cent. Authorization to transfer up to 30 percent of urban exten-
sion funds to the urban highway system is also provided. A con-
forming amendment deleting the last sentence of section 104 (c)
would also be made.
In addition, in any State in which the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency has certified that one or more
air quality regions would fail to achieve by July 1, 1975, specified
standard air quality levels under the Clean Air Act, the Secretary
is authorized to require the State to transfer all urban extension
sums apportioned to such State to the account of urbanized areas
within such designated air quality region for emergency assist-
ance for transportation system improvements.
Home amendment
This section would amend the Federal-aid primary formula to
substitute rural population for general population. Provision is
also made to establish a minimum of one-half of one percent for
each State's apportionment of funds for the Federal-aid urban
system. The section would increase the authority of the Secretary
to approve the transfer of apportionments from one system to
another from 20 to 50 percent. Such transfers may be made, on
the one hand, between the Federal-aid primary and secondary
systems under sections 104(b) (1) and (2) and, on the other
hand, between extensions of the Federal-aid primary and second-
ary systems within urban areas and the Federal-aid urban sys-
tem. Conforming amendments deleting the last sentence of sec-
tion 104 (c) are also made.
Conference substitute
This section would amend section 104 of title 23 of the United
States Code as follows:
(1) by revising the concept of "star routes" to make it
conform to the present law;
(2) to amend the Federal-aid primary and Federal-aid
secondary formulas to substitute rural area population for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 31
general population and rural population respectively and to
exclude the District of Columbia from apportionments;
[p. 58]
(3) to establish a minimum of one-half of one percent
of each State's apportionment of funds for the Federal-aid
urban system and by changing the word "urbanized" to
"urban". This assures the apportionment of urban system
funds on the basis of population in urban areas as the term
urban area is denned in 23 U.S.C. 101 (a);
(4) by increasing the authority of the Secretary to
transfer apportionments from 20 percent to 40 percent in
accordance with the provisions of the House amendment.
Funds apportioned under section 104(b)(6) are not to be
transferred from their allocation to an urbanized area of
200,000 population without approval of the local officials;
(5) conforming amendments deleting the last sentence
of section 104 (c) are made.
A new subsection (b) which would insure that no State (other
than the District of Columbia) would receive an apportionment
for the primary system less than that which they received for
fiscal year 1973 and an additional $17,000,000 for fiscal year
1974 and $15,000,000 per year for fiscal years 1975 and 1976 is
authorized for this purpose.
[p. 59]
Senate bill
Subsection (a) of this section authorizes the Secretary to
promulgate standards for the control of highway noise levels for
Federal-aid projects approved prior to July 1, 1972. The Secretary
would be authorized to approve projects on Federal-aid systems
to help carry out noise-level standards.
Subsection (b) would also prohibit the initiation of any highway
program or the construction of any highway project approved
under title 23 after June 30, 1973, unless it is in conform-
ity with guidelines promulgated by the Secretary to assure at-
tainment of ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air
Act, as amended, and consistent with implementation plans ap-
proved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency for air quality control regions requiring transportation
controls.
House amendment
Existing law requires that after July 1, 1972, plans, specifica-
tions and estimates for Federal-aid highways which are not
-------
32 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
compatible with noise level standards promulgated by the Secre-
tary shall be disapproved. This provision would permit the Secre-
tary to promulgate noise level standards for projects approved
prior to July 1, 1972, and also permit the expenditure of Federal-
aid funds to make these projects compatible with such standards.
Conference substitute
This is the same as subjection (a) of this section in the Senate
bill.
The omission of subsection (b) of the Senate bill in the Con-
ference Report in no way lessens the Secretary's responsibilities
under the Clean Air Act. The Conferees reaffirm his responsibili-
ties in properly meeting the requirements of the Act. This is a
reaffirmation of what the Conferees understand existing law to
be.
The provision in the Senate bill requiring that after June 30,
1973, the Secretary must, before approval, find a highway pro-
gram or project to be in conformity with the guidelines he has
issued under section 109(j)(l) of title 23 is not contained in the
conference substitute.
This provision was intended to assure that Federal-Aid High-
way programs and projects are not inconsistent with air quality
control regulations for regions which under the Clean Air Act
must impose transportation controls.
The Conferees agreed to delete this provision with the under-
standing that existing law, in section 109 (j) of Title 23, section
110 of the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy
Act, requires any proposed highway project to be consistent
with the Clean Air Act implementation plan for the region in
which it is located before such a project could be approved by
the Secretary. The determination
[p. 60]
of consistency with such an implementation plan must be made by
the Secretary of Transportation.
In view of the Conferees, it is critical that in affected urban-
ized areas the requirements of such transportation controls be
considered when the priorities are established for projects
through the metropolitan area comprehensive transportation
planning process required by 23 U.S.C. 134. The Secretary should
take all necessary steps to assure the consideration of Clean Air
Act implementation plan requirements in the selection of projects
and the planning processes of affected urbanized areas.
[p. 61]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
33
1.6b(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD VOL 119 (1973)
1.6b(4)(a) March 14, 15: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S4724-S4730, S4734-S4738, S4741, S4745-S4749, S4752-S4782,
S4931-S4943, S4979-S4982;
Mr. RANDOLPH.
*****
The flexibility provided in this bill
will allow our cities to utilize availa-
ble urban highway funds to take ad-
vantage of the already substantal
investment in highways. The great
majority of American communities do
not today, and are unlikely in the
future, to need rail transit systems.
Conversely, they already have the
basic facilities in their streets and
roads for a public transportation sys-
tem.
This allows cities, particularly
those that must institute traffic con-
trols to reduce air pollution, to quickly
provide an effective alternate means
of transportation.
Rail transit already is assisted
through the urban mass transit pro-
gram and is a far more effective tool
for this purpose than is the highway
program. The limitations of appor-
tionment formulas utilized by the
highway program would prevent any
city from receiving a significant
amount of assistance for very expen-
sive rail construction. On the other
hand, the proposals of S. 502 would
relieve some of the pressure on the
urban mass transit program and con-
sequently make more money available
from this source for rail construc-
tion.
Closely related are the sections in-
tended to help cities comply with air
pollution reduction requirements. The
committee adopted an amendment
authorizing the transfer of urban ex-
tension funds to urban system alloca-
tions in those areas which must in-
stitute transportation controls. It also
requires that in any such urban area,
all highway construction projects
must be consistent with the air pol-
lution reduction plan for that area.
[p. S4723]
*****
This legislation represents another
in the continuing effort to provide our
Nation with a balanced transporta-
tion system to meet the needs of our
citizens. At the same time, I am
pleased to report to you that this
legislation, at virtually every turn,
strives to balance the need for trans-
portation systems with the necessity
to protect our environment. While S.
502 is essentially a construction bill,
it also makes every effort to prevent
unnecessary injury to our finite nat-
ural resources.
[p. S4724]
# # * * #
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, for
the second time in 6 months the Sen-
ate has before it a bill to extend and
amend our Federal aid highway pro-
grams. And once again, the central
question we must answer as we con-
sider this legislation is whether, in
fact, we have provided a sufficient
number of alternatives to meet our
pressing urban transportation prob-
lems.
The Public Works Committee
should be commended for reporting a
bill that recognizes and to some extent
responds to the] very critical trans-
portation needs of our cities. I was
pleased to note, for example, that the
committee bill expands the availability
of Federal aid urban system funds
and urban extension funds to include
the purchase of buses. I was also very
pleased to note that the bill provides
that the 32 cities in the United States
within populations greater than 400,-
000 may receive their proportionate
-------
34
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
share of urban system funds directly
from the State's apportionment of
urban funds, provided that the city is
found to be empowered by State law
and is equipped to manage effectively
such funds.
This latter provision will assist the
four major cities in California with
1970 populations in excess of 400,000:
Los Angeles—2,816,061; San Fran-
cisco—715,675; San Diego—696,769;
and San Jose—445,779. I was also
pleased to note that the bill specifi-
cally requires the Secretary to find
that any Federal aid highway project
is in compliance with Federal air and
noise pollution abatement standards
before approval is granted.
Yet, despite these important steps
forward, the committee bill falls far
short of meeting the critical trans-
portation needs of our cities. Urban
and intercity transit systems are
faced today with crippling financial
difficulties and
[p. S4727]
their plight is worsening. Since the
establishment of the highway trust
fund in 1956, a total of 268 city
transit systems have gone out of
business, and 100 of these have folded
since 1963. As freeways are built to
accommodate the suburban commuter,
those left behind in the cities—most
often the very young and the very old,
the handicapped and the poor—are
left without a means of transporta-
tion and must absorb the increasing
social costs associated with inner city
deterioration. Today, only 7.3 billion
transit passengers are carried
annually as opposed to the 23 billion
carried in 1945.
Despite increasing authorizations
out of the general revenues for the
Urban Mass Transit Administration';
capital grants program, essential
transit needs continue to go unmet
The Department of Transportation
estimates that the cost of bringing
urban transit up to minimally accept-
able standards by 1980 will run be-
:ween $28 and $34 billion. Unfortu-
nately, it now appears unrealistic to
ixpect more than $1 billion annually
out of general revenue funds to sup-
port mass transit.
Our highway program has long en-
ioyed wide public approval and finan-
cial support. Since the inception of
the Urban Mass Transit Administra-
tion in 1964, for example, the ratio of
Federal support for highways com-
oared to mass transit has been about
30 to J. In other words, for every
Federal dollar spent on mass transit,
we have spent $30 to build highways.
Moreover, including the revenues that
local and State governments spent
for road construction, maintenance
and safety, the total bill for our na-
tional highway system came to nearly
$22 billion last year. Not only is this
vastly more than was spent on public
transportation, but it is also more
than the total Federal, State, and local
government expenditures on housing,
urban renewal, parks, recreation,
sanitation, and police and fire protec-
tion combined. It is clearly time that
we as a nation refocus our sight, our
energy, and our dollars away from
the construction of more and more
highways to the exclusion of any
other form of transportation.
To begin to move toward the de-
velopment of clean, efficient, nonpol-
luting, and energy conserving mass
transit, we must recognize that our
total surface transportation resources
are finite and that we must, therefore,
reallocate some of the funds currently
allocated for highways to mass tran-
sit.
Today, the Senate will have three
opportunities to provide more ade-
quate funds for public transportation.
These are the three amendments that
I understand will be offered today; an
amendment which I am cosponsoring
with Senator WILLIAMS to provide the
Urban Mass Transit Administration
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
35
with the authority to make grants
and loans to cover the operating ex-
penditures of urban transit systems;
an amendment to be offered by Sena-
tors KENNEDY and WEIKER that would
potentially provide $2.75 billion an-
nually for rail and bus transit at the
option of State and local officials; and
an amendment that will be offered
by Senators MUSKIE and BAKER,
which I am also cosponsoring, that
would open up the urban systems and
urban extension funds to rail as well
as bus transit, making some $850
million available annually.
Mr. President, these three amend-
ments are critically important to
California and to the Nation. Public
hearings are currently underway in
the Los Angeles metropolitan area on
an EPA proposal to institute gaso-
line rationing and other severe meas-
ures in an effort to reduce air pollu-
tion to a level the meets the ambient
air quality standards established by
the Clean Air Act. The Environmen-
tal Protection Agency has estimated
that the number of vehicle miles
traveled in the Los Angeles area must
be reduced by more than 80 percent
if these standards are to be met. In
the absence of an adequate public
transportation system, such a pro-
posal would wreak economic and so-
cial havoc on the Los Angeles area.
The Environmental Protection
Agency has reported that, in addition
to Los Ang-eles, some 66 metropolitan
areas have auto-related air pollutants
in concentrations that are believed to
be hazardous to human health, and
that measures to reduce automobile
usage may be proposed in as many
as 28 of these areas by 1975.
Moreover, in the face of what ap-
pears to be a serious energy crisis, it
is important that we develop means of
transportation that are more efficient
users of energy than the automobile.
Automobiles are energy gluttons. The
Highway Action Coalition, in testi-
mony before the Senate Public Works
Committee, has made this point very
well:
The manufacture and operation [of auto-
mobiles! account for more than a fifth of
all the energy consumed in the United States.
Worse still, automobiles effectively use only
five percent of the potential energy they
burn; the rest is wasted. The average car
has about 120 horsepower per passenger—
roughly the amount required by a subsonic
aircraft to take off. Per passenger mile, a car
consumes five times as much fuel as a train,
and six times as much as a bus.
Mr. President, it is clearly in the
best interests of the Nation that the
Federal Government begin to pro-
vide more adequate support for ur-
ban mass transit. The air and noise
pollution and the congestion which the
automobile inevitably brings to our
cities are reaching unbearable levels.
Those bearing the brunt of these prob-
lems are those left behind in the
suburban exodus: the old, the poor,
and the handicapped. The highway
user and the city dweller alike will
benefit from a vigorous Federal ef-
fort to develop viable transportation
alternatives to the automobile. I,
therefore, urge that the Senate vote
today to provide the necessary finan-
cial assistance for those cities that
opt to develop public transportation
systems.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 is
a sound attempt to provide for the
diverse transportation needs of a
modern urban and rural society. T
am particularly pleased with the at-
tempt to hold spending to levels
which will not inhibit the develop-
ment of needed roadways, but which
are also fiscally responsible. For this
I commend the distinguished chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Trans-
portation, Senator BENTSEN, the es-
teemed chairman of the full Public
Works Committee, my friend Sen-
ator RANDOLPH, and all the com-
mittee members who worked so hard
-------
36
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
to attain a meeting of the minds on
these issues.
I must especially mention the sec- |
tions on highway public transporta-'
tion; availability of urban system
funds; control of outdoor advertis-
ing; Indian reservation roads and
bridges; and control of highway
litter, air pollution and noise levels
as indicative of real strides toward
strengthening our overall approach
to highway travel.
In the debate which follows, I can •
say with confidence to my colleagues
that all matters contained in S. 502
were fully explored during lengthy
hearings this year and in the last
Congress. The committee had a
wealth of information before it dur-
ing the executive sessions, and I be-
lieve that all points of view were
fully examined. It is my hope that
the House of Representatives will act
promptly, utilizing the basic ap-
proaches taken by S. 502,, and that
we will have a strong bill on the |
President's desk before the present
highway authorizations expire.
AMENDMENT NO. 30 !
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, li
thank the Senator from Texas for
yielding to me at this time.
I call up my amendment. No. 30 I
and ask that it be stated. I
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The i
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
At the end of the bill insert the following:
TITLE II
THE EMERGENCY COMMUTER RELIEF
ACT—AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN
MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964
Section 1. The Congress finds—
(1) that over 70 per centum of the Nation's
population lives in urban areas;
(2) that transportation is the lifeblood of
an urbanized society and the health and wel-
fare of that society depends upon the provi-
sion of efficient economical and convenient
transportation within and between its urban
areas:
(3) that for many years the mass transpor-
tation industry satisfied the transportation
needs of the urban areas of the country
capably and profitably;
(4) that in recent years the maintenance
of even minimal mass transportation service
in urban areas has become so financially
burdensome as to threaten the continuation
of this essential service;
(5) that the termination of such service
or the continued increase in its cost to the
user is undesirable, and may have a particu-
larly serious adverse effect upon the welfare
of a substantial number of lower income
persons;
(6) that some urban areas are now engaged
in developing preliminary plans for, or are
actually carrying out, comprehensive projects
to revitalize their mass transportation opera-
tions; and
(7) that immediate substantial Federal
assistance is needed to enable many mass
transportation systems to continue to pro-
vide vital service.
Sec. 2. (a) The fifth sentence of section
4 (a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964 is amended to read as follows: "The
Federal grant for any such project to be
[p. S4728]
assisted under section 3 (other than a project
for payment of operating expenses) shall be
in an amount equal to 90 per centum of the
net project cost.".
(b) The amendment made by subsection
(a) shall apply only with respect to projects
which were not subject to administrative res-
ervation on or before July 1, 1973.
Sec. 3. (a) Section 3 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended—
(1) by striking out "No" in the fifth sen-
tence of subsection (a) and inserting in lieu
thereof "Except as provided in subsection
(f), no"; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof a new
subsection as follows:
" (f) The Secretary is also authorized, on
such terms and conditions as he may pre-
scribe to make grants or loans to any State
or local public body to enable it to assist
any mass transportation system which main-
tains mass transportation service in an urban
area to pay operating expenses incurred as a
result of providing such service. No financial
assistance shall be provided under this sub-
section unless (1) the Secretary determines
that the mass transportation services pro-
vided by the system involved are needed to
carry out a program referred to in section
4(a), and (2) the applicant State or public
body has submitted to the Secretary a com-
prehensive mass transportation service im-
provement plan which is approved by him
and which sets forth a program, meeting cri-
teria established by the Secretary, for capital
or service improvements to be undertaken
for the purpose of providing more efficient,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
37
economical, and convenient mass transporta- '
tion service in an urban area, and for the
placing the mass transportation operations of
such system on a sound financial basis, and
(3) the Secretary determines that the mass
transportation services provided by each sys-
tem involved is being provided by an efficient
operation of such system in accordance with
regulations promulgated by the Secretary.
"The amount of any grant under this sub-
section to a State or local public body to
enable it to assist any mass transportation
system to pay operating expenses shall not
exceed twice the amount of financial assist-
ance provided from State or local sources for
that purpose. The Secretary shall issue such
regulations as he deems necessary to admin-
ister this subsection in an equitable manner.
Such regulations shall include appropriate
definitions of (A) operating expenses, and
(B) the sources or types of State or local
financial assistance which may be considered
in computing the maximum allowable Fed-
eral grant."
(b) The fourth sentence of section 4 (a) of
such Act is amended by striking out "section
3" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 3 '
(other than subsection (f) )". l
(c) Section 4(c) of such Act is amended— ,
(1) by inserting " (1)" after " (c)"; j
(2) by striking out "sections 3, 7(b), and j
9" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 3 '
(except subsection (f) ), and sections 7(b) |
and 9";
(3) by striking out "this subsection"
wherever it appears and inserting in lieu
thereof "this paragraph"; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof a new j
paragraph as follows:
"(2) To finance grants and loans under
section 3(f) of this Act, the Secretary is au-
thorized to incur obligations on behalf of the
United States in the form of grant agree- ^
ments or otherwise in amounts aggregating j
not to exceed $800,000,000. This amount shall
become available for obligation upon the
date of enactment of this paragraph and
shall remain available until obligated. There ;
are authorized to be appropriated for liquida- I
tion of the obligations incurred under this
paragraph not to exceed $400^000,000 prior j
to July 1, 1974, which amount may be in-
creased to not to exceed an aggregate of
$800,000,000 prior to July 1, 1975. Sums so |
appropriated shall remain available until
expended." \
(d) Section 4(c) of such Act is amended by i
striking out "$3,100,000,000" in the first and '
third sentences and inserting in lieu thereof
"$6,100,000,000".
(e) (1) Section 12(c) of such Act is \
amended—•
(A) by striking out "and" at the end of i
paragraph (4); |
(B) by striking out the period at the end
of paragraph (5) and inserting in lieu there-
of"; and";
(C) by adding after paragraph (5) a new
paragraph as follows:
" (6) the term 'mass transportation sys-
tem* means any private company or public
authority or agency providing mass trans-
portation service.".
(2) Section 12 of such Act is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
" (f) The provision of assistance for the
payment of operating expenses under section
3(f) shall not be construed as bringing with-
in the application of chapter 15 of title 5.
United States Code, any nonsupervisory em-
ployee of an urban mass transportation sys-
tem (or of any other agency or entity per-
forming related functions) to whom such
chapter is otherwise inapplicable."
Sec. 4. Section 9 of the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Act of 1964 is amended as follows:
(a) insert "(a)" before the first sentence;
(b) in the first sentence, delete the words
"engineering, and designing" and insert in
lieu thereof the words "engineering design-
ing, and evaluation";
(c) in the second sentence, delete the word
"and" before "(3)", delete the period at the
end of the sentence, and insert "; and (4)
evaluation of such projects after their im-
plementation." at the end of the sentence;
(d) in the third sentence change the word
"section" to "subsection" and insert the
words "90 per centum" in lieu of "two-
thirds"; and
(e) add the following new subsection;
"(b) The Secretary is authorized to utilize
not to exceed one-half of 1 per centum of
the authoi ization provided in section 4 (c)
to carry out technical studies by contract
without limitation on the Federal share of
the cost."
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the
names of the Senator from Massachu-
setts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. BIDEN), and the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HlJD-
DLESTON) be added as cosponsors of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President,
will the distinguished Senator from
New Jersey add the name of the
Senator from Texas as a cosponsor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I
am honored to ask unanimous con-
-------
38
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
sent that the name of the distin-
guished Senator from Texas be added
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President,
this amendment, which deals with
urban mass transportation, was
taken up last year when the Senate
considered the highway bill. As the
sponsor of the mass transit measure
which comes within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Banking, Hous-
ing and Urban Affairs, I am deeply
indebted to the distinguished Senator
from Texas, who is leading the floor
debate on this year's highway bill,
and the chairman of the full Public
Works Committee for their consid-
eration of the approach which I have
suggested, that just as last year,
this measure be considered as part of
the highway bill.
I might say that in developing this
mass transportation amendment and
an approach which I believe is es-
sential for the survival of mass
transit in this country, I have been
helped immeasurably by my friend,
the distinguished chairman of the
Public Works Committee, Senator
RANDOLPH.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. This is the measure
that passed the Senate on one oc-
casion.
Mr. WILLIAMS. On several oc-
casions.
Mr. JAVITS. In one of them, I was
the proponent.
I am delighted to see the chairman
of the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare, who also is active on the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, handling this
amendment now. I cannot begin to
emphasize the critical importance of
it, for financial reasons, for ecolo-
gical reasons, for traffic reasons.
As a cosponsor of this amend-
ment I commend the Senator from
New Jersey for his action in bringing
this amendment to the Senate's at-
tention. The time for responsible
congressional action is now if the
present picture of our mass transit
systems is as it must to change
from one of rising fares, increasing
deficits, and declining ridership to
that of a financially sound and viable
transportation operation.
I am sure the issues embodied in
this amendment are well understood
by the Senate. We must act decisively
now in the first session of the 93d
Congress to see approval of the over-
due Federal responsibility to improve
the beleaguered financial state of this
Nation's mass transit systems.
The fact that more and more citi-
zens are traveling greater distances
to and from their employment each
year, and the continued deterioration
of the Nation's environment, in partic-
ular the urban environment, where
today 67 metropolitan areas have air
quality threatening the health of
their citizens due to auto-related air
pollutants, one cannot overstate the
urgency of the present situation.
To bring effective assistance, the re-
sponsibility for funding our mass
transit systems must come from the
Federal Government and from State
and local governments to the extent
they are able to do so. The services
provided by a comprehensive urban
transportation system benefit not only
the riders, but additionally the econ-
omy and the social life of the region.
It is only through planned and as-
sured financial support of mass
transit from Government, can urban
mass transportation begin to meet
the service needs of the future. This
amendment would provide an equi-
table Federal program to accomplish
this task.
The major elements of the amend-
ment briefly stated are as follows:
It amends the Urban Mass Trans-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
39
portation Act of 1964 by authorizing
the Secretary of Transportation to
make grants
[p. S4729]
or loans to State and local public
bodies for payment of operating ex-
penses incurred by a mass transpor-
tation system. These grants would
be obligated on a two-third Federal,
one-third local matching basis and
funded by the allocation of $800 mil-
lion over the next 2 fiscal years.
Also, the amendment provides an
additional $3 billion in contract au-
thority to sustain the Urban Mass
Transportation Act's capital grant
program through fiscal year 1977.
The cost-sharing formula for this
program would be changed from two-
thirds, one-third to 90 percent Fed-
eral, 10 percent local. This new ratio
for funding mass transit capital im-
provements coincides with the pres-
ent Federal interstate highway fi-
nancing ratio.
In the tristate metropolitan region
of New York City, encompassing 19
million people in the States of New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut,
the deficit problem is overwhelming.
In a recent report submitted by the
Tri-State Governors' Special Com-
mission on Financing Mass Transpor-
tation, mass transit operating deficits
for the region in the period, 1972 to
1985, were estimated to be $13.6 bil-
lion. This means an average of $1
billion annually will be required for
operations alone. In the same period,
the region will need at least $7.3
billion to finance capital outlay for
an average of $560 million in an-
nual outlay.
For localities and States to meet
the operational requirements of mass
transit systems, new solutions are
urgently needed.
It is now up to the Congress to
seize the initiative before it. The more
than 70 percent of the Nation's people
who live in urban areas can no longer
suffer from crippling and decaying
mass transit and commuter systems
and cannot bear continued delay over
needed Federal assistance.
Mr. President, we are subsidizing
airlines, railroads, ships, housing,
and numerous other programs, but
I know of no subsidization more in-
dispensable to the life and environ-
ment of the increasingly city dwell-
ing American people than this kind
of buttressing which is called for by
this amendment.
[p. S4730]
Mr. RANDOLPH Mr. President,
I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from New Jersey.
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the
roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. BAYH), the Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. EAGLETON, and the Sen-
ator from New Hampshire (Mr.
MclNTYRE) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), is
absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. BAYH), would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. DOM-
INICK) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced—yeas
59, nays 36, as follows:
Abourezk
[No. 35 Leg.]
YEAS—59
Byrd, Robert C.Fong
Bentsen
Biden
Brooke
Burdick
Byrd
Harry F.,
Case
Chiles
Clark
Cook
Cranston
Jr. Eastland
Gravel
Hart
Hartke
Hatfleld
Hathaway
HolIinKs
-------
40
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Huddleston
Hughes
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
Javits
Johnston
Kennedy
Long
Magnuson
Mansfield
Mathias
McGee
Aiken
Allen
Baker
Bartlett
Beall
Bellmon
Bennett
Bible
Brock
Buckley
Cannon
Church
McGovern
Metcalf
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Nunn
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
NAYS— 36
Cotton
Curtis
Dole
Domenici
Ervin
Fannin
Fulbright
Goldwater
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Haskell
Randolph
Ribicoff
Saxbe
Schweiker
Sparkman
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
Taft
Talmadge
Tunney
Weicker
Williams
Helms
Hruska
McClellan
McClure
Proxmire
Roth
Scott, Pa.
Scott, Va.
Stevens
Thurmond
Tower
Young
NOT VOTING— B
Bayh
Dominick
Eagleton
Mclntyre
Stennis
So Mr. WILLIAMS' amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I move to re-
consider the vote by which the amend-
ment was agreed to.
Mr. BENTSEN. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. S4734]
FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT
OF 1973
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 502) to
authorize appropriations for the con-
struction of certain highways in ac-
cordance with title 23 of the United
States Code, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 29
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the next amendment,
pursuant to the unanimous-consent
agreement.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
read amendment, offered by the Sena-
tor Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY)
for himself and other Senators.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the
further reading of the amendment
be dispensed with. I will explain it
in detail, together with the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. WEICKER).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment was ordered to be
printed in the RECORD as follows:
On page 97, beginning with line 4, strike
out all through line 7 on page 98, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"§ 142. Urban and rural public transportation
"(a) To encourage the development, im-
provement, and use of public mass transpor-
tation systems within urban areas and in
such rural areas as may be designated by the
State and approved by the Secretary on the
basis of local transportation need, so as to
increase the traffic capacity of the Federal-
aid systems, sums apportioned in accord-
ance with paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), (6),
and (7) of subsection (b) of section 104 of
this title shall be available to finance the
Federal share of the costs of projects within
their respective systems in urban or rural
areas as authorized in such paragraphs, for
the acquisition and construction of rail facil-
ities, exclusive or preferential bus lanes,
traffic control devices, passenger loading areas
and facilities, including shelters, fringe and
transportation coridor parking facilities to
serve bus and other public mass transporta-
tion passengers, and for the purchase of
equipment including rolling stock, except
that funds allocated in accordance with such
paragraph 5 shall not be available for the
acquisition or construction of rail facilities
or the purchase of rolling stock."
On page 109, line 10, after "buses" insert
"and rail equipment".
On page 109, between lines 12 and 13, insert
the following:
"(c) Section 208 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by adding the following
new subsection:
"'(e) Funds available for Indian roads and
bridges shall be available for the purchase
of buses and rail equipment to provide access
to employment, health care, retail centers,
education, and public centers. Such buses or
rail equipment shall be operated in accord-
ance with regulations jointly approved by the
Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.' "
On page 122, lines 23 and 24, strike out
"operating vehicles on highways".
On page 123, lines 6 and 7, strike out "on
highways".
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
41
On page 123, line 8, strike out "highway". '
On page 123, line 13, strike out "other than
rolling stock for fixed rail".
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, ;
the amendment is offered on behalf
of the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
WEICKER) and myself, and by Sen-
ator BIDEN, Senator HART, Senator
PELL, Senator PASTOEE, Senator RIB-
ICOFF, Senator BROOOKE, and Senator
HATHAWAY.
I ask unanimous consent to add
the names of Senator PACKWOOD, Sen-
ator CASE, Senator JAVITS as cospon-
sors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President,
this issue was considered by the Sen-
ate last year as an amendment to
the Highway Trust Fund. I yield
myself 5 minutes and will then yield
to the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
WEICKER). I hope that we will then
be able to get some kind of response
from those who are going to oppose
the amendment.
Mr. President, let me emphasize
once again, that the bill now before j
us contains a series of highly im- i
portant and valuable reforms in the
highway aid program.
First, the committee bill would
make revenues previously earmarked j
solely for urban highways available
for developing a bus mass transit j
system including the purchase of ,
buses.
Second, there is an eightfold in-
crease in existing authorizations for
the urban systems program, raising
this program to $850 million. I would
note that if enacted, this would be
the first time a highway aid bill
recognized the high financing share
borne by urban residents over the '
past 16 years. i
Third, the bill also permits a
consensus of city, State, and Fed-
eral officials to permit a halt to]
interstate route constructions and to
use a portion of those funds for other
urban transportation projects.
Fourth, the committee bill permits
the Secretary of Transportation to
earmark a portion of the $350 mil-
lion allocated to the "urban exten-
sions" system for emergency bus
transit programs in areas where
automobile traffic is an obstacle to
compliance with the air quality stand-
ards of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
Fifth, the bill does provide some
recognition of rural mass transit needs
with provision for a small demonstra-
tion bus transit program.
And finally, the bill recognizes the
desirability of enabling large urban
areas to plan for themselves and to
implement those plans by passing
though urban funds to urban areas
larger than 400,000.
Similar provisions were urged by
Senator WEICKER and me in S. 679,
which was introduced earlier this
session.
But this bill still falls woefully
shy of its own objective, the objec-
tive of an efficient, balanced, safe
and environmentally sane national
transportation system.
For this bill rejects the lesson of
history by denying to cities and
States full flexibility in how they use
the great bulk of trust fund moneys,
outside the Interstate System.
Instead of seeking" to remedy the
past mistakes in the highway trust
fund mechanism which have flawed
the worthy objective of creating a
national interstate highway system,
this bill perpetuates those mistakes.
For it says to cities and States,
you may not build rail mass transit
systems, even though they may be
your most urgent need. And it says
to rural States, you may not build
bus transit systems, with any of
your rural fund moneys, even though
that may be high on your list of
priorities.
That is why we are presenting this
amendment once more to the Senate.
To allay any fears, let me start
-------
42
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
by telling this body what it does
not do.
It does not alter, shift, or change
in any way whatsoever the alloca-
tions provided in the committee bill
for each State. The State-by-State
shares stay the same.
It does not permit rural funds to
be spent in urban areas or urban
funds to be spent in rural areas.
It does not touch a single dollar of
the Interstate System.
It does not expand or contract or
[p. S4735]
affect any of the planning require-
ments set forth in the committee bill.
It does not require a single cent to
be spent for bus or rail transit.
But what it does do is the follow-
ing: It says to every urban area
which receives funding and to every
State that receives funding, you are
not imprisoned by an archaic concept
of national transportation needs that
sees highways as the only answer to
the Nation's transportation needs.
It says to the mayors and the Gov-
ernors, decide for yourselves whether
your particular transportation need
calls for bus or rail mass transit or
new highway construction. You no
longer have to feel threatened by the
use-it-or-lose-it policy that has de-
creed more highways at the cost of
more balance in our transportation
system.
The amendment would authorize the
use of urban fund moneys and urban
extension funds in urban areas, and
rural primary and rural secondary
funds in rural areas for rail mass
transit or bus mass transit along
with their traditional purpose of
building highways.
The amendment would also offer the
same flexibility in funds for the rural
mass transit demonstration program,
for the national park roads program
and for Indian reservation road pro-
grams.
The total amount of funds affected
would be some $2.3 billion for each
of the 3 years authorized by S. 502.
Passage of this amendment would
shatter the practice of separate fund-
ing for separate modes of transporta-
tion. It would end a system in which
the national interest has come in sec-
ond best to special interests which
see the highway trust fund as their
private property. And it would call a
halt to a Federal financing philosophy
that has prevented a single city, State,
or region from selecting the mix of
road, bus, and rail services that it
felt best to meet its transportation
needs.
For we have permittted a crisis to
develop, a crisis that the Department
of Transportation has documented
and that every rush-hour commuter
has documented. In its first national
policy statement, Secretary of Trans-
i portation John Volpe said:
On the whole, the transportation system
I which has evolved, both consciously and un-
consciously, represents an uneven fabric ill-
suited to today's needs, and is, itself, a major
contributor to the problems facing transpor-
tation today.
And the major penalties have, been
suffered by urban residents.
DOT statistics estimate that city
residents have paid over 50 per-
cent of the revenues into the trust
fund but they received barely a third
of noninterstate moneys. Overall, less
than 10 percent of Federal-aid mile-
age is found in urban areas.
Cities have paid the indirect coats
of the highway program as well. Each
year some 55,000 persons lose their
homes to the highway bulldozer. Each
year, more land is given up to the
auto and its accessories. Two-thirds
! of urban America is dedicated to re-
pairing, parking, selling, and carry-
ing the auto.
And each year, the invasion routes
; of commuters become more congested,
more polluted and more frustrating.
In the Boston metropolitan area—
1160,000 cars vie for 28,000 offstreet
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
43
parking spaces. In San Francisco,
384,000 cars flood the city daily. In
New York, motorists inch along at 7
miles per hour, actually slower in
peak hours in the central business
district than they did in 1900.
In cities across our land, the 16-
year highway boom has left th« worst
possible debris—foul air that actually
endangers the health of local citizens.
According to the Environmental
Protection Agency, the highway-auto
combination is identified as the chief
culprit for over 40 percent of the
Nation's air pollution and for over 80
percent of the air pollution in several
major cities.
An EPA task force recently re-
ported that local air pollution moni-
toring stations showed center city res-
idents, particularly those living near
heavily traveled streets and freeways,
are exposed to levels of carbon mon-
oxide fumes four and five times the
safe levels of Government health
standards. The report also concluded
a major proportion of the high levels
of lead in the blood of inner city
children comes from swallowing quan-
tities of lead residue expelled from
automobile exhausts.
And so, as the committee report
last September noted, some 67 cities
will have to reduce auto traffic to
meet Clean Air Act standards. These
are not only the largest cities like
Los Angeles and New York and Chi-
cago, but Birmingham, Mobile, Phoe-
nix, and Albuquerque. Cities spanning
the entire continent are affected.
The failure to examine the concrete
dream has produced federally fi-
nanced highways that are so heavily
laden with air pollution that health
officials will not allow us to drive on
them. EPA Director William Ruckel-
shaus' proposal for gasoline rationing
to cut auto use in Los Angeles by
80 percent within the next 3 years
demonstrates the extreme nature of
the problem facing the country.
Not only would a diversion of traf-
fic from roadways to subways reduce
auto pollution in our cities, but it
would reverse the rising pattern of oil
consumption that already has pro-
duced a shortage of home heating oil
this winter. A 25-percent switch from
private automobiles to rapid transit
could reduce demands for petroleum
by almost a million barrels daily. To-
day we have some 24 million barrels
less of gasoline in our stocks than we
did a year ago. We face a serious
gasoline shortage this summer. Yet,
if we do nothing to provide options
in the use of highway trust fund
moneys, then we do nothing to alle-
viate the situation for future years.
The crucial question is whether we
shall continue to promote almost total
reliance on highways and private
automobiles to meet transportation
needs despite the environmental, so-
cial, and economic problems that fol-
low in their wake.
[p. S4736]
A BALANCED TRAN SPORTATON POLICY
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I
commend the distinguished Senator
I from Massachusetts for this legisla-
tion.
Mr. President, last year I joined
with Senator KENNEDY in an attempt
to amend the highway bill, to provide
the option of using trust funds for
mass transit—mass transit rail, mass
transit bus. A similar amendment
by Senators MUSKIE and COOPER was
passed by the Senate at that time.
Unfortunately, what was a succcess-
ful fight in the Senate came to grief
in the House.
What this means, quite simply, is
that the Congress will today shape
one of the most important transporta-
tion policies of our time.
It took the man on the street a long
time to associate the soot in his eye
with the word "pollution."
It never occurred to him to relate
the murkiness of his rivers and
streams to the word "environment."
-------
44
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Until recently he would never have
tied the word "ecology" to such abomi-
nations as smog, litter, heat inver-
sions, oil spills wildlife slaughter,
and shattering noises.
[p. S4737]
How times have changed. Today the
environment "c'est tout."
Unfortunately, I have long hoped
to see a similar awakening with re-
spect to the Nation's transportation
problems. And yet it has not hap-
pened. Why?
Because it has been creeping rather
than instantaneous catastrophe.
Transportation is a city that has
lost a park to an expressway.
Transportation is the elderly dying
of respiratory disease because the air
is gunked "up."
Transportation is our children who
become statistics—57,000 fatalities on
our highways each year.
Transportation is the couple who
owned the corner newsstand before it
was torn down for another express-
way.
Transportation is the poor without
cars to get to work.
When we realize what transporta-
tion is, we understand that the fight
for an intelligent, balanced transpor-
tation policy is a fight all about life.
It is a policy of pollution. 60 to 90
percent of the air pollution in our
cities comes from automobiles—which
means inner-city residents breathe air
that is four to five times dirtier than
suburban air. The decade of the six-
ties produced a 12-percent increase of
carbon dioxide in the upper atmos-
phere of the Northern Hemisphere.
There is no need to guess why.
It is the pollution of 7 million cars
and trucks that are junked each
year—and the 200 million tires that
are discarded each year.
Mr. President, the amendment Sen-
ator KENNEDY and I have presented
will bring the greatest degree of bal-
ance—and sense—to our transporta-
tion policies.
[P. S47S8J
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I
yield myself 3 minutes.
The point the Senator from Texas
left out was that 14 billion was used
from general revenues to lay down
highways in the several States. That
money was raised from general pur-
pose taxes.
And he did not add that 95 percent
of the tax funds that are raised to
be put in the highway transportation
funds came from taxes enacted before
1956, when they were paid into the
general revenue funds. Yet, "we are
robbing Peter to pay Paul" the op-
ponents say. Just because the highway
trust fund has been able to earmark
their own boon-doggie in the form or
the highway trust fund, that does not
give them a right to say that they
| have a right in perpetuity to use those
j funds for building highways. Con-
; gress authorized the program and
Congress can change that authoriza-
I tion.
j This is one of the arguments that
has come out of the brochures of the
lobbies, just as did the other myth,
which appeared in an American
Trucking Co. ad in an issue of News-
week last week. It said, "What do
; highways do to the ecology?"
The answer was, "The ecological
disruption is avoided by careful plan-
ning and careful building. Actually,
more trees and shrubs and flowers
| have beeen planted than removed."
I Whoever wrote that ought to come
up to Massachusetts or Connecticut or
i to any other State and face the fact
! that they are dreaming.
', I would ask how many landmarks
have been razed, how many thousands
i of homes destroyed, how many scenic
, landmarks marred forever by high-
! way construction?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
45
Is careful planning and careful
building what you call the Embarca-
dero Freeway in San Francisco, or
1-95 in Boston, or the proposed route
through New Orleans Vieux Carre
that was stopped only by violent citi-
zen opposition? And is ecological dis-
ruption avoided when we are told
that 40 percent of the Nation's air
pollution is caused by the auto and
80 percent of air pollution in urban
areas? And that does not even men-
tion the impact on our energy sup-
plies, and the consequent increase in
our consumption of fuel with its re-
sulting ecological disruption.
[p. S4741]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. KENNEDY). The yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
*****
The results was announced—yea 23,
nays 70,
*****
So Mr. KENNEDY'S amendment
was rejected.
[p. S4745]
FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY
ACT OF 1973
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 502) to
authorize appropriations for the con-
struction of certain highways in ac-
cordance with title 23 of the United
States Code, and for other purposes.
is the pending business?
AMENDMENT NO. 4
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the next amendment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
I have a privileged matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
There is a unanimous-consent agree-
ment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The
next amendment is the amendment
by the Senator from Maine, which
the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered; and,
without objection, the amendment
will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 4, lines 19 and 20, strike out
"$650,000,000" at each place it appears and
insert in lieu thereof at each place "$1,050,-
000,000".
On page 32, line 14, strike out all through
line 10 on page 35 and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
"Sec. 130. (a) Section 142 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended to lead as follows:
" '§ 142. Public transportation
" ' (a) To encourage the development, im-
provement, and use of public mass trans-
portation systems for the transportation of
passengers within urbanized areas, so as to
increase the efficiency of the Federal-aid sys-
tem, sums apportioned in accordance with
paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section
104 of this title shall be available to finance
the Federal share of the cost of construction
of and acquisition of facilities and equip-
ment for public mass transportation projects
For purposes of this section the term "public
mass transportation" means ground trans-
portation which provides general or special
service (excluding schoolbus, charter, or
sightseeing service) to the public on a regu-
lar and continuing basis, and includes ac-
tivities designed to coordinate such service
with other transportation. Projects which
may be financed under this subsection shall
include, but not be limited to, exclusive or
preferential bus lanes, highway traffic con-
trol devices, passenger loading areas and fa-
cilities, including shelters, fringe and trans-
portation corridor parking facilities to serve
bus, rail, and other public mass transporta-
tion passengers, construction of fixed rail
facilities, and for the purchase of passenger
equipment, including rolling stock for fixed
rail.
"'(b) To encourage the development, im-
provement, and use of public transportation
systems for the transportation of passen-
gers in such urban areas and rural areas as
may be designated by the State and approved
-------
46
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
by the Secretary on the basis of local trans-
portation need, so as to increase the traffic
capacity of the Federal-aid system, sums ap-
portioned in accordance with paragraphs (1),
(2), (3), and (5) of subsection (b) of section
104 of this title shall be available to finance
the Federal share of the costs of projects
within their respective systems, for the con-
struction of exclusive or preferential bus
lanes, highway traffic control devices, passen-
ger loading areas and facilities, including
shelters, fringe and transportation corridor
parking facilities to serve bus and other pub-
lic transportation passengers, and for the
purchase of passenger equipment other than
rolling stock for fixed rail.
" '(c) The establishment of routes and
schedules of such public mass transportation
systems in urbanized areas shall be based
upon a continuing comprehensive transpor-
tation planning process carried on in accord-
ance with section 134 of title 23, United States
Code.
"'(d) For all purposes of this title, a proj-
ect authorized by subsections (a) and (b)
of this section shall be deemed to be a high-
way project, and the Federal share payable
on account of such project shall be that pro-
vided in section 120 of this title.
"'(e) No project authorized by this section
shall be approved unless the Secretary of
Transportation is satisfied that public mass
transportation systems will have adequate
capability to utilize fully the proposed proj-
ect and to maintain and operate properly any
equipment acquired under this section.
"'(f) No equipment which is acquired with
financial assistance provided by this section
shall be available for use in charter, leased,
sightseeing, or other service in any area
other than the area for which it was acquired.
" '(g) In the acquisition of equipment pur-
suant to subsections (a) and (b) of this sec-
tion, the Secretary shall require that such
equipment meet the standards prescribed by
the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under section 202 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, and shall authorize,
wherever practicable, that such equipment
meet the special criteria for low-emission ve-
hicles set forth in section 212 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended.
" '(h) The Secretary shall assure that the
provisions of subsection (a) of section 16 of
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964^
as amended, relating to planning and design
of mass transportation facilities to meet spe-
cial needs of the elderly and the handicapped
(as defined in subsection (d) thereof) shall
apply in carrying out the provisions of this
section.
" ' (i) Funds available for expenditure to
carry out the purposes of this section shall
be supplementary to and not in substitution
for funds authorized and available for obli-
gation pursuant to the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Act of 1964, as amended.
"'(j) The provisions of chapters 1, 3, and
5 of title 23 of the United States Code shall
apply in carrying out the provisions of this
section except with respect to projects within
urban areas as to "which the Secretary de-
termines the provisions of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, are
more appropriately applicable.
"'(k) No sums apportioned in accordance
with paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of
section 104 of this title shall be transferred
and utilized on any other Federal-aid system
than that authorized by subsection (d) of
section 103 of this title.'
"(b) The table of contents of chapter 1 of
title 23 of the United States Codes is amended
by striking
" '142. Urban highway public transportation,'
and inserting in lieu thereof:
" '142. Public Transportation'."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the amend-
ment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 seconds.
[p. S4746]
! FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY
ACT OF 1973
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S. 502) to authorize
1 appropriations for the construction of
i certain highways in accordance with
title 23 of the United States Code,
and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield myself 10 minutes at this time.
This amendment is cosponsored by
Senators BAKER, BIDEN, BROOKE, BUCK-
LEY, CASE, CRANSTON, HART, HATFIELD,
HATHAWAY, HUMPHREY, JAVITS, PAS-
TORE, PELL, PERCY, PROXMIRE, RIBI-
COFF, STAFFORD, STEVENSON, and
; TUNNEY.
The Muskie-Baker amendment is a
sensible proposal. It simply would
give cities and States the flexibility
to decide for themselves whether their
allocations from the urban systems
] authorization of the highway trust
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
47
fund should be spent for roads, or
for alternative transportation sys-
tems.
This amendment would not provide
mass transit facilities in rural areas;
it would apply only to the urban sys-
tems section.
This amendment would not force
cities or states to substitute mass
transit facilities for highways; it
merely would give the people of ur-
ban America a choice they are now
denied.
This amendment would not divert
trust funds from highways that
ought to be built; it would allow
cities to substitute alternatives for
highways that should not be built.
Nor, Mr. President, is this amend-
ment supported only by narrow inter-
est groups; the Senate passed a
similar version last year, the Nixon
administration supports it, and a
broad coalition of citizen groups in-
cluding a majority of the Nation's
Governors, the National League of
Cities-U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
United Auto Workers, and Common
Cause has worked for its passage.
It has become clear to these and
many other Americans that our cur-
ent national transportation policies
are badly out of step with our needs.
Although we have set difficult goals
for ourselves in conserving our fuel
resources, protecting our environment,
and improving the quality of urban
life, we have preserved at the same
time a closed-circle transportation
policy which perpetuates highway
construction as virtually the only so-
lution to transportation problems that
most cities and States can afford to
choose.
Every year our metropolitan trans-
portation problems multiply. Whether
the problem involves moving workers
to and from their jobs, moving goods
and people around the city, or bring-
ing essential goods and services to
the urban population, more highways
and more cars have become the only
answer—even when they are obvi-
j ously not the right answer. Before it
is too late, we should take a hard
look at the consequences of this policy
and decide whether those consequen-
| ces should be an inevitable part of
our future. Before it is too late we
should seek ways in which we can all
move freely about our cities without
endangering our health, destroying
our communities, and wasting our
resources in the process.
Highways and automobiles have
revolutionized life in urban America;
but they now threaten in several
ways to destroy the urban life they
helped to create.
First, highways and the cars that
use them pollute the air of our cities
and menace the health of the people
who live there. This statement should
i come as no surprise to Members of
this body, Mr. President. We were
aware of the danger 3 years ago
when we unanimously approved the
Clean Air Act of 1970. We resolved
then that protection of the public
health was of primary and overrid-
ing importance. We explicitly ex-
cluded considerations of economic and
technological feasibility in setting
I ambient air quality standards under
[ that act. And for the same reasons
| we set a statutory deadline for the
development of a clean car.
That was 3 years ago. Now the
deadline for meeting the air quality
standards is only 2 years away; but
as of today the air quality in 67
: metropolitan areas constitutes a
health hazard because of one or more
auto-related air pollutants.
We were also aware in 1970 what
, the provisions of the Clean Air Act
| meant in terms of urban transporta-
! tion systems. The Public Works Com-
mittee report forecast the kinds of
changes that the new law would re-
quire :
As much as seventy-five percent of the
j traffic may have to be restricted in certain
-------
48
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
large metropolitan areas if health standards
are to be achieved within the time required
by this bill.
The committee report warned
that—
Construction of urban highways and free-
ways may be required to take second place
to rapid and mass transit and other public
transportation systems. Central city use of
motor vehicles may have to be restricted.
If cities could make the switch
from automobiles to electric rail sys-
tems, one calculation estimates that
for every 100,000 passenger-miles
there would be net decreases of 8,000
tons of carbon monoxide, 1,600 tons
of hydrocarbons, and 320 tons of
hydrocarbons, and 320 tons of nitro-
gen oxides.
On one hand, Mr. President, we
have told the cities they must make
changes in their transportation sys-
tems to protect the public health.
But on the other hand we have with-
held the funding flexibility that would
make those changes possible. This is
not consistent policy on our part, and
it is a disservice to the cities and to
the national policies we ourselves es-
tablished. By finally granting that
long-sought flexibility, this amend-
ment would make it possible for the
cities to fulfill both their responsibil-
ities: protection of the public health
and assurance of adequate transpor-
tation facilities.
[p. S4747]
transportation problem that is na-
tional in scope. We have identified
the dimensions of the urban trans-
portation problem, and it is clear
that those dimensions justify the
Muskie-Baker amendment.
No trust will be violated. No
money will be wasted. And no trans-
portation project—highways or
subways—will be built that does not
make sense from the point of view
of the people who must live with it.
This amendment will not provide
automatically the ingenious new
transportation systems we need for
our cities, nor quick public accept-
ance of mass transportation as a sub-
stitute for the luxury and convenience
of the private automobile. But the
flexibility of funding must be our
starting point, both to signify our
willingness to change and to make it
financially possible to do so.
In summary, Mr. President, no
comments more eloquently describe
the absolute need for flexibility than
the statements of three of the Na-
tion's mayors: Mayor Kenneth
Gibson of Newark; Mayor Wes Uhl-
man of Seattle; and Mayor John
Lindsay of New York.
I ask unanimous consent that their
1 letters and accompanying material be
! inserted in the RECORD following my
1 remarks.
j There being no objection, the ma-
i terial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
FEBRUARY 2fi, I(t7:!.
.vith Kieat interest
attached proposed
In sum, Mr. President, Congress in '
1956 brought together tax revenues j Hon- EDMI-ND s MUSKTE.
„ ... , U.S. Senate,
from many existing sources and some Wathingtorii D.c.
new ones, and focused them through i DFAU En. I have read
the highway trust fund on a par- ' your recent letter and
ticular problem Of national pro- ' amendments to the pending extension of
, ., ,. ,, T , , , the Federal Aid Highway Act. I enthusiast!-
.portion-building the Interstate > ca,,y endorse and support your efforts to op(m
Defense Highway System. Solving up the trust fund for public transportation
that problem, more than any other and increase the Urban System funding to
... ,, ~ Sl-blllion.
factor, was the primary purpose of <
the new trust fund. * * :'' * *
Now, we are faced with another , [p. S4748]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
49
Further, I support your proposal to au-
thorize the Secretary of Transportation to
utilize up to 10% of annual trust fund rev-
enues to provide "emergency" assistance for
alternate transportation systems where pol-
lution from autos is certified as a threat to
safety. Assuming the opening of the trust
fund for mass transit, this provision would
enable cities like New York to use such funds
in a rational way in order to improve air
quality levels. In addition, I agree with the
purpose of Section 1 of this amendment
which requires the Secretary to withdraw
approval of routes on the Interstate, Pri-
mary and Secondary Systems in areas where
federal EPA finds pollution levels unsafe
after 1975 and where the Governor and local
governments jointly request such withdrawal.
This section, however, raises the same prob-
lem that we found with the guaranteed
passthrough to "urbanized areas." A munici-
pality of New York's size which seeks with-
drawal of certain routes that run through
its jurisdiction may be subject to the deter-
minations made by other municipalities or
local areas within its urbanized area through
which such routes also run. I suggest this
amendment be clarified to provide that mu-
nicipalities over 250,000 be empowered to re-
quest withdrawal of urban routes jointly
with the Governor of the State, and not be
subject to veto by other members units of
its urbanized area.
In addition, I support Section 3 of this
amendment which empowers the Secretary
to refuse approval of any new highway con-
struction which federal EPA certifies will
make the air unsafe under the Clear Air Act.
Finally, I endorse the amendment to the
Highway Safety Act which establishes State-
run programs for inspection of auto emis-
sion control systems.
I think the changes you have suggested
will benefit the nation's cities as well as its
suburban and rural neighbors. I am pleased
to be able to endorse these amendments and
urge your support for our proposal for a
guaranteed pass-through of Urban System
funds to municipalities over 250,000.
My Administration will continue to press
strongly for these changes in order to
achieve a truly balanced national transpor-
tation system. Please feel free to call on me
or members of my Administration if we can
be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
JOH\ V. I,ixnsA\,
Mayor.
[p. S4749]
STATEMENT HY KENNETH A. Gnisox
The proliferating usage of the automobile
within the last two decades has had a drastic
effect upon urban areas. The quality of air,
and the economic stability of many urban
areas, has been dramatically altered. Such
effects are a direct manifestation based on
the funding priorities given to highways at
the expense of mass transportation. This dis-
proportionate ratio must be reversed if the
basic problems resulting are to be alleviated.
The passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970
served notice of this Nation's commitment to
the preservation of air quality consistent with
health requirements. The Act recognized the
deteriorating quality of air associated with
the increased advances of technology and
stipulates the need for redress with the
coming decade.
Unfortunately, until additional measures
are taken by Congress, the standards it has
prescribed through the Clean Air Act will not
be met in most urban areas throughout the
country- Air pollution is presently most con-
centrated in cities, due, in large measure, to
the significant number of automobiles enter-
ing during the daily working hours, 95% of
all carbon monoxide and 67% of all hydro-
carbon are generated by this excessive use of
automobiles.
As outlined in the New J ersey State Im-
plementation Plan to meet the standards of
the Clean Air Act for example, the City of
Newark currently has the highest carbon
monoxide level in this air quality region, as
well as one of the highest hydrocarbon
levels. These levels are consistently in viola-
tion of standards set forth in the Clean Air
Act.
During the year 1971, the standard for car-
bon monoxide over an eight hour maximum
period was exceeded one-hundred and fifty-
I six times, at a level nearly three times as
high as that permitted within the Clean Air
Act. During this same year, the standard for
hydrocarbons during the three hour period,
6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. was exceeded three-
hundred and twenty-two times during that
year.
The effect from prolonged exposure to car-
bon monoxide and hydrocarbons is already
too well known. Long term exposure to car-
bon monoxide has resulted in a shortening
in life span as well as permanent brain dam-
age due to a shortage of oxygen to red blood
cells. Exposure to hydrocarbons, in the pres-
ence of other chemicals, has resulted in dam-
age to lung tissues.
Proximity to highways has also resulted in
adverse health conditions for those residents
who cannot afford to move away. Within fifty
feet of a freeway, the air quality level is in
excess of maximum standards. Within one-
hundred and twenty feet of roadways, the air
quality level can cause dullness of thought
Within one-hundred and fifteen feet of de-
-------
50
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
pressed freeways, the levels of noise present
create an environment unsuitable for living.
[p. S4752]
Unfortunately, it is the urban poor, al-
ready victims of inadequate medical atten-
tion, who must be confronted by such situa-
tions daily. The realization that the effects
from prolonged exposures are cumulative and
synergistic in the presence of other poor sani-
tary and health conditions, has made the
question of alleviation paramount.
The emergency of the automobile as the
most viable means of transportation in recent
years is due in large measure to the funding
priorities of Congress towards transporta-
tion. From 1947-1970, $58 billion has been
authorized towards construction, improve-
ment, and maintenance of highways. At the
same time, only $795 million have been spent
for urban mass transportation.
The urban poor bear most of the costs of
this disproportionate expenditure while re-
ceiving few, if any, of the benefits. Their
economic stability is threatened by highway
construction. Low income neighborhoods be-
come target areas for new highways due to
the low cost of land acquisition and demoli-
tion. Moreover, the homes that remain in the
close proximity to the highways suffer a de-
crease in market value, often by as much as
25%.
The City of Newark welcomes the amend-
ments to the Highway Trust Act as put
forth by Senator Muskie. We view these
amendments as potential acknowledgement
by Congress of the need for a balanced trans-
portation system to alleviate the conditions
outlined above.
By permitting cities such as Newark tbe
option of applying highway trust fund
money towards mass transit, the grave prob-
lems outlined above can slowly be overcome?
Without such funds, the re-ordering of
transportation priorities cannot be done and
air quality standards cannot be met in ac-
cordance with the law. Until this does hap-
pen, however, the problems inherent in the
present transportation system will be only
further exacerbated.
MAIU-II 2, 1973.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Old Senate Oflice Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ED : Thank you for forwarding me a
copy of your remarks on introduction of Sen-
ate Bills 738 and 739. As always, you have
thoughtfully addressed yourself to a problem
of great concern to the City of Seattle.
We are presently in the process of attempt-
ing to devise a plan to reduce automobile-
caused pollutants. I am enclosing a copy of
the plan as it was initially developed for a
j 1977 target date. In response to the recent
i D.C. Circuit Court decision, we are now de-
) veloping a new plan to meet the 1975 target.
Your proposed amendments are right to
the point. In developing our plans, we have
learned that it is not technology or will
which stands in the way of achieving clean
air, but rather it is a lack of dollars and un-
willingness on the part of the state and the
surrounding suburbs to cooperate with the
central city in solving the problem.
Let me give you two examples. First, the
people of King County recently voted to im-
pose upon themselves a tax in order to
finance a regional bus transportation net-
work. The Legislature had previously com-
mitted to match bus system revenues from
the state general fund. In the Governor's
1973 budget this matching fund was so se-
verely limited that the bus system will not be
able to provide an alternative to the automo-
bile travel. Second, we find that any effort
to significantly restrict automobile use in
the CBD may drive businesses and retail
stores into suburban areas where automobile
i use would not be restricted. This would only
contribute to urban sprawl and a general
j increase in dependence on the automobile.
Unless there is a general tightening down
on automobile use throughout the entire
Metropolitan area and alternative modes of
transportation provided, we cannot win the
battle.
Your proposals will go a long way toward
providing the funds necessary to develop al-
ternative means of transportation. They will
insure that freeways which serve the sub-
urbs will not be constructed which are de-
structive of the efforts to attain clean air
in the central city. And, they will provide
the means for reducing pollution at the"
source. I want you to know that your pro-
posals have my complete support.
Sincerely yours,
WES UHLMAX,
Mayor.
[The City Council of the City of Seattle,
1101 Seattle Municipal Building]
NOTICE OF HEARING: IMPLEMENTATION OF
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
You are hereby notified that a joint hear-
ing, conducted by the City Council of the
City of Seattle and the State of Washington
Department of Ecology, will be held on
Thursday, February 8, 1973, at 7:30 p.m. in
Room 1101, Seattle Municipal Building, 600
4th Avenue, Seattle, Washington, at which
time there will be considered the selection
of transportation control measures, which
are proposed for inclusion in the Washington
State plan for the implementation, main-
tenance and enforcement of primary and
secondary ambient air duality standai
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
51
pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 1856 et seq.). The measures to be dis-
cussed comprise a proposed plan for the re-
duction of carbon monoxide in the Seattle
area.
After the City and the Department of
Ecology have introduced a proposed plan,
including a proposed timetable for imple-
mentation, together with evidence that sup-
ports the adoption of the plan, any person
may introduce, either in person or by coun-
sel, evidence, statements or counterproposals
bearing upon the reasonableness of the pro-
posed plan.
Written statements, maps, charts and other
exhibits submitted in connection with the
proposed plan or any counterproposal, as well
as all statements taken down by a stenogiapher
during the hearing, will become a permanent
part of the hearing record.
Written statements, maps, charts and other
exhibits regarding this matter may also be
submitted to the Seattle City Council and the
Department of Ecology at Room 1101, Seattle
Municipal Building, prior to the close of the
public hearing and will be made part of the
permanent hearing record.
The proposed plan, together with all other
information pertinent to the aforesaid pro-
posal, is available for public inspection and
copying at the Office of the City Engineer,
Room 708, Seattle Municipal Building, Mon-
day through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.
Questions and discussion relating to this
project should be directed to Joe Mackechnie
at the location and between the times stated
above.
It is the purpose of this notice and of the
hearing which it announces to provide for the
fullest exchange of information and views,
regarding the effect of this plan on the com-
munity, through full discussion and exami-
nation of the planning to date. This purpose
is in consonance with the requirements for
the preparation, adoption and submittal of
implementation plans under Section 110 of
the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1856 et seq.) and as provided in the
Code of Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R.,
Part 51).
Jonx A Bums,
Director, Department of Ecology.
FORE\\OKH
This Addendum to the Washington State
Air Quality Implementation Plan (trans-
portation elements) has two objectives. First,
it is designed to enable the lay reader to ac-
quire a general understanding about air
pollution in order to make a better evaluation
of the strategies eventually selected and to
better enable the citizen to participate in
the public hearing process. Second, it pre-
sents a plan for the reduction of air pollution
emissions from transportation sources in
Seattle. The reader is reminded that it is
his primary duty to be critical of the ability
of the plan to achieve this objective.
Evaluation and critiques of the plan may
be presented to the City Council and the
Department of Ecology in writting prior to
February 8, 1973, or in person at a public
hearing on that date.
The principal authors of this document
have been Joe MacKechnie of the Seattle
Engineering Department and Mike Ruby of
the Department of Community Development.
Others making substantial contributions to
the drafting of this document have been
John Raymond of the Department of Ecology,
Jim Pearson of the Puget Sound Air Pollu-
tion Control Agency, Bill Popp of the Puget
Sound Government Conference, and Douglas
Howell of the Seattle Engineering Department.
Special assistance in the preparation of the
plan was given by William van Gelder and
Kirk Jones of the Engineering Department
and by Mike McNamara, Ron Shoemaker,
Claudia Denney, and Arne Hagen of the
Department of Community Development.
A critical role in the development of the
plan was played by the Seattle Chamber of
Commerce Clean Air Task Force, which was
chaired by James H. Todd. This committee,
a mix of businessmen and environmentalists,
outlined the strategies that are herein pre-
sented. Assistance in the development of the
plan was also given by Mrs. Janet Chalupnik
of the Air Quality CoaJtion, Don Hoffman of
the Washington State Highway Department,
B'Young Ahn of King County, Henry Soder-
lund (METRO), and Dan Barash of Seattle's
Office nf Executive Policy.
DRAT-T ENVIRONMENTAL IMTAI r STAFF-MENi
This Addendum to the Washington State
Air Quality Implementation Plan is clearly
a "major action significantly affecting the
environment." Accordingly, the State En-
vironmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21c) re-
quires that a Draft Environmental Statement
be developed and circulated to solicit com-
ments on the proposed action.
Any such Draft Statements would only re-
peat the material contained herein. There-
fore, this document is designated as its own
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The
sections normally set forth in such a state-
ment may be found as follows:
1. The Impact of the Proposed Action
2. Any Adverse Environmental Effects
Should The Proposal Be Implemented.
3, Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
4. The Relationship Between Local Short
Term Uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement for Long-
Term Productivity.
-------
52
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
5. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Com-
mitments of Resources.
Comments on this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement should be submitted (in
duplicate) to: Mr. John Raymond, Depart-
ment of Ecology, Olympia, Washington
98501; and to Mr. Joe MacKechnie, Engineer-
ing Department, 708 Municipal Building,
Seattle, Washington 98104, before February
8, 1973. Thank you.
SUMMARY
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1970, the Director of the Environmental
Protection Agency has directed the Gov-
ernor of the State of Washington to submit
by February 15, 1973 a plan for reducing the
levels of automobile-related pollutants, such
as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
In Seattle, excessive concentrations of car-
[p. S4753]
bon monoxide and photochemical oxidants
have been recorded in the Central Business
District. Even though the concentrations
measured are currently not at dangerous lev-
els they do exceed the federal standards es-
tablished by the Environmental Protection
Agency. In addition to the CBD, hydrocar-
bon problems could potentially occur in the
region of Interstation 90 following the com-
pletion of that roadway in 1978.
Much of the downtown pollution problem
will be eliminated over the next five years
by the gradual replacement of older auto-
mobiles by newer, less-polluting automobiles.
The METRO transit program will make a
significant contribution by increasing the
percent of bus riders from its present 17
percent to a projected 21 percent of all per-
sons traveling into the Central Business
District. A program presently under way to
improve the synchronization of signal lights
will reduce idling and make a small contiibu-
tion to the reduction of pollutants.
Additional nostrums will be necessary to
achieve the desired levels of air quality. It
should be stressed, however, that draconian
measures which would destroy Seattle's down-
town as a regional retail and business center
would be as undesirable as the present air
pollution levels. In particular, it is important
to avoid measures which overly discriminate
against the CBD and favor suburban shopping
centers and the relocation of business to rural
areas.
Thei e are essentially two ways to i educe
automobile pollutants. First, by reducing the
amount of emissions from each individual
vehicle. Second, by reducing the amount each
vehicle is driven.
The emissions from new cars are substan-
tially less than from older cars. Cars sold
before 1968 and trucks sold before 1970 did
not utilize exhaust emission control. A simple
device, costing less than $40, will reduce the
carbon monoxide levels of an uncontrolled
car by almost 60 percent. If these devices
were required to be installed on all older cars,
a significant improvement in air quality could
be achieved. If an annual inspection of the
device were also required, an additional im-
provement would occur.
Studies in the Los Angeles CBD have in-
dicated that as much as 20 percent of down-
town traffic is "unnecessary." Drivers shop-
ping for a less expensive or more convenient
parking space, taking a circuitous route to
their destination or simply lost, release sub-
stantial pollutants and create congestion for
no purpose. A program of locating directional
signs to reduce downtown traffic by moving
it more quickly to its destination would re-
duce air pollution by a significant amount.
If a uniform schedule of parking charges
were established, drivers would go immedi-
ately to the nearest empty lot. Under a local
improvement district, a system of driver ad-
visories to the best parking (and to various'
businesses) could be developed. Such a pro-
gram would result in additional reduction in
pollution.
The number of automobiles in downtown
Seattle can be reduced both by increasing
the proportion of transit riders and by in-
creasing the number of occupants of each
car. If the present average of 1.4 occupants/
vehicle among persons working in the CBD
could be raised to 1.7, a reduction in the
number of vehicles would occur. This could
be accomplished through an intensive pro-
I gram of computer-matching of employee
I home addresses and work location. If incen-
! tives were added to the program its chances
; of success would increase.
i A major element in the solution will be the
I increase in bus patronage above and beyond
that presently programmed by METRO. If
overall patronage could be increased there
would be a sufficient reduction in the num-
ber of vehicles entering the CBD to complete
the mission of reducing air pollution to ac-
ceptable levels. However, the increase in bus
ridership by this amount cannot be accom-
plished without some added incentives to an
automobile driver. Increasing the cost of
parking and controlling the location and
amount of parking within the CBD would be
critical to the success of any program to in-
crease bus use or promote car pools.
One proposal would be to give the City the
authority to regulate the development of new
parking lots and to set the rates on existing
privately operated lots. Transit operating
subsidies should be paid from the State Motor
Vehicle Fuel Tax proceeds. Constitutional
prohibitions in such payments should be i e-
pealed.
Anothei important element in increasing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
53
bus ridership is the creation of a downtown
environment which the pedestrian finds en-
joyable. Specifically, pedestrian oriented cir- |
culation and land uses should be promoted. |
This might include sidewalk widening, shut- j
tie systems, weather and climate protection
such as arcades, cononades and open plazas,
street trees and "street furniture" and other
pedestrian amenities.
PART /: INTRODUCTION'
( NOTE.—Figures referred to ai e not repro-
duced in the RECORD. )
An Emergency Episode Plan provides for
public notification when air pollution levels
begin to present dangers to health. At the
lowest level of warning voluntary coopera-
tion in leaving automobiles at home will be
asked for. At higher levels, portions of Se- .'
attle will be sealed off to all except emergency
vehicles.
Surveillance of air pollution levels will
be improved by the installation of additional
carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide monitors
What is air pollution?
The restoration and preservation of en-
vironmental qualities, such as the air we
breathe, has in recent years gained the in-
terest and concern of citizens throughout
our nation and the world. Increases in pop-
ulation urbanization, mobility, and con-
sumption, common elements of large cities
and daily living, have created a complex
problem of air pollution which is now
threatening the health and well-being- of
all of us. Many air pollution authorities
agree much still is to be learned about the !
adverse effects air pollution has on the en- I
Vironment and public health. Yet, sufficient !
evidence has been assembled that supports
the argument that air pollution can kill, ''
can impair health, wastes essential natui al '
resources and threatens the delicate balance
of natural systems on which all life depends. •
What is air pollution? Is it as seiious as '
it sounds" The study of air pollution prob- I
lems has been gathering momentum over j
the last ten years. General pollutant types, j
their sources and their impact on man have
been identified and, recently, steps begun to
bring them under control.
A general classification of pollutants could
be as follows:
TABLE f-L—CLASSIFICATION OF POLLUTANTS
Major classes
Organic gases
Inorganic gases
Subclasses
Hydro-
carbons.
Aldehydes
and
ketones
Other
organics.
Oxides of
nitrogen.
Oxides of
sulfur.
Oxides of
carbon.
Other mor-
Typical members of
subclasses
Methane, butane,
octaine, benzene
acetylene, ethyl-
ene, butadiene.
Formaldehyde, ace-
tone.
Chlorinated hydro-
carbons, benzo-
pyrene, alcohols,
organic acid.
Nitrogen dioxide,
nitric oxide,
nitrous oxide.
Sulfur dioxide, sul-
fur tnoxide.
Carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide
Hydrogen sulfide,
ganics. hydrogen fluoride,
ammonia,
chlorine.
Particulates Solid parti- Dust, smoke
culates.
Liquid par- Mist, spray.
ticulates.
Source. "A Citizen's Guide to Clean Air", the
Conservation Foundation; Washington, D.C.; January
1972; p 83.
From the classification list of pollutants.
six are major elements of air pollution.
(1) Sulfur Oxides, (2) Partieulate Matter,
(3) Carbon Monoxide, (4) Hydrocarbons,
(5) Nitrogen Oxides, and (fi) Photochemical
Oxidants. The appendix of this document
provides a description of the source, nature
and adverse effects on health of each pollutant.
The sources of pollution are generally di-
vided into five categories: transportation, fuel
combustion in stationary sources, industrial
processes, solid waste dispcsal, and mis-
cellaneous sources. The amount of pollution
these five sources produce is usuallv given in
millions of tons per year of the six maioi
pollutants.
TABLE 1-2.—NATIONAL EMISSIONS OF MA10R AIR POLLUTANTS 1969
(LATEST YEAR FOR WHICH FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE)
I In millions of tons per yearl
Source
Transporation - . __
Fuel combustion in stationary
Industrial processes
Solid waste disposal
Miscellaneous
Total
Sulfur
oxides
1.1
24 4
7.5
.2
.2
33.4
Partieulate
matter
0.8
7 2
14.4
1.4
11.4
35.2
Carbon
monoxide
111.5
1 8
12.0
7.9
18.2
151.4
Hydro-
carbons
19.8
9
5.5
2.0
9.2
37.4
Nitrogen
Oxides
11.2
10 0
.2
.4
2.0
23.8
Total
144.4
44 3
39.6
11.9
41.0
281.2
Note: Sulfur oxides are expressed as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as nitrogen dioxide in this
table.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
[p. S4754]
-------
54
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Table 1-2 is useful in that it provides in- |
sight to identifying the principal contributors '
to each type of air pollution problem and ,
estimates the amount each source emits. j
Statistics of this kind are impressive, but '
the knowledge gained has a very limited use. j
When the emission from the various sources I
have been combined with local topographies [
and meterological conditions, the problem
becomes far more complex and must be dealt
with at the local level. The amounts of con-
taminating emissions that prevail and the
means for controlling them are details that
must be ascertained and considered for each
source in each locale.
What is being done about air pollution
control?
Our nation began meeting the challenge
of cleaner air as early as 1955 when the first
federal control act was passed. Although that
act was restricted to research into the nature
and extent of the nation's air pollution prob-
lem, it marked the beginning of an era where
environmental qualities would soon be placed
at a higher value. Since 1955, Congress has
passed the 1967 Air Quality Act and the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Together,
these Acts have provided stronger legal tools
for controlling air pollution and an even
larger mandate for citizen participation. The
central thought of the federal air pollution
control program has been: ". . . the preven-
tion and control of air pollution at its source
is the primary responsibility of states and
local governments."1 However, if the states
fail to meet their control responsibilities, the
federal government, acting through the newly
established Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has a responsibility and authority to
establish and enforce pollution controls. To
date, and with the assistance of each state,
EPA has designated air quality control regions,
developed air quality criteria, denned national
ambient- air quality standards, and has begun
formulating state implementation plans to meet
and maintain those standards.
XATIOXAL AMBIKXT Alii Qt'AU n SIANPAKHS
In 1971 EPA established national ambient
air quality standards specifying the "maxi-
mum levels to be permitted in the ambient
air for the six principal and most wide-
spread pollutants. The levels are specfied as
"primary standards" (required to protect
public health) and "secondary standards"
(further reductions in particulates and sulfur
1 "The Clean Air Act;" Environmental Pro-
tection Agency; Washington, D C. December,
1970.
- "Ambient" as used in "ambient standard"
refers to the outdoor air (atmosphere). Thus,
ambient standards are limits on the total
amount of pollutant permitted in a region's
air.
oxides required to prevent the many other
undesirable effects of pollution). Table 1-3
list the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for the six major pollutants. Also
included are the standards adopted by our
local air pollution control agency—Puget Sound
Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA):
To the average person, it may be difficult
to grasp the meaning from the values stipu-
lated in Table 1-3. Appendix A provides some
insight as to the effects the six pollutants
have on health and should increase one's feel
for what are good and bad levels of air
pollution. It is valuable to know the amounts
of pollutant emissions in proportion to the
amount of air—that is, the number of parts
of the pollutant for each million parts of
air (abbreviated ppm) or the number of
milligrams of pollutant for each cubic meter
of air.
This information is necessary when effec-
tiveness in methods of controls is being as-
sessed or when an evaluation of the danger
present at any given time is being made.
Although the maximum pollution concen-
trations were established by the Federal
Government, states may set more stringent
standards to protect against further degrada-
tion of air quality which may already be below
the standards. Primary standards must be
achieved by 1975 and secondary standards
within a reasonable time period. The Act pro-
vides for a two-year extension where tech-
nology or alternatives will not be available
soon enough to permit compliance with the
standards.
Control regions
EPA has divided the nation into air quality
control regions, the areas for which the
standards were designed. The nation is now
divided into some 250 control regions and
large states often contain several regions.
Control region boundaries were established
based on consideration of climate, meteor-
ology, topography, urbanization, and other
factors affecting air quality. The State of
Washington has been divided into six quality
control regions as indicated in Figure I~l;
Seattle is in the Puget Sound Intrastate
Region.
State and Regional Agencies
IIFPAKTMENT OF K('OI,0(n
Prior to 1967, authority for air pollution
control activities at the state level was vested
in the State Director of Health. A state air
; pollution control board existed but its func-
j tions were mainly advisory. The Washington
! Clean Air Act of 1967 established a State
1 Air Pollution Control Board with power to
j adopt regulations, issue orders, hold hear-
1 ings, and assume jurisdiction over certain
classes of air pollution sources. The State
Director of Health became the statutn i y
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
55
E E; E £ E E
0.0.0. 0.0.0.
CLCLCL ci.ci.cL
<1) O) Q) Q) Q)
EEEEE
COCOCOCOCO
>w- E *>
-
E E
Q. ' d.
-EEE
^ R'^R-
0,0.0.0.
E ._
E|
O O
E"
>o
• S i ^-z
:sS5o; SLSSSg.!
!|ssltfMiissl:
-------
56
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
chairman of the State Board; the head of the
State Health Department Air Quality Control
Section was appointed executive director.
The more significant legislation adopted by
the State Air Pollution Control Board in-
cludes: setting air quality standards for car-
bon monoxide (1969) and sulfur oxides, sus-
pended particulate, fluorides and particle fall
out (1970); and assuming jurisdiction over
Kraft mills and aluminum plants. In 1968,
the State Board assumed jurisdiction over
motor vehicles "for the purpose of controlling
air contaminant emissions resulting from the
operation of such motor vehicles." The regu-
lation prohibited the removal or by-passing
of any auto emission control device required
by federal law.
The Washington Environmental Quality
Reorganization Act of 1970 created the State
Department of Ecology (DOE), and trans-
ferred from existing state agencies those
powers, duties and functions with reference
to air and water pollution control and dis-
posal of solid wastes to the Director of DOE.
A seven-man Ecological Commission was cre-
ated, but only for advice and guidance to
the Director. To date the Director of DOE
has adopted regulations assuming jurisdic-
tion over sulfite pulping mills, establishing
an emergency Episode Plan for the State;
amending air quality standards adopted by
the now-defunct State Air Pollution Control
Board; establishing new air quality stand-
ards for photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons
and nitrogen dioxide; and establishing regula-
tions for control of stationary air pollution
sources in areas of the state not covered by
regulations of local air pollution control
authorities. These regulations were all adopted
in 1972.
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
The first municipal air pollution control
regulation in King County was adopted by
Seattle in 1961. In 1966, King County joined
with Seattle to form a countrywide air pollu-
tion control program. The Seattle-King
County Director of Public Health became the
enforcing officer. The County Commissioners,
sitting as a County Board of Health, adopted
county wide air pollution control regulations
later that year In 1967, the Washington
State Clean Air Act was passed. Among many
important features of the Act was one creat-
ing a multicounty air pollution control au-
thority for King, Pierce and Snohomish
Counties, effective June 8, 1967
By the end of June, 1967, a governing body
for the new authority had been named, a
budget was adopted, and the authority named
"Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency"
(PSAPCA). In July, 1967, the Board of Di-
[p. S4755]
rectors (governing body) appointed an Air
Pollution Contiol Officer; personnel of the air
pollution control division of the Seattle-King
County Health Department and Tacoma-Pierce
County Health Department were transferred
to the new agency.
The State Clean Air Act authorized en-
forcement of existing municipal or county
air pollution control regulations until super-
seded by multicounty regulations. In March,
1968, the Agency's Board of Directors adopted
Regulation I which, together with the Clean
Air Act, became the primary law for control
of air pollution from stationary sources in
the counties of King, Pierce and Snohomish
Effective January 1, 1970, the Agency's au-
thority to control air pollution was extended
to Kitsap County.
Regulation I has been amended several
times to date (December, 1972). Some of the
more significant amendments were: setting
a 10% process weight limit on sulfur com-
pounds emitted from a manufacturing proc-
ess; setting standards for sulfur dioxide
emissions from fuel burning sources; adopting
air quality standards equivalent to or more
stringent than national secondary air quality
standards; adopting the civil penalty powers
authorized by the State Clean Air; Act; and
implementing the "one-permit" system as di-
lected by the state legislature for regulation
of open burning.
Commencing in 1969, the Agency developed
a "compliance schedule" program that is prov-
ing effective in achieving over industrial air
pollution souices, open burning, and incinera-
tion practices. As of June 30, 1972, 177
compliance schedules have been completed,
and 77 were on active status. The Agency
keeps a cumulative record of emissions re-
duction estimates accomplished through com-
pliance schedules and other remedial measures.
As of December, 1972, more than 49,000 tons/
year of a wide variety of pollutants that
were being emitted in 1967 have been removed
from the air.
Air pollution—Does Seattle have a problem ?
Normal day-to-day activities, fluctuating
seasons and occasional scenic glances provide
the local citizens with only a casual relation-
ship and awareness of varying levels of air
quality. Degrees of air pollution in Seattle
are not always obvious to the city's resi -
dents and visitors outside of an occasional
hazy day. However, careful measurements of
Seattle's air quality do indicate that air pol-
lution is a problem and the federal standards
are being exceeded.
The Puget Sound region is fortunate in
that monitoring pollution emission has been
under way since the late 1960's. Monitoring
programs have been carried out jointly by
the Washington State Department of Ecology
(DOE), the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency (PSAPCA), and just recently the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
57
Region X). Consolidation and interpretation
of emission measurements have been a pri-
mary task of the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency (PSAPCA). PSAPCA, in
their annual report, display an emission in-
ventory for five of the six major pollutants.
Emission estimates from the area-wide sources
(e.g. automobiles) and approximately 200 point
soui ces (e.g. industi ial plants) within the
Puget Sound region are presented in Table 1-4.
The most obvious conclusion derived from
Table 1-4 is that gasoline-powered vehicles
account for the bulk of CO, HC, and NCK
! emissions while fuel combustion (stationary)
I and industrial processes account for most of
, the particulate and SOb emissions.
! Knowing the amount (tons per year) and
sources of emission is not sufficient in itself
to detei mine whether or not there are ail-
pollution problem areas within the Puget
Sound region. It is useful for determining
wheie to direct controls once a problem has
been found; however, more definitive data
such as concentration measurements are re-
quired for locating air pollution problems
and defining control programs.
TABLE |-4.—1970 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR PUGET SOUND REGION
[Tons per year]
Sources
Fuel combustion . .. . .
Residential-area:
Bituminous coal
Distillate oil
Natural gas
Wood
Residual oil, LPG
Commercial-industrial-institu-
tional:
Bituminous coal point
Distillate oil.
Area -
Point -
Residual oil:
Area _. -
Point -
Natural gas:
Area
Point
Wood-
Area
Point
LPG-
Area
Point
Industrial processes
Area -
Point - - _
Solid waste disposal
Incineration:
On-site:
Area
Point
Open burning
On-site:
Area
Point
Dumps:
Area
Point -
Slash burning: Area
Transportation
Motor vehicles
Gasoline
Diesel
Off-highway usage
Aircraft
Railroad
Vessels .. _
Evaporation losses
Liquid petroleum gas
Miscellaneous area sources
Agricultural burning
Wild fire - ..
Evaporation losses
Total emissions ___
Partic-
ulate
15,598
54
1,069
186
1,617
21
1,301
629
141
1,020
1,299
140
316
12
7,783
6
4
20,670
608
20,062
4,891
349
865
2,022
270
6
74
1,305
7,317
3,584
558
35
2,211
354
574
0
1
1,475
170
1,305
0
49,951
S02
23,310
60
3,231
6
16
172
350
1,755
420
7,778
9,391
5
10
0
116
0
0
182,066
1,804
180,262
59
48
4
0
2
0
5
0
7,852
2,150
1,003
21
1,177
884
2,617
0
0
0
0
0
0
213,287
CO
8,399
245
523
170
5,429
12
80
83
19
89
100
33
61
4
1,546
2
3
9,627
64
9,563
23,782
476
1,884
12,563
758
42
384
7,675
1,113,943
1,082,893
7,240
10,318
10,995
997
1,460
0
40
8,675
1,000
7,675
0
1,164,426
HC
4,623
54
330
79
1,271
7
20
126
28
131
154
263
604
3
1,540
7
6
13,520
3,579
9,941
5,100
286
276
2,789
64
16
134
1,535
200,098
180,851
1,448
1,745
6,152
705
1,077
8,109
11
23,876
200
1,536
22,140
247,217
NOx
27,059
9
4,110
489
1,155
44
228
2,994
679
3,128
3,524
897
2,028
16
7,709
28
21
488
14
474
566
80
45
226
31
3
27
154
123,346
109,989
7,573
1,058
1,383
1,067
2,257
0
19
174
20
154
0
151,633
Source: PSAPCA.
-------
58
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Monitoring stations throughout the Puget
Sound region have made it possible to esti-
mate the levels of pollutant concentrations.
Seven sites in the Seattle area have pro-
vided PSAPCA with concentration measure-
ments since January, 1970. The approximate
location of those stations and the time period
for which data has been collected are illustrated
in Figure 1-2.
The assessment of the air pollution prob-
lems for Seattle is based upon the data ac-
quired at those seven locations, other research
data provided by PSAPCA, the GCA Corpora-
tion of Bedford, Massachusetts (air pollution
consultants for EPA—Region X) and Mathe-
matical Sciences Northwest (air pollution
consultants to the City).
Part V of this document provides a pro-
gram for increasing the existing surveillance
system.
Particulates
Under the earlier implementation plan
which was filed with the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency on January 31, 1972, the
Puget Sound region will meet the primary
particulate standards before 1975. In order
to meet the secondary standards, strategies
must be developed which will continue to
reduce the particulate problem of that area
after all point sources are in compliance and
before new industry is added. Strategies are
presently being developed to meet this stan-
dard; however, it is not necessary to discuss
those in this document at this time.
Sulfur Dioxide
The PSAPCA's standards for SO2 are now
more stringent than the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. Assuming that the
single major source of SO, (i.e., industrial
processes) meets the variance schedule on
time, no problems in controlling this pollutant
aie expected by 1975.
Nitrogen oxides
Measurements taken by the Environmental
Protection Agency's National Air Sampling
Network have recorded violations of the Ni-
trogen Oxide standards in the Seattle C BD.
However, the measurement technique which
was utilized has since been acknowledged by
EPA to produce high readings. Measurements
taken by the Puget Sound Regional Air Pol-
lution Control Agency since February, 1971 by
another, generally accepted technique have
never recorded readings anywhere in the re-
gion in excess of the federal standards. EPA
has not required Washington to provide
strategies to reduce Nitrogen Oxides
[p. S4756]
Carbon monoxide 3
For the Seattle area, carbon monoxide con-
centrations have been observed at the seven
monitoring sites for the highest one-hour
and eight-hour concentrations. The national
one-hour standard of 35 ppm was reached
or exceeded once at 1-5 and Dearborn (Octo-
ber, 1970) and once at the City Municipal
Building (February, 1972). At the City Muni-
cipal Building high concentrations are con-
sistently experienced during working hours
all four seasons. The concentration increases
sharply to an early morning maximum at
about 8 AM local time, remains at high levels
throughout the middle of the day, increases
to the maximum for the day at about 4 PM
local time, and decreases abruptly thereafter
to a fairly uniform evening level. As would
be expected, the lowest concentrations are
experienced between 2 AM and 5 AM local
time, when traffic flow is at a minimum. The
daily variations experienced at 1-5 and Dear-
born and at Westlake Mall are roughly similar
to the daily variation at the Municipal Build-
ing, but the amplitudes of the curves are
greatly reduced. Also, concentrations at 1—5
and Dearborn remain relatively high through-
out the evening. Concentrations at Duwamish,
McMicken Heights, and Food Circus remain
low at all times of the day.
Of the recent measurements, only the
Municipal Building readings exceeded the
federal eight-hour standards of 9 ppm. Be-
tween August, 1971 and July, 1972, the fed-
eral eight-hour standard was exceeded 726
times. The highest concentrations usually
occurred between 6 AM and 6 PM; the high-
est eigh1>hour between 9 AM and 5 PM (see
Figure 1-3).
Table 1-5 lists the highest and second
highest one-hour and eight-hour average
concentrations observed in Seattle between
January, 1970 and July, 1972.
It would have been necessary to reduce the
levels of carbon monoxide by 57 and 53
percent on the two worst days in order to
avoid violating the primary standards. The
central assumption of the plan here pre-
sented is that the levels of air pollution are
directly proportional to the amount gener-
ated at the surface. Thus, a reduction of
carbon monoxide generated by traffic of 57
percent is assumed to result in reducing the
carbon monoxide in the air by 57 percent.
The regulations of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency permit the calculation of
maximum allowable levels of pollutant emis-
1 The interpretation of CO data contained
herein was extracted from G.C.A. Corpora-
tion's draft Transportation Implementation
Plan for Seattle. Additional data and find-
ings can be found in that report being dis-
tributed by the EPA—Region X Office.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
59
TABLE 1-5.—SUMMARY DATA FOR ESTIMATING REQUIRED REDUCTIONS IN CO EMISSIONS
Concentration (p. p.m.)
Station, sampling period,
and averaging time
1-5 and Dearborn,2 July 1970 to October 1970:
1 hour
8 hours - . . .
Municipal building, July 1971 to July 1972:
1 hour . -.
8 hours -- - .-
Highest
35
21
38
21
2d highest
28
20
31
20
National
standard *
35
9
35
9
Reduction required,
percent
based on —
Highest
0
57
8
57
2d highest
0
55
0
55
1 Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
• Used in implementation plan.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency—Region X.
sion either by such a proportion calculation
or by a more sophisticated "diffusion model"
(36 F.R. 15490). The diffusion model utilizes
specific information on the local topography,
meteorology and the location of specific
stationary and mobile (automobiles, etc.)
sources to predict the actual concentration of
the pollutant at a given time and place.
Such models require a substantial data base
to develop.
Since there is a lack of ambient air quality
monitoring data available to adequately define
the air pollution problem in the City of
Seattle. Part V of this document recommends
a surveillance and analysis program for im-
proving the reporting, monitoring, and in-
terpretation of air pollution data. Such a
program will permit the development of a
diffusion model for future revision of this
plan.
However, the data that has been collected
to date does indicate that a carbon monoxide
problem exists in the Central Business Dis-
trict of Seattle. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has located two additional
monitoring stations in the Seattle CBD to
check the validity of the 1-5, Westlake Mall
and Municipal Building sites. The data col-
lected over the next three months should
provide the opportunity for verifying the
data listed in Table 1-5.
With respect to carbon monoxide sources,
motor vehicles were estimated to produce
approximately 93 percent of the carbon
monoxide emitted in the Pug-et Sound Intra-
state Air Quality Control Region in 1970.
Any strategy to control carbon monoxide
must therefore emphasize control of carbon
monoxide from motor vehicles.
Photochemical oxidants and hydrocarbons
The barely understood pollution products
of photochemical processes, the chemical
changes due to sunlight, are commonly lumped
together under a general heading of photo-
chemical "smog" (Los Angeles type). The sun
plays a major pai-t because its energy can
be absorbed by nitrogen dioxide (NO,) in the
presence of some hydrocarbons.
Photochemical oxidant production is often
a function of the hydrocarbon to NOx emis-
sion ratio, and thus a reduction in hydro-
carbons will aid in reducing photochemical
oxidant production. Based on the federal
primary cne-hour standards for carbon
monoxide and photochemical oxidant which
were set with health effects in mind, photo-
chemical oxidant is approximately 250 times
as potent as carbon monoxide.
The national standard for the highest one-
hour concentration of total oxidants was
exceeded 85 times at the 1-5 and Dearborn
site during a four-month period (July to
October, 1970). This oxidant data was not
corrected for nitrogen dioxide, however. At
other sites in Seattle, the standard was ex-
ceeded six times at the Duwamish site (only
a two-month sample period is available at
this time), and three times at the Food
Circus for the sample period beginning
January, 1970 and ending May, 1972.
Table 1-6 lists the highest and second
highest one-hour average oxidant concentra-
tion of the day for each month nt each oxidant
monitoring site. Given the oxidant values and
knowing the ratio of oxidants produced
to hydrocarbons emitted, the percent reduc-
tions required in HC emissions were tabulated
(also included in Table 1-6).4
As with CO, strategies must be directed
toward control of automotive hydrocarbon
emissions if the federal standards are to be
met. The Federal Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Program has been projected by the
GCA Corporation as being sufficient to reduce
the hydrocarbon emissions to acceptable
levels.
Can Seattle's air be cleaned up'
Regional and State programs have been
developed to control most of the pollutants
emitted from stationary sources; however, a
clean air implementation plan for mobile
sources has not been previously developed.
Following promulgation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards by the EPA
1 Ibid. 3
-------
60
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TABLE 1 6.—SUMMARY DATA FOR ESTIMATING REQUIRED REDUCTIONS IN HYDROCARBONS EMISSIONS
Station, sampling period,
and averaging time
1 — 5 and Dearborn,1 July 1970 to
October 1970- 1 hour
Food Circus, January 1970 to
May 1972: 1 hour .. .. ._.
Duwamish, June 1972 to
July 1972: 1 hour . . ..
Oxidant
Highest
0.16
.11
.13
concentration
2d highest
0 15
.10
.10
(p.p.m.)
National
standard :
0.08
.08
.08
Reductions in
hydrocarbons
required percent
based on
Highest 2d highest
53 48
26 18
38 18
1 Used in implementation plan. Only values measured between 0900 and 1600 P.s.t. were
considered.
2 Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency—region X.
Administrator on April 30, 1971 (36 F.R. 8186)
each state, within nine months, was required
to adopt and submit to the Administrator,
[p. S4757]
a plan which provides for the implementa-
tion, maintenance and enforcement of national
ambient air quality standards within each air
quality control region of the state.
The State of Washington submitted its
implementation plan on January 28, 1972.
At that time a request was made for a two-
year extension for attainment of the stand-
ards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
and photochemical oxidant in the Puget
Sound Interstate Air Quality Control Re-
gion, and carbon monoxide in the Eastern
Washington-Idaho Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region.
The State of Washington was advised on
May 31, 1972 through publication of regula-
tions in the Federal Register (37 F.R. 10842)
that this extension was granted and that no
later than February 15, 1973, a transporta-
tion control plan must be submitted:
"52.2479 Transportation and land use con-
trols:
"(a) To complete the requirements of 51.11
(b) and 51.14 of this chapter, the Governor of
Washington must submit to the Administrator:
"(1) No later than February 15, 1973, the
selection of the appropriate transportation
control alternative and a demonstration that
said alternative, along with Washington's
presently adopted source emission limitations
for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program,
will attain and maintain the national stand-
ards for photochemical oxidants hydrocar-
bons) in the Puget Sound Intrastate Region
and for carbon monoxide in the Washington
portion of the Eastern Washington-Northern
Idaho Interstate Region by June, 1977. By
this date (February 15T 1973), the State also
must include a detailed timetable for im-
plementing the legislative authority, regula-
tions, and administrative policies required for
carrying out the transportation control alter-
native by June, 1977.
"(2) No later than July 1, 1973, the legis-
lative authority that is needed for carrying
out the required transportation control
alternative.
"(3) No later than December 30, 1973, the
necessary adopted regulations and administra-
tive policies needed to implement the trans-
portation control alternative."
The subsequent parts of this document
provide a plan which exhibits a potential
for meeting the above requirements and im-
proving the air quality of the Seattle area.
1977 air quality levels
The previous sections of this document
have introduced to the reader known facts
about air pollution and how pollution relates
to Seattle's air quality. The sections that
discussed carbon monoxide, photochemical
oxidants and hydrocarbons—using today's air
quality (1971 data) and comparing it to the
1975 federal standard—demonstrated that if
the standards were imposed now, areas of
Seattle would exceed the carbon monoxide
standard by an estimated 57 percent and the
hydrocarbon standard by 53 percent (com-
puted f i om highest 1971 measurement on
several occasions during the year). Because
the federal standards for the State of Wash-
j ington are to be met by 1977, it becomes
j necessary to look at air quality relative to
that time. Projecting today's problems into
, the future enables governmental agencies and
I private organizations an opportunity to gauge
[ the magnitude of the future problem and to
evaluate control strategies for achieving the
federal requirements by 1977.
! Given the limited data base and the diffi-
culty of making any accurate projections
I into the future, the only reasonable estimates
' of the 1977 air pollution levels in Seattle
j have been made by two consulting firms under
' contract to the Environmental Protection
'Agency (EPA). These firms are the G.C.A.
Corporation of Bedford, Massachusetts, re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
61
eponsible for assessing the severity of the
existing and future levels of air pollution,
and A. M. Voorhees and Associates of Seattle,
Washington, responsible for analyzing the
relevant transportation characteristics. These
firms were retained by EPA to identify po-
tential control strategies in the event the
Administrator of EPA disapproved the State
(DOE) plan or portions thereof, or should
the State fail to submit a plan or portions
thereof.
The methodology presented in the G.C.A.
Corporation's draft report of December, 1972
and their evaluation of Seattle's 1977 air
quality is representative of the current state
of the art. For these reasons, their method-
ology and estimates of the 1977 air quality
levels for Seattle have been adopted as part
of this document. The following is a sum-
mary of sections two and three of the G.C.A.
report. (If more definitive information is re-
quired, a copy of the report can be obtained
from the EPA—Region X office located in
Seattle, Washington.)
Methodology
Computation of vehicle-miles of travel
(VMT) within high traffic density areas of the
Puget Sound Control Region for the estima-
tion of vehicle emissions and subsequent
evaluation of ai* quality is the first step
toward developing transportation control
strategies that will achieve air quality stand-
ards for carbon monoxide and oxidants by
1977. The steps in the procedure include
selection of critical areas by inspection of
traffic counts, calculation of vehicle-miles of
travel for 1971, and projection of vehicle-
miles of travel to 1977 based on recent growth
trends.
Vehicle-mile data for the Puget Sound
Region were developed by the Washington
State Highway Department and the Puget
Sound Governmental Conference. These data,
however, were either for the region as a
whole or were for specific facilities within
the region. Therefore, a methodology had to
be developed to provide data on vehicle miles
of travel for small areas within the region
where air pollution emissions were high and
air quality was poor.
One-square-mile grids were plotted on
USGS maps at a scale of 1:24,000. Using a
twenty-four hour average daily traffic (ADT)
flow map produced in 1969 for the Puget
Sound Region by the Puget Sound Govern-
mental Conference, areas of greatest traffic
concentration were selected for coverage with
these mile-square grids. Initially, 19 square-
mile grids were analyzed in the Seattle, Ta-
coma and Bellevue area. In taking areas of
one square mile, some much smaller areas
of high traffic concentration are not clearly
illuminated as potential pollution problems.
These areas will require a more fine-grained
analysis during future studies for revisions
in the implementation plan.
Data was collected from screen line and
arterial traffic counts so that the hourly
traffic profile could be evaluated. Figure 1-4
1 shows the profile for the Seattle Ship Canal
Crossings. For each grid square, the emis-
sions in grams were estimated using the
Environmental Protection Agency's curves
that relate grams emitted per vehicle-mile to
average speed. The emissions calculated for
grids where air quality measurements were
available were adjusted by the ratio of the
measured air quality to the federal standards.
The adjusted emissions total was used as a
base to test other grids.
In order to ensure that calculations of
vehicle-miles of travel were available for all
potential "hot spots" of poor air quality.
additional grids weie added to the system
until it appeared that coverage was achieved
where the grids with high emission levels
were surrounded by grids \\ith emissions be-
low critical level. The Seattle level total \\as
increased to 50 grids as sho\\ n in Figure 1-5.
For estimating 1977 vehicle miles of travel
the following assumptions \\ere used:
1. The distribution of vehicle miles of
travel by type of vehicle is the same as 1971.
2. The daily traffic profile is the same as
1971.
3. The implementation of the METRO bus
system, starting in 1973, will cause patron-
age to increase by 1977 more than 23 per-
cent in Seattle, and over 600 percent in the
suburbs. A copy of "A Transit Plan for the
Metropolitan Area," v. hich details the plan
| for the development of the METRO Transit
I System, adopted by the Metropolitan Coun-
| cil, is attached to this document.
4. The King County Domed Stadium will
be open in the fall of 197-j just south of
downtown Seattle. It is assumed that feu-
events \\i\l begin or end during weekday
peak hours. (A City ordinance may be neces-
sary to insure the validity of this assump-
tion ) Unless Saturday VMT grov.b exces-
sively by 1977, it is assumed that an analybi^
of weekday travel under non-stadium con-
ditions would provide a reasonable evalua-
tion for the grid zone
Using the above assumptions as guide-
lines, 1971 and 1977 total daily vehicle-miles
of travel were calculated for the one-mrle-
square gi ids of Seattle and are exhibited
in Figure 1-6.
Estimation of Carbon Monoxide Levels
Emission densities \\ere calculated by
G.C.A. for all oO one-mile squaie zones for
1971 and 1977 using:
1. The total daily vehicle-miles of travel
for each square mile grid.
-------
62
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
2. The average speeds on various streets
in the grid.
3. Non-vehicular emissions accounted for
4 percent5 of the total for King County. For
the Seattle Central Business District (CBD),
2 percent of CO was estimated to be from
non-vehicular sources.
4. It is assumed that the Federal Motor
Vehicle Emissions Control Program \\ill have
been achieved by 1975 and 1976. This pro-
gram stipulates that new motor vehicles
manufactured in 1975 must emit 90 percent
less carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons
than 1970 models. By 1976, emissions of oxi-
des of nitrogen must be reduced 90 per-
cent from the 1971 model level. It is as-
sumed that auto manufacturers will meet
this requirement on time. If not, the 1977
estimates will be recalculated and additional
control measures may be adopted An es-
timate of the emissions from each model
year of light duty and heavy duty vehicles
were made by GCA.
5. The estimates of the increase in bu-.
ridership as a result of the METRO transit
plan.
Computing the kilograms of CO emitted/
maximum 8-hour period/square-mile (kgm/
8hr/mi2) for each of the .yrids yielded the
values illustrated in Figure 1-7. The 1971
value of 14,801 kgm/8hr/mi- in the Seattle
CBD is assumed to correspond (\\ ith the in-
clusion of 292 kgm/Shr/mi2 due to stationai v
sources) to the air Quality measurements oi"
20-21 ppm (measured at the Seattle Munic-
ipal Building). When this is reduced by ." ,
percent to meet the primary standard, the
allowed emission level from mobile sources
can be calculated.
Comparing: this value to the values in Fig-
ure 1-7 one finds the piimary CO standai ds
being satisfied throughout the City by 1977
with the exception of Seattle's CBD
[p. S4758]
TABLE 1-7.—CO Data for CBD Zone (Zone
„'/)
ktf/8hr/mi-
ltr/r of 1971 emissions (CO) 6"67
Stationary sources — 292
CO standard to be met 6^7.">
Estimated 1977 CO emitted by vehi-
cles (using assumptions) 8032
Maximum to meet CO standard — 6J7o
Remaining to be reduced by addi-
tional transportation controls 1757
To achieve the 8-hour average CO stand-
ard throughout the CBD will require an ad-
ditional reduction in CO emissions fiom
-1 An estimate of local stationary soui ce
contributions.
motor vehicles of about 1800 kgm/8hr/mi3.
The 1-hour average CO level would be well
\\ ithin the primary standard throughout the
city with the implementation of strategies
, to meet the 8-hour standard.
Estimation of Oxidant and Hydrocarbon
Levels
The following basic assumptions were used
by G.C.A. in estimating 1971 and 1977 hydro-
carbon emission densities".
1. The assumptions used for estimating
1977 CO concentrations also apply to estimat-
ing hydrocarbon concentrations.
2. The local air mass of concern is the one
1 having the highest hydrocarbon content. Its
source is the central Seattle region defined
1 by Zones 7 through 29, where maximum
1 vehicular emissions occur.
3. Hydrocarbons from non-vehicular sources
are uniformly distributed throughout the city
! of Seattle.
1 4. The amount of hydrocarbon emissions
\\ ithin Seattle is directly related by popula-
tion to total emissions within King County.
Figure 1-8 shows the 1971 and 1977 three-
hour hydrocarbon emissions densities cal-
culated for the Seattle area from mobile
sources. For the 23 square mile area (zones
7 through 29) the following was derived:
TABLE 1-8.—HC DATA FOR CEXTKAL BC 70XES
Estimated 1977 HCkg/3hr/23mi- emitted
by vehicles (using assumptions), 3063.
' National HC Standard (kg/3hr/23miP),
1089.
1977 National HC Standard is satisfied.
The data available at the present time in-
dicates that photochemical oxidants and hy-
drocarbons in the Seattle area w ill fall with-
in the national standards by 1977 w ithout
the imposition of special transportation con-
trol strategies.
In late 1978 a new Interstate freeway is ex-
pected to be completed in a coiridor con-
necting Interstate 5 and the Lake Washing-
ton Biidge (Interstate 90). Studies conducted
by Mathematical Sciences Northwest, a con-
sultant to the City of Seattle, indicate that
> there is sufficient reason to believe that soon
after opening, the potential for hydrocarbon
levels in excess of the Federal Piimary Stand-
ard \\ill exist over a substantial portion of
the valley betw een Mount Baker Ridge and
First Hill.
The ridge system engenders stable atmos-
pheric conditions, slow wind speeds and fre-
quent inversions. Extensive data from nearby
Boeing Field showed air stability patterns D
and E R<5 percent of the time with prolonged
stagnation periods from 1 to 5 days 71 times
in a 36-month peiiod.
Gives the calculated pollutant emission
levels and the known meteorological data
available, this area is sufficiently presumptive
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
63
of potential violation of standards to war-
rant the development of a diffusion model
to evaluate the air quality problems which
might be anticipated in 1978 and the poten-
tial results of possible solutions. Such an in-
vestigation will be conducted by the City of
Seattle and the results will be contained in
the next Semi-annual Report.
PART II : CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
The evolution of a plan
On April 30, 1971 the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) set the "National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards" for the six
major air pollutants. Within nine months
thereafter each state was required to adopt
and submit a plan which provided for im-
plementation, maintenance and enforcement
of the federal standards by 1975 within each
air quality control region. Prior to the origi-
nal submission of the Washington Imple-
mentation Plan on January 18, 1972, hear-
ings were conducted in both Seattle and
Spokane. The Seattle hearing was held on
January 5, 1972, at which time approxi-
mately 60 persons attended (speakers and
non-speakers).
Following the State's submission of the
plan to the federal government, EPA ap-
proved all but four parts of the plan on
May 31, 1972. One of these was the contiol
of transportation emissions. EPA requested
the preparation of a more detailed transpor-
tation control plan by the State for EPA's
review by February 15, 1973.
In formulating the Seattle area transpor-
tation control plan, two processes were
initiated. First, EPA retained a private con-
sulting firm to develop transportation con-
trol strategies for Spokane and Seattle areas,
in the event the State did not present a
plan for controlling CO, NOX and HC. That
effort began on August 20, 1972 and \\ as
completed during January, 1973. During the
course of that study, several meetings \\ere
held by EPA to report the progress to various
governmental agencies. A representative of
the Air Quality Coalition, a Seattle organiza-
tion, attended some meetings. Additionally,
one of the consultant's staff met with various
public officials for discussions of strategies.
The second planning effort was generated
by the EPA study. The work being done by
the consultants for EPA, the exposure of the
general public to the requirements of the
federal program through the media, and the
desire by local governmental agencies to ac-
cept the responsibility for meeting the chal-
lenge of controlling air pollution spurred on
the organization of two committees. The first
was formed by the Seattle Chambei of Com-
merce with a membership including rep-
resentatives from the Central Association,
the Seattle Chamber and community groups.
! In parallel, Wes Uhlman, Mayor of Seattle,
invited local, regional and State govern-
l mental agencies to participate on a technical
committee. The A. M Voorhees consulting
firm was retained by the Department of
Ecology to assist in evaluating strategy alter-
natives. Using the EPA/G.C.A. plan and the
recommendations of the Chamber Com-
mittee, the technical committee prepared
this implementation plan.
During the course of formulating the Seat-
tle area plan, attempts were made to inform
the public of the plan development and its
content prior to its completion. An informa-
tional meeting was held with the Transporta-
tion Policy Advisory Committee of Puget
Sound Governmental Conference on Decem-
ber 5, 1972. A similar meeting was held with
the Seattle City Council Transportation
Committee on December 12, 1972 and the
King County Council on December 15, 1972.
During the months of November and Decem-
ber 1972, numerous newspaper articles ex-
plained the air pollution problem in Seattle
and what the requirements are of the Federal
Air Quality Act for correcting the problem.
During January 1973 ne\\s articles were pub-
lished outlining the details of the plan be-
ing proposed for submission to the EPA.
On January 8, 1973 a one-hour "public
meeting" was televised by KCTS-TV, Chan-
nel 9. This program followed the format of
a public meeting with a panel of "experts"
explaining the problem and proposed solu-
tions and a studio audience asking questions
and making comments. Approximately one-
half hour was allotted to questions and
comment by the audience. In addition to an-
swering questions from the studio audience,
a telephone numbered was announced for the
viewing audience to call and ask questions of
several engineers and technicians who were
instrumental in developing the proposed
plan. More than 45 calls were received. The
complete program was video taped to be
broadcast again on January 11, 1973. The"
Leasue of Women Voters and the Air Quality
Coalition played a major role in or^ani/inu
the KCTS-TV program.
Public notice of the formal hearing on the
ti anspoi tation addendum to the State Im-
plementation Plan was required to be given
30 days prior to the formal hearing. On
January 9, 1973 the heai ing for February 8,
1973 was publicly advertised as a joint hear-
ing sponsored by Seattle's City Council and
the Depaitment of Ecology.
At this time a public meeting is scheduled
on January 17, 1973 by the Seattle City
Council Transportation Committee and a
public seminar is scheduled for February 3,
1973 by the Air Quality Coalition. Presenta-
tions of the implementation plan have been
requested by the Municipal League, 1 he
-------
64
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
American Society of Civil Engineers and !
other community and professional organiaa- j
tions.
Continued citizen involvement
These six steps are suggested to citizens as
a preparation for participating in the hear-
ing scheduled for February 8, 1973: 6
1. Know what is meant by air pollution.
2. Know what the air pollution problems is
in the Seattle area.
3. Know who the responsible agencies are
for the Seattle vicinity and the State of
Washington.
4. Know the existing air pollution laws.
5. Prepare a critique of the proposed plan,
and
6. Use the critique as testimony at the
hearing.
Part I of this document should provide
adequate insight to each of the above steps
If additional information is needed, the En-
vironmental Protection Agency—Region X of
Seattle has valuable documents for public
use and study.
Following the formal hearing on February
8, 1973 and the receipt of Public critiques
the plan must be submitted by the Governor
to EPA by February 15, 1973. Within four
months from the data of submittal, the EPA
must approve or disapprove the plan or a
portion thereof. Legislative authority that
is required the carrying out the transporta-
tion control alternates must also be demon-
strated by December 30, 1973. While the
hearing of February 8, 1973 is the time for
a critical look at the plan, it is apparent
that continued citizen involvement is needed
to ensure that the elements of the plan will
be implemented. Figure II-l further illus-
trates the steps for adoption of an Imple-
mentation Plan.
Revisions
The plan can be revised from time to time,
as may be necessary, to take account of .
(1) Revisions of national standaids,
(2) The availability of improved or more
expeditious methods of attaining such stand-
ards, such as improved technology or emission
charges or taxes, 01
(3) A finding by the Administrator that
the plan is substantially inadequate to attain
or maintain the national standai d which it
implements.
Revisions of the rules and regulations in-
6 "Action for Clean Ail : A Manual for Citi-
zen Participation in State Implementation
Plan Proceedings;" Natural Resources De-
fense Council, Inc. ; September 1971 , pages
9-14.
[p. S4759]
eluded in the plan would be adopted after
reasonable notice and public hearings. Those
revisions can be described in the semi-annual
report, described in the following' section.
Reports
Two types of reports are required, a quar-
terly report and a semi-annual report:
(a) On a quarterly basis commencing with
the end of the first full quarter after approval
of the plan, the State will submit to the
Administrator (through the appropriate Re-
gional Office) information on air quality. The
quarters of the year are January 1-March 21,
April 1-June 30, July 1-September 30, and
October 1-December 31.
(b) On a semi-annual basis commencing
with the end of the first full semi-annual
period after approval of the plan, the State
will submit to the Administrator (through
the appropriate Regional Office) reports on
progress in carrying out the applicable plan
The semi-annual periods are January 1-
June 30 and July 1-December 31.
(c) The reports required by this section
will be submitted within 45 days after the
end of each reporting period.
Therefore, over the next four years, there
will be substantial opportunity for citizen
review of the program. If the plan herein
recommended proves not to be adequate, new
strategies must be developed and submitted
foi public reaction as a part of the revision.
If the plan is more than adequate to pro-
vide the desired levels of air quality, various
strategies might be deleted.
I'AHT Mi: TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PROGRAM
Introduction
There are a number of techniques that can
be used to work toward i educing air pollu-
tion and achieving acceptable ambient air
quality levels. Various strategies being tried
in other parts of the world weie presented
in December, 1972 in a report by the 22-
nation Organization for Euiopean Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). The
report stated that more than 70 cities in
Western Europe have bai red autos from key
downtown areas among other efforts to curb.
growing air pollution problems. In Vienna,
bus only zones have been designated in
downtown areas during the hours from 10:30
AM to 7:00 PM, delivery trucks are allowed
to function only in the mornings (7:00 AM
to 10:30 AM); and plans are being developed
to provide expanded car-free zones. In Gote-
borg, Sweden, only trolley cars and buses are
allowed to cross the do\\ ntown area A\ ith all
other traffic usint> a "ring road" leaving and
entering specific downtown precincts by spec-
ial routes. In West Germany staggered work
hours have been adopted by 2,000 firms.
Marseilles tested a total ban on do\\ ntov n
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
65
parking while traffic was allowed to move
freely; the net lesult was a 40 peicent reduc-
tion in carbon monoxide emissions. The most
significant finding of OECD was that in these
European cities "there was firm evidence that
automobiles can be kept out of limited areas
without hurting retail sales downtown."
In the United States, the techniques are
similar to those being used in Europe with
variations according to the characteiistics of
the individual problems. Poitland, New York,
Washington, D.C. and other cities con-
fronted with air pollution problems are
adopting measures such as annual emission
inspection programs and improved transit
service to erduce the CO, HC and NOx emis-
sions. Washington, D.C. has also included a
car pool locator service, downto\\ n parking
restrictions, and the installation of advanced
control devices on pre-1975 autos and liqht
duty trucks. Perhaps one of the most ex-
treme and yet to be approved strategies is the
"gas rationing" proposal beinec made by the
Environmental Protection Agency for the
South Coast Air Basin in California.
It should be stressed that draconian mea-
sures which \\ ould destroy Seattle's down-
town as a regional letail and business center
would be as undesirable as the present air
pollution levels. In particular, it is impor-
tant to avoid measures which overly discrim-
inate against the CBD and favor suburban
shopping centers and the relocation of busi-
nesses to rural areas.
The air quality and traffic data available at
this time are not sufficiently refined to enable
precise and accurate calculations of all the
effects of vaiious strategies advanced to correct
the air quality problem. Substantial additional
data must be develop ed in order to better
evaluate future revision of this plan.
Selection of strategies
In developing this implementation plan, staff
\\ere often confronted with a bombaidment of
pet strategies foi controlling air pollution. As
a base for stalling the strategy selection
process, the recommended strategies of the
GCA Corpoiation plan -\\ere reviewed and paits
adopted. A sampling tool known as a "desira-
bility matrix," was also employed for the
purpose of determining which strategies had
the greatest potential. In assembling the array
of ideas, it became apparent that various
concepts could be grouped or classified under a
general strategy heading. The three basic
groups formulated were: (1) Emission and
Energy Controls, (2) Transportation Controls,
and (3) Person Trip Controls
When the final list was assembled, 13."} ideas
had been tabulated. Under Emission and
Energy Controls, stiategies listed ranged from
controlling air pollution at the source {i.e.,
new fuels, retrofit, inspection programs, etc.)
! to gas rationing and processing polluted air.
! Under the second group, Transportation Con-
\ trols, strategies included ideas on ways to
| increase transit patronage, improving traffic
flow, restricting off-street parking, discouraging
the use of the auto and increasing the facilita-
tion of alternate means of travel (e.g., pedes-
trian walkways, bike lanes and facilities, auto-
free zones. The third class, Person Trip Con-
trols, addressed those strategies \\hich focused
in on land use controls such as limiting popula-
tion densities, staggered work hours/days, pro-
viding better communication systems, and
many others.
Based on the intuitive estimates of (1)
desirability, (2) economic impact, and (3)
social impact, scores were compiled foi each
of the 13o strategies. The population of in-
dividuals sampled included seven environ-
mentalists, ten businessmen, eight transporta-
tion and land use planners, and thiee design
engineers. Though this population was limited,
it did constitute a varied cross-section of
interests and professions. Appendix B contains
the list of the 50 most desirable strategies
based upon the composite score of the 28
persons sampled.
j From that list, strategies were selected and
evaluated relative to their effectiveness in
reducing CO emissions, the cost, and the time
it took to implement each. Strategies which
i could not be "on-line" by 1977 were eliminated
j Strategies \\ hich could only affect a small
I number of the total person trips in the CBD
I \\ere eliminated Strategies which had only a
| very short-term impact were eliminated Strate-
gies which required either public or private
expenditures which were large relative to the
degree of reduction in emissions they yielded
were eliminated or revised to improve the
ratio Table III-l summarizes the strategies
selected.
TABLE III—1.—Summary of Recommended
Control Strategies
1. Retrofit and Inspection.
(a) Installation of control device on un-
controlled vehicles (light duty and heavy duty).
(b) An annual inspection of certain vehicles
680* k«rm/8hr/mi -
2, Traffic Signal Optimization, 430 kgm/
8hr/mi -.
3 Car pool program, 80 kgm/8hr/mi -'.
1, Unifoim parking rates and driver ad-
visories, 280 kgm/Shr/mi -.
5. Increase transit ridership, 380 kgm/8hi /
miJ.
*It should be noted that at present EPA
1 regulations do not permit the assignment of a
j value to the emission reductions gained from
letrofit or inspection of heavy-duty vehicles
Should such regulations change, there would
be an increase in this value
-------
66
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
and indicates the estimated amount that carbon
monoxide emissions can be expected to be
reduced in the CBD when each strategy is fully
implemented. The total reduction of 1800
kgm/8hr/mi 2 meets the goal calculated in Par.
I. This package of strategies will enable Seattle
to achieve air pollution levels which meet the
federal primary standards by 1977.
The sections which follow define more
thoroughly each of the proposals outlined in
Table III-l. The actual calculations of the
numerical reductions reported are contained in
Appendix C.
Retrofit
Beginning with the 1968 model year, all new
cars (1970 for trucks) have been required by
Federal law to meet standards for the amount
of pollutants in the exhaust. However, due to
the nine-year average lifetime of automobiles,
in 1972 uncontrolled (pre-1968 light duty,
pre-1970 heavy duty) vehicles accounted for
approximately 61% of the vehicle population in
King County. In 1977 these uncontrolled
vehicles will still account for some 18% of the
vehicle population.
The emissions from uncontrolled vehicles can
be reduced substantially by the installation of
an "Air Bleed to Intake Manifold" device.
Tests by EPA attribute a 58% reduction in
carbon monoxide to this device. EPA further
states that it can be expected to retain its
initial effectiveness with periodic inspection
(an annual inspection test of the retro-fitted
vehicles is required by EPA). This device is
discussed in detail in the EPA publication,
"Analysis of Effectiveness and Costs of Retrofit
Emission Control Systems for Used Motor
Vehicles." A very similar device was on many
of the early (1966-1967) emission control
systems used by the manufacturers in Cali-
fornia.
The estimated retail cost of such a device is
$40. Installation costs and the cost of readjust-
ing the engine might add anothei $20. This
cost will be a significant fraction of the total
value in 1977 of a pre-1968 vehicle, although
it may be only a fi action of the total main-
tenance expense for that year.
The retrofitting of such older uncontrolled
vehicles will bear hardest on those least able
to pay. However, the State of Washington has
filed suit against the principal domestic auto-
mobile manufacturers for conspiring to delay
the research, development and installation of
effective pollution control de\ices. The principal
relief sought is the installation, at the expense
of the auto manufacturers, of the appropriate
devices on uncontrolled vehicles throughout
Washington. This matter is set for trial
beginning on March 13, 1973 in the United
States District Court for the Central District
of California, where it is consolidated \\ ith
several other similar actions.
As the legal actions already initiated may not
be resolved in the favor of the people, legisla-
tion will be proposed (see Appendix D) such
that installation may be required by the Direc-
tor of the Department of Ecology on all
uncontrolled vehicles at the time of ownership
transfer, or during 1976 (according to a
staggered schedule). This is intended to reduce
to the minimum possible the impact upon
individual citizens. It is recommended that the
[p. S4760]
legislature consider means to soften the eco-
nomic impact of retrofit on the public by such
means as a one-time bounty for older, un-
controlled vehicles which are scrapped.
Vehicle Emission Inspection
EPA regulations require that whenever an
Implementation Plan proposes a retrofit pi'o-
gram, it must also propose an inspection
program. This is intended to ensure that the
promised reduction in emissions will continue
into the future, in order that the lower pollu-
tion levels of 1977 will be maintained. The
inspection program required by EPA must
meet the following criteria:
1. An annual inspection using a dyna-
mometer to simulate actual driving conditions.
2. The inspection standaids must be con-
sistent with the reduction in pollutants claimed
in the Implementation Plan.
3. All failed vehicles must be retested after
correction to ensure compliance.
4. A program to ensure vehicles are not
intentionally adjusted after inspection so that
they would no longer comply \\ith the inspec-
tion standard must be initiated.
Because the inspection system specified by
EPA has never been used in practice, a very
careful step-by-step implementation \\ould be
needed to minimize public impact. The program
will begin with a required annual inspection
of all vehicles owned by units of government
in King County and fleets of three or moi e
I vehicles.
The experience with this initial program \\ill
serve as a basis to project the costs and
benefits of such a program. At the present
time, the initial cost of such a facility is
estimated to be $50,000, w ith an annual
operating cost of $25,000. Extra maintenance
on the part of the vehicle operators might
I average $20 a year beyond normal good
, practice. Vehicle owner costs need to be known
and perhaps limited before a general inspection
begins.
Subsequently, all vehicles first registered and
all used vehicles offered for sale would be
required to pass an inspection. Additionally, all
vehicles retrofitted pursuant to this plan would
be required to pass an inspection following
retiofit and annually on the anniveisary month
of their retrofit. No vehicles would be permitted
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
67
to operate on the public roads until they pass
their inspection.
These programs will bear most heavily on
automobile dealers who do not now adjust or
maintain vehicles for minimum emissions. With
this added incentive it is assumed that they will i
begin to obtain the necessary equipment and >
train their mechanics. The public \\ould be only i
minimally inconvenienced.
Conversion to gaseous fuel
In an effort to encourage the use of non-
polluting gaseous fuels, the Legislature of the
State of Washington has deleted the normal
taxes on propane and liquid natural gas.
However, the Act provided a cut-off of July 1,
1975.
In order to maintain the existing benefit
beyond that date and, possibly, to expand it
slightly, legislation will be proposed to elimi-
nate the cut-off date and to eliminate the
restriction on applicability to only fleet vehicles.
Traffic signal optimization program (SIGOP)
For pre-1975 controlled and pre-1968 un-
controlled vehicles, emissions are inversely
related to speed.
Clearly, if unnecessary stops can be elimi-
nated, emissions can be substantially reduced '
Seattle is presently engaged in a project to I
revise the timing cycles in its CBD signal j
system to reduce the number of such stops
using a traffic signal optimization computer
program (SIGOP) developed by Peat, Marwick,
Mitchell and Company under contract to the
Bureau of Public Roads. Its purpose is to
determine optimum cycle lengths, phase splits,
and coordination of traffic signal displays in a j
grid network. Using data on traffic characteris- i
tics and network geometry, SIGOP expresses
the data in terms of delays, stops, and system ,
cost. System cost is computed by the program !
as weighted sum of delays and stops. A :
mathematical technique is applied \\hich mini- i
mizes the combination of delays and stops ,
specified.
Indications are that the SIGOP program will
provide usable signal timing patterns \\ hich,
system wide, are comparable to or better than
the timing patterns developed over a long
period of time by manual trial and error
methods piesently employed
To date, approximately three-fourths of the
project has been implemented. By June 15, 1973
the results %\ill be available for evaluation. The
expected performance of the system is an
increase in average speeds in the Seattle
Central Business District by t\\o miles per hour
through reducing stops in the CBD by approxi-
mately 33 percent7 and reducing delays in CBD
by 10 percents It is important to remember
7 Stops: Total stops of both peak-hours of
one day (2 hours total).
s Delays: Total delays of both peak-hours of
one day (2 hours total).
that the program is experimental, and a major
product of the operation is an evaluation of
what improvements actually result.
Car Poo! Program
Beyond the programs previously discussed, it
is necessary to eliminate approximately 40,000
vehicle trips per day from the CBD in order to
achieve the federal primal y standards for air
quality. Since a large percent of automobile
trips into the CBD carry only the driver, it is
possible to significantly decrease the number of
vehicles by increasing the average vehicle
occupancy. If the present average occupancy of
1.4 occupants/vehicle (for CBD employees)
could be increased to 1.7, then 9,000 trips could
be eliminated.
A method to encourage car pool use is to
develop a system through \\hich drivers can
contact potential riders. Done on a large scale,
such a matching system would need to be
computerized to be efficient and rapid. Geo-
coding would be a definite aid in a com-
puterized matching system as it would greatly
simplify the actual matching process. The
availability of the Census Department's DIME
file for the Seattle metropolitan area, and the
ADMATCH program makes geocodinu of
addresses feasible
An effective car pool matching system would
have to include a collection system for gather-
ing the necessary data from potential drivers
and riders, the computer software and hard-
\\aie necessary to do the matching, and a
distribution system to inform drivers and riders
of possible matches. The system could initially
start on a small scale, e.g., dealing with all the
City employees working in the Municipal
Building. Thus, everyone's destination would be
the same, and matching could be done on the
basis of oricrin.
Initially only one-time matches \\ ould be
made, i.e., possible drivers would be matched
on the basis of origin and arrival—departure
time and the working out of details \\ ould be
left up to the individuals involved. The system
could later be expanded to include the othei
city and county offices, which in Seattle ai e all
located across the street from each other. Other
common destinations, such as groups of office
buildings, could be included as the system is
extended. The system for collecting input data
could possibly operate within these groups of
buildings or common destinations.
In setting up the system, data definition
\\ould be necessary. That is, decisions would be
necessary regarding what items of information
would be required for input in order to
effectively match drivers and riders. Before the
necessary computer progiams could be written,
refinement of the matching process \\ould also
be required. Analysis would be necessary to
determine the parameters, i.e., for a potential
driver-iider match, ho\\ close destinations
-------
68
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
should be, would matching be done solely on
proximity of origins, or should route of travel
be considered, etc. The question of imposing a
user charge or making the system a public
service would also have to be considered. Some
type of security measures would probably be
necessary to guard against abuse of the system.
Some types of incentive to encourage people
to use car pools would be necessary to achieve
high levels of participation. For example, the
Seattle Blue Streak Bus Rapid Transit Demon-
stration Project presently has exclusive use of
the downtown Cherry-Columbia reversible lane
on-off ramp for 1—5. It might be possible to
extend the exclusive use of this ramp to car
pools as well as transit. Likewise, other on-off
ramps of the reversible lanes or regular lanes
might be closed to all except car pools and
transit.
An essential incentive would be the provision
of reserved parking for car pools, for example
within or near the Municipal Building or in the
County Parking Garage in stalls presently
reserved for administrators, executives, and
government vehicles.
At the heart of the problem lies the availa-
bility and cost of parking. At present, parking
availability and rates encourage using auto-
mobiles for commuter work trips. If parking
costs are incieased (either through restricting
the supply or by regulating the rates) a real
incentive is created to participate in such a
program. At present, some 29,700 spaces exist
in the CBD with 8-hour rates in some lots in
the outer edges as low as 50^.
An approach 'which would remedy these
problems is legislation which would give the
City the authority to regulate parking, both
through competition and through the setting of
rates. A bill setting out such authority is beins
introduced into the current session of the
Legislature (see Appendix D). Another is a
proposal to designate parking as a "Conditional
Use" in the two central CBD land use zones,
and thus require City Council approval of each
ne\\ parking lot, which would come before the
City Planning Commission. An alternative
approach might be the requirement of a special
permit, similar to the Shorelines permit, for
the development of parking throughout the
CBD and CBD fringe. Before any regulation of
parking development or rates can be imple-
mented, a parking plan for the CBD which
responds to land use, transportation and eco-
nomic factors, as well as air pollution, must
be developed. The Parking Plan and, hence, any
regulation of parking rates would require
recognition of the fact that diffeient structuies
and lots have radically different amortization
) ates.
Some parking is provided to employees and
executives as a fringe benefit. The Air Quality
Planning Committee of the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Council of Governments is reported to
have suggested a court test of the IRS rules
which allow businesses to deduct such ex-
penditures as a legitimate expense. Such an
action should be joined by the City of Seattle.
Uniform parking rates and driver advisories to
parking facilities and destinations
Little is known about the need for better
informational signing to reduce the search for
parking spaces or if shopping for more
inexpensive parking contributes significant
excess travel in the CBD, The one-way street
pattern and driver unfamiliarity with Freeway
access routes most likely contribute to addi-
tional travel. In 1968. Los Angeles found that
[p. S4761]
22 percent of downto\\n travel during peak
periods was "search for parking" travel.
A system of informational signs to privately
owned parking lots and businesses should be
developed, which might eventually include signs
indicating the nearest reservoir of unoccupied
stalls. Such a system could be financed through
a local improvement district. Legislative au-
thority for the initiation of such a district
currently exists.
The parking legislation discussed previously
would give the City more direct authority to
construct parking structures on the periphery
of the Central Business District. One such
structure, adjacent to 1-5 is presently in the
final design stage. Such structures, when
coupled with proper transportation links to
major destinations, would provide parking
spaces easily available to drivers which would
eliminate driving through the CBD,
This legislation also provides the authority
for the City to establish uniform parking rates,
\\ hich \\ ould reduce "searching" travel. On-
street (metered) parking is currently far less
expensive than off-street parking, and to sug-
gest a signing system without consideration of
this disci epancy tends to defeat the effective-
ness of the advisory program. The present
sti eet metei s are near the end of their eco-
nomic life, so an adjustment in the short-term
parking rate structure could be coordinated
with the replacement of city meters.
Increase transit ridership
The METRO Transit program, approved by
the voters of King County on Septembei 19,
1972, has already resulted in a significant in-
crease in transit ridership, especially in the
suburban poitions of the county. Estimates
genei ated in the course of developing the
tiansit plan indicate that by 1977 as much as
35 percent of the work-oriented trips into the
CBD will be by transit. Non-\\ork oriented
trips are estimated to divide at lo percent
transit lideis.
A substantial increase in bus ridership o\ ei
and above that plan is necessary to meet the
needs of this Implementation Plan. Acceptable
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
69
air pollution levels can be achieved if the
work-oriented trip mode-split (number who
arrive by bus vs. number who arrive in auto-
mobiles) is increased to 50 percent and the
mode-split for non-work oriented trips is in-
creased to 21 percent. This would place average
mode-split for CBD trips at approximately 32
percent, up from the METRO Transit plan
estimate of 21 percent and the 1971 average of
17 percent. This is not wholly unrealistic ; the
modal split for CBD trips exceeded 40 percent
in 1962.
Such an increase in transit ridership would
mean approximately 8,000 additional riders in
the peak hours. This would fill 200 more transit
buses. However, if a program of staggered
work hours can be implemented, the present
45-minute long- peak travel period could be
doubled, allowing the same riders to be carried
on the existing transit fleet. Should transit
ridership expand beyond the capacity of the
present fleet, it is assumed that METRO
Transit will acquire the necessary additional
vehicles.
Three factors influence the choice between
the automobile and transit: relative con-
venience, relative speed and relative costs. The
METRO Transit plan estimates assume sig-
nificant improvements in each of these cate-
gories. Under the Transportation Improvements
Action Program (TIAP) the City of Seattle
will conduct studies and develop plans for
transit-related improvements as follows:
Phase I: Basic Market and Planning Data
1. Transit Patron-Origin and Destination
Data.
2. Patronage Volume (Detailed Flow Map).
3. CBD Patronage and Transfer Volumes.
4. CBD and University District Total Vol-
ume Studies.
Phase JI: Finding Operational Deficiencies
1. Non-user Survey.
2. Speed and Delay Studies.
3. Terminal Delays—CBD.
\. Develop Modal Split Model.
Phase III: West Seattle Freeway Bus Lanes
Phase IV: CBD Distribution System
1. Express routing—wrong way transit lanes.
2. CBD shuttles and local service.
3. CBD shelters, orientation and conversion
systems.
4. CBD Terminals, Modal Interface, People
Movers.
5. Coordination with Personal Rapid Transit
Studies.
Phase V: Express System
1. Line Haul Express Planning.
2. Park 'n Ride Lots.
3. Transfer and load point improvements.
Phase VI: Management and Finance
Phase VII: Special Services
Phase VIII: TOPICS System Improvements
Phase IX: Scheduling Improvements
The Urban Mass Transit Administration
(UMTA) has recently approved a grant for
the funding of Phase I of the TTAP program.
It is assumed the remainder of the program
will be funded in subsequent applications.
If the modal split estimated in the METRO
Transit plan is to be improved, we must go
beyond the TIAP efforts. Following the three
factors mentioned above, programs should be
implemented to improve transit patronage.
First, the installation of additional Park 'n
Ride lots. Some sites inside the city, such as
West Seattle, could serve as terminals for local
service and provide express bus service to the
CBD over exclusive busways. Second, inci eases
in service frequency on local routes in Seattle
(approximately 54 percent of trips into the
CBD originate in Seattle, south of 100th Street
and north of Spokane Street). Classic trans-
portation planning theory assigns a very strong
interaction between improvements in frequency
of service and increases in ridership.
Operating subsidies for improved transit
programs should be supplied from the State
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. A resolution seeking
a vote of the people to repeal the State
Constitution's prohibition on the diversion of
such funds to transit operation expenses will
be introduced into the current session of the
Legislature (see Appendix D).
Improve pedestrian environment
One important corollary to increasing the
use of car pools and transit is the creation of
an urban environment which the pedestrian
finds enjoyable. Specifically pedestrian-oriented
circulation and land uses should be promoted.
This might include sidewalk widening, shuttle
systems, weather and climate protection (such
as arcades and colonades), open spaces, street
trees, street "furniture" and other pedestrian
amenities. At the present time the City of
Seattle is developing several programs which
will seek to achieve these ends.
Public Education
Because these strategies will require changed
behavior patterns, an extensive public education
campaign should be initiated to inform the
public of the nature of the problem and the
need for the selected strategies and to en-
courage the public to participate in the
program.
Maintenance of Standards
The Clean Air Act Amendments not only
require that the Implementation Plan propose
a means of meeting the Federal standards, but
they also require that these standards be
maintained in the face of growing traffic
volumes.
The Puget Sound Governmental Conference
has projected an increase in CBD traffic
volumes of 30 percent by 1990, assuming that
no significant fuel shortages (and consequent
-------
70
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
disproportionate increases in gasoline costs)
occur and that the transportation control
strategies contained herein, other than the
METRO Transit plan, are not implemented.
By 1990, less than 5 percent of all vehicles
will he pre-1975 models. This means that
emissions from mobile sources will he decreased
1)4 percent by 1990.
If the Primary Standards are indeed met by
1977 as proposed in this Plan, the ambient air
quality will remain slightly better than re-
quired by the Primary Standard in 1990.
ALTERNATIVES
Rejected alternatives were often more ap-
pealing intuitively than when subjected to
analysis. The following sections discuss some of
the more popular (with various groups) strate-
gies which were subsequently discarded in
developing the plan.
Construct CBD Off-Ramps from
Alaska Way Viaduct
Analysis of travel patterns indicated that
there would be a reduction in east-west traffic
from 1-5 to the Waterfront and some reduction
in north-south traffic from the Aurora exit at
Denny Way. Because the resultant sain in air
quality was small, that benefit in itself could
not justify the estimated expense of construct-
ing additional ramps.
Convert all fleet vehicles to gaseous fuels
While it does result in significant reductions
in pollutants in 1973, the gain does not carry
forward into the future, as all post-1975 auto-
mobiles are required to meet emission standards
which are roughly equivalent to the emission
from gaseous fueled vehicles. As fleet vehicles
are ne\\er than the total automobile population,
there would be no significant gain by 1977.
Additionally, the benefit-cost ratio was very
poor.
Build a Regional Rapid Transit System in CBD
A study of the feasibility of a PRT system
in Seattle (funded by UMTA) is underway. At
this time, the study has not determined the
best corridor for PRT development. Should a
coiridor in the CBD be selected, and should
such a system be capable of being in operation
by 1977, then the potential positive effects on
air quality should he analyzed and included in
subsequent revisions of this plan.
Develop Peripheral Parking and Bus
Shuttle System
The construction of the Kinu County Domed
Stadium at the south end of the CBD would
permit the development of a peripheral park-
ing-shuttle system such as has been operating
from the Seattle Center for several years. This
is not without merit, but it would not affect a
large enough number of person trips \\ithout
direct ramps from 1-5 and 1-90. These do not
appear feasible by 1977.
Interstate 90
Although the increased traffic in the corridor
due to the opening of 1-90 may well result in
local air quality in excess of primary standards,
the exclusive bus lanes (7-year contract) will
provide a significant transit service \\hich will
generally strengthen the METRO Transit
program. This is essential to solving the CBD
air quality problem.
Provide Free Bus Service
During the evaluation of the METRO Transit
plan, a computer model test was made assum-
ing free transit service. It was found that it
did not achieve a significant increase in
patronage, while losing substantial fare box
revenues. METRO Transit fares are already
among the lowest in the nation (as a percent-
age of average income). Local free service does
deseive additional study.
1-5 Ramp Metering and Surveillance
Calculations made by A. M. Voorhees and
Associates in the course of conducting the
study for EPA indicated that such a system
could be expected to improve flow on the
[p. S4762]
Freeway, but could also be expected to divert
substantial traffic to city arterials which would
move at a slower speed and create as much
pollution as was eliminated by the Freeway
improvements. Development of ramp metering
would permit the installation of preferential
bus ramps. This alternative should be given
additional study.
Extend Retrofit Program to All
Pre-1975 Vehicles
The cost of a control system to bring n
j pie-1975 vehicle into compliance with the
federal emission standard is expected to exceed
$300. This is considered to be an excessive
burden on the individual citizen.
Extend Annual Inspection to Include
AH Vehicles
While this -\\ould have some valuable side-
effects if it \\ere to include a safety and noise
inspection as well, the cost of such a system.
the logistic difficulty of testing and implement-
ing such a system by 1977 and the poor
expeiience in some othei states makes this an
unattractive candidate.
Establish Auto-Free Zones in CBD
Vehicle travel tables indicate that the n i i
pollution problem is not localized in any one
portion of the CBD. The establishment of an
auto-free zone would benefit only those who
I happen to be in the zone or \\ ork in an office
! facing into it. The CBD is physically too lame
1 to make the entire area an auto-free zone.
Lid Interstate 5 Through the CBD
One theory hold1* that aiv pollution in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
71
CBD rises ("urban heat island effect") but is
replaced by polluted air flowing down hill from
the Freeway. Thus, if Interstate 5 from,
roughly Olive Way to Columbia Street were to
be enclosed by the construction of a lid, the
polluted air could be exhausted and dispersed
through high stacks. If exhausted at a high
level, it would be distributed over a large
enough area that the concentration would not
be harmful. This strategy was rejected because
the initial engineering analysis indicated that
there would be too many "holes" in the lid to
make the evacuation of the gases economically
feasible.
Exclusion of Certain Vehicles From the CBD
If uncontrolled vehicles were banned from
the CBD, or if truck traffic were prohibited or
discouraged (by not being allowed the use of
loading zones during day-time hours), large
reductions could be achieved. Applications of
these strategies was rejected because it is too
discriminatory and would have an adverse
economic impact on the CBD.
Compliance schedules
The following outlines the anticipated an-
niversary dates for implementing the various
elements of the proposed strategies t
Retrofit
July 1, 1973: Legislature provides authority
to Department of Ecology for requiring retrofit.
December 30, 1973: Department of Ecology
adopts regulations implementing program.
March 1, 1974: Department of Ecology certi-
fies eligible retrofit control systems.
March 1, 1975: Retrofit required at time of
ownership transfer on all uncontrolled vehicles
(light duty and heavy duty) registered within
defined geographic area.
March 1, 1976: All uncontrolled vehicles must
retrofit according to the last number of the
license plate October=:0, November—1. etc.).
Vehicle Emission Inspection
July 1, 1973: Legislature provides authority
to Department of Ecology for requiring in-
spection.
December 30, 1973: Department of Ecology
adopts regulations implementing program,
including motor vehicle exhaust emission stand-
ards for carbon monoxide.
March 1, 1974: All government and fleet (3
or more) vehicles in King County must pass
an annual inspection at a State operated
facility.
March 1, 1975: All used vehicles offered for
sale and first registered within defined geo-
graphic area must pass an inspection at the
State operated facilities. Initiate program of
spot-checking dealers' lots to insure that
vehicles are not intentionally detuned. All |
retrofitted vehicles must be inspected annually !
on anniversary of retrofit. ]
SI GOP
June 15, 1973: Complete project. Issue
evaluation.
Car Pool Program
July 1, 1973: Legislature provides authority
to City of Seattle to regulate parking.
Initiate consultant selection process for
developing an experimental program to test
various elements of the system.
December 30, 1973: City budget adopted
with adequate funding to support first phase
effort.
City adopts ordinances to regulate parking
and adopts CBD parking plan.
July 1, 1974: Initiate experimental program
and begin evaluating effectiveness. Begin
development of expanded program. Deter-
mine manpower and resource needs to estab-
lish full-time service.
July 1, 1975: Implement full-scale pro-
gram which includes most CBD employees in
eligible population (assuming experimental
program successful).
Uniform Parking Rates and Driver Advisories
to Parking Facilities and Destinations
July 1, 19,73: Legislature provides authority
to City of Seattle to regulate parking.
Prepare prospectus for conducting a study
to determine cause and magnitude of "search"
type trips.
December 30, 1973: City adopts ordinances
to regulate parking and adopts CBD parkinu
plan.
Conclude study and evaluate findings. Initiate
plan formulation and establishment of local
improvement district.
July 1, 1974: Complete plan. Formally de-
velop local improvement district.
July 1, 1975: Execute program
Increase Transit Ridership
July 1, 1973: Legislature provides authority
to City of Seattle to regulate parking and sub-
mits constitutional amendment to vote of the
people.
Funding applications for TIAP submitted to
UMTA.
Studies initiated to determine sites for addi-
tional Park *n Ride lots.
December 30, 1973: City adopts ordinances
to regulate parking and adopts CBD parking
plan.
July 1, 1974: Additional funding applications
for TIAP submitted to UMTA.
Plans for development of additional Park 'n
Ride lots initiated.
July 1, 1975: Additional funding applications
for TIAP submitted to UMTA.
Acquisition and construction of additional
Park 'n Ride lots initated.
Program for Long-Range Planning
Role of Agencies
Different agencies in the Puu:et Sound legion
-------
72
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
will play a role in the Ions-range planning for
air quality control. These agencies include local
agencies such as the City of Seattle, as well as
regional, state and federal agencies.
On the regional scale, the Puget Sound Gov-
vernmental Conference will have a strategic
planning role as the agency responsible for
regional long-range transportation and land use
planning in the central Puget Sound region.
In addition, PSGC has the responsbility for
reviewing all applications for federal funding
of the Metropolitan Cities Development Act of
1966. Under this act, PSGC reviews projects
and certifies as to compliance with regional
policies, plans and programs. Further detailing
of PSGC plans, policies, and programs to in-
clude air quality requirements would ensure
that future federally funded studies and pro-
jects are compatible with air quality require-
ments of the central Puget Sound region. The
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, the
State Department of Ecology, and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency would be necessarily
involved with PSGC in specifying the long-
range air quality requirements and in helping
to define those PSGC plans, policies, and pro-
grams where these requirements would be in-
corporated.
Further, under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and the State Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1971, agencies are re-
quired to submit environmental impact state-
ments with regard to all decisions including
private developments under certain conditions,
which "significantly affect the environment."
In the future all agencies preparing and re-
viewing the draft impact statements will have
to develop an increased awareness and under-
standing of air pollution considerations.
Impact of New Transportation Technology
and Planning Concepts
With the development of cleaner internal
combustion engines, the reductions in air pollu-
tion per vehicle will be substantial. Off-setting
this is the steady forecasted increase in ve-
hicle travel. By 1990, for instance, vehicle miles
of travel in the CBD of Seattle are estimated
by the Puget Sound Government Conference to
increase some 30 percent over 1977 levels. This
estimate assumes a modest amount of growth
in employment (from 70,100 in 1970 to 105,400
in 1990) and an all-bus tran&it system as de-
scribed in the 1980 METRO Transit Plan.
Clearly, considerations other than the 1977
control strategy program are going to be nec-
essary for long-range decision making in the
City of Seattle.
The most likely future development that will
significantly impact transportation systems and
air quality is the emerging energy crisis.
Many oil industry sources and federal studies
are predicting that the world's known and
anticipated oil reserves will be depleted by the
end of this century, given our present con-
sumption rate. The crisis will probably follow
a classic pattern of significant increases in the
cost of fuel and then radical changes to new
technology. This will most probably result in
sophisticated mass transportation systems and
the application of many concepts now well
understood in the laboratory.
Several concepts merit attention:
(1) Telecommunications (i.e., picture phones
and advanced video systems using laser holo-
grams ) can impact considerably the need to
travel for business trips. There is every reason
to believe that this means of interaction may
substitute for a measurable amount of the
business travel in the Central Business District.
This innovation can also result in a decrease
in growth rates of high density nodes by mak-
ing possible more use of one's home as an office.
Decentralization will remove the inconvenience
of daily peak hours commuting through highly
congested corridors and thus reduce overall
travel and resultant air pollution.
(2) A "Personal Rapid Transit System" for
the CBD of Seattle offers a high potential for
reducing vehicular travel in the core area of the
CBD. A logical follow-up on development, more
regional in scope, would be a fixed guide-way
mass transportation system. This might even
include very high-speed ground transportation
through the Puget Sound-Willamette corridor
from Vancouver, British Columbia to Eugene,
Oregon. This offers the highest potential for re-
ducing area wide transportation-created air
pollution.
(3) I Amp: range Roods movement and pas-
[p. S4763]
senger transportation planning will definitely
need to be coordinated to develop comprehensive
transportation plans for the mobility of the
region. Combining the movement of freight on
fixed right-of-w ay with mass rapid transit in
the denser urban areas will result in a con-
siderable reduction in the amount of truck
traffic.
PART IV: F.MERr,EN
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
73
warning that a high air pollution potential
exists due to possible climatic conditions.
The second, or "alert," stage occurs when-
ever adverse meteorological conditions and
pollutants approach levels at which preventive
action becomes necessary. At this stage volun-
tary action by the public to reduce unnecessary
driving will be requested with encouragement
to use public transportation facilities.
The third, or "warning," stage occurs when
indications of further deterioration in air
duality are expected and more restrictive con-
trols are required (short-term health effects
possible). Voluntary actions will continue but
in those affected areas some restrictive traffic
control measures must be put into effect.
The final, or "emergency," stage occurs when
air quality continues to deteriorate to a level
where the most stringent control actions are
necessaiy to protect the public health from
substantial harm. The banning of all vehicles
from entering the area and even the closing of
businesses are possible control measures.
TABLE IV—1. Episode criteria
STAGE*, HOLLUTANT COA"CENTKATIOX**, AND
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Forecast: (Receipt of NWS air stagnation
advisory or indication that a high air pollution
*"Air Pollution Forecast": An internal
\\ atch by the Department of Air Pollution
Control shall be actuated by a National
Weather Service advisory that Atmospheric
Stagnation Advisoiy is in effect or the equiv-
alent local forecast of stagnant atmospheric
condition.
"Alert": The Alert level is that concentration
of pollutants at which first stage control
actions is to begin
"Warning". The Warning level indicates
that air quality is continuing to degrade and
that additional control actions arr necessary.
"Emergency": The Emergency level indi-
cates that air quality is continuing t'> degrade
toward a level of significant harm to the
health of persons and that the most stiingent
control actions are necessary
**The Stage is established when any one of
the designated concentrations is reached and
meteorological conditions are such the pollutant
concentrations can be expected to remain at
the above levels for twelve (12) or more hours
or increase unless control actions are taken,
or in the case of oxidant, to recur on the
follow ing day.
SotJRtE: Environmental Protection Agency
potential will exist). Notify all appropriate
traffic control agencies.
Alert: 15 ppm CO (8-Hr. Avi>.) or 0.1 ppm
Oxidant (1-Hr. Avg.) or O.G ppm NO, (24-hr.
Avg.) or 0.15 ppm NO2 (25-Hr. Avg.) Volun-
tary reduction of all necessary driving and
encouragement of utilization of public trans-
poration and facilities Preparations for warn-
ing level measures.
Warning: 30 ppm CO (8-Hr. Avg.) or 0-4
ppm Oxidant (1-Hr. Avg.) or 1.2 ppm NO2
(1-Hr. Avg.) or 0.3 ppm NO2 (24-hr. Avg.).
Minimizing traffic in traffic control areas
through rerouting and detouring procedures.
Continuing alert measures and possibly pro-
hibiting certain motor vehicle operations.
Emergency; -10 ppm CO (8-Hr. Avg.) or
0.6 ppm Oxidant (1-Hr. Avg.) or 1.6 ppm
NO^ (1-Hr. Avg.) or O.=l ppm NO^ (24-Hr.
Avg.). Stopping of all but emergency motor
vehicle operation.
Table IV-I outlines EPA's adopted (36 F.R.
15503) episode criteria for each stage, the
standards which empirically define each stage
and a brief outline of action which should he
taken to control pollution concentrations from
increasing to a more critical stage.
Each important pollutant has a system which
is to be implemented at various stages so as
to control and reduce the emission of that
pollutant.
In the Puget Sound Region, detailed pro-
grams called Source Emission Reduction Plans
(SERPS) have been formulated for the control
of sulfur dioxide and suspended particular
matter from industrial sources. The Washing-
ton State Air Quality Implementation Plan has
considerable detail on these procedures. This
addendum provides the details of episode pro-
cedures for control of motor vehicle generated
pollutants (i.e., carbon monoxide, oxidarits, and
hydrocarbons 1.
Emergency episode plan
Emission estimates presented in Part I in-
dicate that of the total inventoiy of air polJu-
tants approximately 95 percent of CO, HI pei-
cent of HC, 81 percent of NOX, 4 percent of
SO,,, and !•"> percent of the particulates are
caused by the various transportation modes
Therefoie, if an immediate reduction in < O,
HC, and NOX is lequired to curtail an eniei-
gency situation, then it must be made
through programs emphasizing the emer-
gency contiol of emissions from motor vehicles.
It is generally expected that high levels of
air pollution from motor vehicle emissions will
be limited to a small area. Assuming this is
correct, emergency control measures might then
be classified in the following manner:
(1) those which reduce emissions generated
by the vehicle engine
(2) those \\hich restrict the numbei or size
of emission sources
(3) those \\ hich restrict or increase the
mobility of the source.
-------
74
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
One must also keep in mind that these
strategies must be aimed at curtailing the ad-
vance of any progression to the next higher
stage, with emphasis placed on preventive
action rather than remedial action after the
fact. Each strategy will then become more
restrictive as air quality declines until control
measures become effective.
The following sections outline proposed guide-
lines recommended by the Department of Ecol-
ogy for instituting an Emergency Episode
Program. Those guidelines are being presented
at this time as potential elements of the pro-
gram. Over the next few months these ele-
ments will be refined and expanded so that a
more definitive system can be implemented. A
presentation of the Emergency Episode Pro-
gram in its final form is anticipated at the
end of the first semi-annual reporting period
(February 14, 1974).
Communications
The contingency plans for emergency epi-
sodes must include provisions for communica-
tions procedures for contacting public officials,
major sources, and news media. A proposal
for a short range program to be implemented
'during episodes is illustrated in Figure
IV-1. Estimated costs to implement this system
are included as part of the proposed system
for continuous surveillance outlined in Part V:
Surveillance Program.
Emergency traffic control area (ETCA)
In order to maximize the flexibility and
effectiveness of emergency control measures
for motor vehicle traffic, it is necessary that
these controls be limited to small, well defined,
areas where high pollution levels are concen-
trated. In other \\ords, there would be little
reason to ban the use of automobiles in West
Seattle or Ballard during an "emergency"
episode in the CBD. Emergency measures would
be required only in those areas where hazardous
pollution levels exist.
It is assumed that Seattle's Central Business
District is the ETCA in which emergency emis-
sion control strategies are to be first imple- j
mented. In refining the surveillance system and
establishing a clearer picture of Seattle's air
pollution problems, it will perhaps be necessary i
to redefine and expand the ETCA zones or j
establish other, separate, ETCA zones. Upon
receipt of more precise surveillance data, the
following criteria will be used to designate '
what the ETCA's should "he:
1. Boundaries should coincide with major
streets, highways, or other geographical fea-
tures geneially well known to the public. Maxi- [
mum attention should be given to defining
boundaries that are easily communicated by
the public information media
2. Consideration should be given to the
location of mass transit routes, majoi traffic
patteins, and population concentrations.
3. Consideration should be given to this
assumption in defining not only the core area
ETCA, but also in designating adjoining areas.
In some cases a concentric arrangement, each
ETCA partially or totally surrounding the
previous one, might be considered.
4. The number of ETCA should be mini-
mized in order to make the plan as uncompli-
cated as possible.
Based upon the "Episode Criteria" defined in
the previous table (Table IV-1), the differ-
ent episode stages require vaiying degrees of
action. The procedures recommended for each
episode stage present generalized strategies
and responsible agencies. These must be ad-
dressed in greater detail within the next year
before they can be successfully implemented.
Forecast stage
This stage occurs upon receipt of an Air
Stagnation Advisory from the Meterological
Support Unit of the National Weather Serv-
ice. Upon declaration of forecast conditions:
1. PSAPCA, DOE, EPA Region X are noti-
fied.
2. PSAPCA begins additional surveillance of
conditions.
3. No specific actions with regard to motor
vehicles will be required.
[p. S4764]
Alert stage
This stage occurs \\ hen the pollution levels
detailed in Table IV-1 are reached. Upon
declaration of an Alert condition:
1. The public is notified through various
media of the conditions and the necessary
steps to be taken. Public health officials, City
engineering departments and public trans-
portation officials will be notified of theii
responsibilities.
2. The public will be encouraged to utilize
public transportation and curtail or eliminate
the use of private motor vehicles within the
designated Emergency Traffic Control Area.
3. Public transportation systems will pro-
vide additional services to encourage greater
use of public transportation.
4. Preparations are initiated to take wain-
ing measures, if necessary.
.">. Additional monitoiing pollutant levels
instituted
Warning stage
Upon declaration of this stage:
1. The public is notified through various
media of the conditions and the necessary
steps to be taken. Public utilities, public
health officials, City engineering departments
and public transportation officials, \\ill be
notified of their responsibilities
2. Continue Alert measures
3. Motor vehicles carrying fewer than three
persons are to be prohibited from entei in •
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
75
or operating within the designated ETCA.
Exceptions would be public transportation,
emergency vehicles, commercial vehicles and
through traffic remaining on Interstate or
primary highways.
4. If ordered by DOE, operation of all pri-
vate vehicles within the ETCA may be pro-
hibited.
5, Maximum public transportation will be
provided, possibly at no cost.
6. Prepare to take emergency measures as
required.
Emergency state
Upon declaration of an emergency:
1. The public is notified through various
media of the conditions and the necessary
steps to be taken. Public utilities, public health
officials, City engineering departments and pub-
lic transportation officials will be notified of
their responsibilities.
2. All non-emergency use of motor vehicles
within the ETCA is prohibited.
Communications manual
A basic tool of the Emergency Episode Pro-
gram will be a Communications Manual for
use by those persons who must react and
implement the controls of each episode stage.
This manual will include, as a minimum, for
each episode stage:
1. Persons and organizations to be contacted
including individual names and telephone
numbers.
2. Actions to be taken by each official in-
volved in implementing1 the Plan,
3. Sample announcements hy the media and
press releases.
PAKT V : SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
Introduction
At present the ambient surveillance system
for carbon monoxide consists of one contin-
uously recording instrument in the downtown
area of the City of Seattle and one at 6770
East Marginal Way South, both operated by
the State Department of Ecology. Short term
monitoring has been performed for carbon
monoxide by the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency at the Westlake Mall and at
1—5 and Dearborn. These sites are shown in
Figure 1-2.
To base a decision as to \\hether a problem
exists on the data from a single station is,
of course, open to challenge. On the other
hand, no criteria have been established as to
\\hat an adequate number of stations would
be or where they should be located.
It is not possible to totally monitor an entire
area thought to be affected. However, com-
puterized atmospheric diffusion modeling, as
discussed in Part I, can provide a vital supple-
mentary effect since it permits the estimation
of the pollutant concentrations at points not
served by monitoring instruments. With dif-
fusion models, a more refined estimation of
the severity of the problem can be made than
is possible with the use of proportional form-
ulas. It is possible that adequate air quality
monitoring would show that the extent of trans-
portation controls needed is different from that
presently contemplated.
The need for real-time communications dur-
ing episodes is illustrated by the following ex-
ample. On October 16, 17, and 18, 1972, during
a forecast stage, there were 16 occasions when
the federal episode alert level for carbon mono-
xide was reached or exceeded at the James
Street monitoring station in Seattle. The sensor
used at this station is not connected to a real-
time system, and it was not possible to imple-
ment the notification strategies detailed in
Part IV.
Surveillance system
A minimum of seven nondispersive infrared
CO monitoring stations will be operated con-
tinuously in the Seattle area, three of which
would be located in the CBD. In addition, ten
nitrogen oxide monitors will be established in
the Puget Sound Intrastate region to provide
comprehensive monitoring. At present no hy-
drocarbon monitors which meet EPA specifi-
cations are available.
Meteorological and air quality data must also
be available to meteorologists and air pollution
engineers. These data must then be interpreted
and made available in usable form to the re-
sponsible control strategy authority.
PART VI: INrTEH-GOVERNMENT COOPERATION AM)
RESOURCES
Introduction
The task of controlling air pollution, because
of its magnitude, cannot be expected to be
carried out by a single agency. Since air pollu-
tion is an area- or region-wide problem its
solution is dependent upon a multitude of
responsibilities, skills and coordination. While
the City of Seattle can implement various strat-
egies, the City cannot be expected to beai the
full burden of the economic impact within its
own business community, nor can the City be
expected to provide a surveillance system and
sophisticated predictive air pollution and trans-
portation models for evaluating strategies and
air pollution. If an effective air quality im-
provement program is to be implemented the
City and the Department of Ecology must
involve other agencies in the solutions.
In developing this document, two committees
and a private consultant were the resources
\\hich the City and DOE depended upon. Al-
though such committees are essential to an
on-going program and should retain theii im-
portant role, the function provided by the
consultant should ultimately be replaced, in
kind, \\ith staff peisonnel and resources equip-
ped to implement the plan over the next five
years.
-------
76
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Systems management provides many tech- '
niques which are useful for designing a mech- j
anism by which many groups and elements can
be defined, resource requirements can be
be coordinated and monitored. With a system
defined, resource requirements can be deter-
mined and the elements of the control program
implemented. Using available management tools
for the air quality program, three basic sys-
tems can be identified. Those are: (1) Pro-
gram formulation and initiation, (2) Program
monitoring, updating and revisions, and (3)
Program implementation.
Program Formulation and Initiation
Part II: Citizen Involvement has described
the steps utilized in formulating this plan.
Figure II-l of Part II outlines past events
and future activities. Attainment of required
legislation, the formulation of regulations and
administration policies and the adoption of the
proposals of the plan herein by EPA are un-
finished events that remain to be completed in
the initiation phase. The resources depended
upon during the phase will include citizen
organizations, the Inter-Government Technical
Committee, and local and state legislative
bodies.
Program Monitoring, Updating and Revisions
The process illustrated in Figure VI-1 pro-
vides a means by which program control and
effectiveness can be monitored, evaluated, up-
dated and revised. As is indicated in Figure
VI-1, many agencies are involved in the various
parts of that process.
The first element involves weather surveil-
lance and air pollution monitoring. The De-
partment of Ecology is presently seeking a
revision of its current fund grant from EPA
in order to provide the surveillance described
in Part V. One output from the monitoring
system will be the quarterly air quality
report.
If monitoring indicates the strategies are
working to improve air quality then the pro-
gram will continue without revision. However,
if thp air quality does not appear to be re-
sponding to the plan, the City and DOE must
take steps to expand the program and include
other strategies.
If, and when, new strategies are developed,
public hearings and EPA approval are required
before this plan can be amended. Upon adop-
tion of the new strategy, emplementation,
monitoring and review will continue in a cyclic
manner until the air quality goals are achieved
and maintained.
Program Implementation
The third system is the implementation of
the control strategies recommended in Part
IJ1: Transportation Control Program. Table
VI-1 provides a summary of work to be com-
pleted for each strategy, estimated cost for
the first two years, potential funding sources
and agencies responsible for implementation.
EPA (36 F.R. 15493) request projections of
the extent to which resources will be acquired
as 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals. Table VI-1
represents the first two years of the imple-
mentation program. To proceed with estimates
for those strategies such as carpools, transit
incentives, and parking controls without know-
ing the details and results of the first
two years of stud y and exp erience would
be difficult to justify. Therefore, cost
estimates beyond the first two years are
being deferred until more meaningful estimates
can be made.
[p. S4765]
APPENDIX A—GENERAL FACTS ABOUT Six
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
Source: "A Citizens Guide to Clean Air",
The Conservation Foundation; Washington,
B.C.; January, 1972.
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OXIDES OF SULFUR
Major source: fuel combustion.
Minor sources: chemical plants, metal proc-
essing, trash burning.
Nature: Sulfur is a nonmetallic element
found in coal and fuel oil. When these fuels
are burned, sulfur joins with oxygen in the
air to form gaseous oxides of sulfur, including
dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (80s).
Effects: Sulfur oxides, in combination with
moisture and oxygen, can yellow the leaves of
plants, dissolve marble, and eat away iron and
steel. They can limit visibility and cut down
the light from the sun. They can affect man's
breathing: at sufficiently high concentrations,
sulfur dioxide irritates the upper respiratory
tract; at even lower concentrations, when
carried on particulates, it appears able to do
greater harm by injuring lung tissue.
Conclusions found in the federal criteria doc-
ument: The criteria Resume for sulfur oxides
reports that increased mortality occurred when
the annual geometric mean was as high as ll->
micrograms per cubic meter. Adverse effects
can be detected when SOX pollution exceeds
certain levels for short periods of time. These
effects are especially evident in the case of
sulfur dioxide. Levels of 300 micrograms per
cubic meter of SO2 for three or four days have
been associated with a variety of adverse health
effects.
^ HAT WE KNOW ABOUT PARTICULAR [MATTER
Source: Pollutants can exist as solid mat-
ter, liquid droplets, or gas. Both the solid and
liquid matter are called particulates (which
simply means particles in the atmosphere)
Solid particulates consist of dust, smoke or
fumes; liquid particulates are mists and
sprays. Particulate pollution results from
many kinds of industrial and agricultural op-
erations and from combustion products, in-
cluding automobile exhausts.
Effects: Particulate matter in the respira-
tory tract may produce injury by itself, or it
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
77
eo"
_i
O
0
CO
r*»
0)
CO
LU
C3
Ul
i
h-
h-
UJ
&
_J
n
S
O
Y-
CO
LLl
1-
te
UJ
t-
1IM1NARY COS
1.— PRE
LU
_l
CO
<
t-
>>
o
c
O)
M
TO
O)
.O
'to
c
o
Q.
V)
CD
OS
V)
OJ
1
o
W
C
•S
c
3
**~
15
a)
£
(A
O
O
0
_CD
'o1
Q.
•o
0)
CO
E
0)
£
O
h-
i performed
.a
o
^
i-
o
5
o
o
5
§
-2
0 ">a«i t
5 ^ =• • oi T,
0 !!«>§ E s
of £">" ™
£; „; o°gO- $ aJai
' ul 5 isSr "S £*
O S 1J ° COQ ... £ . » CD
™ , , c £ o f , c
QJ — *-*3 c CD
C . 0 3 M
a g gg .r ; s
*• i~ *~ -^""D ^ ' "(i
£ S ^£§ S
J3 , S SUJ^ = Q
m o o : a---! i <
D- , S S ^-^ Q_
uj z) rs o uJ
o
•5 2 : "
° uj . __E
i; _ o . -g31
ag "^ T=^.i£
w'S *" m cuj^
S S •= £ , 105 —
„•- ™M _^^
73 E ^ E «
-".lo =•» So"
HI! 11 , i flit i
•^ojco — CD~O o o.nco o
w> — '-L o.»- c m •- .— oT « — P •*- ^cuiro0-^ Q.**- o oj ro "• = 3
J3 .O 0x^1^3 3 J3 £.
OO
-------
78
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
may act in conjunction with gases, altering '
their sites or their modes of action. Particles
suspended in the air scatter and absorb sun-
light, reducing the amount of solar energy
reaching the earth, producing hazes and re-
ducing visibility. Particulate air pollution j
causes a wide range of damage to materials, j
It may chemically attack materials through I
its own intrinsic corrosivity or through the
corrosivity of substances absorbed or ad-
sorbed by it. Merely by soiling materials and
thereby necessitating more frequent clean-
ing, particulates can accelerate deterioration.
Conclusions found in the federal criteria
document: The criteria Resume reports that
adverse health effects were noted when the
annual geometric mean for particulate mat-
ter reached 80 micrograms per cubic meter.
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CARBOX MONOXIDE
Major source: Internal combustion engines
in motor vehicles, primarily the automobile.
Minor sources: various industrial processes,
solid waste disposal.
Nature: Carbon monoxide, an invisible,
odorless, and tasteless gas, is formed when
any carbon-containing fuel (gasoline, coal,
and so on) is not completely burned to
carbon dioxide (CO0), but only half-way to
carbon monoxide (CO). Because of its char-
acteristics, the internal combustion engine,
especially in cars, is responsible for by far
the largest fraction of man-made emissions
of carbon monoxide.
Effects: Compared to other common air
pollutants, carbon monoxide has a unique
mechanism of action. It does not irritate the
respiiatory tract but rather passes through
the lungs directly into the blood stream.
There it combines with the red blood cell's
hemoglobin, the substance that normally
carries oxygen to all the tissues of the body.
Because hemoglobin binds carbon monoxide
over 200 times as strongly as oxygen, a low
concentration of carbon monoxide in the
ambient air has a greatly magnified effect
on the body. Since the heal t and brain are
the two tissues most sensitive to oxygen
depiivation, they sho\\ the most serious ef-
fects from carbon monoxide exposure. Thus
at high concentration (1000 ppm and more),
carbon monoxide kills by paralyzing normal
brain function. At much lo\\er levels, effects
on these two tissues are also the predominate
ones (see belo\\ ).
Because of its unique mode of action, car-
bon monoxide is not known to have adverse
effects on vegetation, visibility, or material
objects.
Conclusions found in the federal ci iteiia
document: The criteria Resume reports that
exposure to 35 mg/m"1 (30 ppm) will, aftei
a few hours, inactivate about ~->'/r of the
blood's hemoglobin, thus lowering its oxygen
content. This loss can impair performance on
certain psychomotor tests, indicating a sig-
nificant effect on brain function. At higher
exposures, excess strain is put on patients
with heart disease. Exposure to 12-17 mg/m3
(10-15 ppm) for several hours also affects the
brain by altering time interval discrimina-
tion. In addition, there is some very prelimi-
nary evidence that at even lower weekly aver-
age levels of carbon monoxide (9-16 mg/m3 or
8-14 ppm), people hospitalized for heart at-
tacks have increased death rates.
\\ HAT \\E KNOW ABOUT PHO FOCHEMICAI
OXIDANTS
Nature: Photochemical oxidants are sever-
al different pollutants (notably ozone and a
group of chemicals called peioxyacylnitrates
or PAN) \\hich can come from several sources.
All of those pollutants share three proper-
ties:
1. They are all foimed by the chemical re-
action of other pollutants ("-chemical").
2. The reactions forming them proceed
much more rapidly in aieas with intense sun-
light ("photo-").
3. They are extremely reactive chemical
substances, acting as oxidizing agents ("oxi-
dants") .
Among the most effective combinations for
producing this class of pollutants are the
oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbon
(organic) vapors. Los Angeles, with its sun-
ny climate and high number of cars, offers
extremely good conditions for the pioduction
of photochemical oxidants, and in fact this
pollution comprises the main part of that
city's infamous smog. It is not confined to
Los Angeles, however. The constituents of
photochemical smog can now be readily dr-
tected in many metropolitan areas.
Effects: The various components of photo-
chemical oxidants can have several adverse
effects. First, they can directly affect the
lungs and eyes of people, causing i espiratovy
irritation and possibly changes in lung func-
tion, as well as subjective eye irritation. They
are extremely toxic to many kinds of plants,
affecting primarily the leaves In addition.
they can physically weaken such materials
as lubber and fabrics
Conclusions found in the federal criteria
document • The critei ia Resume for photo-
chemical oxidants reports impairment of the
peiformance of student athletes occuiied
over a range of hourly oxidant levels fiom
60-590 /ig/nr1 (0.03-03 ppm). Increased fre-
quence of attacks in some people with
asthma have been observed when hourly aver-
ages, as determined from peak measure-
ments, were 100-120 /ig/m3 (0.05-0.06 ppm)
Eye irritation occurs in people at once upon
exposure to about 200/ier/mn (0,10 ppm) . this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
79
is roughly equivalent to an hourly average of
60-100 /ig/m3 (0.03-0.05).
Adverse effects on vegetation have been
noted at levels of about 100 ng/m3 (0.05
ppm) maintained for four hours. Damage to
materials, while clearly observed at levels
present in many cities, has not been accu-
rately quantiated at this time.
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HYDROCARBONS
Major source: internal combustion engines
in motor vehicles, primarily the automobile
Minor sources: evaporation of organic sol-
[p. S4766]
vents (from painting, dry cleaning, etc.),
agricultural burning, gasoline marketing
Effects: At levels of hydrocarbons currently
measured in urban areas, no adverse human
effects are known to be caused by the hydro-
carbons in isolation. However, as discussed
in the section on photochemical oxidants,
hydrocarbons are an extremely important
component of photochemical oxidants, whose
effects have been observed. Thus the effects
of photochemical oxidants can be, in part,
traced back to the hydrocarbons. These, out-
lined earlier, include respiratory irritation,
plant damage, and damage to materials.
Certain specific hydrocarbons do have
other effects. Ethylene, for example, damages
plants ; it can inhibit growth and cause the
leaves and flowers to fall.
Conclusions found in the federal criteria
document: The criteria Resume clearly states
that damaging levels of photochemical oxi-
dants are directly related to concentrations
of hydrocarbons in the air which are, if
alone, without effect. The Resume states that
hydrocarbon concentrations (excluding meth-
ane) of 200 /ig/m* (0.3 ppm as carbon) for
three hours may produce photochemical oxidant
levels of up to 200 tfg/m3 (0.10 ppm) a few
Hours later. If the relationship holds true at
lower levels of photochemical oxidant known
to be damaging, the hydrocarbon concentra-
tion that may be associated with adverse effects
is about 100 /ig/m3 (0.15 ppm).
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OXIDES OF XITROOEN
Major source: fuel combustion
Minor source: chemical plants
Nature: Nitrogen gas, normally a relatively
inert (unreactive) substance, comprises
about 80 percent of the air around us. At
high temperatures (and also under certain
other conditions), it can combine with the
oxygen in the air to form several different
gaseous compounds collectively called the
oxides of nitrogen (NO2). Nitric oxide (NO)
and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the two most
important.
Effects: Until recently, it has been dif-
ficult to obtain equip ment that can detect
the oxides of nitrogen in polluted air. There-
fore, less is known about these effects than
is known, for example, about the effects of
oxides of sulfur. Nevertheless, it is clear that
the oxides of nitrogen can, at certain concen-
trations, cause serious injury to vegetation,
including the bleaching or death of plant
tissue, the loss of leaves, and a reduced
growth rate. Oxides of nitrogen can also cause
fabric dyes to fade and fabrics themselves to
deteriorate. Nitrate salts, formed from the
oxides of nitrogens, have been associated
with the corrosion of metals. Finally, NOX
can reduce visibility.
Certain members of this group of pollut-
ants are known to be highly toxic to various
animals, as well as to man. High levels can
kill; lower levels affect the delicate structure
of lung tissue. This leads, in experimental
animals, to a lung disease that resembles
emphysema in man. Exposure to NOX lowers
the resistance of animals to such diseases
as pneumonia and influenza ; the same may
possibly occur in man. Exposure to high
levels causes humans to suffer lung irritations
and potential damage. Exposure of people to
lower levels has been associated w ith in-
creased respiratory disease.
In addition, oxides of nitrogen, in the pres-
ence of sunlight, can react with hydrocar-
bons to form photochemical oxidants.
Conclusions found in the federal criteria
document: The criteria Resume states that a
higher incidence of chronic bronchitis has
been found in children living in areas where
daily averages of NO,, varied from 118 to 156
/ig/m3 (0.062 to 0.083 ppm) and \vhere nitrate
salts in the air were also at elevated levels.
Adverse effects on plants have been ob-
served when NO2 levels exceed 470 /ig/m3
(0.25 ppm) for several months. Corrosion
and damage to electrical equipment has oc-
curred when elevated levels of nitrate salts
and NOX levels of 124 to 158 /ig/m3 (0.066 to
0.084 ppm) were present. Limited evidence
suggests that somewhat higher levels of NOX
(roughly 214 /ig/m3 or 0.11 ppm) in the
morning hours may be associated, under cer-
tain conditions, \\ith the production later
in the day of photochemical oxidant levels
harmful to human health.
APPENDIX B- -POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION
STRATEGIES To REDUCE SEATTLE CBD AIR
POLLUTION
This list displays the 50 most desirable
strategies based upon intuitive estimation of
(1) desirability (2) economic impact and (3)
social impact. Work sheets listing 135 pos-
sible strategies were evaluated by:
a. Environmentalists .. . _ _ _ 7
b. Businessmen 12
c. Transportation and Land Planners . - - 6
d. Design Engineers 3
-------
80
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
This population, though limited, consti-
tutes a representative mix of interests and
professions.
1. Provide better transit transfer informa-
tion.
2. Provide a shop 'n ride transit incentive
plan.
3. Build more transit shelters and informa-
tion signing.
4. Better progressed signals to increase flow
of all traffic (e.g. SIGOP).
5. Encourage fleet vehicles to use new
power vehicles (e.g. LPG & LNG fuel).
6. Pursue means to encourage construc-
tion and use of smaller vehicles.
7. PRT through Seattle CBD between Seat-
tle Center and stadium.
8. Experiment with new power systems and
vehicles; test effectiveness on government
fleet; proceed with programs to encourage
private industry and business to use new sys-
tems once they have been proven effective by
governmental agencies.
9. Build more outlying park'n ride lots.
10. Reinstate electric trolley or similar low
polluting vehicle as CBD shuttles.
11. Encourage auto industries to continue
developing and installing air pollution con-
trol devices on new vehicles.
12. PUT between major east-west parking
complexes.
13. Exclusive bus lanes (e.g. 2nd and 4th
Avenue wrong way transit service).
14. Increase CBD shuttle service.
15. Reduce cost, as an incentive, to increase
the use of non-leaded or low-lead fuels (e.g.
reduce gas tax 2$ a gallon on low-pollutant
fuel.)
16. Construct CBD peripheral parking lots
(on fringe of CBD) with shuttle system serv-
ing internal CBD.
17. Improve transit equipment for comfort,
speed and privacy.
18. Provide a flexible transit transfer pro-
gram.
19. 1-90 implementation.
20. Improve public information signing to
and from parking nodes of CBD.
21. Remove or restrict on-street parking
during peak hours to improve transit flow.
22. Connecticut Street improvement (sta-
dium) .
23. Limit horsepower on vehicles.
24. Provide compatible transit service to
augment staggered work hours and/or days.
25. Promote and enhance in-town living.
26. Enforce existing visible emission law.
27. For transit routes progress signals to
benefit transit flow.
28. CBD transit free fare zone.
29. Increase transit advertising.
30. 1-5 freeway ramp metering and sur-
veillance and driver information.
31. New signals, intersection improvements,
street widening, etc. (TOPICS program).
32. Transit Mall (e.g. 3rd Avenue and 1st
Avenue).
33. Drive auto to park and ride lots, get
free ride to CBD.
34. Remove on-street parking during peak
periods only to increase streets' carrying ca-
pacity for all vehicles.
35. Priority lane and ramp usage for car
pools on freeways and city streets during
peak periods.
36. Seattle Center traffic control system im-
provements.
37. Reroute low usage buses to express
routes to carry peak loads.
38. Increase the amount of open space in
CBD (i.e. more parks).
39. Sponsor an inspection program (experi-
mental) on government fleet vehicles only;
identify problems and refine program, then
apply program on a statewide level.
40. Intensify efforts on new studies to gen-
erate a better understanding where demands
are and transit service can be improved.
41. Combine retro fit inspection with safety
inspection.
42. A joint governmental and/or private
agency program for matching up carpool
partners (carpool matching program).
43. Establish governmental demonstration
transit user subsidy programs in discount
rate for employees who use transit and not
auto. If effective, encourage private agencies
to adopt program.
44. Instead of individual charges for each
transit ride, bill users through a credit card
reader system.
45. Provide student, elderly, underprivi-
leged special transit fare program.
46. Encourage all vehicles to use new pow-
er systems and fuel sources.
47. Adopt a program to retrofit all vehicles,
48. Establish a state inspection program,
but begin with a program that provides a
mobile source control (moving and random
inspection) and then take steps to imple-
ment fixed stations with annual (or semi-
annual) inspection requirements.
49. Through zoning let new developments
satisfy its parking needs through sponsor-
ing an employee transit subsidy program.
50. Increase transit only lanes on freeways.
51. Reduce existing downtown parking as
j transit services increase.
; 52. Restrict left and right turns at critical
j intersections to speed up traffic flow.
APPENDIX C- CALCULATIONS OF EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
The CBD area used in these computations
corresponds to Zone 21. It is a one-mile
squaie with borders approximately at Denny
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
81
Way on the north, Boren Avenue on the east,
Yesler Way on the south and Alaskan Way on
the west.
A model of the 1977 traffic in this area, de-
veloped by A. M. Voorhees Associates for the
EPA study outlined in Part I, was utilized in
calculating the reductions in carbon mon-
oxide emissions that will occur with imple-
mentation of the various control strategies.
Actual vehicle count in 1971, studies con-
ducted as a part of the METRO Plan de-
velopment and estimates of traffic growth led
to the assignment of vehicle counts to par-
ticular streets within the area and an esti-
mate of the average speeds on those streets.
For example, an all day average speed of 50
mph was assigned to Freeway traffic. North-
south streets in the northern parts of the
area are assigned an average speed of 20
mph, and east-west streets in the southern
CBD are assigned an average speed of 12
mph.
[p. S4767]
Analysis of the travel on these streets gave
the following distribution:
TABLE C-l.
Average speed
1977 average
Vehicle (gms/mile)
miles emissions
50 m.p.h.
25 m.p.h.
20 m.p.h.
18 m.p.h.
15 m.p.h.
12 m.p.h.
Total
79,700
1,300
94,100
21,600
900
22,700
"220,300
20.5
33.8
41.6
44.8
52.3
62.3
The census of employment in the CBD
conducted by the Puget Sound Governmental
Conference leads to the estimate of 64,000
employees in the CBD in 1977.
The "Blue Streak Phase II Interim Re-
port" indicates that the average occupancy
in automobiles entering the CBD is approxi-
mately 1.4.
The installation of the SI GOP system is
anticipated to improve average speeds in the
CBD by 2 miles per hour on many streets.
This redistributes the vehicle miles traveled
into new strata as follows:
TABLE C-2.
Vehicle
Average speed: miles
50 mph -
25 mph
22 mph
20 mph
18 mph
15 mph -
14 mph
12 mph
79,700
1,300
63,200
49,300
3,300
900
19,700
3,000
220,300
Applying the emission factors gives a sav-
ings of approximately 430 kgms/8hr/mi2 of
CO emissions.
INCREASE TRANSIT RIDEKSHIP
Improvements in the METRO program
could shift 24,100 new riders (48,200 trips)
to buses. This would mean a proportional
reduction of 11,300 vehicle miles traveled and
the elimination of approximately 380 kgm/
8hr/mi2 of CO. This assumes that 50 per-
cent of the 64,000 employees will ride the
bus.
CAR POOLS
If the remaining 32,000 employees will
travel 1.7 to the vehicle, rather than the
present 1.4, an additional 3,700 vehicles will
be removed from the roads and 2,400 vehicle
miles of travel will be eliminated. This gives
a reduction of approximately 80 kgm/Shr/mi2
of CO.
UNIFORM PARKING RATES AND DRIVER
ADVISORIES
Studies in Los Angeles have estimated
that as much as 20 percent of CBD traffic
is unnecessary travel due to driver confusion,
indirection or shopping for parking. If this
20 percent is divided equally between these
three items and this program is presumed
to eliminate about one-fourth the traffic in
the first two categories and one-half of the
latter, then 5 percent of the street traffic
would disappear. This would be a reduction
of 6,600 vehicle miles traveled and a reduc-
tion in emissions of about 280 kgm/8hr/mi2.
Retrofit and Inspection
Government and fleet vehicles compose ap-
proximately 7 percent of the light duty ve-
hicle population and 19 percent of the heavy
duty vehicle population. Inspection can re-
duce emissions by 10 percent.
Approximately 20 percent of all vehicles
are sold in any one year. If these vehicles
are inspected, their emissions will be reduced
by 10 percent.
Installing an "Air Bleed to Intake Mani-
fold" control device will reduce CO emissions
from that vehicle by approximately 60 per-
cent. As these are installed on vehicles total
emissions will reduce.
These programs will result in a reduction
of emissions from light duty vehicles of
680 kgm/8hr/mi2 and from heavy duty ve-
hicles of 420 kgm/Shr/mi3.
More complete and detailed calculations
are included in the technical report from
A. M. Voorhees & Associates to the Depart-
ment of Ecology.
-------
82
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
APPENDIX D—PROPOSED LEGISLATION
AN ACT RELATING TO AIR POLLUTION, ADDING
NEW SECTIONS TO CHAPTER 70.94 RCW
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the
State of Washington:
New section. Section 1. The legislature
finds that the emission of contaminants from
motor vehicles is a significant cause of air
pollution in the state. The severity of the
air pollution problem resulting from motor
vehicles emissions varys from area to area
in the state influenced by the degree of
urbanization, volume of motor vehicle usage,
topography, climate, metropolitan traffic
pattern design and traffic flow regulation,
among other factors. The legislature declares
that there is a need to identify those areas
where motor vehicle emissions should be re-
duced in order to insure that applicable
ambient air quality standards are not ex-
ceeded and to reduce such emissions in the
areas identified.
New section. Section 2. The purpose of this
act is to provide authority to the director
of the department of ecology to identify those
areas where motor vehicle emissions should
be reduced in order to insure that applicable
ambient air quality standards are not ex-
ceeded and to adopt rules and approve pro-
grams necessary to so reduce such emissions
in the areas identified.
New section. Section 3. For the purposes of
this act the following meanings unless con-
text clearly dictates otherwise:
1. "Department" shall mean department
of ecology.
2. "Director" shall mean director of the
department of ecology.
3. "Exhaust emissions" shall mean sub-
stances emitted to the atmosphere from any
opening downstream from the exhaust port
of a motor vehicle engine.
4. "Motor vehicle" shall mean every vehicle
which is self-propelled and every vehicle
which is propelled by electric power obtained
from overhead trolley wires, and which is
designed and intended primarily for use on
public highways.
5. "Public highway" shall mean every way,
lane, road, street, boulevard and every
way or place open as a matter of right to
public vehicular travel both inside and out-
side the limits of incorporated cities and
towns.
New section. Section 4. Whenever, on the
basis of acceptable monitoring data, the
director shall find:
1. any ambient air quality standards are
being exceeded in any aiea, and; I
2. after consideration of emission reduc- j
tions that will result from the application of !
Federal motor vehicle emission standards,
that the degree of emission reduction neces-
sary to obtain and maintain the standards
identified in (1) cannot be achieved within
four years of the effective date of this act
without the application of additional meas-
ures for controlling motor vehicle emissions;
the director shall by rule identify the area
where such conditions exist and delimit a
broader area including and surrounding the
problem area to which additional measures to
reduce motor vehicle emissions shall apply.
New section. Section ,1. After compliance
\\ ith the provisions of Section 4 above, the
director shall adopt rules for the reduction
of motor vehicle emissions applicable to the
area identified as requiring additional meas-
ures to reduce such emissions. Such rules may
include but are not limited to:
1. The establishment of exhaust emission
standards for gasoline powered motor vehicles
registered and operated primarily in the reg-
ulated area. Such standards may vary by
motor vehicle class, model year, engine dis-
placement, emission control system type or
other pertinent variables.
2. A requirement that all gasoline powered
motor vehicles or any class thereof, registered
and operated primarily in the regulated area
\\hich are not equipped with an emission
control system be retrofitted with such a sys-
tem, certified as provided in section 6, below,
by a specified date. Any such requirements
shall be adopted only in conjunction with a
requirement for inspection of retrofitted ve-
hicles prior to their operation in the regu-
lated area and at least annually thereafter.
3- The establishment of inspection require-
ments for all gasoline powered motor vehicles
or any class thereof registered and operated
primarily in the regulated area. Such require-
ments may provide for inspections to be con-
ducted at time of transfer of ownership and/
or annually and/or after retrofit with emis-
sion control systems. Inspection lequirements
established hereunder shall require that ve-
hicles meet the exhaust emission standards
established pursuant to subsection (1) here-
of, under test piocedures approved by the
department.
New section. Section 6. Retrofit of gasoline
powered motor vehicles pursuant to any rule
adopted under this chapter shall only be
accomplished by the installation of an emis-
sion control system certified as to adequacy
by the director. Certification shall be made
on demonstration satisfactory to the director
by any supplier or manufacturer of such de-
vice that use of the device will result in
achievement of exhaust emission standards.
New section. Section 7. In relation to any
inspection system established hereunder, the
inspection program shall be administered by
the department of ecology. To implement
such a program the director may acquire
land by purchase, ffift or condemnation -\\ilh
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
83
or without structure thereon. In the event j
land is acquired by condemnation the same I
shall be acquired in the manner provided by i
law for the acquisition of private property for
public use. The director is empowered to
erect structures and acquire and install such
equipment and mechanical devices as shall
from time to time be necessary and conveni-
ent for the inspection program.
New section. Section 8. In the implemen-
tation of any inspection program established
hereunder, the director shall provide for the
issuance of certificates of acceptability to the
registered owners of vehicles passing inspec-
tion. A copy of each such certificate shall
be filed with the director of the department
of motor vehicles immediately upon its issu-
ance to a registered owner. The director of
the department of motor vehicles shall have
authority to withhold renewal of the certifi-
cate of license registration and license plates
for any motor vehicle for which he does not
have on file a current and effective certifi-
cate of acceptability.
New section. Section 9. Nothing in this
chapter and in any rules adopted pursuant
hereto shall apply to or be construed to apply
to the first sale of any motor vehicle at retail
or any events prior in time to such first sale.
New section. Section 10. This chapter and
any rules adopted pursuant hereto shall have
no application to any vehicles not designed
and intended primarily for use on public
highways.
New section. Section 11. This act is neces-
sary for the immediate preservation of the
public place, health and safety, the support
of state government and its existing institu-
tions and shall take effect immediately.
[p. S4768]
New section. Section 12. If any provision of
this act, its application to any person or cir-
cumstance is held invalid, the remainder of
the act, or the application of the provision
to other persons or circumstances, is not
affected.
AN AIT RELATING TO THE SPECIAL FUEL TAX,
AMENDING RCW 82.38.030
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the
State of Washington.
Section 1. Section 4, Chapter 17o, Laws of '
1971, as amended by Section 2, Chapter 135, ,
Laws of 1972 and RCW 82.38.030 are each |
amended to read as follows:
(1) There is hereby levied and imposed
upon special fuel users a tax of nine cents
per gallon or each one hundred cubic feet of
compressed natural gas measured at stand-
ard pressure and temperature on the use
(within the meaning of the \\ord use as de-
fined herein) of special fuel in any motor
vehicle: Provided, That in order to encourage
experimentation \\ith non-polluting fuels, no
tax shall be imposed upon the use of natural
gas or on liquefied petroleum gas, commonly
called propane, [which is used in a fleet of
three or more motor vehicles until July 1,
1975.] which is used by a vehicle registered
in the State of Washington before July 1,
1975.
(2) Said tax shall be collected by the spe-
cial fuel dealer and shall be paid over to the
department as hereinafter provided: (a)
With respect to all special fuel delivered by
a special fuel dealer into supply tanks of
motor vehicles or into storage facilities used
for the fueling of motor vehicles at unbonded
service stations in this state; or (b) in all
other transactions where the purchaser in-
dicates in writing to the special fuel dealer
prior to or at the time of the delivery that
the entire quantity of the special fuel cov-
ered by the delivery is for use by him for a
taxable purpose as a fuel in a motor vehicle
(3) Said tax shall be paid over to the de-
partment by the special fuel user as herein-
after provided: (a) With respect to special
fuel upon which the tax has not previously
been imposed which was acquired in any
manner other than by a special fuel dealer
into a fuel supply tank of a motor vehicle in
this state; or (b) in all transactions with a
special fuel dealer in this state \\ here a
written statement has not been furnished to
the special fuel dealer as set forth in sub-
section (2) (b) of this section.
It is expressly provided that delivery of
special fuel may be made without collecting
the tax otherwise imposed, when such de-
liveries are made by a special fuel dealer to
special fuel users who are authorized bv tho
department as hereinafter provided, to pur-
chase fuel without payment of tax to the
special fuel dealer.
STATE OF WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE
Be it resolved, by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the State of Washing-
ton, in legislative session assembled:
That, At the next general election to be
held in this state there shall be submitted to
the qualified voters of the state for their
approval and ratification, or rejection, an
amendment to Article 2, by repealing section
•10, Amendment 18 thereof as follows:
Section 40, Article II and Amendment IN
of the Constitution of the State of Washing-
ton are each hereby repealed.
Be it further resolved. That the secretary
of state shall cause notice of the foregoing
constitutional amendment to lie published at
least four times during the four weeks next
preceding the election in every legal ne\\ s-
paper in the state.
-------
84
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
STATE OF WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE
An act relating to cities of the first, second
and third class , amending section 35.86.040,
chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended by
section 13, chapter 204, Laws of 1969 ex.
sess. and ROW 35.86.040; amending section
35.86.060, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 and
RCW 35.86.060; amending section 9,
chapter 204, Laws of 1969 ex. sess. and
RCW 35.86A.Q9Q; amending section 7,
chapter 204. Laws of 1969 ex. sess. and
RCW 35.86A.070; amending section 12,
chapter 204, Laws of 1969 ex. sess. and
RCW 35.86A.120 ; and repealing section 11,
chapter 204, Laws of 1969 ex. sess. and
RCW 35.86A.110
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the
State of Washington:
Section 1. Section 35.86.040, chapter 7,
Laws of 1965 as amended by section 13,
chapter 204, Laws of 1969 ex. sess. and RCW
35.86.040 are each amended to read as
follows:
Such cities are authorized to establish the
method of operation of off-street parking
space and/or facilities by ordinance, which
may include leasing or municipal operation:
Provided, however, That ( (no) ) if a city with
a population of more than one hundred
thousand shall ( (operate) ) lease any such
off-street parking space and/or facilities
( (but) ) it shall call for sealed bids from re-
sponsible, experienced, private operators of
such facilities for the operation thereof. The
call for bids shall specify the terms and con-
ditions under which the facility will be leased
for private operation. The call for bids shall
specify the time and place at which the bids
will be received and the time when the same
will be opened, and such call shall be ad-
vertised once a week for the successive weeks
before the time fixed for the filing of bids in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city.
The competitive bid requirements of this sec-
tion shall not apply in any case where such
a city shall grant a lone:-term negotiated
lease of any such facility to a private oper-
ator on the condition that the tenant-opera-
tor shall construct, a substantial portion of
the facility or the improvements thereto,
which construction and/or improvements
shall become the property of the city on ex-
piration of the lease. If no bid is received
for the operation of such an off-street park-
ing facility, or if none of the bids received
are satisfactory, the legislative body of the
city may reject all bids, in the latter case,
and in both situations shall readvertise the
facility for lease. In the event that no bids
or no satisfactory bids shall have been re-
ceived following the second advertising the
city may negotiate with a private operator
for he operaion o he aciliy wihou com-
petitive bidding. In the event the city shall
be unable to negotiate for satisfactory private
operation within a reasonable time, the city
may operate the facility ( (for a period not to
exceed three years at which time it shall re-
advertise as provided above in this section) ).
Sec. 2. Section 35.86.060, chapter 7, Laws of
1965 and RCW 35.86.060 are each amended to
read as follows;
The lease referred to in RCW 35.86.040 shall
specify a schedule of minimum and maxi-
mum parking fees which the operator may
change. This minimum and maximum park-
ing fee schedule may be modified from time
to time by agreement of the city and the
operator.
Sec. 3. Section 9, chapter 204, Laws of 1969
ex. sess. and RCW 35.86A.090 are each
amended to read as follows:
The city may:
(1) Transfer control of off-street parking1
facilities under other departments to the
parking commission under such conditions as
deemed appropriate ;
(2) Issue revenue bonds pursuant to chap-
ter 35.41 RCW, and RCW 35.24.305, and 35.-
81.100 as now or hereafter amended, and such
other statutes as may authorize such bonds
for parking facilities authorized herein ;
(3) Issue general obligation bonds pur-
suant to chapters 39.44, 39.52 RCW, and RCW
35.81.115 as now or hereafter amended, and
such other statutes and applicable provisions
of the state constitution that may authorize
such bonds for parking facilities authorized
herein :
(4) Appropriate funds for the parking
commission; { (and) )
(5) Specify a. schedule of minimum and
maximum parking fees which the operator
of ani/ off-street parking facility 'man charf/c,
and
(6) Enact such ordinances as may he nec-
essary to carry out the provisions of this
chapter, notwithstanding any charter pro-
visions to the contrary.
Sec. 4. Section 7, chapter 2(M, La\\s of ]i»(il»
ex sess. and RCW 35.86A 070 are each
amended to lead as follows:
The Parking Commission is authorized ami
empowered, in the name of the municipality
by resolutions to :
(1) Own and acquire property and prop-
erty rights by purchase, gift, device, or lease
for the construction, maintenance, or opera-
tion of off-street parking facilities, 01 for
effectuating the purpose of this chapter ; and
accept grants-in-aid, including compliance
\\ith conditions attached thereto,
(2) Construct, maintain, and operate pai k-
ing facilities, and undertake research, and
prepare plans incidental thereto subject to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
85
applicable statutes and charter provisions
for municipal purchases, expenditures, and
improvements: Provided, That the provisions
of chapter 35.86 ROW as now or hereafter
amended shall not apply to such construc-
tion, operation or maintenance ;
(3) Establish and collect parking fees,
make exception for handicapped persons,
lease space for commercial, store, advertising
or automobile accessory purposes, and regu-
late prices and service charges, for use of and
within the aerial space over parking facilities
under its control ;
(4) Subject to applicable city civil service
provisions, provide for the appointment, re-
moval and control of officers and employees,
and prescribe their duties and compensation,
and to control all equipment and property
under the commission's jurisdiction ;
(5) Contract with private persons and or-
ganizations for the management and/or oper-
ation of parking facilities under its control,
and services related thereto, including leasing
of such facilities or portions thereof;
(6) Cause construction of parking facilities
as a condition of an operating agreement or
lease, derived through competing1 bidding
or in the manner authorized by chapter 35.42
RCW;
(7) Execute and accept instruments, in-
cluding deeds, necessary or convenient for
the carrying on of its business , acquire rights
to develop parking facilities under the juris-
diction of other city departments or divisions
and of other public bodies ,
(8) Determine the need for and recom-
mend to the city council:
(a) The establishment of local improve-
ment districts to pay the cost of parking
facilities or any part thereof ;
(b) The issuance of bonds or other financ-
ing by the city for construction of parking
facilities ;
(c) The acquisition of property and prop-
erty rights by condemnation from the public,
or in street aieas ,
(9) Transfer its control of propelty to the
city and liquidate its affairs, so long such
transfer does not contravene any covenant or
agreement made with the holders of bonds
or other creditors , and
(10) ((Require payment of the excise tax
hereinafter provided the city shall not have
any power to regulate parking facilities not
owned by the city.) ) Insure that parking
fees for parking facilities under the control
of the parking commission ((shall be)) are
maintained commensurate with and neither
higher nor lower than prevailing lates for
[p. S4769]
parking charged by commercial operators in
the general area
Sec. 5. Section 12, chapter 204, La^s of
! 1969 ex. sess. and RCW 35.86A.120 are each
j amended to read as follows:
((No)) If a city ((shall operate)) leases
off-street parking facilities ((but)) it shall call
for sealed bids from responsible, experienced
private operators of such facilities for the
operation thereof. The call for bids shall
specify the terms and conditions under which
the facility will be leased for private operation
The call for bids shall specify the time and
place at which the bids will be received and the
time when the same will be opened, and such
call shall be advertised once a week for two
successive weeks before the time fixed for the
filing of bids in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city. The competitive bid
requirements of this section shall not apply in
any case where such a city shall grant a
long-term negotiated lease of any such facility
to a private operator on the condition that the
tenant-operator shall construct a substantial
portion of the facility or the improvements
thereto, which construction and/or improve-
ments shall become the property of the city on
expiration of the lease. If no bid is received
for the operation of such an off-street parking
facility, or if the bids received are not satis-
factory, the legislative body of the city may
reject such bids and shall readvertise the
facility for lease. In the event that no bids
or no satisfactory bids shall have been received
following the second advertising, the city may
negotiate with a private operator for the
operation of the facility without competitive
bidding. In the event the city shall be unable
to negotiate for satisfactory private operation
within a reasonable time, the city may operate
the facility ( (for a period not to exceed three
years, at which time it shall advertise as
provided above in this section)).
New section. Sec. 6. Section 11, chapter 201,
Laws of 1969 ex. sess. and RCW 3r).86A.110
are each repealed.
[p. S4770]
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I am
pleased to support the Muski-Baker-
amendment, which gives local and
State officials the option to spend
their portion of the $850-million-a-
year urban system allotment for rail
transit.
As has been pointed out already,
the committee bill moves us one step
closer to a more flexible transporta-
tion policy by permitting States to
use their highway trust fund urban
allotment for the purchase of buses
as well as the construction of prefer-
-------
86
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ential bus lanes and ancillary park-
ing facilities.
Unfortunately, however, the com-
mittee bill forbids cities like Chicago
from using their allotment for rapid
rail improvement.
The city of Chicago now has a pub-
lic transportation system with both
rail and bus elements. The rapid rail
routes complement and supplement
service provided by buses. Both ele-
ments are in serious disrepair, and
yet the committee bill would prevent
Chicago from improving its rail serv-
ice.
I believe that urban areas must be
given the flexibility provided by the
Muskie-Baker amendment to invest in
rapid rail transit.
The amendment is permissive
rather than mandatory, in that it
merely gives States an option to
choose rapid rail transit over high-
ways. Those States that want to con-
tinue spending every dime of their
highway trust fund allotment for
highways can do so.
Seventeen cities already have or
are planning rail transit systems.
These would all suffer from the pro-
hibition the committee bill places on
using trust fund moneys for rail.
Other cities will undoubtedly want to
consider developing rapid rail
systems as the deadline approaches
for meeting national clean air stand-
ards set by Congress.
ENVIRONMENT AND EFFICIENCY
Looking at transportation in terms
of our environment and efficiency, I
believe we absolutely must consider
the development and improvement of
rapid rail as a supplement to buses
and automobiles.
The amount of land already eaten
up by highways staggers the imag-
ination, and yet the committee bill,
by restricting the urban system
funds to bus transportation, retains
the current incentive to build even
more highways. Thus it aggravates
the land-use problem.
More than 60 percent of the land
area in many major American cities
is devoted to the movement and stor-
age of autos and buses.
In the years between 1967 and
1970, highways caused the destruc-
tion of 147,000 residences, 17,000
businesses, and 5,000 farms. More
homes, businesses, and farms have
been destroyed since, and all this
land was removed as a source of
property tax revenues for States and
cities.
EFFICIENCY
If we care about transportation
efficiency, we must consider rapid rail.
Rail transit, in addition to giving
off no pollutants, can move up to
50,000 people an hour compared to
4,000 per hour for the auto.
One bus can move at least as many
people as six expressway lanes carry-
ing only cars beside it. A double-
tracked rail transit line can carry as
many commuters as 20 lanes of free-
way at existing average rates of pas-
sengers per vehicle.
NATURAL RESOURCES
If we care about conserving our
increasingly limited natural re-
sources, we must consider rapid rail.
It is estimated that, at the current
rate, transportation fuel demands
could deplete the entire proven Alaska
oil reserves in 7 years. U.S. passen-
ger cars alone burn 40 million bar-
rels of oil a day, or about 30 percent
of the Nation's total daily use.
Yet this winter public schools and
other institutions in the East and the
Midwest had to close their doors for
lack of heating fuels.
The manufacture and operation of
automobiles accounts for more than a
fifth of all the energy consumed in
the United States. But cars effectively
use only 5 percent of the potential
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
87
energy they burn. The rest is
wasted.
The private auto consumes twice as
much gasoline per passenger mile as
the inner city bus. It eats up more
than four times as much as a com-
muter bus. And it uses seven times
the fuel of a commuter rail system.
Brownouts and blackouts are no
longer isolated incidents, but recur-
ring phenomena.
AIR QUALITY
If we care about the quality of our
air, we must consider rapid rail.
The Environmental Protection
Agency has warned 67 cities that
they must restrict auto traffic to
meet national clean air standards by
1975. Meeting those standards will
require major shifts in travel habits
in many parts of the country. And
the problem is so bad in some areas
that merely using buses will not solve
it. We may have to alter our life
styles drastically. Los Angeles re-
cently learned that it may have to
ration gasoline to comply with air
quality standards.
*****
[p. S4775]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from West Virginia is recog-
nized.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
the question asked by the able Sena-
tor from Georgia (Mr. NUNN), I
think, should be answered in this way.
It is not a matter of diverting funds.
It is a matter of whether we have
the funds to meet highway needs in
the Atlanta area or any other area
of this country.
This is the important consideration
to which the committee addressed it-
self in the bill as reported to the
Senate.
I give as an illustration something
that in which he and other Senators,
perhaps, may be interested. I use the
example of the city of New York,
which will receive $50 million under
the apportionment of urban highway
funds. Representatives of that city,
testifying- before our committee, said
that for the fiscal years of 1974,
1975, and 1976, they needed major
highway construction in New York
City amounting to almost $350 mil-
lion. This would be needed for urban
highway construction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to include at the appropri-
ate place in my remarks copies of
three letters that I have addressed to
Senators in reference to the provi-
sions of this bill.
There being no objection, the let-
ters were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., March IS, 1973.
DEAR SENATOR : During the hearings and
Committee Executive Sessions on the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1973 (S. 502), consider-
able attention was given to urban air pollution
that results from motor vehicle usage. Environ-
mental Protection Administrator, William D.
Ruckelshaus, testified that 26 urban regions will
be required to institute transportation controls
by 1977 in order to reduce air pollution. Since
the highway program clearly influences the use
of motor vehicles, and therefore the levels of
air pollution, it was obvious to the Committee
that the highway program should be an instru-
ment in alleviatinu conditions of pollution.
This relationship %%as one factor that led the
Committee to endorse the use of highway funds
for the purchase of buses for urban public
transportation systems.
If traffic is to be restricted to reduce pollu-
tion, it is essential that alternative forms of
I transportation be provided. The expansion and
modernization of bus transit systems is the
most expeditious and effective way to meet this
need. Rail transit systems lequire many years
to design and construct and could not possibly
be in service in time to alleviate the hardships
imposed by transportation controls. Further-
more, the use of highway funds for rail transit
construction would diminish their availability
to improve the bus systems on which the vast
majority of American communities will con-
tinue to rely for their public transportation
I hope you will consider these points when
the Senate considers S •">02.
Truly,
JI.VXINC.S RANDOLPH,
Chairman
* * # * %
[p. S4779]
-------
88
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The PEESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CLARK). The time of the Senator has
expired.
The Senate is being asked to act on
an amendment which will broaden the
use of highway trust funds to in-
clude purposes unrelated to the high-
way program. I do not oppose this
proposal because of any belief on my
part that the transportation objec-
tives it seeks are improper. To the
contrary, I have always supported
the creation and extension of pro-
grams designed to meet our urban
mass transit needs—but not at the
expense of the highway program.
My argument with the proposed
amendment of Senators MUSKIE and
BAKER—and my opposition to it—is
based on the fact that it will not ac-
complish their objective, if their ob-
jective is to improve our ability to
respond to demonstrated need. I do
not pose these arguments as a matter
of philosophy or concept. As a prac-
tical matter, what we are asked to
approve will not result in a real
response. The proposal is a charade.
If it is not being offered as an effort
to meet urban transit needs, but as a
means to "bust the trust," it is with-
out genuine purpose, for it is ill-
timed and arises in the wrong con-
text.
I am also concerned that the pro-
posals before us represent an indirect
amendment of the Highway Revenue
Act of 1956. That act restricts the
use of highway trust fund revenues
to the construction of highway as de-
nned in title 23, United States Code.
I believe that authority, broadly inter-
preted, allows us to use these funds
for highway related public transpor-
tation.
The committee bill authorizes and
encourages such uses because it will
enable us to take advantage of the
substantial investment in highway
facilities that exist now. It will en-
able us to meet the very real prob-
lems of those areas with automobile
related air pollution problems imme-
diately so that we can effectively
spend relatively small sums to achieve
meaningful results.
Twenty-six air quality regions will
require substantial transportation
controls if they are to meet the re-
quirements of the Clean Air Act of
1970 by mid-1977. It will not be pos-
sible for those cities where rapid rail
systems do not now exist to begin
and complete construction by that
deadline. We will accomplish all that
can be accomplished by providing sub-
stitute bus transportation. This, Wil-
lian Ruckelshaus, Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency,
confirmed before the committee in tes-
timony.
I take strenuous issue with those
who blame the highway for pollu-
tion. The problem of automobile pollu-
tion is the automobile and that prob-
lem is being worked on now under the
Clean Air Act and will have to be
addressed in the same time frame.
If we were to stop building high-
ways today, automotive use would
probably continue to rise as it has in
the past. It is not the highways which
pollute but the automobiles which use
them. In many instances we find our-
j selves in the situation where we are
carrying out a highway program de-
signed to serve far fewer vehicles
than actually use those highways.
The requirements of the Clean Air
Act are directed toward problems of
automotive pollution. These require-
ments, together with proper land use
controls, will probably require sub-
stantial modification of our urban
road and street systems. In far too
many places automobiles are using
residential streets as thoroughfares,
intruding not only on the environ-
I mental health of neighborhoods, but
destroying privacy and their quiet.
Some people have argued that we
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
89
are letting the dead hand of the past
control our ability to respond to the
problems of the present. I remind
my colleagues that the trust fund was
created in 1956; it was reviewed by
the Congress in 1961; it was extended
by the Congress in 1970. The issue
of the use of the fund has thus been
before the Senate twice since the high-
way trust fund was established.
The issue of the use of these funds
will once again be properly before
the Congress and the Senate during
the 94th Congress. The issue of ex-
tending the fund, modifying it, or let-
ting- it pass from existence will be
squarely met then. I believe that fash-
ioning an effective funding mechan-
ism for mass transit will be the
result of the deliberations in the next
Congress.
It will be argued that all this
amendment will do is place flexibility
in the States and affected local gov-
ernments. I believe that our recent
experiences with revenue sharing,
and the headquarters account pro-
cedures which have been used by the
Federal Highway Administration in
recent years, make the reality of flexi-
bility questionable.
How do we meet the real road and
street needs of urban areas and the
real needs for improved roads in rural
areas if, in the event of the adoption
of this amendment, the program ad-
ministrators decide that the only
projects they will approve are those
which place these funds in transit
projects. I am more concerned with
the ability of States and communities
to meet problems through
[p. S4780]
an adequately funded highway pro-
gram and an adequately funded urban
mass transit program than I am with
providing meaningless "flexibility"
that really is not flexibility in fact.
Mr. President, the bill before us
provides a wide range of choices to
States and local governments in meet-
' ing highway and highway-related
problems. It is an effective step for-
j ward in the expansion of the ability
of the Federal-aid highway program
to assist States and local govern-
ments in meeting a multiplicity of
important needs. Loading upon it at
this time the responsibility for a tre-
mendous additional investment will
serve only to make it unable to re-
spond to the needs for which it was
designed.
By the action we took in approving
the Williams amendment and will
\ take in approving S. 502 as reported
| from the committee, we will have in
fact provided the tools for an interim
solution to the urban transportation
needs. During the 94th Congress we
will be able to consider the best long-
term response to our total transpor-
tation problems.
*****
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
would like to voice my strong support
for the Muskie-Baker amendment to
the Federal Aid-Highway Act of 1973
which I have joined in sponsoring.
A similar amendment was adopted
by the Senate last year.
This amendment would open up the
highway trust fund to allow local
areas to earmark up to $850 million
for public transportation systems.
These funds are crucial if we hope
to come to grips with our pollution
and transportation problems.
Year after year we spend billions
of dollars to build new highways and
thereby slab many big city neighbor-
hoods under gravestones of solid ce-
ment.
Our cities must be liberated to use
[p. S4781]
money from the. Highway Trust Fund
for public transit.
The State of California offers a
prime example of the desperate need
for these funds. On January 15, the
Environmental Protection Agency
proposed a drastic gas-rationing
scheme which, if it were to be put
-------
90
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
into effect, would shut down the Los
Angeles area. The EPA has stated
that gas rationing is necessary to
combat the pollution caused by the
6 million cars in the area. A
severe curtailment of automobile
use in southern California would
be disastrous—indeed, outrageously
impossible—if there is not a vast
increase in mass transit. Presently,
there are only 1,500 buses to accom-
modate the 10 million people in the
basin. The Los Angeles traffic depart- j
ment estimates that while the aver-
age car in the downtown area carries
only 1.5 persons, the average bus car-
ries 40 to 50 people.
The concentration of funds on high-
way construction has led to a curtail-
ment of public transit. In Los
Angeles, the use of public transit has
declined by more than 67 percent in
the past 50 years, a drop of more
than 500,000 riders per day.
Nor is the problem confined to Los
Angeles. It has been reported that the
EPA is considering gas rationing for
27 other metropolitan areas in 18
States. Yet, we continue to build
highways, and pollute our air, jam
our highways, and deplete our preci-
ous energy resources.
We are traveling a one-way road
to disaster unless we quickly develop
mass transportation which is cheap,
efficient, and convenient for those who
daily travel to work, school, or other
vital destinations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time on this amendment has now been
yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
*****
The result was announced—yeas 49,
nays 44, as follows:
Abourezk
Aiken
Baker
Beall
Bennett
Biden
Brock
Brooke
Buckley
Case
Chiles
Church
Clark
Cranston
Dominick
Fonjr
Griffin
Allen
Bartlett
Bellmon
Bentsen
Bible
Burdick
Byrd,
Hariy F., Jr.
Byrd, Robert C.
Cannon
Cook
Cotton
Curtis
Dole
Domenici
[No. 37 Leg.l
YEAS— 49
Hart
Haskell
Hatfield
Hathaway
Inouye
Jackson
J avits
Kennedy
Mathias
Me Govern
Metcalf
Mondale
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Nunn
Packwood
NAYS— 44
Eastland
Ervin
Fannin
Fulbright
Goldwater
Gravel
Gurney
Hansen
Hartke
Helms
Hollings
Hruska
Huddleston
Hughes
Humphrey
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Roth
Sch\veiker
Scott, Pa.
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
Taft
T'unney
Weicker
Johnston
Long
Mansfield
McClellan
McClure
McGee
M on toy a
Randolph
Scott, Va.
Sparkman
Stevens
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Young
PRESENT AND GIVING LIVE PAIRS, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED—2
Williams, for
Maanuson, foi.
Bayh
Eacleton
NOT VOTING—S
Mclntyre
Saxhe
Stenms
So Mr. MusKIE's amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BAKER. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
# * * * *
[p. S4782]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
91
FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY
ACT OF 1973
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
JOHNSTON). The Chair now lays be-
fore the Senate the unfinished busi-
ness, S. 502, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as fol-
lows:
S. 502, to authorize appropriations for the
construction of certain highways in accordance
with title 23 of the United States Code, and
for other purposes.
The Senate resumed the consider-
ation of the bill.
NOTE
Through inadvertence, the incor-
rect text of the Muskie-Baker amend-
ment was printed in the RECORD of
yesterday, at page S4746. The correct
text of the amendment, as later
agreed to, reads as follows:
On page 97:
(1) amend line o through 8 to read:
"(a) To encourage the development, im-
provement, and use of public mass trans-
portation systems for the transportation of
passengers within urban areas,"
(2) on line 19, strike "and".
(3) after line 19, inseit:
"(2) sums apportioned in accordance \vith
paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section
104 of this title shall be a\ailable to finance
the Fedeial share of the costs of projects
\\ithin urban areas for the constiuction of
fixed rail facilities and for the pui chase of
passenger equipment, including rolling stock
for fixed rail: and"
(4) on line 20 strike "(2)" and insert "(3)"
(•>) on lines 1 and and 4, strike "highway"
The above text will also be printed
in the permanent RECORD.
[p. S4931]
FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY
ACT OF 1973
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 502) to
authorize appropriations for the con-
struction of certain highways in ac-
cordance with title 23 of the United
States Code, and for other purposes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I send an amendment to the
desk on behalf of myself and my
distinguished senior colleague (Mr.
RANDOLPH) and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
read the amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered;
and, without objection, the amend-
ment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 120, line 10, after "Nebraska,"
insert "Wheeling, West Virginia,".
On page 120, line 20, after "railroads in"
insert "Wheeling, West Virginia, and".
On page 121, line 15, after "Nebraska," in-
sert "$2,000,000 in the case of Wheeling, West
Virginia,".
On page 121, line 18, after "Nebraska," in-
sert "$4,000,000 in the case of Wheeling, West
Virginia,".
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, the amendment which I am in-
troducing on behalf of myself and
my distinguished colleague (Mr.
RANDOLPH) would include Wheeling,
W. Va., in those locations which
would be used as railroad relocation
demonstration projects. The Federal
Railroad Administration has been
conducting a study of Wheeling, and
several other locations, pursuant to
directives which were included in the
Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
for Fiscal Year 1973.
At the present time, the city of
Wheeling has railroad tracks which
run through the center of town, a
large portion of which are on ele-
vated viaducts, which have become
both unsafe and unsightly. In addi-
tion, there are numerous grade cros-
sings which are both unsafe and
which seriously impede the flow of
traffic through the city.
This amendment would authorize
-------
92
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
demonstration funding to relocate
the Baltimore and Ohio tracks now
located on 17th Street in the city of j
Wheeling from that location to a lo-
cation circling Peninsula Hill and |
connecting with the existing Perm j
Central Railroad tracks on the east
side of Wheeling Creek or from that
location to a location cutting through
Peninsula Hill between Rock Point
Road and Interstate 70 and connect-
ing with the existing Penn Central
Railroad tracks.
This amendment, if adopted, would
require that Wheeling meet the same
criteria which the other locations
within the bill must meet, including
the submission of their specific plans
to the Secretary of Transportation,
who would have the final authority to
approve the plans. The Federal Rail-
road Administration has alvised me
that this relocation project will cost
$6,000,000 and that is the amount my
amendment would authorize for this
project.
As I indicated, this amendment was
offered on my behalf and my distin-
guished senior colleague (Mr. RAN-
DOLPH) who is in the Chamber. I
have discussed the amendment with
the manager of the bill, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Texas (Mr.
BENTSEN). I hope he and the dis-
tinguished ranking minority member
will be able to accept the amendment.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President,
will the distinguished assistant ma-
jority leader advise how much Fed-
eral money would be involved in this
project?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I have
been advised by the Federal Railroad
Administration that the project would
cost $6 million.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
if the Senator will yield, that total
would include $2 million in Federal
funds. That would bring the project
in line with those in the other three
locations contained in the bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. I would say that
would be very much in line with the
amount of money we committed to
the other demonstration projects. For
my part, I am willing to accept the
amendment. I defer now to the rank-
ing minority member of the commit-
tee.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator from Texas. For
the minority side, we would accept
that proposal.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I thank the distinguished man-
ager of the bill (Mr. BENTSEN)
and the distinguished ranking minor-
ity member, the Senator from Ver-
mont (Mr. STAFFORD). I also thank
my senior colleague.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yesterday the
Senator from Maine made reference
to the railroad relocations in the
pending measure. The Senator from
Maine pointed out we are doing some-
thing in reference to railroads. I
think it is important to have the
RECORD reflect that the relocations
are made so that the highways near
these railroads can better serve the
people. That is the reason for the
relocations.
We are not in the business of relo-
cating a railroad; we are attempt-
ing to make the highway program
more meaningful and helpful to the
people involved and the community
where the relocation takes place.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the dis-
tinguished chairman of the committee,
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
! RANDOLPH). I might further supple-
ment his comments by saying that we
were also deeply concerned about
railroad-highway intersections. I
• note that 70 such intersections are
! being removed.
: Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is
j correct. The safety factor is certainly
-------
STATUTES AND' LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
93
one of the major considerations, if
not the most important consideration,
in what we attempt to do* in these
matters, and it is a consideration to
which the Senator and his subcom-
mittee gave attention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Mr. Presi-
dent, I move that the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to be
reconsidered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I
have an amendment at the desk and j
I ask that the amendment be stated
at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
read the amendment.
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered;
and, without objection, the amend-
ment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, is as follows:
At the end of the bill insert a new
section as follows:
[p. S4932] i
ECONOMIC GROWTH CENTER
DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAYS
SEC. .(a) Section 143 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by striking "Federal-
aid primaiy system" wherever appearing
therein and inserting in lieu thereof "Federal-
air primary and secondary systems".
(b) Subsection (e) of section 143 of title
23, United States Code, is amended by stukins
"not to exceed an additional 20 per centum"
and inserting in lieu thereof "not to exceed an
additional 10 per centum"
(c) Subsection (g) of section 1-13 of title
23, United States Code, is amended by sti iking
the following:", and not to exceed $50,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973," and
inserting in lieu theieof", not to exceed
$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 80,
1973, not to exceed 850,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 3, 1974, and not to exceed
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975."
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President,
this amendment would put back into
this bill the provision of the program
that was formerly in the bill in the
1970 enactment and continued with
some modifications in the 1972 bill,
which was never adopted, and it t ar-
ried with it the entire economic
growth and development of highways.
I have indicated this is not a new
program. It is a continuation of a
demonstration program of very little
funding; perhaps no more than 1
percent or 2 percent of this entire
bill. But the purpose, as originally
envisioned and as proposed in the
former acts, was to encourage de-
centralization and provide for rural
economic roads and to provide for
access and balanced national growth
in this country.
We are experiencing, as almost all
students of America today under-
stand, the great outmigration from
rural areas, which presents prob-
lems at both ends of the population
screen: The migration from the
countryside into the great cities ag-
gravates the situation within the in-
ner city. We have on the one hand
the ghettos and on the other hand
the drying up of small rural towns.
What this proposal would do and
-------
94
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
what it was implemented to do in 2
years was to provide that Governors
would certify certain areas. These
areas, on the average, are 111 desig-
nated throughout the United States,
at least one in every State and no
more than three in each State. It
would provide for transportation aids
with an incentive in the Federal share
for towns that averaged 25,000 pop-
ulation. There were some exceptions, j
It would permit communities to qual-
ify as certified by the Governor up
to, I understand, about 100,000 popu-
lation. But the real incentive here is
through planning and use of high-
ways and the revitalization of rural
America to do something about the
great migration from the countryside
to the cities. I think this program
was a good one. It was indicated this
was the policy of this country. It
passed in 1970 and was modified in
three instances in the 1972 act, which
provided this aid would go not only
to primary roads but also to secon-
dary systems and provided for
greater funds, if the program should
continue into 1975. So I think this
has been a good program.
I understand the action of the com-
mittee and the distinguished chair-
man of the subcommittee. I do not
speak for him, but I think he felt
this was a place where categorical
grants could be limited, as requested
by the administration. I think the
distinguished chairman came for-
ward with a program which dealt
with communities.
I endorse it and think it a valid
supplement to what we are really
trying to do, and that is to give
some emphasis and provide some
planning and to attract attention
once again to what really aggravates
some of the great population prob-
lems in this country today.
I do not know whether the many |
programs we have adopted or those
that have been proposed are seriously
being considered today. I get the im-
pression, not only on the part of the
administration and on the part of the
Department of Agriculture, but I
think generally, that there is a feel-
ing of futility about doing something
to balance the national growth, about
doing something to revitalize the ru-
ral parts of this country.
I would hope this particular
amendment, which would really insti-
tute once again in the bill this very
modest proposal, this very modest
program, would be an indication on
the part of those in the Senate who
vote for the bill that we really are
serious, that we really do have some
conviction, that we really do have
some resolution about going forward
with the revitalization of the rural
parts of this country.
I think there has been great inter-
est in this program. The Department
of Transportation has indicated it is
interested in it. I think it is a valid
one that ought to be continued.
I yield the floor, and I might say
to my distinguished friend from
Texas that I would be glad to agree
to any sort of short time limitation,
if that suits his convenience.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
did not understand the Senator from
Kansas' statement concerning a lim-
itation of time.
Mr. PEARSON. I said I would be
pleased to agree to any short limita-
tion of time that meets with the ap-
proval of the chairman of the sub-
committee.
Mr. BENTSEN. Would 15 minutes
a side be sufficient?
Mr. PEARSON. Yes.
Mr. President, I make that unani-
mous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. BENTSEN. I will be con-
strained to oppose the amendment of-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
95
fered by the distinguished Senator
from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON).
I know of his interest in this mat-
ter from a letter he forwarded to the
committee during its deliberations.
We made the decision at that time
not to include economic growth cen-
ter development highways in the bill
this year.
When I assumed the chairmanship
of the Senate Transportation Sub-
committee early this year, we con-
fronted a very difficult situation on
the highway bill. Many of the States
are running out of funds for their
interstate program; one state, Vir-
ginia, is completely out of these
funds.
In addition, funds for the primary
system roads are in equally serious
condition. Seven States have ex-
hausted all of their rural primary
funds; nine States, including my own,
have less than $100,000 left, and five
other States have between $100,000
and $500,000.
We have also had, as the Senator
knows, some serious problems con-
cerning impoundment of Federal-Aid
Highway Funds.
With these facts in mind, I deter-
mined to hold early hearings and to
move this bill to the floor as expedi-
tiously as possible. I also determined
to exercise some fiscal responsibility
on this bill, to hold the authorizations
as close to the President's sugges-
tions as possible, so that there would
be * little excuse for impounding
funds.
I believe I have met the test of fis-
cal responsibility. The bill I reported I
out of my subcommittee had some j
$500 million less in authorizations
than the measure that passed the
Senate last year. The full committee
added some $200 million in Urban
System Funds, but we are still sub-
stantially below the figures in last
year's bill.
In addition to that, the committee j
has attempted to cut down on the
number of categorical programs,
eliminating those which we believed
were duplicative of current pro-
grams.
In that spirit, we did not include
economic growth development high-
ways in the bill. This program has
been a demonstration program for
the last 2 years, with authorizations
at a level of $100 million. Yet the
administration has designated only
$5 million a year for each of the 2
years. If we add this new amend-
ment to the bill, I believe we can ex-
pect more of the same.
I would say to the Senator from
Kansas that I am personally sympa-
thetic to the goals of this program.
He has many underdeveloped areas
in Kansas which could benefit from
highways used to revitalize and diver-
sify their economies; I have the
same situation in Texas.
Yet I believe that under current
law these goals can be attained with-
out adding a separate categorical
program for that purpose. If a State
chooses it can use its rural primary
and secondary money, which we have
increased in this bill, for the purpose
of revitalizing rural areas. And T
would also say to the Senator from
Kansas that every highway is, in
fact, an economic growth center de-
velopment highway. That, indeed is
one of the principal uses of high-
ways, and I do not believe it is neces-
sary to have a categorical program
for that purpose.
In summary, I would say that the
Senator's amendment is unnecessary
and fiscally unwise. I shall be forced
to oppose it.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I
must join—and I do so very reluc-
tantly, I say to the Senator from
Kansas—in opposition to the amend-
-------
96
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ment offered by him. I do so in part
because I come from a rural part of
the country, where we have some of |
the same problems that are shared
by those parts of Kansas that are
[p. S4933] I
rural. I would not include Wichita in
that category, but much of Kansas is
rural.
I share the interest of the Senator
from Kansas in this matter. Indeed,
my own State of Vermont has used
money from the demonstration pro-
gram on Economic Growth Develop-
ment Highways for road construc-
tion.
It is my understanding that the
program does not have the enthusias-
tic support of the administration, just
as it is clear that the committee bill
before the Senate can accomplish the
aims of the proposal offered by the
Senator from Kansas, as the dis-
tinguished chairman of the subcom-
mittee (Mr. BBNTSEN) has pointed
out. Highway funds are available in
the committee bill. There is no need
for a separate categorical program.
Any State can elect to use its rural,
primary, and secondary Federal aid
money for the purpose of revitalizing
rural areas.
In summary, there is no real need
for the proposal that has been offered
in the form of the pending amend-
ment, and the effort to add another
category and additional authoriza-
tion is contrary to the effort to re-
duce the number of special categories
and to the effort to hold down spend-
ing.
So I join the Senator from Texas,
chairman of the subcommittee, in op-
position to this amendment.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that a mem-
ber of my staff, Mr. Gary Bushell, be
allowed the privilege of the floor dur-
ing the debate and during the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I
yield myself such time as I may
need.
In response to the comments made
by the distinguished Senators from
Vermont and Texas, able managers
of the bill, in regard to the argu-
ment that this was not an appropri-
ate program, that the need as re-
quired could be performed under the
other sections of the bill, I repeat
that I think the judgment of the
committee in 1970 and the judgment
of the committee in 1972, which not
only endorsed the original program
but had three modifications designed
to make it more viable in this partic-
ular field, was the proper attitude,
and my amendment goes to that end.
I fully understand the resistance to
categorical grants. I am concerned—
and I say this- not so much in re-
sponse to the argument made by the
Senator from Texas—that we are be-
ginning- to get to the point, with re-
spect to proposals made by the ad-
ministration, that the Senate may be
more concerned with the end to the
means than the tools to do the job.
All of a sudden, categorical grants
are no longer viable instruments to
solve problems in this country.
It may be true that there may be
programs and money in other bills
that can do the job, but the fact is
that the migration goes on. I do not
know what the statistics are in the
State of Texas, in the State of Ver-
mont, or in any other State, but I
daresay they are equal to what is
happening in my State. Out of some
105 counties, 75 lost population, and
when the young, intelligent, educated
young people leave the rural com-
i munities, the lifeblood of that com-
| munity passed out with it.
The other part of that migration is
comprised of those who have moved
| into the cities. They think they are
I taking the first step up the ladder
I of opportunity, only to slide into the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
97
ghettos and onto the welfare rolls.
That money has been available, for
the system is there, ready to be used.
The truth is that it has not been
used. What the program has been
designed to do—not by me, but by
others—is not only to plan how much
and what would be used, but to do
something about the outmigration. I
think those purposes are still valid.
I think the arguments made on be-
half of this proposal in prior years
are still valid, and I hope this pro-
posal will be acceptable.
Mr. President. I do not intend to
use any additional time, nor shall I
ask for a yea-and-nay vote. I am
willing to submit the question to the
will of the Senate at this time.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
shall take but a moment. The princi-
pal opposition to this particular
amendment is not that we do not
feel the argument is not a worthy
one; we sympathize with it.
The problem here is that we are
trying to cut down on the number of
categorical programs for which au-
thorizations are sought. In addition,
we are concerned about the question
of fiscal responsibility. We are talk-
ing about adding a program that
would, as I understand it, call for
$50 million in the first year, $100
million in the second year, and $100
million in the third year. To the Sen-
ator from Texas, that is a very sub-
stantial amount of money. There-
fore, as the manager of the bill,
regardless of the fact that I like the
objective, because of the categorical
grounds and our efforts to stop the
proliferation of categorical grants, I
must oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
JOHNSTON). The question is on agree-
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from Kansas (putting the question).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as fol-
lows:
Beginning with line 4 on page 119 strike out
all section 148 through line 6 on page 120.
On page 120, line 8 strike out "SEC. 149" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 148", and renumber
subsequent sections accordingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
this the amendment on which the
Senator desires to have 2 hours?
Mr. BUCKLEY. Yes, but I will not
require nearly half of that time.
First, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BUCKLEY. This is the same
amendment which the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON), joined me
in offering last year.'Again, he sup-
ports it.
Mr. President, the amendment I
have sent to the desk would simply
strike section 148 from S. 502, the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973.
Even though this provision ap-
pears to affect only the city of San
Antonio, Tex., I am convinced that
its inclusion in this bill would have a
nationwide impact and that it poses
a real and immediate threat to such
vital environmental protection stat-
utes as the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, which prohibits the con-
struction of Federal aid highways
through parkland unless there is no
feasible and prudent alternative.
The Texas Highway Department is
seeking special legislative relief from
the Congress, by asking us to with-
draw the expressway as a Federal
aid project so that it will be able to
avoid complying with the require-
ments of Federal environmental stat-
utes and proceed to build the road
through the Brackenridge-Olmos Ba-
sin Parklands. These requirements
are the preparation of an environ-
-------
98
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
mental impact statement as required
by section 102(2) (C) of NEPA and
the study of feasible and prudent
alternatives to the use of parkland, a
condition of project approval by the
Secretary of Transportation under
section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966. Both of
these statutes were in effect when,
on August 13, 1970, the Secretary
of Transportation at the State's re-
quest authorized Federal funding of
two end segments of the 9.6 mile ex-
pressway.
Section 148 if enacted would. I be-
lieve be the first step in an unending
process of undermining on a case-
by-case basis the environmental pro-
tection statutes which we now recog-
nize as essential to safeguard the
country's environment. This section
would be the first step in involving
the Congress in an endless round of
specific adjudications over whether
this highway or that dam or this
canal should be exempted from com-
pliance with Federal environmental
statutes. It would thrust Congress
into the realm of the courts in the
adjudication of sharply contested spe-
cific disputes.
We would be faced, as we are here,
with serious factual questions raised
by the parties to the dispute but with
no satisfactory means to re-
solve them. We would be asked not
only to take on the function of the
courts, but also that of the Depart-
ment of Transportation and make
judgment about where highways
should or should not go.
I do not believe that we should
take that first step. I believe it un-
wise as a general matter and unnnec-
essary in this case. It would be the
beginning of a whittling away of the
strong and important safeguards in-
corporated into statutes such as
NEPA. Given my general objection
to special legislation of this nature,
it is with some hesitation that I em-
bark upon a discussion of the partic-
ular facts underlying the dispute
over the construction of this high-
way in San Antonio. For I do not
believe that the issue here is whether
under the facts of this case Texas
should or should not be permitted
to proceed immediately with the con-
struction of this highway in violation
of Federal law. Rather the issue is
much broader. It is whether the Con-
gress should attempt to substitute its
judgment for that of the Department
of
[p. S4934]
Transportation and the Federal
Courts in an individual case.
Nevertheless, in order to present
fully my objections to section 148, it
is necessary to review in at least a
summary fashion the basic outline
of the dispute. As I pointed out above,
this dispute, like all hotly contested
environmental issues, has raised a
number of factual disputes among
the interested parties. I have tried to
avoid having to sort out the various
contentions and facts, thus I rely pri-
marily upon the court decision and a
DOT report on the North Express-
way for my information.
SAN ANTONIO FACTS
The construction of the North Ex-
pressway has been under construction
by the Texas highway department for
over a decade. It was conceived of
and planned throughout as a Federal-
aid route. Although a bond issue was
approved in 1961 for acquisition of
right-of-way, final action to authorize
construction was not to come for
many, many years—in August 1970.
! In May of 1968, the Texas High-
j way Department requested that then
i Secretary of Transportation Alan
j Boyd approve construction of the
North Expressway. Boyd refused to
. approve the route unless four im-
portant design changes designed to
} minimize the environmental impact
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
99
were incorporated into the plans.
Texas refused to accept those condi-
tions, and negotiations with the Fed-
eral Government continued. Secretary
Volpe replaced Secretary Boyd in
January 1969, and, like Boyd, he too
refused to approve the route proposed
by Texas. He specifically said on De-
cember 23, 1969, that he could not
justify approval for construction of
the North Expressway between Mul-
berry and Tuxedo Avenue. The sec-
tion which he refused to approve,
known as the middle segment of the
expressway, was that portion which
takes the most parkland.
In August 1970, the Texas High-
way Department and Secretary Volpe
reached agreement. Secretary Volpe
approved two segments of this route
at either end of the parks, and the
Texas Highway Department agreed
that an independent consultant would
study alternatives to the middle seg-
ment also approximately 2 miles long.
LITIGATON
Following Secretary Volpe's ap-
proval of the two end segments, liti-
gation ensued. The U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit, which
had under consideration only the seg-
ments at either end of the highway
since the Secretary was still studying
alternatives to the middle segment,
enjoined construction of the two end
segments because it found, in
a unanimous opinion, that there had
been no compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act or with
section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act or section 138 of
the Federal-Aid Highway Act. The
court said, in a comprehensive opin-
ion written by Judge Homer Thorn-
berry, a respected Texan himself and
long a Member of the House of Rep-
resentatives :
Our task is simplified sreatly to besin with
because it is undisputed that the Secretary
of Transportation complied with none of the
above-quoted statutes [ Section 4 (f) of the
Department of Transportation Act, section 138
of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, and NEPA]
in his approval of the two "end segments" of
this expressway. No environmental study under
NEPA has been made with respect to these
two "end segments" and the Secretary has
demonstrated no effort by anyone to examine
the section 1 (f) "feasible and prudent" al-
ternatives to the route followed by these two
"end segments", which come right up to, if
not into, the Parklands from both the north
and south. Thus, it requires no discussion to
establish that there has been no compliance
with any of the above-Quoted statutes
Following the decision of the court
of appeals, the Department of Trans-
portation report on the middle seg-
ment was published. The study, im-
pressive in its detailed presentation
of alternatives to the middle segment,
recommended that the route proposed
by Texas not be used but instead
that one of the alternatives set forth
in that report be chosen in order to
minimize the impact upon the park.
As of yet, however, there has been no
decision by the Secretary as to alter-
natives to the entire route, as the
court said there should be.
CURRENT STATUS
Thus the status of this dispute at
that construction of the North Ex-
pressway is enjoined by order of the
court until the State and the Secre-
tary make the required study.
In addition, on January 10, 1973,
the U.S. District Court for the West-
ern District of Texas, Austin Divi-
sion, has further ordered the Texas
Highway Department to "proceed dil-
igently and with all speed reasonable
under the circumstances to prepare
the statement and report required by
Federal statutes and regulations, in
particular section 4(f) of the De-
partment of Transportation Act—
the National Environmental Policy
Act—and Department of Transporta-
tion PPM 90-1 and to effect what-
ever is necessary to prepare these
reports." The order further reports
they shall be promptly submitted to
the Secretary of Transportation for
-------
100
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
his action and he shall act upon said
submissions diligently and with all
reasonable speed under the circum-
stances."
In testimony before the Public
Works Subcommittee, on Transporta-
tion, Mr. Sam McDaniel, speaking
on behalf of the Texas Highway De-
partment, has assured the committee
that the State has done some work
on the environmental impact state-
ment. The State could probably sub-
mit one to DOT, without a terrible
amount of delay. Thus, although it is
not known how much work the State
has already done, it is clear that the
State is in a position to comply
quickly with the law. Furthermore,
in a letter to me, dated March 14,
1973, Russell E. Train, chairman of
the President's Council on Environ-
mental Quality has stated that—
It is my opinion that nothing' in the proce-
dures required by either NEPA or Section 4(f)
would impose any unreasonable timetable on a
final decision about this project. There has been
available for at least 18 months a very full
study of alternative routes which could serve
as the basis for preparing an impact statement
and review by the Secretary undei Section
4(f). If these processes were allowed to go
forward, an impact statement could be pre-
pared in a week or t\\o and made public for
comment by Federal, State and local agencies.
He concludes:
Neither the procedures of NEPA nor Section
4(f) would cause significant delay in making
a decision on the route involved in this project.
Yet rather than produce the re-
quired study, Texas insists upon ask-
ing Congress to overturn the court
decision and allow it to proceed and
to construct the expressway through
the parklands.
It seems to me entirely inappropri-
ate to overturn that decision without
a thoroughgoing professional analy-
sis of alternatives, particularly
where two Secretaries of Transpor-
tation have refused to approve the
route which Texas will use if this
legislation is enacted and since the
limited study of alternatives done by
the Department of Transportation
demonstrated beyond question that
there are alternatives which would
minimize the impact upon the parks.
We are being asked to pass legisla-
tion which would permit construction
before Texas has initiated any efforts
whatsoever to comply with the Fed-
eral statutes.
Two of the most fundamental and
important requirements of recent en-
vironmental legislation are the re-
quirement that an analysis must be
made of the impact of the environ-
ment from the construction of proj-
ects and that an analysis be made of
available alternatives.
This is essential if those charged
with making the important decisions
on highways or related projects are
to be alerted to the environmental
damage that may be done and ways
to avoid that harm. If a State or
agency may proceed without making
even a cursory examination of altern-
atives, the fundamental purpose of
the statutes will be destroyed. Of
course, compliance with these laws
places some additional burden upon
decisionmaking and construction of
projects. In some cases it means a de-
lay in time; in others it may mean
both a delay in time and added ex-
pense. The price is cheap, however,
for the added protection that these
statutes have given our air, water,
park, and recreation facilities and
historic sites. Secretary Volpe, who
is deeply concerned about the effects
of transportation projects on the en-
vironment has said:
If environmental quality costs more, it is
worth more
and
We think that protection of the environment
is worth some delay.
Thus, the fact that Texas may be de-
layed somewhat by a necessity to com-
ply with these statutes is no occasion
to afford them specific legislative re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
101
lief. Some of these laws have been on
the books since as early as 1966; yet,
as late as August of 1971. the court
found that there has been no consid-
eration of alternatives. The enact-
ment of new legislation undoubtedly
creates a burden for ongoing projects,
such as this, but where the State has
failed over a 4-year period to consider
alternatives clearly required by law
I do not believe that we should come
to their rescue.
As we move beyond the narrow appli-
cation of this legislation to the broader
[p. S4935]
consequences, it becomes self-evident
that this legislation, even though re-
stricted in its terms for San Antonio,
would have a nationwide impact and
threaten the effectiveness of statutes
such as NEPA. If relief is granted to
Texas, we will have firmly estab-
lished the precedent of intervening in
specific highway disputes whenever a
State highway department finds it-
self enjoined for failure to comply
with the laws. If the Texas highway
department is granted specific relief
here, every other State highway de-
partment now under an injunction
will demand similar legislation and
I do not see on what basis -we could
refuse their request. Although Texas
may argue that its situation is unique
and therefore it should be entitled
to some special treatment, I have
serious reservations about that. Of
course, every highway dispute is in
some sense unique; perhaps, in the
same sense that every individual is
unique. However, many State high-
way departments would undoubtedly
be able to present the same type of
case as Texas for relief.
It is for this reason that the Nixon
administration has opposed section
148. As Secretary of Transportation
Claude Brinegar stated:
This effort to legislate an exception to
environmental laws that the Congress has
established is neither good government nor
conducive to the preservation of the environ-
ment that all have accepted as a primary
national goal. We recommend that this pro-
vision he deleted.
We have in the recent past wit-
nessed various attempts to carve out
exceptions to the National Environ-
mental Policy Act where its provisions
have begun to have some effect. I may
cite the proposed granting to the
Atomic Energy Commission of special
interim licensing privileges in the
face of emergency situations. These
attempts related primarily to the au-
thority of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission to issue interim operating
licenses for nuclear powerplants and
the authority of the Environmental
Protection Agency to issue water qual-
ity permits. Similar legislation was
designed to expedite Government de-
cisions with respect to major electric
power facilities. Thus far, we have
been successful in protecting NEPA
against any piecemeal amendments
which would undermine its protec-
tions. However, I fear that we now
see another strategy for circumvent-
ing the requirements of NEPA and
evading its requirements on a selec-
tive basis. Can one really doubt that
if this amendment is passed to allow
the Texas Highway Department to
proceed with this route, we will not get
similar requests from the Atomic
Energy Commission for particular
power projects or from the Army
Corps of Engineers or from other
State highway departments?
The effects of NEPA and other en-
vironmental statutes are now begin-
ning to be felt, but only now. Of
course, they make construction of proj-
ects somewhat more difficult, in that
they require much broader analysis
of the social consequences of these
projects before they are undertaken.
That should not, however, be viewed
as an unfortuate consequence of the
legislation. Ineed, the environmental
protection laws were specifically do-
-------
102
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
signed to require that greater study,
attention, and care be given in these
large public works projects which
have in the past often been responsi-
ble for serious and irreparable in-
jury to the environment.
If this legislation is adopted, it will
be a clear signal to State highway
departments as well as others, includ-
ing the courts, that Congress has
begun to turn its back on the environ-
mental protections included in sta-
tutes such as NEPA and section 4
(f). It will hold out hope to those
who wish to avoid compliance with
those laws that if they resist long
enough they may be rescued by spe-
cial legislation.
To be effective, the environmental
protection laws must be followed not
only to the letter but also interpreted
in the spirit in which they were en-
acted. Enactment of these laws and
their enforcement has not been easy.
Yet they represent a great step for-
ward in this Nation's effort to re-
verse a long trend of environmental
degradation. It is vital that they be
protected against collateral attack.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD
the letter I referred to in my state-
ment from Chairman Russell Train.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QtrALiTY,
Washington, D.C., March H, 1973.
HON. JAMES L. BUCKLEY.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C-
DEAK SENATOR BUCKIEY: Thank you for your
inquiry regarding our views on Section 148 of
S. 502, which removes the San Antonio North
Expressway from the Federal-Aid Highway
system and terminates the long Federal
involvement in this project in order to avoid
the application of environmental requirements
of Federal law.
The Council is of the strong view that this
provision represents an extremely bad piece-
dent and a retreat from the Federal Govern-
ment's commitment to important national
environmental concerns as expiessed in the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
of 1966.
Discontinuing the long Federal involvement
in this proposed highway project, particularly
when the final requirements to be met consist
of a consideration of environmental values,
laises the serious question whether this project
can meet the environmental analysis all other
federally assisted highway projects in the
country are subject to and the possibility that
Congress will be called upon to decide disputes
about any number of other highway projects.
NEPA and Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966 do not prohibit
construction of highways. They represent Con-
gressional judgments that highways (as well as
all other Federal projects) should be subject to
a rational decision-making process in which all
factors, social, economic and environmental, are
taken into account. A provision such as Section
148 in Senate bill, S. 502, which excludes a
specific project from this Federal commitment
to good environmental management, short
changes the particular environment affected
and undercuts our ability to enforce these laws
elsewhere.
It is my opinion that nothing in the pro-
cedures requiied by either NEPA or Section
4(f) would impose any unreasonable timetable
on a final decision about this project. There has
been available foi at least 18 months a very
full study of alternative routes which could
serve as the basis for preparing an impact
statement and review by the Secretary under
Section 4 (f). If these processes were allowed
to go forward, an impact statement could be
prepared in a week or two and made public for
comment by Federal, State and local agencies.
The Council on Environmental Quality guide-
lines on NEPA provide that a final decision
could then be made in as little as ninety day&.
Under Section 4(f) the Secretary of Transpor-
tation could make the necessary review and
decision on the basis of the final impact state-
ment available then. Thus, neither the proce-
dures of NEPA nor Section 4(f) would cause
significant delay in making a decision on the
route involved in this project.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Chairman
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
oppose this amendment to delete sec-
tion 148. The Senate considered this
same amendment last year and it was
defeated 24 to 49.
Senator BUCKLEY indicates that his
principal objection is not to this par-
, ticular project but to the precedent
j that adoption of section 148 would set.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
103
I am sure that is a great comfort to ;
the people of San Antonio who have
been trying to build this project since
1959.
The only precedent set by section
148 is that if we use Federal funds
we must meet local standards.
That is not a precedent, if there is
one, that's just a statement of the
"carrot and the stick" concept which
most of us have always thought ap-
plied to Federal aid projects.
Section 148 does NOT make an ex-
ception to a Federal environmental
standard for a federally funded proj-
ect. It simply approves the action
already taken by the State of Texas
in returning the Federal funds des-
ignated for this project and removes
any Federal involvement. What hap-
pens after that is up to the State of
Texas and the city of San Antonio.
Section 148 does not mandate that
any highway be built.
I also think it is important to note
that section 148 prevents the State of
Texas from switching these funds to
another project and insures that if
they do decide to continue with this
project, it will be done with truly local
funds and no other funds.
Senator BUCKLEY speaks of all
these interstate projects waiting back
here in the hills and in the wings
which will be seeking relief. This is
not an interstate project. I have not
heard any State offering to build a 90
percent federally-financed interstate
system with local funds. Just name
me one. Even if a State wanted to
build one, Congress could not wash its
hands to such a project. Interstate
highways have been designated as
part of a national system. What
we have in San Antonio is local
people wanting to build a local road
with local funds. According to testi-
mony received by the Transportation
Subcommittee, this is the only in-
stance in which such local action has
not been allowed.
The Senator from New York was
eloquently speaking yesterday, when
we had the Muskie-Baker amendment
up, about how he wanted local options
and
[p. S4936]
local decisions to be made. That is
what I am asking for the people of
Texas.
The committee received testimony
on how the project has been caught
in two changes in Federal standards
now requiring a reapproved process
of 5 years or more if it remains a
Federal project.
The Senator from New York said
that they could reapply for approval
under the National Environmental
Policy Act and that they could do it
quickly. But he did not tell you, Mr.
President, how long it would take.
I hold in my hand a flow chart that
tells us how long it would really take
and the number of applications that
have to be gone through. It would
take 4 years or more. We are talking
now about waiting since 1959, that is,
the people of my State have, in order
to build this highway.
The city and State have already
spent .$11 million on this expressway
and a great deal of that money will
be lost in a 5-year delay. In addition
to the money wasted, this expressway
is needed now. The committee received
testimony that traffic accidents in the
area are running four times as high
as would be expected with the express-
way in use.
A Texas Highway Department study
has concluded that air pollution in
the area will be 94 percent higher
by 1990 if the expressway is not in
service. But most important, the peo-
ple of San Antonio who know their
city best, and who know this route the
best, want the expressway built.
I do not know how many Senators
have been to San Antonio. It is a
beautiful city. They have done more on
city beautification than most other
-------
104
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
cities in this Nation. Just take a look
at San Antonio River, how they have
cleaned up what once was an open
sewer running through the city. They
were early in the fight for beautifica-
tion. They think a great deal of
the Brackenridge Park, which has been
the subject of debate here, and they
want to protect Brackenridge Park.
They feel that no serious damage will
be done to the park by the building
of the expressway.
How did they express themselves?
They expressed themselves by voting
2 to 1 for a bond issue to pay for it,
to tax themselves to do it.
About 103,000 citizens signed a peti-
tion in only 10 weeks urging comple-
tion, after it had been stopped by the
legal hassle.
Just this past month, the City Coun-
cil of San Antonio and the Mexican-
American Chamber of Commerce of
San Antonio unanimously endorsed
the project. Every elected official that
I know of in San Antonio, the two
Senators from the State of Texas,
who should know the conditions best
there, have endorsed the project.
There has been some concern ex-
pressed about the effect of the pro-
posed route on parklands. Of 323
acres in Brackenridge Park only about
9 acres are lost and most of these
come from a golf course which has
been rebuilt around the route and has
been back in play for 3 years. The
route also crosses a portion of the
Olmos Basin which is used for flood
control and parts of which are also
being used for recreational purposes.
The director of parks for the city, Mr.
Prazer, submitted a statement to our
committee that of the portion of the
basin which is currently being used for
recreational purposes, only 4 acres of
picnic grounds will be taken by the
route. That is only 4 acres out of
700, and Mr. Frazer says those picnic
grounds can be relocated in the same
general area. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the entire text of Mr.
Frazer's statement be printed in the
RECORD along with some additional
statements of support.
There being no objection, the state-
ments were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as folllows:
STATE OF TEXAS—COUNTS ot BEXAH
Before me the undersigned authority on this
day personally appeared Robert L. Frazer,
\\hose name is subscribed below, and on his
oath stated:
My name is Robert L. Frazer, I am Director
of Parks and Recreation for the City of San
Antonio and have held such position for 17
years. I am generally familiar with the route
for the proposed North Expressway in San
Antonio and have been familiar with same
since 1959.
I am familiar with Brackenridge Park in the
City of San Antonio and with other public
lands owned by the City of San Antonio north
of BrackenridMTe Park located within the Olmos
Creek drainage hasin. In addition to the
Brackenridge Park itself other recreational
facilities included in this general area are the
San Antonio Zoo, Sunken Gardens and Sunken
Garden Amphitheatre, and north of Olmos Dam
various baseball, football, soccer fields, archery
ranges, a golf course, and an improved picnic
area
The North Expressway has taken between
eight and nine acres from the extreme south-
west corner of the Brackenridge Park Golf
Course. The Kolf course has been rebuilt to
accommodate the expressway and has been back
in play in its lealigned configuration for about
four years. The golf course is an eighteen hole
course and lies between the expressway and the
remainder of Brackenridge Park After leaving
the golf course the expressway going north
passes through a residential neighborhood and
next passes in close proximity to recreational
aieas at the Sunken Garden Amphitheatre and
the Sunken Garden. The expressway is located
on a high bluff overlooking both of these
facilities. The road is designed to extend some
seven or eight feet over the real portion of the
Amphitheatre. It is far enough removed from
the Sunken Garden that Scenic Drive (the road
no\v overlooking the Sunken Gaidens) \\ill
remain in place and be available to furnish
spectators with a scenic view of the gardens
The Amphitheatre is rarely used except foi
: rock music concerts
[ The expressway route next passes to the
west of the San Antonio Zoo across an area of
unimpioved land owned by the City of San
Antonio and sometimes used for storage
purposes and the grazing of animals.
The expressway next passes through an area
of private ownership reaching City-o\\ned land
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
105
north of the Olmos dam and within the Olmos
Flood Detention Basin. The Basin consists of
about 1,000 acres of which about 400 acres have
been developed for various recreational uses.
These consist of baseball diamonds, football
fields, archery ranges, a golf course, and an
improved picnic area. With the exception of
the picnic area none of the improved recrea-
tional facilities are infringed by the expressway
and \vith the exception of the golf course none
of the other improved recreational areas are in
very close proximity to the expressway. The
golf course was constiucted in the early 1960's
and is laid out along the western right-of-way
line of the expressway in the northern portion
of the Olmos Flood Detention Basin.
The improved picnic area consists of about
19 acres. About 4 acres of this area along its
west side are included within the limits of the
expressway itself. This area, the only area of
developed recreational land in the Basin used
by the expressway right-of-way has not been
replaced by other picnic areas ; however, there
is ample land in the basin for such replacement
if public use of the picnic area justifies its
replacement.
Use of the various ball fields and other
recreational areas will not be affected by the
expressway.
In addition to the lands contained in the
Brackenridge Park area and in the Olmos
Detention Basin the City has other recreational
facilities in the northern part of the City and
has continued throughout the 1960's and to the
present time with a program for developing
further recreational land. Pursuant to this
program and as a part of the same bond
election approving funds for the expressway the
City was authorized to acquire and did acquire
over 1,000 acres of land for park purposes in
the northern part of San Antonio. Various
other additions to the City's park facilities have
been authorized and made since that time.
While I pei sonall y pi efer that the North
Expressway not be constructed anywhere in the
Olmos Basin aiea , with 1he exception of the
Picnic ground, in my opinion a pioperly
designed expressway will not ad verse) 3' affect
the recreational uses being made of parts of
the Hasin or Brackenridge Park.
ROBERT L. FKA/EU.
Subscribed and sworn to before ine this 2nd
day of February, 1973.
CAROL MAIUE KNIPPA,
Nntfiri) Public
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the City of San Antonio has been
trying to have the North Expressway (U S
281) constructed for many years; and
Whereas, the people of San Antonio have
expressed their overwhelming support of this
project; and
Whereas, the u ill of the majority has been
frustrated by a small group of self-appointed
protectors ; and
Whereas, this small group has on several
occasions circulated misleading information :
and
Whereas, the United States Senate Public
Works Committee is considering Section 147 of
S502 sponsored by Senators Bentsen and Tower
to free the North Expressway fiom Federal
control and \\ill permit it to be built as a local
project; and
Whereas, approval of Section 147 of S.102 will
permit work on the North Express \\ ay to he
resumed. Now, therefoie.
Be it resolved by the City Council of the
City of San Antonio: That the City Council
reaffirms its unqualified support of the North
Expressway Project; and be it further re-
solved :
That the City Council urges the United
States Public Works Committee give its speedy
approval to Section 147 of S502 sponsored by
Senatois Bentsen and Tower.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the construction of the North
Expressway has been partially completed and
has been pending since 1961 ;
Whereas, the failure to complete this Ex-
pressway has deterred the Transit System in
Bexar County and has impeded the mobility
of this community, causing gieat inconvenience
in the cross traffic in this metropolitan area ,
and,
Wheieas, Commissioners Court of Bexar
County feels that the completion of the North
Expressway is necessary and vital to the
completion of our highway system that
[p. S4937]
is so important to the life of downtown San
Antonio and to the citizens residing in the
buburban areas; and,
Whereas, the abovementioned action h of
great importance to all citizens of Bexar
County ; Nov., therefoie.
Be it resolved by Commissioners Coiut that
we whole-heartedly endorse the Bentsen-Towei
I-.emulation pending in the Congress (Section
1 17, S502), which would allow the North
Expiessway to be completed with state funds.
Witness the signatures of the members of
Commissioners Court of Bexar County, Texas,
and its official seal on this the 23rd day of
February, A. D., 107J
SAX ANTONIO-MEAK A,\
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
San Antonio, Tex., February „',?, JI)?J.
Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Worhs,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH : I \\ ant to com-
-------
106
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
municate to you the decision of the Board of
Directors of the Mexican Chamber of Commerce
to support passage of Section 147 of S502. This
unanimous decision was reached at the Board
meeting of the Mexican Chamber of Commerce
held on Thursday, Febiuary 22, 1973
There \vere no dissenting votes by any of our
Board members present and its was universally
agreed that this North Expressway has been
delayed long enough by special interest groups,
causing continued traffic problems between
downtown and north San Antonio, Additionally,
this long delay has caused a maintenance
problem along the current right-of-way which
is now a bad traffic and health hazard, not to
mention the unsightly abandoned condition that
has been created.
This North Freeway is badly needed by our
city, and %\e strongly urge you to vote for this
Bentsen-Tower North Freeway provision of the
Highway Act.
Sincerely,
DANIEL B. GOMEZ,
President.
FlNDLING, MlLAM & PYLE,
San Antonio, Tex., April 19, 197g.
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR COMPLETION OF THE
NORTH EXPRESSWAY,
San Antonio, Texas.
GENTLEMEN : We hereby certify that we have
counted 103,337 signatures on your petition:
"We, the undersigned residents of San
Antonio and Bexar County, strongly urge the
immediate resumption of construction and
prompt completion of the North Expressway
project The people have been too long denied
the use of this expressway and feel that the
delay has been detrimental to the geneial
welfale of all."
This petition was circulated between Sep-
tember 29, 1971, and December 15, 1971, and
our firm was selected by your committee to
count the signatures.
Yours very truly,
FlNDLINC., MlLAM & PYLE.
Mr. BENTSEN. The Senator from
New York listed 30 interstate proj-
ects which might seek this relief. The
distinctions as to these are obvious.
They are 90 percent federally finan-
ced national defense roads. He lists
other noninterstate Federal-aid high-
ways. But are these people willing
to give up their Federal funds and
proceed with only local funds? And
if they are, has $5 million been spent
after the Department of Transporta-
tion approved construction? And is
their construction washing away? I
doubt it.
Senator BUCKLEY expresses con-
cern that other State highway depart-
ments will bring us their problems.
The Texas Highway Department did
not bring this problem; 103,000 peo-
ple of the city of San Antonio brought
this problem to our attention—citi-
zens who are concerned about the en-
vironment of their city, concerned
about piles of concrete and dirt and
rusting steel beams. Some of the same
San Antonio citizens who support sec-
tion 148 were active in the preserva-
tion of the San Antonio River and
the building of the city's many rec-
reational areas.
All this section does is to allow
these people to make the decision as
to whether an expressway will be
built at all, and if so, where.
Mr. President, I think it is time
we listened to the local people and
take the Federal Government out of
this project.
Mr. President, the Senate voted
against this amendment by a margin
of 2 to 1 last year. I urge the Senate
to do so again.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 6 minutes?
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
am pleased to yield to the distin-
guished senior Senator from Texas.
Mr. TOWER, Mr. President, I join
my very distinguished and very elo-
quent colleague in opposing the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from New
York, and I associate myself with
Senator BENTSEN's remarks.
Exactly 6 months ago this week, this
identical question regarding the San
Antonio "North Expressway" was
fully debated in this chamber. At that
time, the proposal of the Senator
from New York to strike the San
Antonio language from the 1972 high-
way bill was soundly defeated. An
identical San Antonio provision was
passed by the House of Representa-
tives. Unfortunately, due to questions
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
107
entirely extraneous to this provision,
the bill failed of final enactment.
I urge Senators on this occasion,
even as I did during last year's
debate, to join me in defeating this
amendment.
I am pleased that the Public Works
Committee has again this year in-
cluded language in the highway bill
which will permit the State of Texas
to return some $1.8 million in Federal
monies to the Department of Trans-
portation and complete the express-
way with State and local funds. This
issue was fully aired during public
hearings before the Committee's
Transportation Subcommittee, chaired
by my colleague from Texas. I have
carefully read the testimony which
was presented and upon which the
committee's decision to include section
148 was based. The record is clear
and speaks for itself; therefore, I
shall be brief.
Enactment of section 148 would en-
able the people of San Antonio to
realize the completion of a public im-
provement they have long sought and
strongly supported. During the month
of January 1961, residents of that
city held a bond election at which
time it was voted by a 2-to-l margin j
to acquire the requisite rights-of-way
for the north expressway. During in-
tervening- years, there has evolved a
complicated chain of events marked
by controversy, misunderstandings,
and bureaucratic delays. The deter-
mination of the citizenry to complete
the expressway has not waned, how-
ever, as evidenced by a petition
urging completion, handed me last
year, to which over 103,0000 residents,
of San Antonio had affixed their sig-
natures.
Mr. President, opposition to section
148 appears to be based on two pri-
mary concerns: First, that the pro-
vision establishes dangerous prece-
dent, and, second, that completion of
the expressway would be detrimental
to the environment of San Antonio.
Each of these concerns was addressed
and rebutted on the floor of this
chamber last year and once again
several weeks ago during public hear-
ings. Nevertheless, further attention
is now required.
With regard to the "dangerous pre-
cedent" argument, I direct the atten-
tion of my colleagues to page 23 of
the committee report on the pending
bill. There are, indeed, unusual cir-
cumstances which surround the San
Antonio experience which sufficiently
distinguish it from any probelm now
existing or capable of arising at any
point in the future.
The project is a non-interstate ur-
ban expressway sited wholly within
the limits of the city of San Antonio.
Following initial route approval by
the Federal Highway Administrator
in March of 1964, the State pur-
chased the requisite rights-of-way
and completed the relocation at a cost
of some $7 million, comprised of State
and local funds. It was not until well
after this exercise of planning, re-
ceipt of Federal approval, and ex-
penditure of State and local funds
that the National Environmental
Policy Act—NEPA—and section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation
Act were enacted.
More recently, subsequent to NEPA
and 4(f), and prior to recent Federal
court decisions defining the standards
by which administrative approval by
the Secretary of Transportation is to
be granted, the Secretary did in fact
approve the letting of construction
contracts on the project—bids were
accepted, contracts let, and construc-
tion begun.
Mr. President, the facts surround-
ing the San Antonio expressway
chain-of-events are indeed sufficient
to differentiate it from any other ex-
ample now existing, and certainly at
no point in the future could such a
factual situation come into being-. A
-------
108
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
dangerous precedent will not be es-
tablished by the retention of section
148.
Turning next to the environmental
question which has been raised, it has
become apparent that oft times false
claims have unfortunately overshad-
owed the facts. Brackenridge Park, of
which both San Antonio and the en-
tire State of Texas are justly proud,
will not be destroyed as has been
claimed.
Only some 9 acres of the park will
be affected, and that being located at
the extreme southwest corner of the
Brackenridge golf course. In fact, the
golf course has been rebuilt to ac-
commodate the expressway and has
been back in play in its realined con-
figuration for some 4 years.
I could well offer other comment
concerning the effect of the completed
expressway on San Antonio's park
lands. However, one who knows the
facts better than I, Mr. Robert L.
Frazer, director of parks and recrea-
tion for the city of San Antonio for
the past 17 years,
[p. S4938]
testified under oath as to the impact
of the expressway. For the benefit of
Senators, that testimony is reproduced
on page 463 of the subcommittee hear-
ings on the pending bill. In essence,
Mr. Frazer states that:
A properly designed e^pvessuay NM!! not
adversely affect the recieational uses beiny
made of parts of the Olmos Basin or Rrack-
enrid'^e Park
Mr. President, San Antonio is a
unique city, and if any community in
my State—or in the Nation, for that
matter—is vitally concerned about
the preservation of its environment
and the retention of its natural
beauty, it is San Antonio. The urban
renewal effort there has done won-
ders for the revitalization of the cen-
tral city. The San Antonio River,
which winds its way through the
downtown area, once considered an
evidence of "urban blight" by many,
is now a primary showcase of the
city and of the State.
The early Spanish heritage of the
city has been jealously guarded
through the preservation of historic
residences and landmark structures
throughout the area.
I cannot believe that the City Coun-
cil, the Commissioners' Court of
Bexar County, countless civic organ-
izations, and, most important, the
people of San Antonio, speaking
through both petition and the ballot
box, would have pursued the comple-
tion of the north expressway if in-
deed its completion would seriously
damage the beauty and vitality of
their city. Likewise, if for a moment
I felt that section 148 were a pro-
vision directed at the elimination of
park land or a dangerous precedent
as regards the administration of our
Federal environmental statutes, I
would not place my support behind
its passage.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I
would not place my support behind
its passage.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I
would hope that we in this body
never reach the point we feel our-
selves so restrained by statute that
we refuse to examine the merits of
an individual case which reaches us
for consideration. The San Antonio
north expressway represent just such
a case, boasting facts which when
balanced, find the equities in favor of
its completion.
The people of San Antonio have
spoken. Their elected officials have
spoken.
I urge my colleagues to join with
me in defeating the pending amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Who
yields time?
\ Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I
, yield myself such time as I may use.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
109
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I
have been very much impressed by
the eloquence of my two friends from
Texas. Certainly, when they speak
about local autonomy and decision-
making, they go to my own feelings
about local responsibility in this
country. It is for that reason that I
have been opposed to seeing the Fed-
eral Government move into so many
areas where local governments have
had the competence to make their
own decisions.
However, the fact remains that
when one seeks Federal money it
comes with Federal conditions
attached. This is a fact of life. There-
fore, the people of San Antonio, Tex.,
abrogated their right to move as they
wished when they submitted them-
selves to Federal jurisdiction in this
matter. We are now talking about
the integrity of those laws, of the
whole system, not as it applies to a
narrow stretch of road in San An-
tonio, but as it applies across the
country.
I suggest that notwithstanding
those attempts to distinguish this
case, it does provide a very large
precedent and one which will be cited
time and time again. What it is say-
ing, in effect, is: Go ahead and reach
out for that Federal money and when
your hand gets caught in the environ-
mental cookie jar, offer it back and
proceed.
It is my understanding that there
are over 30 cases, certainly not on all
four's with this one, where equivalent
arguments could be made for elimina-
tion of Federal protection. There was
one matter offered in committee by
the Senator from Virginia relating to
the exemption of 1-66 in Virginia, j
He understood arguments against
this kind of legislation and, therefore,
he resubmitted on amendment which
would contemplate the full environ-
mental procedures, orCy providing
that there would be special priority
granted to the consideration of the
impact statement once submitted.
A district court order issued on
January 10 of this year provided the
same protection of this priority con-
sideration to the State of Texas and
to San Antonio. It directs the Secre-
tary to proceed with all good speed
in handling the application. We have
testimony from the representative of
the State of Texas Highway Depart-
ment which, in effect, states that if
they put on a little steam, if they
take these things seriously, it would
not take long for the study of alterna-
tives to be completed. We know the
Department of Transportation is in a
position to act swiftly. This is re-
flected in the letter fro CEQ Chairman
Train which I have cited and intro-
duced in the RECORD.
I suggest we will see another ex-
ample later today from a Senator I
esteem greatly, the senior Senator
from New Hampshire, who, I under-
stand, intends to introduce an amend-
ment for a waiver of a section of
highway affecting his State.
No; we will be opening a Pandora's
box if we isolate a specific case where
matters affecting sensitive areas in a
Senator's State are concerned.
The junior Senator from Texas
made a point about the environment
and the awful eyesore and the waste
of money resulting from the two ap-
proaches, north and south, of this
proposed project, and the rusting
away, causing erosion. If this is a
fact, this is a self-imposed eyesore
and self-imposed contamination be-
cause the State well knew when it
proceeded with the construction and
proceeded to spend funds extending
highways north and south that the
matter was under serious controversy
and in the courts. If they spent the
money in the face of litigation, they
did so imprudently and that is not a
matter to which Congress should ad-
-------
110
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
dress itself. It is not sufficient cause |
for us to begin eroding the validity,
the vitality, and the impact of our
legislation in the environmental field.
We hear that only 4 acres of pic-
nic lands will be affected. The senior
Senator somehow enlarged it to 9
acres. I invite the attention of Sena-
tors to page 470 of the hearings which
are on the desk of each Senator to
see a graphic description of the area
which will be affected should this
route be followed. It involves at least
150 acres. This is a significant impact
on that park. But I do not believe
we here should be arguing whether
or not this is desirable or not desir-
able. This is precisely the determina-
tion that is to be made by competent
transportation authorities on the
basis of a comprehensive study.
I believe we have, through the es-
sentials of this controversy, insuffici-
ent detail to allow Members to make
their own judgment. I only regret
that more Senators could not be pres-
ent. It was pointed out that last year
my amendment was rejected by 2 to
1. It was rejected by a vote of 2 to 1
because I am convinced at that time
there was an insufficient understand-
ing of the importance of this matter.
Very few people were present to hear
the debate, but I do hope that in the
intervening months there has been an
opportunity for people to think this
matter through and understand we
cannot begin legislating special ex-
emptions to legislation designed to
achieve broad goals, nor can we begin
to examine item by item every last
bit of public works constructed in
the United States.
If the distinguished Senator from
Texas is ready to yield back his time
I am ready to yield back my time.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, th.
Senator from Texas has agreed to
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New Mexico is recog-
nized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President,
first, it is with reluctance that I dis-
igree with my distinguished colleague
'rom New York. Usually, if I do not
agree with him, I do not find fault
with his rationale and reasoning, but,
n this instance, I find fault even
with that because it seems to me the
major thrust of the argument of the
Senator from New York is one of
precedent. He goes against the pre-
:edent we would set here today.
The theme of his argument is that
it is wrong to commit a present in-
justice in the name of avoiding a
future misapplication of this section.
Based on the facts as I found them
as a member of the committee and
as previous Committees on Public
Works found them, it seems to me
there is no question but that to agree
with the Senator from New York is
to agree that the present injustice of
a serious nature must be permitted to
stand because we are concerned that
we will not be able in the future to
distinguish similar injustices that
come before us or other tribunals
charged with environmental protec-
tion for the citizens of this country.
I think the hearings of the sub-
committee clearly indicate that this
is indeed a peculiar situation, one
that we will not find in the future,
at least in the future application of
the environmental laws of this coun-
try, for the project was started before
we had one. It was on its way to
completion before
[p. S4939]
we had a law. The State of Texas
would have completed it but for
the fact that we come along with
a Federal system that says, "We
will give you money," and then,
after the fact, decides on en
vironmental protection requirements
that could indeed have little impact
| on the entire area, but the procedural
requirements would undoubtedly bur-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
111
den the situation and perhaps cause
millions of dollars to be wasted.
I would only conclude by saying for
myself, as a member of the committee,
I read the statements of experts from
San Antonio who said unanimously
that no harm would come, and they
would like to complete it for them-
selves. I wanted to hear from the
people of San Antonio what feeling
they had about it. It is interesting
to tell the Senate the results of how
they feel. I asked for and got mail
from around the country and got a
majority of 4 to 1 from about 50
people who live in the area around
the country, who disagree, but not
in Texas, with the Senator from
Texas, but again, from a population
of San Antonio some 600,000 of the
people there, the ratio was reversed.
They supported it 5 to 1. The letters
and correspondence were not the let-
ters and correspondence from any
lobby, but were letters from individ-
ual citizens who wanted to go to work
easier, individual citizens who wanted
to get to the recreation areas of
Texas easier.
Indeed, it seems to me an anomaly
that we here discuss the great idea
of returning to local government the
authority to do what it can do best
while in this instance, with the hue
and cry of the citizens of Texas, who
say, in an orderly manner, "Let us
finish this ourselves; it was started
before we had any law," we will come
along and say, "Yes, we want local
government to be in here, but we
would like you to delay the local proj-
ect, which is years behind schedule,
so you can comply with Federal
standards the impact of which are
purely speculative." And indeed, as
we look at them across the country,
as we change the law and apply the
law today, this action is infinitesimal
even if it were to cause some little
harm to the environment.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
I agree wholeheartedly with the
principle for which the Senator shows
a concern, but, justice, I think, de-
mands that the amendment be de-
feated.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I yield 2 minutes
to the Senator.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, the
question of the applicability of the
National Environmental Policy Act
and of other statutes having an en-
vironmental rationale or a conserva-
tion basis is not a unique one to this
body or to this Congress or to the
courts.
In my service on the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy the question of the
effect of NEPA and the applicability
of environmental impact require-
ments as well as other provisions of
that act have been painfully and
torturously examined and reexamined
by the Atomic Energy Commission
and by the courts.
My position in such situations has
been that while NEPA has worked
a hardship in some respects, we
should not recede from an overall
respect for the requirement of a
national system for environmental
protection that must continue and en-
dure, and that a way must be found
to comply with these standards, with-
out the standards being unconscion-
able impediments.
In the case of highway construc-
tion, there is the question of the
applicability of section 102 of NEPA.
The solution proposed in section 148
of the bill is unique indeed. It would
remove from the Federal aid highway
system a portion of road, which
otherwise would come under the re-
quirement of Federal highway and
related legislation.
I have no desire to intrude my
I opinions and judgment into the af-
fairs of the sovereign State of Texas,
and certainly no desire to undercut
the efforts of my distinguished friends
-------
112
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN and Mr.
TOWER) , who so ably represent that
great State in the Senate. On the
other hand, I cannot help but express
my concern for the precedent being
set here. I have a somewhat dis-
similar, but not entirely dis-
similar, situation in my own State of
Tennessee with respect to the Over-
ton Park project, which is now in-
volved in litigation over the question
of whether or not highway-related
law has been complied with in the
identification of alternative proposals
for the construction of this portion
of interstate highway through Over-
ton Park.
I have never contended that it
should be removed from the Federal
system, or that the law of the United
States should not be complied with.
Rather, I believe, that we should get
about the business, as fast as possi-
ble, of resolving this dispute so we
can build the highway, not remove
it from the Federal system.
I intend to support the Buckley
amendment. I think it is important
in principle, even though it may
cause some hardship to the people of
Texas and even though I recognize
that the issues involved in this prob-
lem are unique.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the
distinguished Senator from Texas
(Mr. TOWER).
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I
would like to underscore a point that
has been made by the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI), and
point out that the Environmental
Policy Act was passed many years
after the right-of-way had already
been acquired, the route had already
been approved, and the citizens of
San Antonio had spent a great deal
of money. The matter became fouled
up in a faceless bureaucracy here
and was subjected to the whims of
some arbitrary civil servant who
treated the people of San Antonio
with the arrogance of a maharajah.
I do not think our cities should be
subjected to that kind of treatment.
Senator BENTSEN has already
clearly and adequately made the case
that this is not a precedent and that
this situation is unique.
Mr. President, if you want to foul
up the environment in San Antonio,
force the people to buy the right-of-
way for another route, leave this
structure a useless eyesore, force
them to buy another route and use
up other valuable land. If we want
to follow the spirit of environmental-
ism, the best thing we can do is de-
feat the amendment offered by the
Senator from New York and accept
section 148.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
may I have 1 minute?
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
chairman of the committee.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President. I
have no desire to enter into the argu-
ment from the standpoint of support-
ing information brought to the
Senate by the able Senators from
Texas (Mr. BENTSEN and Mr.
TOWER). I want only to reflect that
the record made last year shows a
very thorough debate in the Senate
on this item. I believe the judgment
of the Senate then, which expressed
in a vote was of 24 to 49 against the
position of the Senator from New
York (Mr. BUCKLEY), should be re-
flected also in the vote this afternoon.
The Senator from Texas described
the uniqueness of the San Antonio
situation to the committee in a way
that convinced us to include the pro-
vision in the bill. I believe that today
he has again made a case for the
rejection of the amendment offered by
the Senator from New York.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
113
would like to comment on the state-
ment made by the senior Senator
from Texas and the Senator from
New Mexico and by the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee (Mr.
BENTSEN).
We recognize the action taken last
year, but this is a new Congress.
There are new people here who did
not participate last year, new people
in the House of Representatives who
are not in my judgment, bound by
such precedent as we may have es-
tablished last year in considering
this particular question.
We heard statements from the
Senator from New Mexico and the
Senator from Texas about correcting
a present injustice. I think the facts
need to be corrected.
In the first instance, the city of
San Antonio began planning for this
expressway well before the relevant
Federal statutes came into being. The
fact is they did not first apply for
Federal funds until 1968, or 2 years
after the enactment of section 4(f).
Federal approval did not come until
August 13, 1970, 8 months after the
enactment of NEPA. There was
nothing to stop the city of San
Antonio from proceeding1, however it
wanted, without Federal funds, as its
willingness to return those funds
confirmed.
Second, we have heard a great
deal—and I certainly am impressed
by the extent of the desire of the
people of San Antonio for an ex-
pressway. They voted back in 1961
the bond money for an expressway.
I suggest that they did not neces-
sarily vote for this precise route,
given the number of alternatives
that are available for getting the
people of San Antonio from one end
to the other, as reflected in the Gruen
report prepared for the Secretary of
Transportation.
Mr. President, at this stage, I am
quite willing to return the balance
of my time for the convenience of
the Senator.
[p. S4940]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
COOK). Does the Senator from New
York yield back the balance of his
time?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I am prepared to.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, if
it is agreeable to the Senator from
New York, I will close the argument
in 5 minutes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Very well.
Mr. BENTSEN. Then I will yield
back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from New York yield
back the balance of his time?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I reserve the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
What does the Senator from New
! York do?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I reserve the
time.
Mr. BENTSEN. Then I reserve
my time.
Mr. President, to conclude my re-
marks on, the subject let me sum-
marize the distinctions between the
San Antonio project and some which
have been mentioned on the floor this
afternoon.
The San Antonio Expressway is
not an interstate highway and never
has been.
Construction was begun only after
the Secretary of Transportation
agreed that if final Federal approval
could not be obtained, it could be
built with State funds.
And to build the road with State
funds is all the State of Texas is
asking.
Unlike the projects which have
been mentioned this afternoon—only
local funds would be expended on the
San Antonio Expressway. Therefore,
Mr. President, only local standards
should apply.
I would like to read to the Senate
an excerpt from the testimony sub-
-------
114
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
mitted by the Transportation Sub-
committee because it speaks
specifically to this question of pre-
cedent:
The facts of the San Antonio situation
isolate it and make it so unique that it could
in no event be precedent in a traditional sense.
The partially done construction referred to by
the fifth circuit as a huge concrete offspring
was commenced under a unique agreement
thought by both DOT and the State to be
perfectly proper. Under it, the Secretary
approved construction of the end segments
provided that if the Secretary and the State
could not agree on a middle section, none of the
project would be eligible for Federal aid.
Both parties thought the road could be built
as a wholly State project if the State and
Federal agencies could not agree on it. Con-
struction was commenced with the State agency
aware of and accepting the fact that it might
be forced to pay for the total cost of the
project. There was no way that either agency
could have known either that the rules of
administrative review would be changed, or
that the relationship with the Federal Govern-
ment would be held forever binding. With
everyone concerned at the time acting in good
faith, a terrible mess has resulted in San
Antonio. Great sums of money are already lost
and more is being lost; an eyesore exists, and
peoples' needs are not being served.
This is the only case in America in which
the people have been denied the right to build
a highway within the boundaries of their own
State, with their own money, for their own use.
The only case in America, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, I ask the Senate to
oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President,
would the Senator yield to me for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. BENTSEN. I would be
pleased to yield to the distinguished
Senator from Vermont.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that Mr. E.
Steven Swain, of the Committee on
Public Works staff, may have the
privilege of the floor during- the re-
mainder of the debate on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I
yield myself 2 final minutes.
I would like to rectify two of the
statements that have been made elo-
quently by the Senator from Texas.
Yes, the State of Texas proceeded
to spend its money as the result of
the Secretary of Transportation's au-
thorization made in 1970; but the
Secretary of Transportation also
stated that before any approval of
the middle section be made, the alter-
natives had to be determined. If we
consider this as a package deal, the
State of Texas is now repudiating
the central part of that package.
I might note in passing that the
circuit court of appeals found in its
decision that in agreeing as he did,
the Secretary was,
Acting in a clear abdication of his section
4(f) responsibilities.
The court further found that the
so-called agreement with the State of
Texas was also in violation of the
law.
I suggest, Mr. President, and I
think this is important across the
country, when people are trying to
resist the NEPA law, instead of try-
ing to comply with it—had the State
of Texas gone forward and decided
to comply with the law, rather than
fighting—the people of San Antonio
would be well on the way toward
having an expressway now, perhaps
down the route indicated by the State
of Texas planning, or perhaps some
other route. At least, we would have
had progress. It would have been a
route in which all valid considera-
tions are taken fully into account.
I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield myself a
final 3 minutes.
It comes down to whether some
people in Texas—who have already
spent this $11 million of their own
funds and been assured by the De-
partment of Transportation they
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
115
could complete the project with their
own funds if necessary—will not be
forced to lose that investment be-
cause the Department of Transporta-
tion was in error. The people of San
Antonio should not be punished be-
cause of other peoples' mistakes.
I feel that equity demands that we
get the Federal Government out of
this project by retaining section 148
in the bill.
Congress is not granting any ex-
ception for a federally funded proj-
ect. And it is not ordering that
anything be built. It is simply allow-
ing local people to do what they like
with money they raised by their own
taxes.
I urge the defeat of this amend-
ment.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the
Senate debate and action on S. 502
mark an important transition point
in the attempt to achieve orderly
growth and a rational redefinition
in priorities in the Federal-aid high-
way program to meet the continuing
but changing needs in American trans-
portation.
Three years ago in hearings before
the Senate Public Works Subcommit-
tee on Roads on "all aspects of the
national highway program and re-
lated activities," I testified that—
(O)ur focus should be, constantly and with-
out flinching, on the social need for the best
possible transportation for the maximum ntim-
bel of people
Earlier in 1970, I suggested that as
a part of a national environmental
agenda for this decade, we must be-
gin—
to utilize the billions of dollars a yeat that
could be made available on completion of the
Interstate Highway System to provide new
transportation alternatives, including mass
transit, in our polluted, congested, highway-
choked urban areas
In the last Congress, the Senate
began the legislative action to revise
the Federal-aid highway program to
meet changing transportation needs,
but was unable to complete action be-
fore adjournment. The debate was
important, however, in focusing at-
tention and discussion on the prob-
lems and the issues which any legis-
lative response must address: the
completion of the national Interstate
Highway System, and increased em-
phasis on the continuing re-
quirements of rural and urban trans-
portation systems within the various
States.
S. 502, as amended on the floor
yesterday, reflects these deliberations
and responds to our changing trans-
portation needs in this country. In
particular, S. 502, in its present
form, would respond to specific trans-
portation issues in the State of
Wisconsin.
Completion of the Interstate Sys-
tem in Wisconsin has almost been
accomplished. A somewhat unique
situation with one particular seg-
ment of the Interstate System in
Wisconsin remains to be resolved,
however. At my request, this situa-
tion was addressed by the Senate
Public Works Committee in the billl
(S. 3939) which they reported on the
last Congress and which passed the
Senate by a vote of 77 to 0 in Sep-
tember 1972. Because of differences
with the other body, Federal-aid
highway legislation was not resolved
before adjournment and the particu-
lar problem in Wisconsin still re-
mained at issue.
In the last hours of the 93d Con-
gress, I entered into a discussion
with the distinguished chairman of
the Senate Public Works Committee,
Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH, about
the specific problem in the State of
Wisconsin created by the first quali-
fying deadline of July 1, 1973, for
segments authorized under the last
1,500-mile addition to the interstate
program. In that colliquy with
Chairman RANDOLPH on the Senate
floor on October 18, 1972, I was as-
-------
116
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
sured that the problem of a qualify-
ing deadline of July 1, 1973, for in-
terstate finance programing and its
negative impact upon any appropri-
ate
[p. S4941]
resolution of the 1-57 controversy in
Wisconsin would be addressed by the
Public Works Committee in the 93d
Congress.
Section 112 of the present bill (S.
502) will satisfactorily answer the
immediate question with regard to
the ability of the State of Wisconsin
to meet the first qualifying deadline
on a final segment of 1-57. The co-
operation and assistance of the chair-
man of the committee (Mr. RAN-
DOLPH), and the Senator from Texas
(Mr. BENTSEN) who is managing the
Federal-aid highway bill this year is
appreciated. So that the RECORD may
be more complete on this matter, I
would include at this point in my
statement the excerpt from the de-
bate last October 18 which contains
the discussion of the 1-57 matter
with Chairman RANDOLPH ;
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Mr. NELSOV, The Senate-passed bill, S. 393'J,
the Federal Highway Act of 1972, had language
which included section 112, \\hich \vould change
the first qualifying deadline for interstate
finance programing from July 1, 1973, to July
1, 197 J. There is a particulai p) oblem in the
State of Wisconsin about meeting the qualify-
ing date of July 1, 1978, and section 112
extended the deadline to July 1, 1974, and I
assume it may apply to other places in the
United States
Under the confeience agreement, that section
\\as dropped. The act is extended for 1 year.
My question is, Would it be the intention of
the chairman of the committee to address itself
to that paiticular question of extending that
deadline for qualifying to July 1, 1974, as the
distinguished chairman of the committee had it
in the bill as it passed the Senate V
Mi. RAXDOIPH. That is correct. On the 10th
of October I received a letter from the Senatoi
from Wisconsin in refeience to this matter. As
the Senator has indicated, it was in the Senate
bill It has been dropped in conference I pledge
to the Senator from Wisconsin and others who
may be interested that early next year this
matter will be addressed by the Senate Com-
mittee on Public Works. I feel there will be no
difficulty in taking care of the Senator's State
and other States.
Mr. NEI^SON. I appreciate that statement
because 1-57 involves a particular problem in
Milwaukee, which I discussed in the letter
which I sent to the Senator from West Vii-
ginia as chairman. There is no way they can
give the proper statutory assurances, under the
law of Wisconsin, prior to July 1, 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the
Senator has expired.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that my letter to the chairman of the
committee (Mr. RANDOLPH ) he printed at this
stance in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the lettei was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows,
"U.S. SENATE,
"Washington, D.C., October 10, 1072.
"Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
"Chairman, Public Works Comni'ttee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
"DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : When the Senate
passed S. 3939, the Fedeial-Aid Highway Act
of 1972 on September 19, 1972, by a vote of
77—0, language was included in Sec. 112 of the
bill which would change the first qualifying
deadline for Interstate finance programming
from the present July 1, 1973 to July 1, 1974
for those projects authorized under the last
1,500 mile addition to the Interstate program
This change in deadline directly applies to a
unique situation in the State of Wisconsin and
was added in the Public Works Committee at
my iequest.
"Our particular problem in Wisconsin has to
do \Uth the Milwaukee end of the 1-57 project
At this time no one is in any position to make
a firm finding about that segment of the I-.i7
project south of the Saukville Interchange
There are many pros and cons as to desirability
of locating it over the route of the proposed
Stadium Fi ee\\ ay north. The majol considera-
tions in favor of this are the possibility of
security 909f financing for developing a high
level highway which will serve the ingress and
egiess of the Milwaukee area fiom the noith-
west, and contribute toward eloping the fieeuay
gap on Fond du Lac Avenue (U.S. 41) as \\ell
as serving as the southern leg of I-o".
"However, the ability of the State, as \\ell as
the City and County of Milwaukee, to make a
positive finding and demonstrate clear intent
and capability by next July 1, 1973, is im-
possible. This is due to a July 28, 1972 agree-
ment bet\\een the Governor of Wisconsin, the
Executhe of Milwaukee County and the Mayor
of Milv. aukee which conditions this pioject as
\\ell as some others on a shov. of substantial
progress in offsetting the housing deficit in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
117
Milwaukee resulting from past construction of
all kinds.
"To meet this housing requirement and thus
proceed to a firm decision on the intent to
construct this segment of 1-57, the State of
Wisconsin has passed legislation authorizing
the establishment of the Wisconsin Housing
Authority. Because of a possible conflict with
the State Constitution, however, this legislation
faces a court test before the "WHA will be in
business. Regardless of the outcome of the
court test of the constitutionality of the WHA
legislation, this delay \vill prevent the State of
Wisconsin from making any positive finding
and demonstrating to the Secretary of the
Department of Transpoitation by July 1, 1973
a clear intent and capability to construct the
final segment of I-o7.
"The Secretary of the Department of Trans-
portation of the State of Wisconsin has stated
that another year is vitally necessary for the
State to be able to meet the first deadline
required by law. The final sentence of Sec. 112
of the Senate passed version of S. 3939 would
accomplish this purpose and extend the first
deadline to July 1, 1974. This provision was not
included in S. 3939 when the House passed
their version of this legislation on October 6,
1972. It is my hope that this explanation of the
unique situation in Wisconsin which is dhectly
affected by this provision in the Senate bill ~u ill
merit the attention of the conferees on the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1972 and will be
retained in the Conference Report on this
legislation.
"Sincerely yours,
"GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senator."
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, with
the completion of the Interstate Sys-
tem now in sight, we must refocus
attention on our other transportation
and highway needs, both rural and
urban. In the State of Wisconsin,
rural and urban transportation and
highway needs require continued at-
tention which is both flexible in its
approach and nondiscriminatory in
its impact.
Presently, Wisconsin has more
than 2,000 miles of its 11,000-mile
system in use which were built to
pre-World War II standards. These
roads are essentially worn out and
confront the motorist with accident-
producing situations such as re-
stricted sight distance, sharp curves,
narrow roadways, inadequate struc-
tures, elongated no-passing zones and
similiar hazards. Twenty-three
hundred miles of the system are sur-
faced with mixed bituminous mate-
rial that has served longer than its
design life of 10 years. One thousand
miles of bituminous concrete has out-
lived its design life of 15 years, and
900 miles of portland cement con-
crete has outlived its design life of
25 years. About 29 percent of the
total Wisconsin highway system has
therefore been used longer than its
normal life expectancy.
j We cannot expect this situation to
last much longer without some ex-
tensive repair and replacement work.
Thus, the State Department of Trans-
portation indicates that work which
should have been done by 1970 totals
6.107 miles in all 72 counties in Wis-
consin. Estimated cost of this work
today is upward of $2.66 billion. In
addition to the road situation in Wis-
consin, 56 bridges will need attention
wihtin the next 5 years and 60 ad-
ditional bridges will require work
within 10 years. The State's current
estimate of this cost for bridgework
is $91 million.
The State Department of Trans-
j portation has indicated to me that
the present formulas for distribution
of Federal aids to the State for pri-
mary, secondary, and urban highway
systems are satisfactory and accept-
able. It is my understanding of the
provisions of S. 502 that these for-
mulas are maintained in the present
legislation. With the noninterstate
funding portion of S. 502 for pri-
mary, secondary, and urban eate-
i gories being increased to $2.2 billion
for each of the next 3 fiscal years,
and with the bar to impoundment of
highway funds authorized by this
present legislation which was added
by an amendment that I supported
| yesterday, more noninterstate Fed-
eral-aid highway program funds
should be available to the State of
Wisconsin to meet rural and urban
transportation needs of the 1970's.
1 In order to turn the focus of atton-
-------
118
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
tion on creating a truly balanced
transportation system in this Nation,
however, we must also have a greater
degree of flexibility to meet the spe-
cific and varying needs of each State,
urban and rural. Now is the time to
allow a wider degree of discretion
and alternatives to State and local
governments in the allocation of Fed-
eral transportation funds to essen-
tially local transportation needs.
Yesterday, I supported two amend-
ments to S. 502 which would give
State and local governments both
additional funding and additional
alternatives to employ in meeting
their local needs. The Williams
amendment, which passed by a vote
of 59 to 36, would authorize $1 billion
a year more in Federal grants under
the Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964 for capital improvements of
mass transit systems. In addition,
this amendment would authorize a 2-
year expenditure of $800 million out
of general revenues for operating
subsidies for mass transit systems
until the infusion of capital funds
could take hold.
I also supported the amendment by
Senators MUSKIE and BAKER which
passed the Senate by a vote of 49 to
44. This amendment would authorize
States and cities to use authoriza-
tions of the highway trust fund
which are earmarked for urban sys-
tems for a variety of transportation
needs, including buses and fixed rail
systems. Contrary to some under-
standings of this provision, the dis-
cretion
[p. S4942]
to use that portion of the trust funds
earmarked for urban systems for
mass transit does not affect the divi-
sion of Federal aid for other portions
of the Federal aid highway program.
It merely adds fixed rail transit as
an option available for the urban
systems portion of this program.
As the State of Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Transportation has indicated
to me, with the protection afforded
by distribution formulas to preserve
each State's share of the fund—
It is desirable to give the respective states a
maximum of flexibility in the use of their
shares of the aids for transportation purposes,
including highway related mass transit (bus),
and even rail facilities.
If our focus is to be on the best
possible transportation for the maxi-
mum number of people, we cannot
limit our flexibility or dictate our
transportation financing options. A
singular choice is really no option at
all. Allowing the steadily available
dollars of the highway trust fund to
be applied to mass transit in our
urban areas, if local government
wishes to use their share of funds
in such a manner, provides a real
alternative. To improve the traveling
lot of every man, woman, and child
in this country—not just in our ur-
ban centers, but in our rural com-
munities as well—we must be able
to improve and coordinate all methods
of transportation in this country.
With a final remark upon the ac-
tions on the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1973, I would like to express
my concern over the provision in the
bill (S. 502) which would exempt
the so-called North Expressway in
San Antonio, Tex., from the require-
ments of the National Environmental
Policy Act. Last year, I joined Sena-
tor BUCKLEY, of New York, in oppos-
ing this attempt to dodge the Federal
requirement for consideration of the
environmental impact of this high-
way proposal. The National Environ-
mental Policy Act established in law
; the principle that Federal and fed-
erally aided projects should be
| carefully reviewed for their environ-
: mental impact before they are under-
taken. If we begin now, under what-
ever guise, to excuse projects from
] such requirements, Congress will
simply be writing the beginning of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
119
the end of this vitally important
environmental protection law.
Thus, once again, I express my
strong opposition to the San Antonio
exemption and urge Congress to re-
quire that this project comply with
the la\v. While this particular exemp-
tion would appear to have a very
limited narrow application, we can
be sure others who might wish to
avoid environmental studies will be
tempted to view it as a possible prec-
edent.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time has been yielded back. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from New York.
The yeas and nays have been or-
dered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. BAYH), the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mr.
MclNTYRE), and the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) are nec-
essarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELL-
MON) and the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. HATFIELD) are necessarily ab-
sent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) would
vote "yea."
The result was announced—yeas
43, nays 50, as follows:
[No. 40 Lee. I j
YEAS—43
Abourezk Buckley Eaeleton
Baker Cannon Goldwatei
Bartlett Case Giiffin
Bennett Church Hart
Biden Clark Haskell
Brock Cranston Hathaway
Brooke Dominick Hughes
Inouyp
Javits
Kennedy
Mathias
McCluve
McGovern
Metcalf
Muskie
Aiken
Allen
Beall
Bentsen
Bible
Burdick
Byrd,
Harry F., Jr.
Byrd, Robert C.
Chiles
Cook
Cotton
Curtis
Dole
Domenici
Eastland
Ervin
Nelson
Nunn
Pack \\ood
Pas tore
Pell
Percy
Proxmire
Ribicoff
NAYS— 50
Fannin
Fong
Fulbriprht
Gurney
Hansen
Hartke
Helms
Rollings
Hruska
Huddleston
Humphrey
Jackson
Johnston
Urns
Maprnuson
Mansfield
McClellan
Roth
Schweiker
Stevenson
Symington
Tunney
Weicker
McGee
Montoya
Moss
Pearson
Randolph
Saxbe
Scott, Pa.
Scott, Va
Sparkman
Stafford
Stevens
Taft
Talmad^e
Thurmond
Towel-
Williams
"\Viinc:
NOT VOTING 7
Bayh Hatfield Srennis
Bellmon Mclntyre
Gravel Mondale
So Mr. BUCKLEY'S amendment was
rejected.
[p. S49431
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am
pleased to rise to support the Federal
Aid Highway Act of 1973, S. 502.
This bill is very similar to a bill I
was privileged to have worked on last
year when I served as chairman of
the Subcommittee on Roads of the
Committee on Public Works. The bill
now before us is a sound and pro-
gressive piece of legislation, respon-
sive to the highway and transporta-
tion needs of the entire Nation, urban
and rural areas alike. I commend the
distinguished chairman of the full
committee, the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) and the
present chairman of the subcommit-
tee, the distinguished Senator from
Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) for their hard
and capable work on the pending
legislation.
I would like to comment specifically
on a few of the most important
-------
120
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
features of the Federal Aid Highway
Act of 1973.
*****
[p. S4979]
ASSURING CLEAN AIR
The committee very wisely included
in the bill two provisions aimed at
assuring that the goals of the Clean
Air Act are met. Under existing law,
the Secretary of Transportation is
required to develop guidelines to
guarantee that highways are con-
structed in a manner consistent with
the approved plan for implementation
of an ambient air quality standard
in the area. Under the bill before us,
the Secretary, after June 30 of this
year, must find that a highway proj-
ect is in conformity with the guide-
lines before he approves it. In addi-
tion, for those air quality control
regions needing transportation con-
trols, a proposed highway program
or project cannot be approved unless
it is consistent with the Clean Air
Act implementation plan. Further-
more, the Secretary is authorized to
require a State to use all the urban
extension funds apportioned to it for
needed transportation controls. This
too will facilitate implementation of
the Clean Air Act.
4 * * * *
[p. S4980]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall the bill pass?
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
fall the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the
Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
MclNTYRE), the Senator from Min-
nesota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senator
from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON),
the Senator from Virginia (Mr.
HARRY F. BYRD, JR), and the Senator
from California (Mr. CRANSTON)
are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) is
absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present
and voting the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.), and the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL)
would each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELL-
MON), the Senator from Utah (Mr.
BENNETT), the Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. COOK), the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. DoMINlCK). the Sena-
tor from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) ,
and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
SAXBE) are necessarily absent.
Also, the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. BARTLETT), the Senator from
New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), and the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS)
are necessarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Utah (Mr. BENNETT), the Sena-
tor from Kentucky (Mr. COOK), the
Senator from Colorado (Mr.
DOMINICK) , the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. HATFIELP) , and the Senator
from Ohio (Mr. SAXBE) would each
vote "yea."
The result was announced—yeas
77, nays 5, as follows:
I No. 43 Lew. I
YKAS 77
Abourezk
Aiken
Allen
Bakn
Bayh
Beall
Rentsen
Bible
Birteii
Brooke
Burdick
By-id, Robeit C.
Cannon
Case
Chiles
Chmch
Clark
Cotton
Curtis
Dole
Domemci
Kastland
Krvin
FOIH-
iMillHiirht
Goldunlcl
Griffin
Gm'ney
Haiisen
Hart
Havtkr
Haskell
Hathaway
Hollini;s
Urask.i
HurtdU'slon
Hughes
Hvim^hrc:.
Tnouyp
Jackson
•lavits
Johnston
Kennedy
Lonu:
Matrnuson
Mansfield
Mathias
McCIellan
McClnre
McGet
McGovei n
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
121
Metcalf
Montoya
Moss
Nunn
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Brock
Fannin
Randolph
Ribicoff
Schweiker
Scott, Pa.
Scott, Va.
Sparkman
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
NAYS— S
Helms
Proxmire
Taft
Talmad^e
Thurmond
Tower
Tunney
Weicker
Williams
Young
Roth
Bartlett
Bellmon
Bennett
Buckley
Byrd,
Harry F.
Cook
So the
NOT VOTING—
Cianston
Dominick
Eaprleton
Gravel
Hatfield
, Jr. Mclntyre
Mondale
18
Muskie
Nelson
Saxbe
Stennis
Stevens
bill (S. 502) was passed.
[p. S4982]
1.6b(4)(b) April 18-19: Considered and passed
House amended, pp. H2916-H2917, H2923, H2930-H2933, H2941,
H2947, H2985-H2989, H2990-H2992, H3033-H3034;
Mr. MILFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this bill.
The record of what highways have
done for the economy and the well-
being of this country, particularly
since inception of the past Federal
Aid Highway Act of 1916, is one of
the finest records of achievement of
any major public works project that
has ever been authorized by the Con-
gress of the United States.
Highways have opened up new
areas in various sections of our na-
tion spawning new industries in dy-
ing towns and villages. Two hundred
million citizens of this great Nation
can move comfortably from one area
of this country to the other. In case
of conflict, our defense capability will
exceed any country in the world. They
are indeed one of the lifestreams of
our Nation.
The Highway Act of 1973 continues
to implement and develop an intelli-
gent program to further carry out
what highway construction has pre-
viously done for this nation. At the
same time, it recognizes the views of
the seventies. It continues to contain
modifications, that the Committee on
Public Works has written over the
years into the highway program, to
protect the environment; to assist our ;
urban citizenry; to reduce pollution; .
and to conserve energy resources.}
Most important, before these high-
ways are constructed, it provides for
the full and complete participation of
the citizens in the planning and de-
velopment stages of the highway pro-
gram.
*****
Thus we have a bill carefully
worked out; a bill that the committee
considered after comprehensive hear-
ings and a vigorous open markup.
It creates a balanced program to meet
the needs of our highways, to make
them safer, and to aid mass transit.
It recognizes, also, as I have stated,
what the effects of these programs
will be on our environment and the
protection of our environment. It per-
mits full citizen participation in these
transportation programs.
This is truly a major bill for all
Americans. It will help all of us by
making our transportation system
stronger and better so that in moving
across from one section to another
we will learn to know each other bet-
ter and have a better
[p. H2916]
understanding of what America
means to all of us. I am proud to be
associated with this bill.
[p. H2917]
Mr. ANDERSON of California.
Mr. Chairman, some may even con-
tend that the amendment breaks faith
-------
122
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
with the user when the transit fund
was established in 1956. I contend,
however, that mass transit will bene-
fit the user by increasing1 the useful-
ness of our highways, by attracting
the commuters off those roads.
I know of what I speak, because
I have an area where during the time
when people go to work in the morn-
ing and come home in the evening,
our freeways and our interstate sys-
tems are all but worthless; no one
can get anywhere on them.
I want to get those marginal com-
muters, the one-to-a-car drivers—we
call them the one-to-a-car syndrome—
we want to get them, if possible, into
mass transit, so people going to and
from other areas can get across the
city.
Mr. Chairman, I happened to be in
Detroit this past weekend, and we
drove all the way to Detroit as fast
as the speed limit would allow us,
but when we got into Detroit, we ran
into traffic which stalled us, so as a
result we were going along at speeds
far less than what the highway said
the speed was.
There is another point that is also
raised, and that is the sanctity of the
trust fund. I want to say that the
sanctity of the trust fund has been
somewhat diminished when we recog-
nize that trust fund moneys have
been used to purchase ferryboats,
construct homes, move businesses
displaced by highway programs,
build police barracks, purchase am-
bulances, salvage archeological sites
in conjunction with highway projects,
purchase automobiles for driver
training, pay the salaries of clerks
in traffic courts, and purchase com-
puter time for traffic courts and, of
course, two-thirds of the entire high-
way safety program is paid from the
trust fund.
Mr. Chairman, when one considers
these wide varieties of uses of high-
way trust fund moneys, none of us
are affected by my proposals, but
when one thinks of those, then I am
sure it makes my amendment most
appropriate, since my amendment
makes the highways and transporta-
tion systems most workable for the
highway user.
There are many facets affected by
the mass transit tie-in needed for our
highway building program. I cite
briefly energy pollution and land usa-
bility. Today throughout our country
conditions are calling for the adop-
tion of my amendment.
Let us take energy first. The gaso-
line shortages throughout the Nation
are apparent; actually there are
shortages in all forms of energy for
that matter, but these shortages are
becoming more and more apparent.
Each day we are witnessing the clos-
ing down of stations and refineries in
many parts of the country. Every 2
or 3 days in the newspapers we read
where Florida, Minnesota, and Illi-
nois are the ones being hit. Will it be
your State tomorrow?
Obviously mass transit is not the
only answer, but it is an answer. If
we can cut down the one-person-to-a-
car syndrome by the utilization of
mass transit, if we could cut auto-
mobile usability by 25 percent, we
could save half a million barrels of
oil every day.
What about pollution? According
to the Environmental Protection
Agency, gas rationing is in the future
of as many as 33 American cities. In
Los Angeles, some weeks back, the
Administrator recently told us we
would probably have to have gasoline
rationing to cut our gasoline usability
by 82 percent to meet clean air stand-
ards and, of course, such action
would completely cripple the southern
California community.
Their population, their jobs, like
everything else, is geared to the auto-
mobile.
I think efficient mass transit sys-
tems would solve a major part of this
problem.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
123
What about land usability?
Another factor that enters into the
program of highway construction and
its environment is the best usability
of our land. Today we have almost 4
million miles of roads in the United
States which cover approximately
35,000 square miles, an area roughly
equal to the size of Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode
Island combined. In addition, high-
ways make it necessary to devote
large amounts of land to inter-
changes, parking facilities, and the
lot. In the central area of many of
our big cities land devoted to streets
and parking approached 60 percent.
Rather than take more and more
of our land off the tax rolls by build-
ing highways, we should use existing
rights-of-way for mass transit and
thus use land more effectively and
more efficiently.
The committee bill says take the
$700 million for mass transit out of
general revenues by the use of con-
tract authority, but you know and I
know there is not any money lying
around in the general fund. We have
been running into the red roughly in
the amount of $20 billion to $25 bil-
lion a year for these past 4 years
and we have passed bills for pollu-
tion control, hospitals, education, and
we could go on and on, which are
not being acted on, because of the
shortage of money in the general
funds.
If my amendment is not adopted
and even if the President signs the
order, do you think the Secretary of
Transportation would be allowed to
approve any contract authority for
mass transit and thereby force either
more deficit spending, new additional
taxes, or a fund cut in necessary pro-
grams?
[p. H2923]
Mr. VEYSEY.
Mr. Chairman, specifically, my leg-
islation would prescribe that urban
and urban extension sections of the
highway trust fund shall be avail-
able to construct highway oriented
mass transit systems, related facil-
ities, and to purchase buses or rolling
stock other than rail.
It also will open the interstate
highway trust funds to encourage
such highway oriented mass transit
systems, but excluding the purchase
of rolling stock.
Finally, it specifies that all such
rolling stock purchased for mass
transit must meet standards pre-
scribed by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under the Clean Air
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I see this legisla-
tion as the immediate and practical
answer to providing vital funds for
mass transit.
Let us put our resources to work
to reduce smog and congestion now,
and save the grandiose, science-
fiction approaches to mass transit
until we can breathe again in our
cities.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, at
the appropriate time in the course of
the amending process on this legisla-
tion, S. 502, the Federal Aid High-
way Act of 1973, I intend to support
an amendment I understand will be
proposed by the gentleman from
California (Mr. ANDERSON) to make
urban highway funds available for
mass transit purposes at the option
of local officials.
In 1965, Mr. Chairman, then-Sen-
ator Joseph Tydings of Maryland
and I introduced legislation to open
up the highway trust fund to meet
pressing mass transit needs. At that
time, Mr. Chairman, we said:
In &*reat metropolitan aleas, highways must
be part of a balanced transportation system.
Our cities cannot continue to be the shopping,
cultural and professional centers they are today
if they are inaccessible. The ideal urban
transportation plan . . . would combine a
rapid transit system of hij-'h quality with a
free\\ay system adequate to carr\ the balance
-------
124
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
of the traffic. Paradoxically, however, the
nature of present federal (transportation) aid
is such as to predetermine that every com-
munity will best be served by a basic reliance
on highways. ... at a time \\ hen mass
transpoitation service should be improving it is
deteriorating at a frightening pace. And it is
the federal government which is laiaely to
blame. What must be done in order to provide
for an integrated transportation system is to
correct the ^voss inequity which exists between
the funds available for highways and those
available for rapid transit.
The reasons for more mass transit
in relation to highways are the same
today as they long have been. Air
pollution—much of it from cars—has
reached crisis proportions. With the
deadline for compliance with air
quality standards set by the Clean
Air Act of 1970 now only 2 years
away and auto manufacturers plead-
ing for exemptions, 67 cities still ex-
ceed Clean Air Act standards. Mass
transit is undeniably cleaner than
the automobile.
[p. H2930]
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, the
Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973
has many facets to it as it works
out and develops what I believe is a
meaningful approach to our trans-
portation needs in the highway field
and the mass transit field, with the
additional factor of a highway
safety program being cranked into it
as well. The chairman has adddressed
himself most ably to the general con-
cept of this legislation, and the gen-
tleman from California (Mr. JOHN-
SON) has gone into a detailed analysis
of how this bill meets the future
highway needs of our country. May I
move to another facet of this legisla-
tion.
This deals with those sections of
the legislation that give aid and as-
sistance to the handicapped, that
allow for novel approaches to carry
out highway transportation needs,
and that aid and help the environ-
ment.
This bill repeats, in section 144,
the fact that in the development and
construction of the Metro system in
Washington, D.C., that necessary fa-
cilities must be installed to allow
accessibility to the Metro for our
handicapped citizens. I, and the other
members of the committee, have been
deeply concerned with this problem
over the years, and before my Sub-
committee on Public Buildings and
I Grounds we developed the legislation
in Public Law 90-480 and 91-205
that made it clear that in all public
facilities constructed with Federal
Federal funds they would be avail-
able and accessible to the handi-
capped.
The Metro falls within this cate-
gory. In last year's Federal Aid
Highway Act, a similar section au-
thorizing the funding of $65 million
| to install elevators in the transit
system, appeared. That bill failed of
enactment.
The committee repeats this section
this year and emphasizes the fact
that it wants immediate action taken
on these facilities for the handi-
capped. So, as I have stated above,
the Metro will be available for their
use.
For the purpose of carrying out
this section, $65 million is author-
ized to be funded to the Secretary
of Transportation to make payments
to Metro to do what we want them
to do—make the subway system and
the transit system, including buses,
available to all our citizens in the
greater Washington metropolitan
area.
My second point deals with the
fact that under this legislation we
authorize Federal assistance to con-
struct ferry boats for operation be-
tween the States of Alaska and
Washington. The unique geographic
system, and the miles that separate
Alaska and Washington, point out
the fact that in this case a road is
really a waterway. The same thing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
125
surely applies to the State of Hawaii,
a group of seven islands separated
by miles of international waters. Un-
der present law Alaska, Washington,
and Hawaii would be barred from the
benefits of this legislation in several j
instances. We attempt to resolve this
by this direction, to construct ferry
boats to meet the unique transporta-
tion problems.
Third, let us move to the environ-
ment. Today over 80 million Ameri-
cans own bicycles, and for the first
time last year more bicycles than
automobiles were sold. A bike is a
nonpolluter; it is a cheap mode of
transportation. And many more of
our citizens, young, middle age, and
even the older ones, will use a bike
to and from work. We in the com-
mittee have thus developed—recog-
nizing the fact that the American
public is moving more and more to
the two-wheeled approach to resolving
this transportation problem, and
recognizing the fact that there is a
definite place for the bicycle in our
transportation scheme—in section 126
of the bill, a system to permit the use
of Federal funds apportioned for the
primary, secondary, urban extension
and urban systems, to construct, in j
conjunction with Federal aid pro-
jects—separate or preferential bi-
cycle lanes, bicycle traffic control
devices, shelters, and parking facil-
ities to serve bicycles and persons
using bicycles.
It further allows the use of funds
authorized for forest highways, for-
est development roads and trails,
parkways, Indian reservation roads
and bridges, public lands highways,
and public lands development roads
and trails, for constructing bicycle
routes in conjunction with such trail
roads, highways or parkways. It pro-
hibits the use of motorized vehicles
on these trails except for mainte- j
nance purposes, but it does allow the
snow birds to take advantage of
these trails by allowing them to use
their snowmobiles when weather per-
mits.
Finally, section 136 of the Federal
Aid Highway Act of 1973 authorizes
a national scenic highway system
study by the Department of Trans-
portation to determine the feasibility
of establishing a national system of
scenic highways to link together and
make more accessible to the Ameri-
can public recreational, historical,
scenic, and other similar areas of im-
portance. The Secretary, in making
this study, should work with, and
consult with, other agencies of the
Federal Government, the Commission
on Highway Beautification, the States
and their political subdivisions and
various private organizations and in-
dividuals.
Thus, we move from the gamut of
environment—to unique transporta-
tion solutions—to aid to our handi-
capped. The Federal Aid Highway
program had become a broad um-
brella that recognizes the needs of all
of our citizens in the transportation
field and adapts on a day by day
basis to the necessary changes to
carry out the fulfillment of these
needs.
The Federal Aid Highway Act of
1973 is no exception. It is a sweep-
ing, affirmative declaration in the
future of America's transportation,
and I endorse and urge its support.
[p. H2931]
Mr. MOAKLEY.
*****
Still, Mr. Chairman, some think it
irresponsible to allow cities a rail
transit option. They say that all the
money that could conceivably be au-
thorized by this Congress for rail
transit for the next 3 years would
barely pay for one rail transit sys-
tem, let alone 17. In fact, they argue,
due to any likely urban system fund
distribution formula and the varying
nonrail transit needs of those cities
likely to be eligible for such funding,
-------
126
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
allowing cities a rail transit choice
offers them a false and empty
promise.
I disagree. Give Boston a rail tran-
sit option and we will build rail
transit. Capital grants from the ur-
ban mass transportation fund and
Massachusetts' share of the urban
systems part of the highway trust
fund will supplement State and local
money. And rail transit will be built
in Boston.
What is more, give Boston a rail
transit option, and the 1970 Clean
Air Act standards will be met by
1985 instead of 2001.
Mr. Chairman, right now 67 Amer-
ican cities are having serious trouble
meeting 1970 clean air standards.
Regardless of whether you grant
those cities a rail transit option,
many of them still will not meet En-
vironmental Protection Agency dead-
lines. But with rail transit, many of
America's worst-polluted cities, Bos-
ton among them, could show compli-
ance and meet the standards, if not
the deadlines.
By providing these cities a rail
transit option, those of you who voted
for the Clean Air Act could take
pride in the fact that not only did
you vote for clean air but you went
the extra mile to make clean air pos-
sible.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
you for this opportunity to speak
here today. Purposely, I have tried
to avoid rhetoric or tell the pollution,
energy and urban environment hor-
ror stories you have heard before.
In closing, I would simply like to
point out that the most significant
and perhaps the pivotal point in the
long fight to allow cities a rail tran-
sit choice occurred earlier this year
here in the House. It happened when
the House Public Works Subcommit-
tee on Roads changed its name to
the House Public Works Subcommit-
tee on Transportation.
And I think that is all anybody is
really trying to say. Transportation
in 1973 means more than simply
roads.
Mr. NIX. Mr. Chairman, the high-
way trust fund receives its revenue
from several sources: taxes on gaso-
line, lubricating oil, trailers, trucks,
tires, diesel oil, and so forth. Cur-
rently, the trust fund is about $8
hundred million. This is the sum re-
maining from the $5.28 billion that
existed in the trust fund on July 1,
1972. The outlays from this fund is
$4.69 billion which have been granted
to States, counties, and cities. The
receipts for the trust fund each year
from the excise taxes have been
averaging $5 to $6 billion.
The report of the Committee on
Public Works has this to say about
trust funds:
The greatest concern about the highway
progiam during the past few years has in-
volved its urban portions and particularly the
debate about "flexibility" in the use of high-way
funds for either mass transit or highways. It
is clear to the Committee that it is not simply
a question of these being alternatives one to
the other, but that provision needs to be made
for the separate financing: of both types of
transportation independently of each other, so
that both needs can be met simultaneously
without one need having to be sacrificed to
meet the other one as would be the case if only
one choice could be made. The Committee
therefore, has developed the reported bill to
permit both needs to be met at the same time
Proposals that have been made to stop
highway construction and to use the highway
trust fund for mass transit do not provide
an acceptable answer to the urban areas'
needs for transportation of persons, goods,
and services. We must continue to provide
our urban areas with the modern system of
> highways and streets that aie their very Jife-
lines—because in all of our major urban
areas, due to economic, geographic, and popu-
lations reasons, highways will continue into
the foreseeable future to serve as the principal
means of transportation for people, and the
sole means of transportation for most or all
goods and service functions.
The Committee therefore, has sigmficantly
decreased the funding level for the ne\\ Fed-
', eral-aid uiban system while at the same time
j liberalizing the criteria for providing public
I mass transportation facilities, such as special
bus lanes, traffic control devices, passenger
loading areas, shelters, and parking facilities,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
127
all from the apportioned highway funds., This
Committee recognizes that bus mass transit is
now, and will undoubtedly in the future con-
tinue to be, the major part of all mass transit
(it is % at present), and because of its opera-
tional flexibility is eminently suitable for utiliz-
ing the vast capital investment represented by
the nation's highways and streets. A healthy
urban transit piogram can only be achieved
in concert with a healthy uiban highway pro-
gram."
A pertinent item follows:
[From the Washington Star, Apr. 17, 1973]
THE HOUSE'S TRANSIT TEST
With the nation facing a fuel shortage, on
top of its auto-exhaust pollution troubles, about
everyone in Congress is speaking kindly of
mass transit these days. But this \\ eek we'll
see how deep the commitment goes, for the
House will vote a Senate-approved proposal to
make just a small portion of the highway trust
fund available for financing urban bus and
rail transit systems.
We hope the House, which refused to concur
\\ith the Senate last year on a similar pain,
will give its assent this time around. This \\on't
be easy for many of the representatives, espe-
cially those from predominantly rural districts
whose residents still plead for load improve-
ments that are justified in many cases Theie
is a powerful core of resistance to using the
high\\ ay trust money—derived from levies on
road-users—for non-highway purposes. But the
times demand it. The tiust fund is incredibly
opulent, while the problems of swelling auto
use inflict ever-larger social costs that cannot
be alleviated simply by building more highways
with every last penny of hi^h\\ay revenues.
It seems to us that the fund has a partial
obligation to other concerns. Cars are creating
much of the air pollution, and much of the
fossil-fuel shortage, which must be i emedied
in large degree by mass transit. As lawmakers
begin to appreciate the astonishing dimensions
of the countiy's energy problem, they should
bear in mind that five times as much energy
is required to move a passenger by cai as by
bus. And a greai many auto commuters would
gladly switch to public transit if adequate
service were available. Moreover, if jural areas
are hit by gasoline shortages -as seems likely—
it will be due in some measure to the Jack of
sufficient mass transit, which forces millions of
urbanites to rely excessively on automobiles.
The hard fact is that the effort to control
air pollution is exactinu heavier fuel penalties
than most people expected, and auqravating
the energy-depletion dilemma,
[p. H2932]
Some observers now say that Congress
shouldn't have passed the 1970 clean-air law
without launching a major federal mass-transit
program at the same time. In any case, a
sizable program at last is getting underway,
and committee-approved legislation in the
House provides a rather hefty authorization
for mass transit. But there is too much un-
certainty whether all or even most of this
money would ever be appropriated, or spent
by the administration, since it would have to
come from the Treasury's general fund. Urban
areas desperately need the assurance of being
able to use a portion of their regular federal
highway turnback funds for helping to finance
mass transit, and cover its operating losses in
some cases.
To achieve this, the House uill have to ap-
p rove amendments that are contrary to the
wishes of its Public Works Committee, and in
line with the Senate's appioach. We hope a
majority in the House can summon the fore-
sight and determination to do that.
[p. H2933]
AMENDMENTS OH'EKED BY MK. ANDERSON Of
CALIFOKNIA
Mr. ANDERSON of California.
Mr. Chairman, I offer two amend-
ments and ask unanimous consent
that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by MR. ANDERSON of
California: Page 102 strike out line o and all
that follows do\\n through and including line
8, on page 10:j and insert in lieu thereof the
following.
"(c) To encourage the development, improve-
ment and use of public mass transportation
systems for the transportation of passengers,
so as to increase the transportation efficiency
of the Federal-aid systems for the movement of
persons and goods, the Secretary may appiovo
as a project on the Federal-aid urban system,
public mass transportation projects involving
the construction of fixed rail facilities, or the
purchase of passenger equipment, including
\ oiling stock f01 any mode of public mass
transportation. Sums apportioned under section
104(b)(6) of this title shall be available to
finance the cost of those projects,"
Pau;e 103 line 35 strike out "subsection (a)
of".
[p. H2941]
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I think
everybody in this Chamber is aware
of what is being sought under the
Anderson amendment, which I sup-
port.
-------
128
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
There are Members who recognize
the need for this amendment and yet
are concerned that their constituents
misunderstand its provisions and
think it will take money away from |
the rural road and interstate pro- j
gram. May I urge these Members to |
vote for the amendment and educate
their constituents on what it really
means. We in the urban areas have
stood with people in rural areas time
and time again. It is time for you
to stand with us.
For those who need the arguments,
may I suggest that the inadequacies
of our cities' mass transit systems
are adversely affecting auto drivers—
as well as transit riders. Too often
today the highway is used for daily
commuting purposes when mass
transportation, if available, could
carry persons going to and from
work far more economically and ef-
ficiently. If more people use mass
transit, the automobile driver will
benefit from decreased congestion—
his trip will be both faster and safer.
In New York City the problem is
compounded by unacceptable air pol-
lution levels. If the city if to meet
air quality standards required by the
1970 Clean Air Act, even while the
most stringent auto emission stand-
ards are imposed, fundamental
changes will have to take place in
the center city's transportation pat-
terns. This means that private auto-
mobile travel will have to be reduced
and mass transit use increased.
If more people do not willingly
switch to mass transit in coming
years, the city may find itself forced
to restrict auto traffic in the central
city if it is to meet the Federal air
quality standards. It would be better
for everyone if mass transit were
improved and those who by choice
could use public transportation did
so, leaving the roads to those who
need to drive their private cars.
For too long urban communities
have had to choose highways over
mass transit even if transit might
better serve the public, because only
highway moneys have been available.
The time has come for the Congress
to give our States and localities the
flexibility needed to allocate these
transportation dollars for that form
of transportation most suitable for
their needs; sometimes this will be
highways, and other times mass
transit.
What the cities are asking for is
merely the option of using these dol-
lars for mass transit facilities. If the
cities want highways, as those who
oppose the amendment would have us
believe, then highways will be built.
What then is to be feared in provid-
ing this option?
The highway lobby argues that
the gasoline, oil, and tire taxes arc
held in "trust" for highway users.
But, I would submit that there is
nothing more sacred about collecting
taxes on gasoline than on cigarettes
or liquor, the proceeds from which
go into the General Treasury. All
taxes bear on the taxpayer and
diminish the public's ability to carry
other taxes. Furthermore, prior to
1956 they were earmarked for the
highway trust fund. There is no
transgression committed in the Con-
gress broadening the list of eligible
expenditures to better accommodate
today's transportation needs.
This is an amendment whose time
has come. It is supported by the Na-
tional League of Cities-U.S. Confer-
ence of Mayors, the National Gover-
nors Conference, Common Cause, the
United Auto Workers, the Teamsters,
the Sierra Club, and many other
such organizations. And it has been
accepted by our colleagues in the
Senate. We are at a significant cross-
roads in the history of our Nation's
transportation program, and I urge
the House to respond affirmatively in
passing the Anderson amendment.
[p. H2947]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
129
Mr. HARSHA.
*****
One final observation: The Depart-
ment of Transportation's needs re-
port states that major shifts in funds
from highways to mass transit would
improve transit but would result in
increased highway fatalities. Fur-
thermore, such shifts would result in
very little improvement in pollution
levels. In fact, that report estimates
that for the period 1968 to 1990, the
diversion of large sums to rapid
transit would result in higher carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon levels.
Obviously, if there is little or no
change in air pollution, there will be
little or no saving of fuel or energy
because it is the consumption of fuel
that causes air pollution.
I certainly do not want the re-
sponsibility on my head of increasing
highway fatalities by diverting high-
way funds from safety related pro-
grams.
Do you?
I urge the defeat of the Anderson-
Abzug amendment.
[p. H2985]
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to associate myself
with the remarks of my colleague
from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) and
the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. BOLAND), in support of the
Anderson amendment.
I believe that it is time that we in
this Congress recognize the need for
flexibility in the further development
of our transportation systems. This
is especially true in our urban areas
where traditional problems are com-
plicated by mounting pollution and
seemingly endless congestion. The
implementation of the Clean Air Act
will, in the case of many cities, re-
quire drastic alteration of existing
modes of transportation. Although
this would transform the accustomed
style of many of those who take to
the highways to reach their daily
employment, most would willingly
switch if alternate means of transit
were readily available.
A recent survey by National Opin-
ion Research Corporation indicated
57 percent of the American people
thought we should limit automobile
traffic in downtown areas; 66 percent
of those who live in cities of a million
or more thought it a good idea. The
latest Conference of Governors over-
whelmingly favored mass transit al-
ternatives to highway building in
cities. Governor Sargent, of Massa-
chusetts, has recently imposed a ban
on more roadways in Boston, and is
spending money instead on an im-
proved public transportation system.
It is clear that changes have oc-
curred in the Nation's thinking about
highways since the interstate high-
way system and the highway trust
fund were conceived, almost 20 years
ago. At that time, the gap between
perceived highway needs and exist-
ing roads was clear—a 20-year plan-
ning framework made sense. And, as
far as intercity connections go, the
interstate systems was well designed.
But the view from 1973 is dis-
tinctly different. A basic system is
already substantially in place. Addi-
tions to it, new highways, must be
weighed on their merits and on a
link-by-link basis. Other modal alter-
! natives must be considered. Funding
for those alternatives must be flexi-
ble and unbiased, or we risk wasting
vast sums of precious national re-
sources.
The concept for a single-mode
trust fund—whether for highways,
airways or rail transit—is outmoded.
Broadening of the highway trust
fund is a necessary step from the
point of view of overall national
priorities, and a proper way to pro-
vide the substantially larger sums
| for urban mass transit which I be-
lieve to be in the best interest of the
general public. For this reason, I am
supporting the Anderson amendment
-------
130
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
and hope my colleagues will do like-
wise.
[p. H2986]
Mr. GORMAN
*****
Mr. Chairman, there is a growing
concern in this Nation about the lack
of public transportation in metro-
politan areas. Nowhere is the prob-
lem so acute as in Los Angeles. Com-
pared to any other metropolitan area
in the Nation, commuter distances
are greater and public transit is the
least efficient. Dependence on the
automobile pollutes our air, dimin-
ishes our overburdened energy sup-
ply, and imposes tremendous com-
muting costs to residents of Los
Angeles.
Air pollution, traffic congestion
and urban freeway blight must be
significantly reduced with less reli-
ance on highways and the automobile
as the main means of commuter
transportation. Los Angeles has a
crying need for reliable public tran-
sit as soon as possible and I take no
issue with this obvious and pressing
public need.
[p. H2987]
Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of S. 502, the
Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973,
and the amendment ordered by the
Honorable GLENN M. ANDERSON of
California.
The greatest issue faced by the
Congress in the Federal highway
program over recent years has been
the flexible use of Federal highway
funds for mass transit. Should
moneys set aside for the construction
of highways be used for the develop-
ment of a balanced transportation
system, including the construction of
mass transit facilities? The answer
to this question must be in the affirm-
ative.
First, while the highway trust
fund has created an outstanding In-
terstate Highway System, mass tran-
sit has been sadly neglected by the
Federal Government. In 1970, the
Congress finally recognized the need
for more than token funding for
mass transit; $3.1 billion was appro-
priated to be distributed over a 5-
year period at an annual average of
$620 million. From 1964 to 1969,
however, only $1 billion was allocated
for mass transit use. During that
same period, revenues generated
from the highway trust fund totaled
upward of $5.7 billion a year—
roughly five times more than the
spending for mass transit. We have
made a beginning, but clearly we
have a long way to go.
Second, precedent is on our side.
Part of the trust fund has already
been used for nonhighway construc-
tion. Precedent and principle should
guide us in making the most useful
allocation of trust fund moneys pos-
sible.
Finally, the pressing needs for
adequate, rapid, comfortable, en-
vironmentally clean rapid transpor-
tation in our major urban areas
argues persuasively for Federal out-
lays to build mass transit facilities,
and to redress the imbalance between
the availability of automobile trans-
portation and rapid mass transpor-
tation.
For these reasons, I believe it only
rational to expend funds from the
highway trust fund for the purpose
of improving and expanding our
mass transportation system. The bill
before us today would do this, and
the Anderson amendment, which I
have cosponsored and strongly sup-
port, would take us a step further.
* * * * *
[p. H2988]
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I
most earnestly urge and hope that
the House will expeditiously act in
the approval of this amendment de-
signed to establish a modern, pro-
gressive Federal-Aid Highway Act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
131
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, such a j
strengthened measure would, in the
judgment of a great many respected
authorities, have to grant the option
to local governments to use part of
their Federal highway fund alloca-
tions to help overcome the increas-
ingly burdensome problems of
hazardous and intolerable auto and
noise pollution and abnormal traffic
congestion.
Mr. Chairman, from every ordi-
nary standard of good judgment and
prudent financing, it impressively
appears that the highway fund is
large enough to permit this type of
reasonable "sharing"; that there is
an imperative current need through-
out the country to resolve a veritable
plague of traffic tieup frustrations;
and that the wholesome benefits of
mass transit improvement and pollu-
tion correction will fall equally on
highway users as well as everyone
else. In fact we might well ask who,
these days, is not a highway user?
By providing State and local offi-
cials with the opportunity to deter-
mine, based on their pressing needs
and priorities, whether to spend ur-
ban funds for highways or mass
transportation, there will be no
change whatever in the State-by-State j
allocation of funds nor will there be j
any adverse effect on the completion
of the Interstate System or other ap-
proved highway projects. In adopt-
ing this modern approach to meeting
the growing transportation needs of
the Nation, no State will get less
money but all States will benefit by
having the option to use highway
fund moneys to assist in coping with
the wide variety of national trans-
portation needs.
Mr. Chairman, the urgency of in-
itiating mass transit improvement,
together with auto and noise pollu- i
tion control, is very great and a |
progressive modren Federal highway j
assistance measure constitutes a sub- j
stantial forward step toward an ef-1
fective and equitable solution of
these present-day crises. Therefore I
hope that the House will speedily
take this forward step in the na-
tional interest.
Mr. HORTON.
*****
The amendment under deliberation
would not require use of trust funds
for mass transit, but would merely
give localities the flexibility to spend
money on highways, mass transit bus
systems, or mass rail transit in ac-
cordance with their needs. Favorable
action on the amendment would in
no way affect the interstate system
or the primary/secondary systems. It
would not reduce by a single
[p. H2989]
penny the authorizations of the Pub-
lic Works Committee bill.
Many motorists argue against
opening the trust fund because they
feel the taxes they pay on tires and
fuel products should be used solely
for highway purposes. The fact is
that these taxes should be used not
only to improve highways but also
to compensate for the social eco-
nomic, and environmental costs
which are brought on by highways
and their users. One way to serve
the interests of the motorist is to
ease traffic congestion by providing
convenient alternative means of tran-
sit.
Given the action already taken by
the Senate and the administration's
supportive stand on the Anderson
amendment, the House remains the
only roadblock to a modest effort to
open up the trust fund. I hope that,
at long last, the public interest will
prevail over the vested interest of
the very vocal opposition.
[p. H.2990]
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to support the amendment of the
gentleman from California (Mr.
ANDERSON).
I think it is significant that we are
-------
132
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
debating this measure to strengthen
mass transit just after we have re-
ceived the President's energy mes-
sage. In that message, the President
told us that:
If present trends continue unchecked, we
could face a genuine energy crisis.
Some of us, I know, feel that the
crisis is already upon us, but it is
clear that the problem will only be-
come more intense if we continue to
rely as heavily as we do now on the
automobile to move us from our
homes to our jobs and back again.
Improved mass transit can and
will do much to ease the current oil
shortage. Studies have shown that a
25 percent diversion of auto traffic
to transit would reduce petroleum de-
mands to nationally by almost one-
half million barrels daily.
Even if energy were not a factor,
this amendment would be necessary
solely on transportation grounds.
Our highways and freeways have be-
come so congested and backlogged
with commuters that no one really
benefits. One historian recently dis-
covered that traffic during peak
periods in New York City actually
moved faster in 1900 than it does
today.
By permitting local urban officials
to use their share of the highway
trust fund for mass transit, as this
amendment would let them do, we
are giving these officials a tool to use
land in a more rational way and to
transport people in a safe, efficient
and economic manner.
The Anderson amendment deserves
our support. I urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. All times has
expired.
The question is on the amendments
offered by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. ANDERSON).
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. ANDERSON of California.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were—ayes 190,
noes 215, not voting 28, as follows:
[p. H2991]
So the amendments were rejected.
[p. H2992]
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I
am pleased to note that the Public
Works Committee has seen fit to in-
clude my amendment on freeway
noise in the bill now before us. S, 502,
the Federal Aid Highway Act.
The freeway noise amendment, sec-
tion 115 of the Highway Act, broad-
ens the authority of the Secretary of
Transportation to fund noise control
projects along existing Federal-aid
highways. These projects may
include, but are not limited to, con-
struction of physical barriers, land-
scaping, and acquisition of additional
right of way.
Funding along the Federal Inter-
state System would be on a 90-10
basis. For other Federal-aid high-
ways, the funding arrangements that
now apply to new construction would
apply to these noise control activi-
ties.
Our amendment also enables the
Secretary to set noise standards for
existing highways. Under current
law he has the authority to establish
standards for new projects approved
after July 1, 1972.
Mr. Chairman, freeway noise is be-
coming an increasingly severe prob-
lem—particularly in our urban
areas. Last year, a group of con-
stituents took me to listen to the
problem at first hand at the edge of
one of our freeways in Minneapolis.
In this neighborhood, which abuts
the right-of-way for Interstate 94,
local residents have found that they
can no longer use their backyards,
because of the din from the freeway.
Decibel readings in the area often
approach 90, the level at which pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
133
longed exposure can cause permanent
hearing loss.
Experiments have shown that free-
way noise can be reduced signif-
icantly either by construction of
noise barriers on the right-of-way
itself, or through acquisition of ad-
ditional right-of-way to serve as a
noise buffer zone.
One such experiment is now under-
way along Interstate 35W in Minne-
apolis. This project has received Fed-
eral support but only because it is a
demonstration. Section 115 would
permit funding for other projects,
such as the one in the planning
stages for Interstate 94, on a regular
basis.
Hopefully, noise will be less of a
pollutant in the future as ways are
found to design quieter freeways.
Quieter engines and tires will also
help considerably. But we have to
live more comfortably with the free-
ways we already have and that is
what section 115 will help us do.
[p. H3033]
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. H3034]
1.6b(4)c August 1: Senate agreed to conference report, pp.
S15331, S15344, S15345, S15357;
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President,
this conference report represents
months of very arduous work by
both the Senate and House conferees.
As my colleagues will remember, we
failed to pass a highway bill last
year, although we did emerge from
over 40 hours of conference with a
1-year extension of the major high-
way programs. The measure failed
to gain approval when a quorum call
in the House blocked final passage.
This year we had to begin anew.
My subcommittee on transportation
held extensive hearings in February
this year and received testimony
from over 40 witnesses. The Public
Works Committee then reported a
comprehensive bill to the Senate on
March 1, and we passed the measure
after several hours of debate on
March 15.
In mid-April, the House passed its
version of the highway bill, and we
went to conference on May 7.
Mr. President, I can report that
the conference held to reconcile the
differences between the two bills was
a very difficult one. I know that is a
common expression around here, but
some of my colleagues who have been
here longer than I have suggested
that it was the; most difficult con-
ference they have ever participated
in.
We were in conference over 2%
months. The conferees met 29 times,
and the House and Senate conferees
met among themselves several times
to try to work out solutions to our
most difficult problem, the question
of diverting money from the high-
way trust fund for the use of mass
transit.
I believe we have emerged with a
strong bill which preserves the es-
sence of the Senate position on the
highway bill.
# * -4- * *
At the center, of course, was the
question of whether to open the trust
fund so that urban areas could use
their highway trust funds, at local
option, for this support of mass
transit facilities and equipment.
On March 14 the Senate had de-
cided that question by a vote of 49
to 44 on the so-called Muskie-Baker
-------
134
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
amendment, which opened the trust
fund. The House, shortly over a
month later, decided to the contrary.
From May 17 until we reached a
final agreement on July 18, there
were no fewer than 10 proposals and
counterproposals to reach a solution
on this question. I believe that the
solution that we ultimately reached
was an eminently fair one.
For the first year of the bill, fiscal
1974, the House position will prevail:
None of the highway trust funds can
be used for any form of mass transit.
In fiscal 1975, up to $200 million of
trust fund moneys can be used for
the purchase of buses, the most im-
mediately available form of mass
transit. Then in fiscal 1976, the
Muskie-Baker amendment will pre-
vail, unless Congress in the mean-
time enacts legislation setting up
some kind of assured urban trans-
portation funding, such as a trust
fund, which will cover both high-
ways and mass transit.
In this compromise, Mr. President,
I believe both sides have given sub-
stantially. The Senate gives up rail
mass transit from the trust fund
until fiscal 1976, although general
fund moneys can be exchanged for
trust funds for these purposes in
both 1974 and 1975. The House gives
up its absolute insistence that no
funds shall be diverted from the
trust fund for nonhighway related
projects.
My Senate colleagues should real-
ize how deeply the House Members
feel about this issue and how difficult
it was to ask them to yield on some-
thing which they considered to be a
question of principle.
*****
[p. S15331]
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Maine, who was a
tough, able, and fair negotiator in
the conference for the Senate major-
ity position.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this
conference report on authorizations
for the Federal-aid highway program
which is now before the Senate is
the result of a most difficult negotia-
tion on the part of your conferees.
The agreement is not as progressive
or far-reaching legislation as passed
by the Senate, nor is it as restrictive,
narrowly focused or expensive as the
bill passed by the House.
The conference agreement was
made difficult by diametrically differ-
ent views on the issue of flexibility
in use of highway trust funds. Sena-
tor HOWARD BAKER of Tennessee and
I proposed, and the Senate adopted,
an amendment to permit cities to
utilize urban trust funds for the
most appropriate, locally determined
transportation use. The House bill
continued the existing law of pro-
hibition on diversion of highway
trust funds for public transportation
projects.
The conference agreement provides
for flexibility in the use of urban
system highway trust funds in fiscal
year 1976. In fiscal year 1975 up to
$200 million of urban system high-
way funds can be used for the ac-
quisition of buses and in 1974 the
old rules would apply.
Mr. President, the conferences re-
port on the Federal-Aid Highway
Act establishes the principle of flexi-
bility.
Even though significant funding
authority for the urban mass trans-
portation program is provided, there
is no assurance that these funds will
be committed. The Administrator
may still refuse to enter into con-
tracts to commit these funds.
Other key provisions of the Senate
bill which would have required early
consideration of alternative trans-
portation modes and public partici-
pation in those decisions which would
have permitted emergency funding of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
135
transportation alternatives in urban
areas with critical air quality prob-
lems, and which would have
permitted the transfer of disputed
urban interstate funds to other
transportation purposes in urban
areas were deleted from the confer-
ence agreement at the insistence of
the House.
Mr. President, we have not charted
the new course proposed by the Sen-
ate bill, but the conference agree-
ment signals a change in direction.
The Senate conferees spent many
days and evenings negotiating with
the other body on this legislation. I
can assure my colleagues that every
effort was made to retain the Senate
position intact, especially the
Muskie-Baker amendment. The
chairman of the Senate conferees,
Senator LLOYD BENTSEN and the
chairman of the Public Works Com-
mittee, Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH
joined with Senators BAKER, BUCK-
LEY, STAFFORD, and myself in a com-
mittee ecort to maintain the Senate
position. Senator BENTSEN and Sen-
ator RANDOLPH deserve the plaudits
of their colleagues for this effort in
behalf of a position which they dis-
approved in the Senate. The fact
that we prevailed at all in providing
flexibility in the third year of this
new authorization is a credit to the
efforts in behalf of the Senate which
Senator BENTSEN and Senator RAN-
DOLPH made.
Mr. President, I am going to sup-
port the conference report. In less
than 2 fiscal years we will be able
to embark on a new era of urban
transportation options.
In fiscal year 1975, the fiscal year
for which the budget is presently
being prepared, there will be $200
million in highway trust funds for
acquisition of buses. That $200 mil-
lion will be absolutely essential to
communities with air pollution, con-
gestion, noise, and other transporta-
tion problems which require immedi-
ate solutions.
By 1976, urban areas, because of
the action of this Congress, will have
the opportunity to utilize their share
of highway trust funds for vital ur-
ban transportation needs.
By 1976, when this program will
require new congressional action, we
in the Congress will have a better
understanding of the real transpor-
tation needs of America's cities and
the demand these needs will make on
the urban system portion of the
trust fund.
In the interim, we will have had
an opportunity to review the high-
way trust fund in order to consider
making transportation generally
rather than highways alone a na-
tional commitment.
Mr. President, it is important to
note that this legislation will provide
a new source of funds for urban
mass transportation immediately.
Not only does the bill authorize $3
billion for the Federal urban mass
transportation program but also ad-
vance contract authority is provided
for communities which choose to con-
struct public transportation systems
rather than highways.
Under the provisions of the con-
ference agreement, any community
which elects not to use its fiscal year
1974 urban system funds for high-
ways may obtain an equal amount
of Treasury funds—through contract
authority—for public transportation
purposes. While this is not assured
funding as provided in 1976 pur-
suant to the Muskie-Baker amend-
ment, it will provide a significant
opportunity to test the will of this
administration to commit Federal
dollars to immediate transportation
needs.
Communities throughout the coun-
try are aware of the need to provide
alternative transportation procedures
in order to meet Federal air quality
-------
136
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
control plans. These plans cannot be
implemented without a massive com-
mitment of Federal dollars. It is en-
cumbent upon this administration to
see that funds, equal to amounts
frozen in the Trust Fund, are com-
mitted as rapidly and as effectively
as possible to achieve the goals set
forth in the Clean Air Act to reduce
the hazards which air pollution poses
to so many of our people.
As I said at the time the Senate
acted on these amendments to the
Federal-Aid Highway Act, we are
beginning to reshape and redirect
transportation policies and priorities.
It is a modest beginning. We have
commenced an effort to diversify and
make more flexible the uses of the
Nation's limited transportation
funds. We must now examine in the
years ahead how to do a better job
to assure adequate transportation
for all America.
[p. S15344]
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, as the
Senator knows, the Secretary has
some very important statutory duties
with regard to the building of a
highway. For instance, he has cer-
tain environmental responsibilities
under 42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.—the
National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969—and 49 U.S.C. 1653 (f). He
has the responsibility of making sure
that there is adequate relocation
housing available before a single
house can be bulldozed under 42
U.S.C. 4601 et seq.—the Federal Re-
location Assistance Act of 1970—and
I know that section very well since
I introduced S. 3992 in 1970 which
became the basis for the present law.
Now, just to be certain we under-
stand, I ask once again, does this
section vitiate any of these legal
responsibilities of the Secretary? Is
he mandated to enter into this agree-
ment, or does he still retain discre-
tion on this matter and must he still
obey the laws?
Mr. BENTSEN. The Secretary
loses absolutely none of his legal re-
sponsibilities under this section. The
section does not say that he must
enter into any agreement like this.
For example, if the city came up with
10 percent of the funds, this does not
mean that the Secretary then has to
go ahead and agree to the project.
[p. S15345]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) All time has
expired. The question is on agreeing
to the conference report. On this
question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
* * # * *
The result was announced—yeas
91, nays 5, as follows:
*****
So the conference report to S. 502
was agreed to.
[p. S15357]
1.6b(4)(d) August 3: House agreed to conference report,
pp. H7392-H7398.
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 137
1.7 AIRPORT AND AIRWAY DEVELOPMENT ACT, as amended
§ 1716. Project applications for airport development
§ 1716. Project applications for airport development
* * * *******
Approval
(c)(l) All airport development projects shall be subject to the
approval of the Secretary, which approval may be given only if
he is satisfied that—
**********
No airport development project may be approved by the Secre-
tary with respect to any airport unless a public agency or the
United States or an agency thereof holds good title, satisfactory
to the Secretary, to the landing area of the airport or the site
therefor, or gives assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that
good title will be acquired.
**********
As amended Pub.L. 93-44, 8 4, June 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 89.
1.7(b) AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ACCELERATION ACT OF
1973
June 18, 1973, P.L. 93-44, 34, 87 Stat. 89.
An Act
To amend the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as amended, to
increase the United States share of allowable project costs under such Act,
to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, to prohibit certain
State taxation of persons in air commerce, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Airport Development Acceleration Act
of 1973".
SEC. 4. Section 16(c)(l) of the Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C. 1716(c)) is amended by inserting
in the last sentence thereof "or the United States or an agency
thereof" after "public agency".
-------
138 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.7b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 93-12, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
AMENDING THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 1970 AND THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF
1958
FEBRUARY 1, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. CANNON, from the Committee on Commerce,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 38]
The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill
(S. 38) to amend the Airport and Airway Development Act of
1970 to increase the United States share of allowable projects
costs under such Act; to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
to prohibit certain state taxation of persons in air transporta-
tion, and for other purposes having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with one technical amendment and recom-
mends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
"TEXT OF S. 38, AS REPORTED"
The amendment is indicated as follows: Omit the part in
brackets and insert the part printed in italic.
A BILL To amend the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as
amended, to increase the United States share of allowable project costs
under such Act, to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended,
to prohibit certain State taxation of persons in air commerce, and for other
purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Airport Development Acceleration Act
1973".
[p. 1]
SEC. 4. Section 16(c)(l) of the Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C. 1716(c)), is amended by inserting
in the last sentence thereof "or the United States or an agency
thereof" after "public agency".
[p. 2]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 4 of the bill amends Section 16(c)(l) of the Airport
and Airway Development Act by providing the Secretary with
authority to,approve an airport development project grant at an
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 139
airport owned by the United States. This provision will permit
grants-in-aid for joint-use, military/civil airports provided such
grants are used to make improvements to civil portions of such
airports.
LP-5]
1.7b(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE AN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 93-1E7, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ACCELERATION ACT OF 1973
APRIL 19, 1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6388]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 6388) to amend the Airport and
Airway Development Act of 1970 to increase the U.S. share of
allowable project costs under such act; to amend the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 to prohibit certain State taxation of persons
in air commerce; and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
[p. 1]
SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE REPORTED BILL
**********
APPROVAL OF PROJECT APPLICATIONS ON UNITED STATES-OWNED
AIRPORTS
Section 4 amends the last sentence of section 16 (c) (1) of exist-
ing law to permit the Secretary of Transportation to approve
an airport development project submitted by a public agency (as
denned in section 11(11) of existing law) if the United States
or an agency thereof holds good title to the landing area of the
airport, or gives assurances that good title will be acquired. Pres-
ently, title to the landing area must be held or acquired by a
public agency and, as defined in existing law, the term "public
agency" does not include the United States or an agency thereof.
This section permits the use of Federal matching grants for air-
port development projects at military-civil joint-use airports.
[p. 9]
-------
140 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to
be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
AIRPORT AND AIRWAY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1970
**•****#***
PART II—AIRPORT AND AIRWAY DEVELOPMENT
**********
[p. 13]
SEC. 16. SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS FOR
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.
(a) * * *
**********
(c) Approval.—
(1) All airport development projects shall be subject to the
approval of the Secretary, which approval may be given only if
he is satisfied that—
(A) the project is reasonably consistent with plans (ex-
isting at the time of approval of the project) of planning
agencies for the development of the area in which the air-
port is located and will contribute to the accomplishment of
the purposes of this part;
(B) sufficient funds are available for that portion of the
project costs which are not to be paid by the United States
under this part;
(C) the project will be completed without undue delay;
(D) the public agency or public agencies which submitted
the project application have legal authority to engage in the
airport development as proposed; and
(E) all project sponsorship requirements prescribed by or
under the authority of this part have been or will be met.
No airport development project may be approved by the Secretary
with respect to any airport unless a public agency or the United
States [p 1/n
or an agency thereof holds good title, satisfactory to the Secre-
tary, to the landing area of the airport or the site therefor, or
gives assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that good title will
be acquired.
* :); >;: •-.: % =;; # * £ *
tP-15]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 141
1.7b(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. KKI'. No. 93-225, !>3rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ACCELERATION ACT OF 1978
MAY 24, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 381
The committee1 of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on Ihe amendment of the House to the hill (S. 38) to
amend the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as
amended, to increase the U.S. share of allowable project costs
under such Act, to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended, to prohibit certain State taxation of persons in air
commerce, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following:
That this Act may be, cited a.s- the "Airport Development Acceler-
ation Act of /-S'7-j'".
[p. 1]
**********
SEC. 4. Section 16 (c) (1) of the Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act of 1070 (4!) U.S.C. 1716(c)) is amended by inserting
in the last Ncntence thereof "or the United States or HW fir/ena/
thereof" after "public arjency".
**********
Fp.2]
-------
142 LKGAI, CoMm.ATioN SUI'PI.KMENT n
1.7I>(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL.119(1973):
1.7h(4)(a) Fob. f>: Considered and passed Senate,
pp. S2088-S2101;
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.7l)(4)(b) May 2: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. m2r»8-H.'J27.'J;
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.7b(4)(c) May SO: House agreed to (Conference report,
pp. H4088-H4089;
[No relevant, discussion of pertinent section]
l.7b(4)(d) June 5: Senate agreed to conference report,
pp. SJ0378-SHK580.
[No relevant discussion of pertinent section]
1.12 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT, AS AMENDED
\\'l II.S.C. §§ 20,'i, 2)5, 2-11, 242, 212I>, <-, d, f, i, j, 24;t, 24 H973).
§ 242b. Research and demonstrations relating to health facili-
ties and services
* * * * * ;•**•; *
Authorization of appropriations
(c) (I) There are authorized to he appropriated for payinenl
of jrj'ant.s or under contracts under ,sul)section (a) of this section,
arid for purposes of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b)
of this section $71,000,000 for the fiscal .year ending June ;>,<),
11)71 (of which not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only for
purposes of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b)) of
this section, $H2,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June ;50, 1972,
$9/1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June :{(), l',)7:5,
and $42,617,000 for the fiscal year ending June 150, 11)74.
**#****#;; *
As amended June IK, 197:'., Pub.L. '.K5 45, Title 1, $ 102, 87 Sfal.
91.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 143
§ 242c. National health surveys and studies
**********
Authorization of appropriations
(d) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $25,000,000
for the fiscal year ending- June 30, 1973, and $14,518,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.
**********
As amended June 18, 1973, Pub.L. 93-45, Title I, § 13, 87 Stat.
91.
§ 242d. Graduate or specialized training for physicians, en-
gineers, nurses, and other professional personnel—Appropriations
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the next twelve fiscal
years, such sums as the Congress may determine, but not to
exceed $1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965,
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $8,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $10,000,000 each for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and the two succeeding
fiscal years, $14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$16,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $18,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $10,300,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, to cover the cost of traineeships
for graduate or specialized training in public health for physi-
cians, engineers, nurses, sanitarians, and other profes-
sional health personnel.
**********
As amended June 18, 1973, Pub. L. 93-45, Title T, S 104(a), 87
Stat. 91.
§ 246. Grants and services to States—Comprehensive health
planning and services
(a)(l) In order to assist the States in comprehensive and
continuing planning for their current and future health needs,
the Secretary is authorized during the period beginning July 1,
1966, and ending June 30, 1973, to make grants to States which
have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans
for comprehensive State health planning. For the purposes of
carrying out this subsection, there are hereby authorized to be
appropriated $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,00
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $15,000,00 for the
-------
144 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $15,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1071, $17,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.
**********
Project grants for arrawidc health planning; authorization of appropria-
tions; prerequisites for grants; application; contents
(b)(l)(A) The Secretary is authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1974, to make, with
the approval of the State agency administering or supervising
the administration of the State plan approved under subsection
(a) of this section, project grants to any other public or non-
profit private agency or organization (but with appropriate rep-
resentation of the interests of local government where the recip-
ient of the grant is not a local government or combination
thereof on an agency of such government or combination) to cover
not to exceed 75 per centum of the cost of projects for developing
(and from time to time revising) comprehensive regional, metro-
politan area, or other local area plans for coordination of existing
and planned health services, including the facilities and persons
required for provision of such services; and including the provi-
sion of such services through home health care except that in the
case of project grants made in any State prior to July 1, 1968,
approval of such State agency shall be required only if such State
has such a State plan in effect at the time of such grants. No
grant may be made under this subsection after June 30, 1970,
to any agency or organization to develop or revise health plans
for an area unless the Secretary determines that such agency or
organization provides means for appropriate representation of
the interests of the hospitals, other health care facilities, and
practicing physicians serving such area, and the general public.
For the purposes of carrying out this subsection, there are
hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending-
June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $30,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $40,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, and $25,100,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 145
Project grants for training, studies, and demonstrations;
authorization of appropriations
(c) The Secretary is also authorized, during1 the period be-
ginning July 1, 1966, and ending1 -June 30, 1971, to make grants
to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or other
organization to cover all or any part of the cost of projects for
training-, studies, or demonstrations looking- toward the develop-
ment, of improved or more effective comprehensive health plan-
ning- throughout the Nation. For the purposes of carrying out
this subsection, there are hereby authorized 1o be appropriated
$1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 19(57, $2,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 19G8, $5,000,000 for the fis-
cal year ending- June 30, 19(i9, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending- June 30, 1970, $8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
$12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $4,700,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
Grants for comprehensive public health services; authorization of
appropriations; State plans; allotments; payments to
States; Federal share; allocation of funds
(d)(l) There are authorized to be appropriated $70,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 19(58, $90,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending- June 30, I9C.9, $100,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending- June 30, 1970, $130,000,000 for the fiscal year ending-
June 30, 1971, $1-15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, $1C>5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending- June 30, 1973,
and $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, to en-
able the Secretary to make grants to State health or mental
health authorities to assist the States in establishing and main-
taining adequate public health services, including the training
of personnel for State and local health work. The sums so ap-
propriated shall be used for making payments to States which
have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans
for provision of public health services, except that, for any
fiscal year ending after June 30, I9o'8, such portion of such
sums as the Secretary may determine, but not exceeding 1 per
centum thereof, shall be available to the Secretary for evalu-
ation (directly or by grants or contracts) of the program au-
thorized by this subsection and the amount available for allot-
ments hereunder shall be reduced accordingly.
-------
146 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Project grants for health services and related training; authorization
of appropriations; review of application by appropriate area wide
health planning agency
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $90,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, $190,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $135,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
$157,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and
$230,700,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974 for grants
to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or organi-
zation to cover part of the cost (including equity requirements
and amortization of loans on facilities acquired from the Office
of Economic Opportunity or construction in connection with
any program or project transferred from the Office of Economic
Opportunity) of (1) providing services (including related train-
ing) to meet health needs of limited geographic scope or of spe-
cialized regional or national significance, or (2) developing and
supporting for an initial period new programs of health services
(including related training). Any grant made under this sub-
section may be made only if the application for such grant has
been referred for review and comment to the appropriate area-
wide health planning agency or agencies (or, if there is no such
agency in the area, then to such other public or nonprofit private
agency or organization (if any) which performs similar func-
tions) and only if the services assisted under such grant will be
provided in accordance with such plans as have been developed
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. No grant may be made
under this subsection for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
to cover the cost of services described in clause (1) or (2) of the
first sentence if a grant or contract to cover the cost of such
services may be made or entered into from funds authorized
to be appropriated for such fiscal year under an authorization of
appropriations in any provision of this chapter (other than this
subsection) amended by Title I of the Health Programs Extension
Act of 1973.
**********
As amended June 18, 1973. Pub.L. 93-45, Title I, § 106, 87 Stat.
92.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 147
U2af HEALTH PROGRAMS EXTENSION ACT OF 1973,
June 18, 1973, P.L. 93-45, §§ 102, 103, 104, 106, 87 Stat. 91.
AN ACT
To extend through fiscal year 1974 certain expiring appropriations authori-
zations in the Public Health Service Act, the Community Mental Health
Centers Act, and the Development Disabilities Services and Facilities Con-
struction Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Health Programs
Extension Act of 1973".
TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT
REFERENCES TO ACT
SEC. 101 Whenever in this title an amendment is expressed
in terms of an amendment to a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of the Public Health Service Act.
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 102. Section 304(c)(l) is amended (1) by striking out
"and" after "1972,", and (2) by inserting before the period at
the end thereof a comma and the following: "and $42,617,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974."
NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEYS AND STUDIES
SEC. 103. Section 305(d) is amended (1) by striking out "and"
after "1972," and (2) by striking out the period and inserting in
lieu thereof a comma and the following: "and $14,518,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974".
PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING
SEC. 104. (a) Section 306(a) is amended (1) by striking out
"and" after "1972", and (2) by inserting after "1973" the fol-
lowing: ", and $10,300,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974,".
(b) Section 309(a) is amended (1) by striking out "and"
after "1972,", and (2) by inserting after "1973" the following:
", and $6,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974".
(c) Section 309 (c) is amended (1) by striking out "and" after
-------
148 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
"1972,", and (2) by inserting after "1973" the following: ", and
$6,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974".
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING SERVICES
SEC. 106. (a) (1) Section 314(a) (1) is amended (A) by strik-
ing out "and" after "1972,", and (B) by inserting after "1973"
the following: ", and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30,1974".
(2) Section 314(b)(l)(A) is amended (A) by striking out
"and" after "1972,", and (B) by inserting after "1973" the fol-
lowing: ", and $25,100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974".
(3) Section 314(c) is amended (A) by striking out "and"
after "1972,", and (B) by inserting after "1973" the following:
", and $4,700,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974".
(4) Section 314(d)(l) is amended (A) by striking out "and"
after "1972,", and (B) by inserting after "1973" the following:
", and $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974".
(5) Section 314(e) is amended (A) by striking out "and"
after "1972,", (B) by inserting "and $230,700,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974," after "1973,", and (C) by adding
at the end thereof the following: "No grant may be made under
this subsection for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, to cover
the cost of services described in clause (1) or (2) of the first
sentence if a grant or contract to cover the cost of such services
may be made or entered into from funds authorized to be appro-
priated for such fiscal year under an authorization of appropria-
tions in any provision of this Act (other than this subsection)
amended by title I of the Health Programs Extension Act of
1973."
(b) The first sentences of sections 314(b)(l)(A) and 314(c)
are each amended by striking out "and ending June 30, 1973"
and inserting in lieu thereof "and ending June 30,1974".
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 149
1.12af(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC
WELFARE
S. REP. No. 93-87, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT EXTENSION OF 1973
MARCH 23, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of March 22, 1973
Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1136]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to which was
referred the bill (S. 1136) to extend the expiring authorities in
the Public Health Service Act and the Community Health Cen-
ters Act, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended
do pass.
[p. 1]
VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE ACT EXTENSION OF 1973
Section 1. The short title of this Act is the "Public Health
Service Act Extension of 1973."
Section 2(«). Amends section 304(c)(l) of the Public Health
Service Act to reauthorize and extend for one year, through fis-
cal year 1974, the program of grants and contracts for research
and demonstrations relating to health facilities and services. Au-
thorizes to be appropriated for such grants and contracts $94 mil-
lion for fiscal year 1974.
Section 2(b). Amends section 305(d) of the Public Health
Service Act to reauthorize and extend for one year, through fiscal
year 1974, the authority of the Secretary to (1) survey and study
the health of the population of the United States in order to de-
termine the extent of illness and other related information; and
(2) to develop and test new or improved methods for obtaining
current data on illness, disability, and other related information.
Authorizes to be appropriated for such purposes $25 million for
fiscal year 1974.
Section 2(c). Amends section 306(a) of the Public Health
-------
150 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Service Act to reauthorize and extend for one year, through fiscal
year 1974,
[p. 10]
the program of traineeships for professional public health per-
sonnel. Authorizes to be appropriated for such purposes $18 mil-
lion for fiscal year 1974.
**********
Section 2(g). Amends section 314(a)(l) of the Public Health
Service Act to reauthorize and extend for one year, through
fiscal year, 1974, the program of grants to States for compre-
hensive State health planning. Authorizes to be appropriated
for such grants $20 million for fiscal year 1974.
[p. HI
VIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill are
shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed
in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT, As AMENDED
**********
TITLE III—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES
OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
**********
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO HEALTH
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
SEC. 304. (a) (1) The Secretary is authorized—
**********
(c)(l) There are authorized to be appropriated for payment
of grants or under contracts under subsection (a), and for pur-
poses of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b),
$71,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971 (of which
not less than i?2,000,000 shall be available only for purposes of
carrying out the provisions of subsection (b)), $82,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $94,000,000 [for the fis-
cal year ending June 30, 1973.]/or each of the fiscal years
ending June 30,1973 and June 30, 1974.
THE NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEYS AND STUDIES
SEC. 305. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized.
**********
(d) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 151
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$25,000,000 [for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.] for each
of the fiscal years ending June 30,1973 and June 30,1974-
**********
TRAINEESHIPS FOR PROFESSIONAL PURLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL
SEC. 306. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the next
twelve fiscal years, such sums as the Congress may determine,
but not to
[p. 19]
exceed $4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965.
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $8,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $10,000,000 each for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and the two succeeding
fiscal years, $14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$16,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$18,000,000 [for the fiscal year ending June 30,] 1973 for each
of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973 and June 30, 1974 to
cover the cost of traineeships for graduate or specialized training
in public health for physicians, engineers, nurses, sanitarians,
and other professional health personnel.
**********
[p. 20]
GRANTS TO STATES FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH PLANNING
SEC. 314. (a) (1) AUTHORIZATION.—In order to assist the States
in comprehensive and continuing planning for their current and
future health needs, the Secretary is authorized during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending [June 30, 1973] June 30,
197^, to make grants to States which have submitted, and had
approved by the Secretary, State plans for comprehensive State
health planning. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$17,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$20,000,000
[p.21]
[for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.] for each of the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1973 and June 30, 1974,
*#**:::*****
PROJECT GRANTS FOR AREA WIDE HEALTH PLANNING
(b)(l)(A) The Secretary is authorized, during the period
-------
152 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending [June 30, 1972] June 30,
1974-, to make, with the approval of the State agency adminis-
tering or supervising the administration of the State plan ap-
proved under subsection (a), project grants to any other public
or nonprofit private agency or organization (but with appropri-
ate representation of the interests of local government where
the recipient of the grant is not a local government or combina-
tion thereof or an agency of such government or combination)
to cover not to exceed 75 per centum of the costs of projects
for developing (and from time to time revising) comprehensive
regional, metropolitan area, or other local area plans for coordi-
nation of existing and planned health services, including the faci-
lities and persons required for provisions of such services; and in-
cluding the provision of such services through home health care;
except that in the case of project grants made in any State prior
to July 1, 1968, approval of such State agency shall be required
only if such State has such a State plan in effect at the time of
such grants. No grant may be made under this subsection after
June 30, 1970, to any agency or organization to develop or revise
health plans for an area unless the Secretary determines that
such agency or organization provides means for appropriate rep-
resentation of the interests of the hospitals, other health care
facilities, and practicing physicians serving such area, and the
general public. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $30,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $40,000,000 [for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.] for each of the fiscal years
ending June 30, 197-J and June 30, 1974.
**********
PROJECT GRANTS FOR TRAINING, STUDIES, AND DEMONSTRATIONS
(c) The Secretary is also authorized, during the period be-
ginning July 1, 1966, and ending [June 30, 1973] June 30, 1974,
to make grants to any public or nonprofit private agency, insti-
tution, or other organization to cover all or any part of the cost
or projects for training, studies, or demonstrations looking
toward the development of improved or more effective compre-
hensive health planning throughout the Nation. For the purposes
of carrying out this subsection, there are hereby authorized to
be appropriated $1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 153
1967, $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,
$5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $7,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $8,000,00 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1971, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1972,
[p. 22]
and $12,000,000 [for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973] for
each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973 and June 30, 1974.
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
(d) (1) AUTHORIZATION OP APPROPRIATIONS.—There are author-
ized to be appropriated $70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1969, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
$130,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $145,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $165,000,000
[for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973] for each of the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1973 and June 30, 1974, to enable the Sec-
retary to make grants to State health or mental health authori-
ties to assist the States in establishing and maintaining adequate
public health services, including the training of personnel for
State and local health work. The sums so appropriated shall be
used for making payments to States which have submitted, and
had approved by the Secretary, State plans for provision of public
health services.
**********
PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $90,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, $109,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $135,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$157,000,000 [for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,] for each
of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973 and June 30, 1974, for
grants to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or
organization to cover part of the cost (including equity require-
ments and amortization of loans on facilities acquired from the
Office of Economic Opportunity or construction in connection
with any program or project transferred from the Office of
Economic Opportunity) of (1) providing services (including re-
lated training) to meet health needs of limited geographic scope
or of specialized regional or national significance, or (2) develop-
ing and supporting for an initial period new programs of health
-------
154 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
services (including related training). Any grant made under
this subsection may be made only if the application for such
grant has been referred for review and comment to the appro-
priate areawide health planning agency or agencies (or, if there
is no such agency in the area, then to such other public or non-
profit private agency or organization (if any) which performs
similar functions) and only if the services assisted under such
grant will be provided in accordance with such plans as have been
developed pursuant to subsection (a).
**********
[p. 23]
1.12af(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 93-227, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1973).
HEALTH PROGRAMS EXTENSION ACT OF 1973
MAY 25, 1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 7806]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was refered the bill (H.R. 7806) to extend through fiscal year
1974 certain expiring appropriations authorizations in the Public
Health Service Act, the Community Mental Health Centers Act,
and the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Con-
struction Act, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
[p. 1]
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
H.R. 7806 is proposed in order that the Congress may have
a reasonable time in which to consider the future of existing,
expiring health programs in an appropriate manner. Legisla-
tion to assure this time is necessary because the Administra-
tion has made it clear that, unless required to continue these
programs, it will terminate five of them as soon as their au-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 155
thorities expire. The Committee does not necessarily feel that
all of these programs should be continued. The Committee prob-
ably does not desire that any of these programs be continued
indefinitely without change or improvement. The Committee does
in-
[p.6]
sist on its constitutional prerogative, the legislative direction
of the Executive Branch with regard to Congressionally created
health programs.
Even in the event that some of the programs affected should
be terminated, the Committee is concerned that millions of
people have come to depend upon them for health services. Simi-
larly, while in the aggregate some of these programs may de-
serve termination, it is clear that all of them have had at least
partial success or success in some places- For these reasons a less
abrupt approach than absolute and complete termination of a
health program seems appropriate, and H.R. 7806 is proposed to
allow the Congress the opportunity to insist that when a pro-
gram is terminated some provision is made for its phasing-out,
some provision is made for those who depend upon the program,
and some provision is made to preserve whatever parts of the pro-
gram involved have succeeded. The twelve programs extended by
H.R. 7806 are described briefly below, including the Administra-
tion policies with regard to each program and the funds author-
ized for the program in 1974. This information is summarized in
table II.
Health research and development
This program, for which the Administration has proposed a
permanent authorization, provides broad authority for research
and development in health services. The Committee is presently
considering legislation, H.R. 7274, which would revise, im-
prove, and extend this program. The present legislation would
authorize $42.6 million for fiscal year 1974.
Health statistics
This authority, under which the National Center for Health
Statistics is operated, would also be improved and extended by
H.R. 7274. Again, the Administration has proposed a permanent
authority for health statistical activities. The present legislation
would authorize $14.5 million for fiscal year 1974.
Public health training
Since passage of the Health Amendments Act of 1956 (the
Hill-Rhodes Act) the federal government has supported the
-------
156 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
training of experts in public health. This support has been felt
justified because such experts are a national resource and be-
cause they are among those trained to preserve the health of
the nation's people. The Administration has proposed termination
of this program because it feels that Federal support for it is
available through other mechanisms and an inappropriate Fed-
ear Ihealth activity. H.R. 7806 would continue these programs for
a year with an authorization of $23-3 million, during which time
the future of the programs will receive careful consideration.
[P. 7]
Comprehensive health planning and services
These are programs for which the Administration has pro-
posed a permanent extension. The Committee will be considering
their appropriate future in the immediate future.
One part of these programs, the authorization for project
grants for health services in section 314(e), has been changed
by H.R. 7806. Section 314(e) is a part of the program enacted
in late 1966, best known as the Partnership for Health legis-
lation. The initial purpose of the Partnership for Health amend-
ments was to effect a change in the unnecessarily rigid and
compartmentalized approach to health problems by consolidating
categorical grants into two grant programs: formula grants to
States for comprehensive health services (314(d) ), with use
of the funds to be determined by State priorities; and project
grants to direct funds to areas of greatest need or to stimulate
initiative in developing new programs (314(e) ). These project
grants were designed to deal with special needs, especially at
the community level, and to help the initial development of new
programs.
In recent years, the original intention of Section 314 (e)—to
develop specialized, demonstration programs to be absorbed by
the States if successful—has not, in the opinion of the Com-
mittee, been consistent with the original intention of the section.
The fiscal year 1974 budget request for 314(e) covers funding
of six categorical programs two of which—migrant health and
family planning—have adequate legislative authority elsewhere.
The budget request for 314(e) contains no request for any funds
to develop or support for an initial period new programs, as en-
visioned when the section was enacted.
The Committee has authorized in H.R. 7806 for fiscal year
1974 only enough money for support under section 314(e) of
programs for which there is no other current legislative authority
and has amended section 314(e) so that it cannot be used to fund
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 157
any program for which an alternative authority is contained in
Title I of H.R. 7806. The programs involved and the amounts
which the Committee anticipates will be spent on them are as
follows:
Neighborhood health centers . - $198,100,000
Family health centers _ . _ _ _ . _ 13,000,000
Lead-based paint . . __._.._ .. . _ 6,500,000
Rodent control . 13,100,000
Total _ _ _ _ . . _ . - - - 230,700,000
The Committee would prefer that section 314(e) be used to
develop new and innovative demonstration programs of a limited
scope, as originally intended, and would be receptive to legisla-
tive requests from the Administration to implement the amend-
ment in this fashion.
[p. 8]
Short title
Section 1 of H.R. 7806, as reported by the Committee, provides
that this legislation may be cited as the "Health Programs Ex-
tension Act of 1973".
TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
[P. HI
Health services research and development
Section 102 of the bill authorizes the appropriation of $42,617,-
000 for fiscal year 1974 for payment of grants or under contracts
for the purposes specified in section 304(a) of the PHS Act,
including research, experiments, demonstrations (and related
training) relating to health facilities and services.
National health surveys and studies
Section 103 of the bill authorizes the appropriation of $14,-
518,000 for fiscal year 1974 to carry out section 305 of the PHS
Act.
Public health training
Section 104 of the bill authorizes the appropriation of a total
of $23,300,000 for fiscal year 1974 for public health training. In
particular, $10,300,000 is authorized for public health trainee-
ships under section 306 of the PHS Act; $6,500,000 is author-
ized for grants for graduate or specialized public health training
under section 309(a) of the PHS Act; and $6,500,000 is author-
ized for grants to schools of public health under section 309 (ac)
of the PHS Act.
Comprehensive health planning services
Section 106 of the bill authorizes a total of $360,500,000 for
-------
158 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
carrying out the comprehensive health planning and services
authorities under section 314 of the PHS Act. In particular.
$10,000,000 is authorized for grants to States for comprehensive
health planning under section 314 (a) of the PHS Act; $25,100,-
000 for project grants for area-wide health planning under
section 314(b); $4,700,000 for project grants for training, stud-
ies, or demonstrations in comprehensive health planning under
section 314(c); $90,000,000 for formula grants to States to assist
in establishing and maintaining adequate public health services
under section 314(d); and $230,700,000 for projects under sec-
tion 314(e). It is anticipated that the section 314(e) monies
would be used, as indicated in the fiscal year 1974 budget request;
$198,100,000 for construction grants to neighborhood health cen-
ters; $13,000,000 for such grants to family health centers, and
$19,600,000 for programs of lead paint poisoning and rodent
control.
Section 106 adds a new sentence to section 314(e) which would
prevent any grants (or contracts) from being made under sec-
tion 314(e) for purposes for which grants (or contracts) can be
made under any other part of the PHS Act, extended by title
I of H.R. 7806. Thus, for example, the proposed funding in
fiscal year 1974 of migrant health and family planning programs
under section 314(e) whould be barred by H.R. 7806, because
authority for funding them in fiscal year 1974 is provided in
H.R. 7806.
[p. 12]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, As REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed
in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
* * :|: *******
RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS RELATING TO HEALTH FACILITIES
AND SERVICES
SEC. 304. (a) * * *
%%$?%%%%;%%$£
(c) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated for payment
of grants or under contracts under subsection (a), and for pur-
poses of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b), $71,000,-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 159
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971 (of which not less
than $2,000,000 shall be available only for purposes of carrying
out the provisions of subsection (b), $82,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, [and] $94,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, and $42,617,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1974.
**********
THE NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEYS AND STUDIES
SEC. 305. (a) * * *
**********
(d) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and] $25,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $14,518,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30,1974.
**********
TRAINEESHIP FOR PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL
SEC. 306. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the
next twelve fiscal years, such sums as the Congress may deter-
mine, but not to exceed
[p. 19]
$4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, $7,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $8,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967, $10,000,000 each for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, and the two succeeding fiscal years $14,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $16,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and] $18,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, and $10,300,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974, to cover the cost of traineeships for
graduate or specialized training in public health for physicians,
engineers, nurses, sanitarians, and other professional health
personnel.
**********
[p. 20]
GRANTS TO STATES FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE HEALTH PLANNING
SEC. 314. (a) (1) AUTHORIZATION.—In order to assist the
States in comprehensive and continuing planning for their cur-
rent and future health needs, the Secretary is authorized during
the period beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1973, to
make grants to States which have submitted, and had approved
by the Secretary, State plans for comprehensive State health
-------
160 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
planning. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection, there
are hereby authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1969. $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
$15,000,00 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. $17,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and] $20,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $10,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30,1974.
**********
[p. 21]
PROJECT GRANTS FOR AREA WIDE HEALTH PLANNING
(b) (1) (A) The Secretary is authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, [1973] 1974, to make,
with the approval of the State agency administering or super-
vising the administration of the State plan approved under
subsection (a), project grants to any other public or nonprofit
private agency or organization (but with appropriate representa-
tion of the interests of local government or combination thereof
of an agency of such government or combination) to cover not
to exceed 75 per centum of the costs of projects for developing
(and from time to time revising) comprehensive regional, met-
ropolitan area, or other local area plans for coordination of
existing and planned health services, including the facilities
and persons required for provision of such services; and including
the provision of such services through home health care; except
that in the case of project grants made in any State prior to
July 1, 1968, approval of such State agency shall be required
only if such State has such a State plan in effect at the time of
such grants. No grant may be made under this subsection after
June 30, 1970, to any agency or organization to develop or revise
health plans for an area unless the Secretary determines that
such agency or organization provides means for appropriate rep-
resentation of the interests of the hospitals, other health care
facilities, and practicing physicians serving such area, and the
general public. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $7,500,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 161
$40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $25,-
100,000 for the fiscal year ending June SO, 1974-
**********
PROJECT GRANTS FOR TRAINING, STUDIES, AND DEMONSTRATIONS
(c) The Secretary is also authorized, during the period be-
ginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, [1973] 1974, to make
grants to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or
other organization to cover all or any part of the cost of projects
for training, studies, or demonstrations looking toward the devel-
opment of improved or more effective comprehensive health plan-
ning throughout the Nation. For the purposes of carrying out
this subsection, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated
$1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $2,500,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 3, 1970, $8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and]
$12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending, June 30, 1973, and $4,-
700,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.
GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
(d) (1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are au-
thorized to be appropriated $70,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1969, $100,000,000 for
[p. 22]
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $130,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending- June 30, 1971, $145,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972 [and] $165,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, and $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, to enable the Secretary to make grants to State
health or mental health authorities to assist the States in es-
tablishing and maintaining adequate public health services, in-
cluding the training of personnel for State and local health
work. The sums so appropriated shall be used for making pay-
ments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the
Secretary State plans for provision of public health services.
**********
PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $90,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, $109,500,000, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
-------
162 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1971, $135,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, [and]
$157,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $230-
700,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, for grants to
any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or organiza-
tion to cover part of the cost (including equity requirements
and amortization of loans on facilities acquired from the Office of
Economic Opportunity or construction in connection with any
program or project transferred from the Office of Economic
Opportunity) of (1) providing services (including related train-
ing) to meet health needs of limited geographic scope or of
specialized regional or national significance, or (2) developing
and supporting for an initial period new programs of health
services (including related training). Any grant made under
this subsection may be made only if the application for such
grant has been referred for review and comment to the appropri-
ate areawide health planning agency or agencies (or, if there
is no such agency in the area, then to such other public or non-
profit private agency or organization (if any) which performs
similar functions) and only if the services assisted under such
grant will be provided in accordance with such plans as have
been developed pursuant to subsection (a). No grant may be
made under this subsection for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974, to cover the cost of services described in clause (1) or (2) of
the first sentence if a grant or contract to cover the cost of such
services may be made or entered into from funds authorized to
be appropriated for such fiscal year under an authorization
of appropriations in any provision of this Act (other than this
subsection) amended by title I of the Health Programs Exten-
sion Act of 1973.
# * :;- # £ % jf- jfc # *
[p. 23]
1.12af(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL 119 (1973)
1.12af(3)(a) March 13, 27: Considered and passed Senate,
pp. S4510-S4513, S5704-S5741;
[No relevant discussion of pertinent sections]
1.12af(3)(b) May 31: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. H4140-H4164;
[No relevant discussion of pertinent sections]
I.l2af(3)(c) June 5: Senate concurred in House amendments,
pp. S10400-S10405.
[No relevant discussion of pertinent sections]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 163
1.17c SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION ACT
July 1, 1973, P.L. 93-50, Title I, 87 Stat. 100.
An Act
Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treas-
ury not other wise appropriated, to supply supplemental appro-
priations (this Act may be cited as the "Second Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1973") for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
For an additional amount for abatement and control activi-
ties, $6,287,000, to remain available until expended.
Funds made available for independent grant and contract re-
view advisory committees shall be available for transfer to meet
increased pay costs.
[p.l]
1.17c(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
H.R. REP. No. 93-350, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973,).
SECAND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1973
JUNE 28, 1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. MAHON, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 9055]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following re-
port in explanation of the accompanying bill making supple-
-------
164 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
mental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
and for other purposes.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The President on June 27 vetoed the bill H.R. 7447, the Second
Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1973. The bill provided addi-
tional funds for a large number of departments and agencies
of Government. The great majority of the funds in the bill were
for programs which were totally or virtually uncontrollable at
this late date in the fiscal year. The President stated in his veto
message that he was returning the bill because of his grave
concern that the enactment into law of the so-called "Cam-
bodia rider" contained in the bill would cripple or destroy the
chances for an effective negotiated settlement in Cambodia.
The House of Representatives on June 27 voted 241 to 173 to
override the vetro, but this fell short of the enecessary two-third
voting in the affirmative required by the Constitution to override
a Presidential veto. Accordingly, the message and the bill were
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
In his message the President emphasized that the provisions
in the bill, other than the "Cambodia rider," contain a number
of appropria-
[p-1]
tions that are essential to continuity of governmental operations.
He stated that it is critical that these appropriations be en-
acted immediately.
About 84 percent of the $3,362,845,279 in the Second Supple-
mental Appropriation Bill, 1973 as passed the Congress is for
programs that are uncontrollable at this point in time. They
are required for fiscal year 1973 accounts and include:
$891,604,000 for pay costs.
$747,748,000 for emergency flood and disaster relief pro-
grams.
$614,066,000 for grants to States for public assistance-
$190,900,000 for payment to the Civil Service Retirement
fund.
$87,000,000 for retired military pay.
$60,963,000 for fire fighting costs.
$26,300,000 for Federal workmen's compensation benefits.
$39,308,029 for various claims and judgments against the
government including Vietnam prisoner of war claims.
$32,700,000 for military mail privileges and postal costs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 165
Another 7 percent of the funds in the bill, the sum of $243,-
510,000, is for higher education items.
The Committee has considered the vetoed bill and recom-
mends deletion of certain language originally contained therein
relevant to Cambodia and Laos. However, it recommends new
language prohibiting the use of any of the funds in this Act to
support directly or indirectly combat activities by U.S. forces in,
over or off the shores of Cambodia or Laos, and, after August
15, 1973, prohibiting the use of other funds heretofore appropri-
ated under any other Act for such purpose.
Specifically, the Committee recommends that the language be
stricken from Title I, Chapter II, Department of Defense—
Military which read as follows:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
None of the funds herein appropriated to the Department of Defense under
this Act shall be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities
in, over or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or over Laos by United
States forces.
Section 735 of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1973, is
amended by deleting- "$750,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$825,000,-
000": Provided, That on and after the date of enactment of H.R. 7447 of the
93rd Congress (a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes), no funds may be transferred
under the authority of section 735 of the Department of Defense Appropria-
tion Act, 1973, to support directly or indirectly combat activities in, over or
from off the shores of Cambodia or in or over Laos by United States forces.
Similarly, the Committee recommends that the language be
stricken as contained in Section 305 of Title III, General Pro-
visions of the bill as passed by the Congress which read as
follows:
SEC. 305. None of the funds herein appropriated under this Act or hereto-
fore appropriated under any other Act may be expended to support directly
or indirectly combat activities in, over or from off the shores of Cambodia or
in or over Laos by United States forces.
The Committee recommends a new section, Section 307, to
Title III, General Provisions, to contain the following language:
SEC. 307. None of the funds herein appropriated under this Act may be
expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cam-
bodia or Laos or off the shores of Cambodia or Laos by United States forces,
and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under
any other Act may be expended for such purpose.
[p. 2]
The first part of this new section is identical to the language
contained in the Continuing Resolution as passed by the House
-------
166 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
on June 26, 1973. For all practical purposes, this portion of
the section is inoperative in the current version of the bill be-
cause the Committee is advised that none of the funds included
in the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1973, are applic-
able directly or indirectly to any combat activities by U.S. forces.
Monies in the bill for the Department of Defense are solely
for Military and civilian pay, military retired pay, mail and
postal costs, and medical scholarships. As indicated above, the
language providing an additional $75,000,000 in transfer author-
ity to the Department of Defense has been stricken in its entirety
from the bill.
The remaining portion of Section 307, ". . . and after Au-
gust 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any
other Act may be expended for such purpose," is self explana-
tory. The Committee believes that this language, which prohibits
after August 15, 1973, the expenditure of other funds heretofore
appropriated under any other Act to support combat activities
by U.S. forces in Cambodia or Laos, is a reasonable compromise
under the circumstances, and can be supported by a majority of
the House.
The new bill submitted by the Committee otherwise contains
the identical sums and provisions for the various items of the
several departments and agencies as the bill vetoed by the Presi-
dent. Recognizing that an acceptable solution must be found for
the disposition of the many items of critical importance for the
fiscal year which ends this Saturday night, the Committee deter-
mined this to be the most reasonable and responsible course to
follow.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS
The following table compares, on a chapter summary basis,
the budget requests considered and the amounts recommended
in the bill.
[p. 3]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
167
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS
RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
SUMMARY
Chapter
No.
1
II
111
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
VII
XIII
TITLE 1— GENERAL SUPPLEMENTS
Agriculture-Environmental and
Consumer Protection
Defense
District of Columbia
Foreign Operations ___._. - -
Housing and Urban Development,
Space Science and Veterans
Interior and related agencies
Labor, Health, Education and Welfare
Legislative branch
Public Works . . . -----
State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary
Transportation -
Treasury, Postal Service,
and General Government
Claims and Judgments
Total, title 1
Title II, pay costs
Grand total, titles 1 and II .
Budget estimates
$47,100,000
253 848 225
8,500,000
738,000
96,498,000
1,163,715,000
20,502,250
85,200,000
523,594,000
49,646,000
315,667,000
23,108,029
2,588,116,504
1,018,989,000
1 3,607,105,504
Recommended
in bill
$59,387,000
165,026 000
700,000
20,000,000
67,281,000
1,116,784,000
20,597,250
103,350,000
541,598,000
43,883,000
309,527,000
23,108,029
2,471,241,279
891,604,000
3,362,845,279
Bill compared
with estimates
+ $12,287,000
-88,822,225
8,500,000
-38,000
+ 20,000,000
-29,217,000
-46,931,000
+ 95,000
+ 18,150,000
+ 18,004,000
-5,763,000
-6,140,000
-116,875,225
-127,385,000
-244,460,225
1 Includes $444,225,070 in budget estimates not considered by the House
1.17c(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL 119 (1973)
1.17c(2)(a) June 29: Considered and passed House and Senate,
pp. S12582, H5659-5687.
[No relevant discussion of pertinent sections.]
1.17d AGRICULTURE-ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION APPROPRIATION ACT
October 24, 1973, P.L. 93-135, Title III, 87 Stat. 481.
An Act
Making appropriations for Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protec-
tion programs for the fiscal year ending June SO, 1974, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Trea-
sury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture-Environmental
and Consumer Protection programs for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1974, and for other pruposes; namely:
[p. 1]
TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AGENCY AND REGIONAL MANAGEMENT
For agency and regional management expenses, including of-
-------
168 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
ficial reception and representation expenses (not to exceed $2,-
000) ; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as au-
thorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for GS-18; purchase of reprints; library
memberships in societies or associations which issue publications
to members only or at a price to members lower than to sub-
scribers who are not members; $49,675,000.
For an amount to provide for the preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Statements as required by section 102(2) (C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act on all proposed actions
by the Environmental Protection Agency, except where prohi-
bited by law, $5,000,000.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
For research and development activities, including hire or
passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement
only; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates
for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to
the rate of GS-18; purchase of reprints; library memberships
in societies or associations which issue publications to members
only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who
are not members; $161,775,000, to remain available until ex-
pended, of which $9,000,000 shall be derived from the unexpended
balance of amounts appropriated under this head in fiscal year
1973.
For an amount to provide for research on and testing of sub-
stitute chemicals, $5,000,000.
[p. 6]
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
For abatement and control activities, including hire of pas-
senger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of air-
craft; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates
for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to
the rate for GS-18; purchase of reprints; library memberships
in societies or associations which issue publications to members
only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who
are not members; to remain available until expended, $257,100,000,
of which $3,700,000 shall be derived from the unexpended bal-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 169
ance of amounts appropriated under this head in fiscal year 1973:
Provided, That these funds shall be available to carry out the
activities authorized by sections 104(g) (1) and (2) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
For an amount for a study by the National Academy of
Sciences, $5,000,000, in connection with the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
For an amount to provide for conservation and pollution abate-
ment practices including animal waste storage and diversion
facilities and disposal of solid waste, to be transferred to and
merged with the authority of the Agricultural Conservation Pro-
gram (REAP) of the
[P. 7]
Department of Agriculture for the 1974 program, $15,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Not to exceed 7 per centum of any appropriation made available
to the Environmental Protection Agency by this Act (except
appropriations for "Construction Grants" and "Scientific Ac-
tivities Overseas") may be transferred to any other such appro-
priation.
ENFORCEMENT
For enforcement activities, including hire of passenger motor
vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; uniforms,
or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; serv-
ices as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3309, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18;
purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies or as-
sociations which issue publications to members only or at a price
to members lower than to subscribers who are not members;
$46,150,000.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
For liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to authority
contained in section 203 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, $600,000,000, to remain available until expended.
SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES OVERSEAS
(SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM)
For payments in foreign currencies which the Treasury De-
partment determines to be excess to the normal requirements of
the United States, for necessary expenses of the Environmental
Protection Agency in the conduct of scientific activities overseas
in connection with environmental pollution, as authorized by law,
-------
170 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
$2,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
this appropriation shall be available, in addition to other ap-
propriations to such Agency, for payments in the foregoing cur-
rencies.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For an additional amount for the National Commission on
Water Quality authorized by section 315 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816-904),
$10,000,000 to remain available until June 30, 1975: Provided,
That no part of these funds shall be used to delay existing proj-
ects heretofore authorized.
[p. 8]
1.17d(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
H.R. REP. No. 93-27E, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
AGRICULTURE-ENVIRONMENTAL AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION APPROPRIATION
BILL, 1974
JUNE 12, 1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. WRITTEN, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
TOGETHER WITH SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL
VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 8619]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following re-
port in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropria-
tions for the Agriculture—Environmental, and Consumer Pro-
tection Programs for fiscal year 1974.
SUMMARY BY TITLE
The bill provides $813 million for the regular activities of the
Designed to demonstrate the general impact of the appropria-
tion. Such a division is by no means precise and is subject to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 171
individual interpretation because of the multiple benefits derived
from the programs funded in this bill.
The bill provides $813 million for the regular activities of the
Department of Agriculture, $3.3 billion to restore capital impair-
ment of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and $386 million for
rural development activities. $1 billion is included for environ-
mental activities, of which $514 million is for the Environmental
Protection Agency and $332 million is for the Soil Conservation
Service. The $3 billion for consumer programs includes $166 mil-
lion for the Food and Drug Administration, $30 million for the
Federal Trade Commission, and
[p. 1]
$31 million for the new Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The consumer programs also include $2.2 billion for food stamps.
In all the bill totals $9.4 billion, which is $120 million below
the budget estimates and $3.3 billion below the 1973 appropria-
tion.
There are many changes between the fiscal year 1973 and 1974
bills because of legislative actions of Congress such as the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public
Law 92-500) which have changed the financing sources of many
of the programs in the bill from a direct to an indirect basis.
The principal changes and their effect on the budget totals are
discussed in the following summary and in the detailed state-
ments which follow in the report.
TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Title III includes $516 million for the programs of the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental
Quality. In addition, $600 million, which is not included in the
totals, is provided for the liquidation of contract authority in the
EPA construction programs. The programs of the Soil Conserva-
tion Service and the Agricultural Conservation Program
(RAP)—which both date back to the 1930's before concern
for the environment became fashionable—total $492 million. The
total for title III exceeds $1 billion. This is a convincing demon-
stration of the Committee's concern for the environment.
[p-2]
REGULATORY AGENCIES NEED FACTS
This bill funds some of the principal regulatory agencies, in-
cluding the federal meat and poultry inspection program, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Adminis-
-------
172 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT H
tration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the new Consumer
Product Safety Commission. Each of these agencies has tremen-
dous individual power over every aspect of American life. The
combined effect of these agencies is even greater, especially if one
considers in addition other agencies such as the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration which are funded in other bills.
If all of these agencies were to use all of their power, the
economy could become immobilized. This can only be avoided if
these agencies use their power responsibly acting only on the
basis of scientific fact and with due consideration to the eco-
nomic and social impact of their decisions. They must always
proceed with a sense of priorities, plac-
[p. 10]
ing that which is dangerous to health ahead of that which is
merely undesirable or unesthetic.
There must also be a consideration of the competitive effects
of regulatory decisions. Many small businesses are having diffi-
culty complying with the complex regulations being promulgated.
They should receive all permissible help or else the result may
be the achieving of one set of social objectives at the expense of
another. The maintenance of competition—a goal of the Federal
Trade Commission—may be endangered by edicts of the EPA or
FDA or the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The goal of increasing exports may also be hampered by ex-
cessive regulation. The Committee has heard allegations that
some foreign countries are trying to entice American industry
overseas by establishing less stringent regulatory policies. The
new Consumer Product Safety Act tacitly recognizes this prob-
lem by permitting different export standards. The Federal Trade
Commission is also becoming concerned about this problem.
THE NEED FOR SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
The Committee is concerned that many decisions, such as the
banning of DDT and DES, may have been made without ade-
quate scientific facts.
The following table provided the Committee indicates that the
substitutes for DDT are more toxic than DDT. The figures in
the table show how much of a chemical must be used in order
to cause acute oral toxicity in rats; in other words, the smaller
the figures in the table, the more toxic the chemical. Therefore,
the table shows that DDT is the least toxic of all the chemicals
listed.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 173
COMPARATIVE ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY FOR RATS OF VARIOUS CHEMICALS '
Chemical
DDT
Methyl parathion
Guthion
Azodrin . -. . _- _-_
Lannate (methomyl) _.
Ethion
EPN
Trithion (methyl) _
Di-Syston (disulfoton) -
Demeton
Bidrin .__
Endrin - - - ._
Monitor . .. . ._ .
Thimet (phorate) - - . . . - - -
Phosphamidon - - - - - -
Thiodan (Endosulfan) .. . . -
Parathion __. .. - -. ._
Temik (aldicarb) .. _.
Males
217.0
._. . 14.0
. 13.0
_. 17.0
.... (24.0). _.
65.0
. 36.0
.. __. .. .. 98.0
6.8
. 6.2
. .. . . _ 21.0
18.0
15.6
.. . . .. . 2.3
- - - 24.0
43.0
. - 13.0
_ . .8
Females
24.0
11.0
20.0
27.0
7.7
120.0
2.3
2.5
16.0
7.5
13.0
1.1
24.0
18.0
3.6
6
1 Source: Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Similarly, the Committee asked the Food and Drug- Adminis-
tration how much of a banned substance a human would have to
consume to equal the amounts given experimental animals. The
Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration re-
plied as follows in a letter of May 17,1973:
[p. HI
* * * the following- are ingredients that have been
banned as a result of the lack of proof of safety, and
because they induced cancer in laboratory testing of
animals. The equivalencies of required intake by man
of affected products are, of course, just simple mathe-
matical projections. They are intended only to provide
a general perspective of required consumption based
on the levels of carcinogens used in laboratory experi-
ments.
Cydamate.—A 12 oz. bottle of soft-drink may have con-
tained from 1/1 to 1 gram of sodium cyclamate. An adult would
have had to drink from 138 to 552 12 oz. bottles of soft-drink a
day to get an amount comparable to that causing effects in mice
and rats.
Oil of Calamus.—In order to get an amount comparable to
that which caused effects in rats, a person would have to drink
250 quarts of vermouth per day.
Safrole.—A person would have to drink 613 12 oz. bottles of
root beer flavored soft-drink or eat 220 pounds of hard candy per
day to get an amount comparable to that which caused effects in
rats.
l,2-Dihydro-2,24-trimethylquinoline: polymerized.—A plasti-
cizer used in packaging material. If all foods in the diet were to
-------
174 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
be packaged in this material, a person would have to eat 300,000
times the average daily diet to get an amount comparable to
that which cuased effects in rats.
4,4' Methylenebis (2-chloroanaline).—A plastic curing agent
used in food contact surfaces. If all foods in the diet were ex-
posed to this material, a person would have to eat 100,000
times the average daily diet to get an amount comparable to
that which caused effects in rats.
DES.—Based on findings of 5 percent of liver samples contain-
ing 2ppb of DES, and assuming that 2 percent of the average
diet is beef liver, a person would have to consume 5 million
pounds of liver per year for 50 years to equal the intake from
one treatment of day-after oral contraceptives.
Examples such as these, which translate abstract scientific
studies into their real-life equivalents, help illustrate why com-
mon sense is needed. The regulatory agencies under this bill
should try to include such examples in future decisions so that
the public will not become unduly alarmed.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS TO INSURE BALANCED DECISIONS
Because of these concerns, the Committee has taken the fol-
lowing actions to help insure that future regulatory decisions will
have a sound scientific and economic basis:
—Provided .$200,000 for a study of the scientific basis
for the Delaney Clause.
[p. 12]
—Provided such sums as may be necessary to enable
the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish
an economic analysis capability.
—Provided $5,000,000 for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to prepare environmental and economic im-
pact statements on all of their actions.
—Provided $5,000,000 for the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a complete review, analysis and
evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency,
and to make appropriate recommendations.
—Provided $1,000,000 to the National Industrial Pol-
lution Control Council to study the effects of environ-
mental requirements on the competitive position of
American business.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 175
JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS CAUSING UNNECESSARY DELAY
The Committee is also concerned that the regulatory agen-
cies are moving too slowly in resolving jurisdictional problems.
These delays cause great economic damage and in many cases
have delayed the introduction of beneficial products.
Testimony before the Committee, for example, indicates that
a serious jurisdictional problem exists between EPA and FDA.
The problem occurs because some products used on farm animals
are classified both as pesticides, subject to FIFRA, the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and as animal drugs,
subject to FFDCA, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
as amended. Before such products can be marketed, they must
meet the pesticide registration requirements imposed under FI-
FRA by the Environmental Protection Agency and new animal
drug application requirements imposed under FFDCA by the
Food and Drug Administration. The Committee has found that
in some cases the requirements of one agency are in conflict
with the requirements of the other. This bureaucratic maneuver-
ing has kept potentially important products off the market, prod-
ucts that could be important in protecting this Nation's food
supply.
A similar problem exists between FDA and the Federal Trade
Commission in regard to the responsibility for regulating hy-
poallergenic cosmetics. Both agencies have delayed unnecessarily
in defining the problem and the responsibility of each agency.
The Committee will expect each of these agencies to resolve
these particular problems immediately. But more importantly,
the Committee will expect that all the regulatory agencies cov-
ered by this bill will review all unresolved interagency problems,
and will also review their basic decisionmaking processes to
assure that problems of this type are minimized in the future.
tP- 13]
EFFECT OF COMMITTEE ACTIONS ON 1974 BUDGET OUTLAYS
The bill recommended by the Committee provides total new
obligational authority of $9,385,750,600, a decrease of $120,000,-
000 below the budget estimate and $3,278,905,100 below fiscal
year 1973.
The Committee's actions on the bill will result in a reduction
of budget outlays in fiscal year 1974 of approximately $215,-
000,000.
[p. 14]
-------
176 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Independent Agencies
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1973 Appropriation . . $2,550,000
1974 Budget Estimate 2,466,000
Recommended in Bill 2,466,000
Comparison
1973 Appropriation -84,000
1974 Budget Estimate
The Council and Office of Environmental Quality were created
by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-
190) and the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970
(P.L. 90-224) and operate as a single entity. The Council is
required to prepare an annual environmental quality report; pre-
pare recommendations to the President on national policies for
improving environmental quality; conduct investigations and
analyze conditions and trends; and evaluate effects of technology.
The Council must also appraise the effect of Federal programs
and activities on environmental quality; assist Federal agencies
in the development of environmental programs; and recommend
to the President and to Federal agencies priorities in environ-
mental programs.
RESEARCH STUDIES
The Committee recommends $715,000 for research studies, the
full amount of the budget request. This year, as was the case
last year, the Council on Environmental Quality was unable
other than in very general terms to tell the Committee how they
planned to use the requested reseach funds. Therefore, as part
of their fiscal year 1974 research studies program, the Committee
directs the Council on Environmental Quality to perform the
following studies:
The impact of exports of basic raw materials (such as
timber, coal, ores or metals and scrap iron) on domestic
prices and the competitive position of American industry.
The economic impact on American consumers of actions
taken by the government to restrict or ban certain chemi-
cals.
The cost/benefit implications of automobile emission con-
trol standards.
The impact of environmental standards and regulations
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 177
on domestic energy consumption, including increased de-
pendence on foreign sources.
The extent to which American industry is moving to
foreign countries because of environmental considerations,
and the extent to which American agriculture and food
processing are moving to Mexico and other foreign countries.
[p.49]
EXCESSIVE DELAY
The Committee is extremely concerned about the need for the
expeditious processing of environmental impact statements, and
will expect the Council to include in their procedures the re-
quirement that Federal agencies prepare and publish their com-
ments on impact statements within a specified time limit. The
delay of Federal projects because of excessive amounts of time
spent on the preparation and review of impact statements cannot
be permitted to continue.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973 Appropriation $407,014,000
1974 Budget Estimate 490,000,000
Recommended in Bill 530,700,000
Comparison
1973 Appropriation +03,686,000
1974 Budg-ot Estimate +40,700,000
The Environmental Protection Agency was established on De-
cember 2, 1970 by Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1970. This
reorganization provided for the consoldiation of pollution con-
trol and abatement activities which were previously located in
the following agencies:
Department of the Interior
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Agriculture
Atomic Energy Commission
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Radiation Council
The functions drawn from each of these agencies had dif-
ferent authorizing legislation. Administration of the various
programs presently within the Environmental Protection Agency
is a complex task. To help keep pace with these diverse, but
related functions and authorities the Agency has structured an
organization that operates primarily along the functional lines
of planning and management, enforcement and general course!,
air and water programs, categorical programs, and research and
-------
178 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT u
monitoring. Also, to assure continuity of effort and a common
policy in conducting day-to-day operations, ten Regional Offices
have been established, with each Regional Administrator being
delegated responsibility to manage EPA efforts in his assigned
geographic area.
MAJOR LEGISLATION
The Environmental Protection Agency is currently charged
with administration of all or parts of the following major legis-
lation:
The Clean Air Act, as amended, places major responsi-
bility for prevention and control of air pollution at its
source on State and local governments, and directs that Fed-
eral financial assistance and leadership be provided to assure
the development of cooperative Federal, State, regional and
local programs to prevent and control air pollution. Purposes
of the Act include the protection and enhancement of the
quality of the Nation's air resources in the interest of the
public health and welfare through the establishment
I P. 501
of national primary and secondary ambient air quality stand-
ards; the initiation and acceleration of a national research
and development program to achieve the prevention and
control of air pollution; the provision of technical and fi-
nancial assistance to State and local governments in connec-
tion with the development and execution of their air pollu-
tion prevention and control programs; and encouragement
and assistance in the development and operation of reg-
ional air pollution control programs. To carry out the pro-
visions of the Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, is
authorized to make grants and enter into contracts to pro-
vide for a national program of research and development
with special emphasis on fuels and vehicles. The law also
provides for standards and enforcement for stationary air
pollution sources; and Federal enforcement, inspections,
monitoring and abatement through conference procedures.
The, Federal, Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
has as its objective, the restoration and maintenance of the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters. Included, as necessary to carry out the provisions
of the Act, are requirements to prepare or develop com-
prehensive programs for preventing, reducing or eliminat-
ing pollution and for research, investigation, training and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 179
information pertaining to water pollution control. Major
programs include grants for research and development, area-
wide waste treatment management, State programs and for
construction of waste treatment facilities. Other activities
are the issuance of permits for the discharge of any pol-
lutant or combination of pollutants into navigable waters,
enforcement, control of pollution by oil and sewage from
vessels, acids and other mine pollution control demonstra-
tions; demonstration of new and improved methods and
techniques and plans for the elimination or control of pol-
lution in the Great Lakes, cooperation by all Federal Agencies
in control of pollution, training, monitoring, and provision
of technical assistance.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Re-
source Recovery Act, provides for research, demonstration
and training in solid waste disposal technology; special
studies and demonstrations on recovery of useful energy and
materials and establishment of recommended guidelines;
grants for State, interstate, and local planning for resource
recovery systems and improved solid waste disposal facilities,
and grants for training.
The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972,
which amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Ro-
denticide Act, requires that all pesticides in the channels oi'
U.S. trade must be registered with EPA. In support of this,
EPA must classify the pesticide as being for general use,
pesticides may only be applied by certified applicators. In-
cluded, as necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act,
are requirements for research by grants or contracts, with
priority given to research to develop biologically integrated
alternatives for pest control, development of a national plan
for monitoring pesticides, and such monitoring activities as
those in air, soil, water, man, plants, and animals.
[p. 51]
Programs include provision of technical assistance, research,
training, monitoring and surveillance, and establishment of
standards for licensing or certification activities, registra-
tion and tolerance setting.
The Noise Control Act of 1972 seeks to promote an en-
vironment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of
the Act to establish a means for effective coordination
of Federal research and activities in noise control, to au-
-------
180 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
thorize the establishment of Federal noise emission stand-
ards for products distributed in commerce, and to provide
information to the public respecting the noise emission and
noise reduction characteristics of such products. Programs
include research on the effects; provision of technical as-
sistance to State and local governments; and dissemination
of information to the public on the effects of noise, ac-
ceptable levels of noise, techniques for noise measurement
and control; and development of noise emission standards.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, has as its purpose the regulation of the transportation
of material for dumping into the oceans, coastal and other
waters, and as to those waters within the jurisdiction of
the United States, to regulate the dumping whether from a
source on the U.S. or from outside. This legislation provides
a comprehensive system for the regulation of these activities;
authorizes and directs the development of a program of
research on the effects of ocean dumping and the estab-
lishment of a system of monitoring the oceans; and finally,
the Act authorizes the designation of certain areas up to
the edge of the Continental Shelf as marine sanctuaries.
Charged with carrying out the provisions of the Act are
the Administrator, EPA and the Secretaries of the Army and
Commerce, and the Secretary of State, where the interna-
tional community is concerned. EPA programs include the
issuance of permits, establishment of criteria for such is-
suance, and selection of disposal sites.
Among major legislative proposals currently pending before
the Congress, are programs concerned with safe drinking water
and hazardous wastes and toxic wastes.
BASIS FOR COMMITTED RECOMMENDATIONS
When environmental concerns reached national prominence a
few years ago it was common practice to speak of "spaceship
earth" and to think of the environment as a "closed cycle." People
began to realize, many for the first time, that a relationship
exists between the air, the water, and the land. People also
began to realize that whatever pollutants we remove from one
must go into one or both of the others. How, then, should we
approach the problem?
Logically, we should attempt to reduce pollution to its most
unobjectionable form. Furthermore, we should set our priorities
for doing this. We should attempt to first take care of that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 181
which represents a hazard to human health and then set about
to take care of that which is merely undesirable. Again, being
logical and using
tP- 52]
our common sense, we would look at the undesirable in terms
of how we could spend our money to get the greatest amount
of environmental improvement per dollar invested.
Congress recognized the need to do something about our en-
vironment and passed the National Environmental Policy Act.
The stated purposes of the Act are:
"To declare a national policy which will encourage pro-
ductive and enjoyable harmony between man and his
environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or elimi-
nate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimu-
late the health and welfare of man; to enrich the under-
standing of the ecological systems and natural resources
importan to the Nation. :;- * *"
TOTAL IMPACT MUST BE CONSIDERED
Then followed a period when the Congress passed many addi-
tional laws. These laws reflected the feelings of the Nation and
the Congress and express their earnest desire to improve and
restore the environment. Plowever, these new laws for the most
part did not address the total environment, instead they ad-
dressed an individual environmental problem. We have passed air
laws, we have passed water laws, we have passed solid waste
laws, we have passed noise laws, we have probably passed too
many laws. Hy passing these laws we have tended to some degree
to look at the environment with tunnel vision.
Because we have approached the problem of improving and
restoring the environment on a piecemeal basis, we in many
cases have forced or encouraged the Environmental Protection
Agency to look at the action and ignore the reaction, thereby
totally disregarding the premise on which the environmental
movement was based—that we must deal with the total environ-
ment. An example of this dilemma can be found in the opinion
written by Judge Winner, U.S. District Court, Denver, Colorado
in the case of A'tntrondn vs. Riicltelshaus.
Compliance with the Administrator's proposed emission
limitation would create additional pollution problems includ-
ing problems of water pollution, solid waste disposal prob-
lems and air pollution problems having to do with the
quarrying, transportation and the hauling of limestone and
-------
182 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
other similar materials. These problems are directly related
to the resultant production of a staggering quantity of un-
salable sulfuric acid which would threaten water pollution.
None of these problems has been studied or considered by
the Administrator or by any member of his staff.
Increasingly, we are seeing more and more examples of our
failure to consider our "total environment." Likewise, many ac-
tions have been taken where there is reason to believe that
the costs may outweight the benefits.
$287 BILLION TO CLEAN UP THE ENVIRONMENT
Testimony before the Committee this year indicated that in
order to meet the pollution problems and the standards asso-
ciated with air pollution, water pollution and solid waste dis-
posal over the next decade the country will have to spend about
$287 billion. By setting standards that are perhaps too high,
we have forced massive expenditures that may result in only
modest improvements. Not only is there a problem of cost, but
the Congress has passed laws based on
[p. 53]
technology that does not exist, acting much like the person who
contacted the Patent Office and asked for a list of things that
had not been invented.
The hearing record this year shows strong evidence that ac-
tions by the Environmental Protection Agency in carrying out
these laws have contributed to the energy crisis, have increased
the damage from floods because of the delay of flood and soil
conservation projects, have increased the cost of production of
food thereby contributing to higher consumer prices, and have
greatly increased the danger to human health by banning DDT,
which according to testimony has never injured a human being.
In addition, actions by the Agency have placed American in-
dustry and American agriculture at a competitive disadvantage
both at home and abroad.
ENERGY CRISIS
The Committee is convinced that the Environmental Protection
Agency has played a major role in the current energy crisis.
The approval by the Agency of overly restrictive State plans,
which call for the meeting of primary and secondary ambient
air standards at the same time, has resulted in the need for
industry to convert from coal to low sulfur fuels. This increased
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 183
requirement for oil and gas has been a major contributor to
our current fuel problems.
In addition, the automobile emission control standards imposed
by the Agency have greatly increased the requirements for gas-
oline, which is also in short supply and will probably require
rationing.
The energy crisis has major implications with regard to our
country's national security, foreign policy and balance of trade.
These implications were not considered by the Agency in setting
the standards and approving the plans that led to the problem.
The potential impact on the economic and social well-being of
this Nation of actions by the Agency is so great that it is ab-
solutely essential that the Agency be required to consider the
impact of their actions.
AUTOMOBILE PERFORMANCE
Emission control standards issued by the Agency, at the di-
rection of the Congress have created serious problems for the
American consumer. By setting deadlines that called for the de-
velopment of new technology, the automobile companies, accord-
ing to testimony before the Committee, were forced to proceed
with the development of the costly catalytic exhaust converters.
Had sufficient time been alloted to meet the standards, then the
automobile companies could have devoted their research funds
to alternative types of clean burning engines. Instead, deadlines
were set that did not provide sufficient time for development
of alternative types of engines and the American consumer has
ended up with an automobile that costs significantly more to
buy, significantly more to maintain, will provide poor fuel econ-
omy, with a reduction in performance.
The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for re-
search on alternative types of clean burning engines so that the
Agency can accelerate this important program.
[p-54]
OVERLY RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS
The Committee is extremely concerned that the Agency, in
some of its regulatory or standard-setting activities, may be
placing too little emphasis on the environmental and economic
impact of such actions. Increasingly, questions are being raised
that certain actions by the Agency have been addressed to the
elimination of one specific source of pollution without giving
sufficient consideration of the overall impact on the environment.
-------
184 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Many times these actions have actually proven derimental. Re-
portedly, some abatement actions have resulted in a reduction of
air pollution while at the same time significantly increasing
water pollution or solid waste. Some standards or regulations
have resulted in modest reductions in pollution while at the
same time causing enormous increases in energy requirements,
thereby increasing pollution and raw material usage.
The Agency also has to approve many of the State standards
or regulations to see that they equal or exceed Federal standards
or regulations. The Committee is concerned that the Agency does
not consider the economic and environmental impact of these
State standards. Reportedly, the Agency will disapprove State
standards if they are too loose but will approve State plans that
are too restrictive. For example, testimony before the Committee
indicates that in the case of the Clean Air Act, most States
designed their plans to attain or surpass the secondary ambient
air quality standards by 1975, which is more than the Clean Air
Act requires. Reports prepared for the Committee indicate that
these overly restrictive standards have played a major role in the
current energy shortage of the Nation.
The Committee has also been advised that the Tennessee Valley
Authority has had to include $43 million in their budget for
cooling towers for a nuclear powerplant under construction in
Alabama. These cooling towers are required because the State of
Alabama has currently set water temperature standards that re-
quire discharge temperatures lower than the natural temperature
of the river.
NEED FOR A SENSE OF BALANCE
By not using a common sense approach and by not thinking
in terms of the total environment, by looking at the trees rather
than the forest, we may well end up creating an environmental
backlash which could put an end to all the momentum we've
gained in recent years in our efforts to improve and restore our
environment.
Therefore, since this Committee is the only Committee that
reviews all of EPA's programs, we have made several recom-
mendations this year which should help to restore a sense of
balance to our environmental efforts.
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
The Committee feels that if the Agency had considered en-
vironmental and economic consequences of both their standards
and the State standards which they approved, many of the prob-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 185
lems we are now faced with might not have occurred. There-
fore, the Committee has included funds and language in the bill
to require the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the
environmental impact along with
[p. 55]
the economic and technical considerations of their actions,
except where prohibited by law, as authorized by the National
Environmental Policy Act.
DELAY INCREASES COST AND POLLUTION
Testimony has convinced the Committee that a great deal of
unnecessary delay results from the present procedures involving
the preparation of environmental impact statements as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act. The Committee in
no way objects to the preparation of impact statements and in
fact strongly supports the intent of the National Environmental
Policy Act. The problems, the Committee is convinced, rest more
with the present procedures involved in the impact statement
review process.
At the present time impact statements are prepared by an
Agency at the operating level. The statments then move up the
management review chain prior to their release as a draft im-
pact statement. This procedure by itself is time consuming. After
the draft statement is approved by the Agency internally, it is
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality for their review and comment.
The review by the Environmental Protection Agency may take
sixty to ninety days, or in some cases, even longer. The Council
on Environmental Quality reviews the same draft statement,
but is not required to comment.
The record reveals that many of the comments by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency are negative in nature. In these
cases, additional delay is encountered while EPA's comments
are reviewed and the plans adjusted, where practical, to comply
with EPA's objections. In addition, the Agency will often keep a
draft statement for sixty or ninety days or even longer, and in
some cases, even ask for an extension in the review time and
then return the draft statement with no comments.
All of this creates unnecessary delay in the planning process
and escalates the cost unreasonably. The major problem fre-
quently is not with the preparation of the statements, but rather
with the lengthy review process which increases costs and con-
tributes toward shortages and delay.
-------
186 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVIEW GROUP
Therefore, the Committee has recommended steps to speed up
the process. The Committee has provided $250,000 and 14 posi-
tions in the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency to
supplement existing personnel and resources. Four of these posi-
tions would be located in Washington and one each would be
located in the ten regional offices of the Agency. These high level
specialists would work with agencies, such as the Corps of En-
gineers, the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee Valley Au-
thority and the Department of Transportation, during the initial
planning stages of a project when mutually agreeable with and
requested by the initiating agency so that the views of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency could be considered during the
project development stage. These individuals would have sufficient
authority to comment in behalf of the Agency. In addition, they
would
[p. 56]
become fully familiar with the project as it is being developed,
thereby eliminating the current practice of review by individuals
who are totally unfamiliar with the project and must do, or at
least should do, a great deal of preparatory research. In addi-
tion, the recommendation would serve to eliminate the need for
someone here in Washington to comment on the environmental
aspects of a project hundreds or perhaps even several thousands
of miles from Washington, in an area of the country he may
never have seen.
With this procedure the Committee would expect the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to reduce the formal review process
from months down to days.
In those cases where an environmental impact statement is
required in connection with a project that is already under con-
struction, the cost/benefit ratio should be based on the cost to
complete the project versus the total benefits of the project.
The review of impact statements prepared for ongoing projects
should in no event exceed ten working days.
SUBSTITUTE CHEMICALS
Last year, in the report on the fiscal year 1973 appropriation
bill, the Committee took note of the Administrator's questionable
action regarding the banning of DDT. In taking that action,
the Administrator overrode the findings of the Federal hearing
examiner, who ruled, based on the evidence at hand, that no
reason existed for banning DDT.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 187
The Committee concluded that:
The Committee is convinced that the Administrator's de-
cision on DDT raises serious questions. DDT has been widely
used throughout the world and has reportedly saved millions
of human lives through increased food production and disease
eradication. According to information provided to the
Committee, throughout the many years of use, DDT has pro-
duced no known harmful effect to human health when prop-
erly used. The decision is within the power of the Adminis-
trator though doubtless this matter will eventually have
to be settled by the courts.
It is to be noted that the Administrator says that in many
respects the best substitutes constitute a real hazard—so
much so that he has asked the Committee, and the Committee
has acted favorably, for a training program for the sub-
stitutes.
He plans to turn to substitutes with which we have far
less experience, are readily admitted to be highly toxic, and
require a far greater frequency of application for a lesser
result. . . .
Testimony before the Committee this year further substan-
tiated the questionableness of replacing a chemical that over a
period of 30-some years has produced no known harmful effects
to humans with chemicals about which little is known other than
they can be highly toxic to humans.
In the Administrator's ban on DDT he stated that the ac-
tivity of DDT in the food chain and its impact on organisms
". . . constitute an unknown, unquantifiable risk to man and
lower organisms." Banning a chemical to which 500 million
people have been exposed without a single confirmed case of ill-
ness being attributed to it (according to the
[p. 57]
World Health Organization) and replacing that chemical with
chemicals that are known to be highly toxic to man is truly an
incredible decision. In fact, the Administrator's findings regard-
ing the recommended substitute stated that the recommended
substitute is:
—dangerous to users and presents a risk to them, (how-
ever)
—an opportunity to train users will minimize the risk
and keep down the number of accidents.
UNSUPPORTABLE PRIORITIES
A decision that a chemical must be banned because it "may"
-------
188 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
or "could," or stating it another way, "may not" or "could not"
be a threat a wildlife and replacing it with a chemical that
"is" dangerous to humans would seem to represent a clearly
unsupportable set of priorities.
The Committee calls for a complete and thorough review based
on scientific evidence of the decision banning- DDT, taking into
consideration all the costs and benefits and the importance of
protecting the Nation's supply of food and fiber. The need for
this review is amplified by a recent statement by the President
of the National Academy of Sciences concerning the testimony
at the DDT hearing:
Two-thirds of what I read I can only call trash; it was
not science.
The Committee recommends adding $5 million to the bill for
the testing of substitute chemicals. By providing this money
the Committee will expect the Agency to avoid taking actions
based on insufficient knowledge like they have done in the past.
ARBITRARY DEADLINES
The Committee is extremely concerned about the proliferation
of legislation being passed by the Congress which places arbi-
trary deadlines on the Environmental Protection Agency. Some
of these deadlines have even gone so far as to require an in-
vention or the development of new technology by a given date.
Testimony before the Committee indicates that the Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1972 impose over 40 dead-
lines on the Agency. The Federal Environmental Pesticide Con-
trol Act of 1972 impose additional deadlines, as does the Noise
Control Act. In addition, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the
Clean Air Act also contain numerous deadlines.
In many cases, these legislative deadlines have been imposed
upon the Agency after passage of the annual appropriation bill.
Since the deadlines are mandated in the law, the Agency must
often use resources from other high-priority programs to comply
with the law. This was the case recently when the Agency pro-
posed to transfer $6 million from the Solid Waste Program and
S3.5 million from the Great Lakes Program to comply with dead-
lines imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
the Noise Control Act. The Committee directed the Agency not
to transfer funds from these high-priority programs and rec-
ommended instead a supplemental appropriation to meet these
new legislative mandates.
The Committee is convinced that many of these arbitrary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 189
deadlines are forcing the Agency to frequently make unsound
decisions or to take
[p- 58]
ill-conceived actions. The use of deadlines in statutes or regula-
tions may help to encourage a development, but the use of dead-
lines to attempt to force new inventions or new discoveries would
appear to be impractical. The Committee is convinced that the
excessive use of deadlines results in the classical situation of
"haste makes waste."
Therefore, the Committee has recommended language in the
bill providing that funds may not be transferred to meet dead-
lines. During fiscal year 1974 if legislation is passed calling for
additional deadlines, then the Agency will be required to seek
a supplemental appropriation. This technique will preclude the
transfer of funds and people from high-priority programs merely
to meet a deadline with no consideration of the priority of the
action called for by the deadline.
STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Because of all the problems discussed above, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for a complete and
thorough review of the programs of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. The studies shall be conducted under contract with
the National Academy of Sciences which has a reputation for
technical competence and complete objectivity, and shall include,
but not be limited to:
(1) The estimated cost of pollution abatement activities
over the next decade and the benefits to be derived versus
the cost. (If we are to spend $287 billion over the next
decade, as estimated by EPA, how can we get the maximum
pollution control for our money?) ;
(2) The degree to which environmental regulations have
contributed or will contribute to the current and the long-
term energy crisis;
(3) The effect of emission control standards on the cost
and performance of automobiles, including the cost/benefit
implications of present standards;
(4) The benefits and hazards to humans of agricultural
and home use chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides,
rodenticides and fertilizers; and the effect on food and fiber
production and the protection of human health of the ina-
bility to use those chemicals now banned or restricted; and
(5) The utilization of scientific and technical personnel
-------
190 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
and the identification of policy level positions that should be
staffed with scientific or technical personnel.
The Committee feels that this study will provide the informa-
tion needed to better assess where we are headed and whether or
not the cost of getting- there is equal to the benefits. EPA will be
expected to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the
progress of these studies. Copies of the final report shall be pro-
vided to the appropriate executive departments and agencies and
to the Congress.
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
The Committee recommends a solid waste program level of
$13.8 million, $8.0 million more than the budget request. For
fiscal year 1974 the Agency had proposed to severely reduce or
eliminate nearly every activity of the solid waste program. The
Committee takes strong ex-
[p. 59]
ception to this proposal and has recommended funds to maintain
or expand many of these necessary programs.
At the start of fiscal year 1973 approximately 320 people were
assigned directly to this program. The fiscal year 1974 budget
request calls for only 127 people. The Committee has been ad-
vised that currently there are approximately 195 people left in
the program, since many people have transferred to other as-
signments within the Agency or terminated their employment.
The Committee recommends sufficient funds to support 245
employees, which will provide for those employees still assigned
to the program plus those Agency employees that have been re-
assigned but should be transferred back to the Solid Waste Pro-
gram. The 240 positions will provide for 158 people for the Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs, 27 people for the Office
of Research and Monitoring and 60 people to be located in the
regional offices. Sufficient positions have been recommended to
restore the technical assistance program to the same level as
last year.
The Committee also recommends adding $2 million for Sec.
204 Demonstration Grants. The Agency had proposed to elimi-
nate the program because of criticism that grants made in the
past did not necessarily demonstrate new technology but rather
served to subsidize some cities by filling their need for solid
waste facilities with existing technology. The Committee has
added these funds to allow the Agency to develop and demon-
strate new techniques for animal feedlot waste disposal and for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 191
disposal of sewage sludge. Testimony before the Committee in-
dicated that many of the large animal feeding operations can
produce a volume of solid waste equal to that of a city with two
to three million people. In addition, the massive funding of con-
struction of sewage treatment plants will result in a marked in-
crease in the volume of sewage sludge that must be disposed. Both
of these problems have received too little attention in the past.
The Committee recommends $1.4 million for additional funds
for Resource Recovery Technology. These funds will be used for
additional testing and supporting research on established re-
source recovery projects.
Last year the Committee recommended, and the Congress ap-
proved, adding $15 million to the budget of the Environmental
Protection Agency for development and demonstration of solid
waste technology. The Agency during fiscal year 1973 used $9
million of these funds plus $11 million of prior year funds to fund
four major new resource recovery projects. Construction of these
new projects will begin later this year and the operation and
evaluation of these new systems will extend through the end of
1975. These new projects encompass most of the known resource
recovery technology and upon completion of the evaluation phase
should provide a sound basis for additional resource recovery
projects around the country. The Committee has not recom-
mended additional funds for Sec. 208 grants since additional funds
at this time would only result in most study of the same tech-
nology.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR GRANT AND CONTRACT REVIEW
Last year the Committee recommended that the Agency es-
tablish advisory committees to review the Agency's priorities and
advise the Administrator as to which contracts or grants will
provide the greatest
[p. 60]
return to the Agency in line with priorities. Language was in-
cluded in the bill and funds were appropriated last year to pro-
vide for the establishment of these committees.
Testimony before the Committee this year indicated that the
Agency has now established these committees and $1,200,000
was included in the budget request to provide the necessary
funding for them. The Agency has requested that a specific line
item appropriation not be provided for these committees since
it creates bookkeeping requirements and adds complexity to the
management of the Agency's fiscal resources.
-------
192 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The Committee concurs with the request of the Agency and
has not recommended a specific line item appropriation. How-
ever, the Committee intends to closely monitor the grant and
contract review advisory committees during fiscal year 1974 to
see that they are fully utilized by the Agency.
SPECIAL GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
Last year the Committee recommended that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Ur-
ban Development and the Office of Management and Budget
work together to establish a program, coordinated by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, to make "frozen" HUD water
and sewer funds available, under HUD's legislative authority,
to fund the Special Great Lakes Program. The $100,000,000
would have been used to fund nine or ten selected storm and
combined sewer projects on a demonstration basis to study the
cost/benefit of the various systems. This procedure was recom-
mended by the Committee because EPA did not, at that time,
have the necessary legislative authority to fund storm and com-
bined sewer projects. Regrettably, the Office of Management and
Budget did not see fit to release these funds for this critically
needed program.
Therefore, this year the Committee has recommended that
language be included in the bill transferring $100,000,000 of the
$400,000,000 in "frozen" HUD water and sewer funds to the
Environmental Protection Agency in order that this very im-
portant demonstration program may be carried out.
The Committee has also included language in the bill to con-
tinue the availability of $3,500,000 that was provided last year
by the Congress for other activities in connection with the
Special Great Lakes Program which shall be in addition to the
$5,000,000 for this program contained in the budget request.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Testimony before the Committee revealed that one of the
major programs of the Environmental Protection Agency is
their public affairs function. According to testimony before the
Committee, during fiscal year 1974 the Agency planned to have
133 people assigned to public affairs activities at a cost of over
$6 million. When questioned as to why the Agency requires one
of the largest or perhaps even the largest public affairs budget,
percentage wise, of any agency of the Federal government, the
agency responded:
[p. 61]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 193
"The public affairs budget in the Environmental Protection
Agency is not typical of the public affairs expenditures in other
government departments and agencies."
While their public affairs program may in fact be somewhat
different from that of other agencies, it is interesting to note
that their response is virtually identical to that of any govern-
ment agency when asked a similar question.
The Committee seriously questions the priorities of the
Agency. The Agency proposed to spend only $5 million on the
solid waste program at a time when solid waste is one of the
major environmental issues facing the country. The Agency pro-
posed to spend only $4 million on the water quality program at a
time when the President is calling for a major effort to improve
the quality of the Nation's water. The Agency proposed to spend
only $5.0 million on their program to clean up the Great Lakes.
Yet the Agency would propose to spend $6 million on public
affairs.
The Committee is convinced that when too many individuals
are engaged in "beating the drum" in a government agency, too
much emphasis may be placed on promoting the image of the
Agency and not enough attention paid to the function of inform-
ing the public. Therefore, the Committee recommends reducing
the Public Affairs budget by $2 million to provide for a smaller,
more effective staff.
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES
For fiscal year 1974 the Agency requested 9,203 permanent
employees, an increase of 345 over fiscal year 1973. The Com-
mittee is convinced that the Agency has a sufficient number of
employees and for those programs where additional employees
are required in fiscal year 1974, they may be transferred from
lower priority programs of the Agency.
The Committee recommends that only the following additional
employees be authorized:
Solid waste program _ _ _ _. _ . . _ - _ 118
Testing of substitute chemicals . . _ .__... 50
Preparation of economic and environmental impact statements _ 50
Impact Statement Review Group .. _ - 14
232
The Committee action would establish a year-end ceiling of
9,090, however, this ceiling may be revised upward to reflect
the transfer of temporary employees to permanent status.
-------
194 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
Last year the Committee expressed concern over the large
number of temporary employees on the payroll of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The Committee expressed concern
that these temporary employees were being used as a means of
holding down the Agency's permanent employment and thereby
disguising the true size of the Agency's work force. At the time
of last year's hearing the Agency employed approximately 1500
temporary employees. The Committee was advised by the Agency
that the annual cost of these 1500 temporary employees was
approximately $7 million.
[p. 62]
During the past year, as directed by the Committee, the Agency
has reviewed the temporary employment picture and has moved
to reduce the total number. The Committee compliments the
Agency for taking these initial steps. However, the Committee
has been advised by the Agency that even with the reduction in
the number of temporary employees made by the Agency, the
actual cost during fiscal year 1973 will be approximately $12.7
million rather than $7 million as originally estimated.
For fiscal year 1974 the Agency has projected approximately
1000 man-years of temporary employment, approximately the
same level as for fiscal year 1973. The Committee is still of the
opinion that significant reductions can be made in the number
of temporary employees and therefore recommends that the
funds available for temporary employment be reduced by $3 mil-
lion.
TRAVEL COSTS
For fiscal year 1974, the Agency is requesting $13,991,000 in
travel funds, an increase of $1,714,000 over fiscal year 1973.
Testimony before the Committee indicates that no formal con-
trol exists over the expenditure of travel funds other than
". . . program managers have been cautioned to exercise prudent
judgment in managing their resources, including travel." The
Committee is convinced that tighter controls should be placed
on the use of these funds, therefore, the Committee recom-
mends a reduction of $1,500,000 in travel funds. The $12,491,000
recommended by the Committee should be more than adequate
to meet the travel needs of the Agency if prudently managed.
OVERTIME COSTS
For fiscal year 1974, the Agency is requesting $2,040,000 for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 195
payment of overtime costs. Testimony before the Committee in-
dicates that ". . . no formal constraints are imposed on the pro-
gram managers to limit overtime." The Committee is convinced
that for the sake of good management tighter controls should
be placed on the use of these funds. Therefore, a reduction of
$250,000 in overtime funds is recommended.
PRINTING AND REPRODUCTION COSTS
For fiscal year 1974, the Agency is requesting $4,067,000 for
printing and reproduction costs, an increase of $373,000 over
fiscal year 1973. The Committee is extremely concerned about
the expenditure of these funds and is convinced that some of
the publications issued by the Agency are of questionable value
and should be dispensed with such as the publication "Don't
Leave It All To The Experts." Therefore, the Committee recom-
mends a reduction of $500,000 in printing and reproduction
funds. The $3,567,000 recommended by the Committee is suffi-
cient to meet the needs of the Agency and to keep the public
informed if the use of these funds is carefully managed and
unnecessary publications are eliminated.
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES
Last year the Committee directed the Agency not to undertake
any new laboratory construction even though the funds had been
appro-
[p. 63]
priated. The Committee recommended this delay pending the
completion by the Environmental Protection Agency of a study
of their laboratory requirements. This study was directed by
the Committee in its report on the fiscal year 1972 appropriation
bill.
The study has now been completed by the Agency. The Com-
mittee directs the Agency to notify the Committee as to the
availability of usable space prior to starting construction of any
of the new laboratories. If available and usable space cannot be
found, the Agency may construct the new facilities. The Com-
mittee would also encourage the Agency to use contract labora-
tory services to the maximum extent possible.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY APPROPRIATION
AGENCY AND REGIONAL MANAGEMENT
1973 Appropriation ._ . . . $41,960,400
1974 Budget Estimate . ...... . _ . . 50,800,000
-------
196 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Recommended in Bill _ ...... 54,475,000
Comparison
' 1973 Appropriation ._ .. . . +12,514,600
1974 Budget Estimate . _. +3,675,000
This activity includes executive direction and leadership for
all programs and support in such areas as public, legislative,
and international affairs, equal employment opportunity, coor-
dination of environmental impact statements and Federal
agency pollution control activities, program planning, review
and evaluation, economic analysis, budgeting, accounting, audit-
ing1, personnel management, organizational analysis, ADP op-
erations, grants and contracting policy, and other housekeep-
ing activities. This activity includes direction and leadership for
all programs under the management of 10 regional administra-
tors, and provision of administrative support services.
Major changes recommended by the Committee include the
addition of $250,000 to provide for the environmental impact
statement review group and $5,000,000 for the preparation of
economic and environmental impact statements. The basis for
both of these recommendations have been discussed heretofore.
The Committee has also applied a reduction of $1,575,000 as this
appropriation's pro rata share of the various recommended reduc-
tions, such as travel and overtime.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
1973 Appropriation ___ . _ _ _ . $185,223,700
1974 Budget Estimate _ _ _ . _. . . . . 148,700,000
Recommended in Bill _. . _. . . . . . . ' 159,175,000
Comparison
1973 Appropriation .. . .. . . -26,048,700
1974 Budget Estimate _ ___._.. +10,475,000
1 Includes $13,000,000 in prior year unobligated balances.
This activity includes research concerning the effects of pollu-
tants on man and the environment and the processes which in-
fluence the movement, dispersion and fate of pollutants; and it
includes research and development leading to new and improved
analytical methods and instruments for detecting and meas-
uring pollution and to new and improved technology for pre-
venting and controlling pollution. Research and development ac-
tivities are conducted through grants, con-
[P- 64]
tracts, and other agreements with universities, industries, other
private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, State and lo-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 197
cal governments, and other Federal agencies as well as through
research and development at the Agency's laboratories and field
locations.
Testimony during the hearings revealed that one of the air-
craft owned by the Environmental Protection Agency and used
in their research program had crashed and had to be replaced.
The Agency does not have authority in its appropriation langu-
age to purchase a replacement aircraft, therefore, the Agency
proposed to lease an aircraft at an annual cost of $15,960. How-
ever, the aircraft, if purchased outright, would cost only $15,000.
Therefore the Committee has recommended including language
in the bill to permit the Agency to purchase one replacement
aircraft.
Major changes recommended by the Committee include the
addition of $5,000,000 to provide for the testing of substitute
chemicals; the addition of $8,000,000 for the solid waste pro-
gram, $6,000,000 of which is to be derived from funds appropri-
ated for the solid waste program in fiscal year 1973; the addition
of $2,000,000 for expanded research on alternative power
sources; and the addition of $3,000,000 for the Great Lakes Pro-
gram to be derived from funds appropriated for this program
in fiscal year 1973 but not obligated by the Agency. The Com-
mittee has also applied a reduction of $2,525,000 as this appro-
priation's pro rata share of the various recommended reductions.
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
1973 Appropriation - $210,935,700
1974 Budget Estimate 243,100,000
Recommended in Bill . . . . . . . _ ' 271,100,000
Comparison
1973 Appropriation . _ ._ . -. +60,164,300
1974 Budget Estimate _ _ +28,000,000
1 Includes $5,700,000 of prior year unobligated balances.
This activity provides for planning grants and control agency
support grants to State, regional, and local agencies for planning,
establishing, and improving environmental quality programs.
Monitoring and surveillance are performed to determine base-
line quality conditions, to measure pollutants, and to evaluate
the performance of control devices. Pollution prevention, con-
trol, and abatement standards are generally established in coop-
eration with State and local agencies. Technical assistance is
provided to Federal agencies, States, interstate regions, local
communities, and industry. Environmental impact statements
-------
198 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
by Federal agencies are reviewed and evaluated. Education and
training are supported through grants and other forms of assist-
ance and in-house training programs are conducted for personnel
of Federal, State, and local governments, industry, and educa-
tional institutions.
The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 for transfer to
the Agricultural Conservation Program (REAP) of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. These funds will allow the carrying out of
newly emphasized conservation and pollution abatement efforts,
including such programs as animal waste storage and diversion
facilities and disposal of solid waste. Because of EPA's involve-
ment in these programs, the Committee has recommended that
these funds be included in the Agency's budget but with the
provision that they be
[p. 65]
transferred to the Agricultural Conservation Program (REAP)
because of the technical expertise of their personnel in solving
pollution abatement problems.
The Committee also recommends adding $10,000,000 over the
budget request for grants to assist State and interstate water
pollution control agencies. The Committee was impressed by the
appeal of representatives from these agencies for more funds to
meet the enormous increase in workload placed on these agen-
cies by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. The Committee recommends that the $1,200,000 of train-
ing grants and fellowships funds that were appropriated in fiscal
year 1973 but remain unobligated be used for training in the
multi-media field. Too little effort has been devoted in the past
to training people in the problems of the "total environment."
The Committee recommends that the $500,000 appropriated for
the Great Lakes Program last year, which remains unobligated,
be reappropriated. A reduction of $3,700,000 is recommended as
this appropriation's pro rata share of the various reductions
recommended by the Committee.
ENFORCEMENT
1973 Appropriation $28,894,200
1974 Budget Estimate . ._ .__ . 47,400,000
Recommended in Bill 45,950,000
Comparison
1973 Appropriation - +17,055,800
1974 Budget Estimate . _ _ . . _ _ -1,450,000
This activity includes the certification and permit programs;
the enforcement of environmental pollution standards, including
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
199
the gathering and preparation of evidential data and the conduct
of enforcement proceedings; and legal services for the agency. A
reduction of $1,450,000 is recommended as this appropriation's
pro rata share of the various reductions recommended by the
Committee.
BASIS FOR COMMITTEE ACTION BY MEDIA
The Committee has indicated below the relative priority it at-
taches to various specific pollution problems, and the agency must
limit transfers of funds between media to not more than 10
percent without first obtaining approval of the appropriations
committees.
A breakdown and discussion of the budget proposals by media
and category follows:
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY
Air
Water Quality . . . _ .
Water Supply - . ._
Solid Waste . . __
Pesticides ._ ...._. ..
Radiation - . _ . _
Noise
Interdisciplinary
Program Management and Support
Agency and Regional Management
Total __. - . ... .
Available 1973
$153 348 300
1 138,700,800
4,280,000
36,120,300
19,915,300
7,366,100
1 213,900
13 768,200
46,039.900
46,183,580
- . . 466,937,180
1974 budget
request
$145 502 800
1 172,085,600
4,355,700
5,760,000
25,783,100
7,121,200
4,037,500
14,472,200
60,082,100
50,799,800
490,000,000
1974 committee
recommendation
$143 570 000
1 178,336,000
4,356,000
28,760,000
30,178,000
7,122,000
4,037 000
21,104,000
58,392,000
54,845,000
530,700,000
Committee
changes
$1 932 800
+ 6,250,400
+ 300
+ 23,000,000
+ 4,394,900
+ 800
500
+ 6,631,800
-1,690,100
+ 4,045,200
+ 40,700,000
'Excludes contract authority; $50 million in 1973 and $96 million in 1974.
[p. 66]
Air _ ... . ._ $143,570,0000
The amount recommended for the air programs is $143,570,000,
a decrease of $9,778,300 below the amount available for fiscal
year 1973.
The Committee has recommended $56,330,000 for research and
development programs for fiscal year 1974. In the area of re-
search on air pollution processes and effects, the Committee has
recommended $29,500,000, the same level of effort that prevailed
in fiscal year 1973; this research is directed toward the develop-
ment of scientific information for the establishment of ambient
air quality standards and emission standards, and measurements
on man and animals. In the area of pollution control technology,
the Committee recommends a net decrease of $8,500,000 under
the level that prevailed in fiscal year 1973. This decrease results
primarily from the completion of funding for first generation
sulfur oxides control technology demonstrations in 1973; during
1974, the program will be devoted to continued research and
-------
200 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
early development of less mature technology for controlling
sulfur oxides emissions from smaller industrial and urban
sources. The Committee recommends $9,200,000 for research on
alternative power sources, an increase of $2,000,000 over the
budget request.
For air pollution abatement and control programs the Com-
mittee recommends $78,670,000 for fiscal year 1974. This ac-
tivity establishes and implements ambient air quality standards,
stationary source standards, and mobile source standards; most
of the abatement and control efforts are oriented toward support
of State and local efforts. Most of the decrease represents a trans-
fer of resources to the Enforcement appropriation for assisting
in the execution and enforcement of State implementation plans,
new source performance standards, and hazardous air pollutant
emission standards.
For air enforcement programs the Committee recommends
$8,570,000 for fiscal year 1974. The increase is primarily for work-
ing with the States in the execution and enforcement of State
implementation plans.
Water . $178,336,000
The amount recommended by the Committee to be appropri-
ated for the water programs is $178,336,000, an increase of
$39,635,200 over the amount available in fiscal year 1973. This
increase is responsive to the need to implement many of the new
or expanded responsibilities imposed by the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The Committee recommends $42,540,000 for water quality re-
search in fiscal year 1974. In the research area of processes and
effects, an increase is provided for the development of analytical
test procedures as required by the new water legislation and for
research on water pollution affecting lakes, including the Great
Lakes. In the research area of control technology, a decrease of
$2,580,000 is accounted for primarily by a comparative transfer
for the development of effluent guidelines from the Research and
Development appropriation to the Abatement and Control appro-
priation.
The Committee recommends $100,896,000 for water pollution
abatement and control programs for fiscal year 1974. An increase
of $30,000,000 to a level of $50,000,000 in 1974 will provide
assistance to State and interstate water pollution control agen-
cies in carrying
[p. 67]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 201
out the increased responsibilities prescribed by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. An increase of
$8,745,200 will provide for the establishment of a municipal waste
permit program, and the transfer of staffing to the construction
grants program to handle increased volume of work due to the
expanded program and to complete the development of effluent
guidelines for major industries.
The Committee is convinced that the proposed sewer demon-
stration project at Bend, Oregon, has national significance and
encourages the Agency to give special attention to the project.
The Committee also directs that the $3,500,000 provided for the
Great Lakes program last year be made available for this
year's program. An increase of $3,000,000 will provide for an
expanded ocean disposal program, particularly in the areas of
the development of criteria and for the scientific and technical
review of ocean disposal permit applications and to expand the
oil and hazardous material spill response and prevention program.
Testimony before the Committee has indicated a need for re-
search on methods of treating the effluent of lagoons and waste
stabilization ponds so they will meet the requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The
Committee believes this to be a serious problem throughout the
Nation, and will expect the Agency to conduct research in this
area during fiscal year 1974.
The Committee recommends $23,900,000 for the enforcement
program for fiscal year 1974. This increase will provide for
the transfer of additional staff to meet the increased workload
of the expanded water quality permit program and to support
the full-year cost of staff authorized in 1973 and those trans-
ferred from the Corps of Engineers in connection with the water
quality permit program.
Solid Wastes $28,760,0000
The amount recommended for solid wastes is $28,760,000 for
fiscal year 1974, an increase of $23,000,000 over the amount
requested.
The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 for transfer to
the Agricultural Conservation Program (REAP) of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture for such programs as animal waste storage
and diversion facilities and disposal of solid waste.
The Committee recommends that $13,800,000 be provided for
the agency's solid waste program as previously discussed.
-------
202 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Water Supply $4,356,000
The amount recommended for water supply is $4,356,000 for
fiscal year 1974. The funds recommended will provide for a con-
tinuation of the 1973 level of effort. Funds are provided for re-
search on the effects of water quality on human health to pro-
vide the scientific knowledge necessary for establishing drinking
water standards and also standards for recreational water use.
Assistance is also provided to State and local agencies to aid
them in the improvement of their water supply systems. The pro-
gram also establishes drinking water standards and certifies
water supply systems.
Pesticides _. $30,178,000
The amount recommended for pesticide activities is $30,178,000,
an increase of $10,262,700 over the amount available for fiscal
year 1973.
[p. 68]
The Committee has provided $10,320,000, to continue research
efforts at substantially the same level as fiscal year 1973 and to
provide for research on and testing of substitute pesticides as
previously discussed.
In the area of abatement and control, the Committee has pro-
vided $16,813,000 for fiscal year 1974, to support the registration
and classification of all new applications and to prepare for the
registration of intrastate products; to initiate development of
the National Pesticide Monitoring Plan as required by the Fed-
eral Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972; and to provide
increased assistance to the States to enable the training of pes-
ticide applicators, the development of State programs for certi-
fying applicators, and the strengthening of accident reporting
and investigation programs.
Also the Committee recommends $3,045,000 for the pesticide
enforcement program for fiscal year 1974. This will provide the
additional staffing required to implement the new authorities and
responsibilities in the new legislation such as the inspection and
registration of manufacturers and formulators of pesticide pro-
ducts, the surveillance of pesticide usage and the surveillance of
experimental permits. It also provides for improved inspection
and surveillance of imported pesticide products.
Radiation _ . _ _ _ _ _ _..__.. $7,122,000
The amount recommended for the radiation program is
$7,122,000, a decrease of $244,100 below the amount available for
fiscal year 1973.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 203
The Committee recommends $2,470.500, a slight increase of
$183,500 for research on the effects of selected radionuclides
including krypton.
In addition, the Committee recommends $4,651,500 for abate-
ment and control programs, a net decrease of $427,600 from the
amount available in fiscal year 1973. Academic training grants
will be reduced by $631,000 and an increase of $165,000 will
provide support for additional contractual studies related to the
environmental impact of components of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Noise - . _. . $4,037,000
The amount recommended for noise is $4,037,000, an increase
of $2,823,100 over the amount available for fiscal year 1973.
This increase includes $269,200 to expand the noise research
program to meet the requirements of th° Noise Control Act of
1972, which requires the coordination and reporting of noise
research activities of all Federal agencies. Other research efforts
include the collection and assessment of information on existing
devices and technology for controlling noise and to initiate de-
velopment of improved noise control technology. In the abate-
ment and control area, the increase of $2,554,400 is to provide
for the development of noise emission standards required to im-
plement the new legislation, and to provide technical assistance
to State and local governments to assist in the development and
enforcement of ambient noise standards.
Interdisciplinary .. $21,104,000
The amount recommended for interdisciplinary activities is
$21,104,000, an increase of $7,335,800 over the amount available
for fiscal year 1973. This increase will expand and improve the
quality
[p. 69]
assurance program for air and water analyses. Increased effort
will be devoted to the inter-laboratory testing and evaluation of
regional and State laboratory capabilities for conducting air
sample analyses. Tn addition the ongoing effort of preparing and
distributing reference water samples to laboratories will be ex-
panded to complement the increased water quality monitoring
required by the new water legislation.
In addition, the Committee recommends that $1,200,000 pro-
vided by the Congress last year for training grants and fellow-
ships, but currently unobligated, be used for interdisciplinary
training.
-------
204 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The Committee has also provided $5,000,000 for a study by
the National Academy of Sciences as previously discussed.
Program Management and Support _ _. $58,392,000
The Committee recommends $58,392,000, an increase of
$12,352,100 over the amount available in fiscal year 1973. This
activity provides for overall management and planning and for
agency-wide common services. These charges are distributed to
the four operating appropriation accounts on a pro-rata basis.
The increase will primarily provide the additional common serv-
ices to support the expanded programs proposed in 1974 to imple-
ment new legislation and to support programs and staffing in-
creases authorized in 1973.
Agency and Regional Management _.. $54,845,000
The Committee recommends $54,845,000, an increase of
$8,661,420 over the amount available in fiscal year 1973. The
increase will provide for the development of a host of new regula-
tions and standards called for by the new water legislation. The
increase also will provide for the additional pro rata share of
common services required to support the expanded programs and
staffing agency wide.
In addition, $250,000 has been provided for the establishment
of the environmental impact review group and an increase of
$5,000,000 has been provided for the preparation of economic and
environmental impact statements, as previously discussed.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY
1973 Appropriation .. . . . .
1974 Budget Estimate $600,000,000
Recommended in Bill 600,000,000
Comparison
1973 Appropriation +600,000,000
1974 Budget Estimate . _ . .
This program is authorized under Title II of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. In December 1972,
$5 billion was allocated to the States—$2 billion out of 1973
contract authority and $3 billion out of 1974 contract authority.
In 1974, appropriated funds of $600 million have been recom-
mended to liquidate estimated obligations against this contract
authority.
This program provides for making grants to municipal, inter-
municipal, State, and interstate agencies to assist in financing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 205
the planning, design, and construction of municipal wastewater
treatment
[p. 70]
facilities. Amounts approved from authorization for contract au-
thority for 1973 and 1974 are allotted to each State on the basis
of a formula set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. Within these allotments, grants are
awarded on a priority basis for individual projects. Each project
is eligible for 75 percent in Federal assistance.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
substantially alter the methods of funding the construction
grants program and the methods of providing assistance to in-
dividual projects. Rather than awarding a grant to an applicant
for the Federal share of a project, EPA is now authorized to
enter into a contractual arrangement with the applicant wherein
EPA creates a contractual obligation for payment of the eligible
proportional costs of the separate elements of each project. Under
this authority, EPA will incur contractual obligations for the
Federal share of the costs of (1) preliminary plans and studies
and other eligible preliminary work, (2) design plans and speci-
fications, and (3) the construction of the waste treatment facili-
ties. Payments against these contractual obligations will be made
to the applicant as all or parts of each of these elements are
completed.
SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES OVERSEAS
1973 Appropriation . - $4,000,000
1974 Budget Estimate 4,000,000
Recommended in Bill 2,000,000
Comparison
1973 Appropriation - -2,000,000
1974 Budget Estimate - . -2,000,000
This appropriation covers the support of research, develop-
ment and demonstration projects in foreign countries. Appropri-
ated funds are used to purchase the currencies which accrue to
the United States primarily through sale of surplus agricultural
commodities. The purchased currencies are then employed to sup-
port collaborative research beneficial to the domestic research
program of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Testimony before the Committee revealed that none of the
$4,000,000 provided by the Congress for fiscal year 1973 had
been obligated as of May 1, 1973. In addition, approximately
$1,500,000 of fiscal year 1972 funds also remain unobligated.
Therefore, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
-------
206 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
$2,000,000 for this program, $2,000,000 less than the budget
request and $2,000,000 less than the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1973.
[p.71]
NATIONAL STUDY COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
1973 Appropriation ._ $200,000
1974 Budget Estimate _ _ . _ _ 1,000,000
Recommended in Bill _ _
Comparison
1973 Appropriation - - - .. - ._ -200,000
1974 Budget Estimate __ . . . -1,000,000
The Commission was established by Public Law 92-500 on
October 18, 1972. Its purpose is to investigate and study the
technical, economic, social, and environmental effects of achiev-
ing very high levels of water pollution control. Studies may be
contracted with the National Academy of Sciences and others.
A report to Congress is required in October 1975 when the
Commission completes its work.
The Commission had not yet organized when the Committee
completed hearings on the bill, therefore, the Committee has
taken no action on this request.
[p. 72]
SEPARATE VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE SIDNEY R.
YATES; THE HONORABLE JOSEPH P. ADDABBO; THE
HONORABLE CLARENCE D. LONG; THE HONORABLE
DAVID R. OBEY; THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROY-
BAL; AND THE HONORABLE SILVIO 0. CONTE
There is much in the bill with which we agree. There are a
number of things with which we disagree. We shall discuss only
the most important of these.
We agree with the Committee that "agriculture is basic to us
all," and that "this nation should be blessed with an abundance
of pure and wholesome food." We appreciate that chemicals may
be necessary to achieve that goal, but we insist that toxic chemi-
cals harmful to the consumer must not be used.
I
Our principal difference with the Committee is over its strong
objection to the Delaney clause which requires that substances
which cause cancers in animals be prohibited from use in products
consumed by humans. The Committee's frustration with the
clause is obvious from the language in the report, viz:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 207
The Committee is concerned that many decisions such
as the banning of DDT and DES may have been made
without adequate scientific fact.
On page 58 of the report, there appears an excoriation of
EPA, rarely found in reports of the Appropriations Committee,
for having prohibited the use of DDT.
The Committee's hostility to the regulatory agencies shows
clearly in its insistence that they solve their "jurisdictional prob-
lems." Addressing the question of possible overlapping of respon-
sibility, the Committee says:
This bureaucratic maneuvering has kept potentially
important products off the market, products that could
be important in protecting the nation's food supply.
Somewhat imperiously the Committee expects each of
these agencies to resolve these particular problems im-
mediately.
The Committee admonishes the regulatory agencies which
have banned DDT and DES to go slowly—
to use their power responsibly, acting only on the basis
of scientific fact and with due consideration to the
economic and social impact of their decision.
Thus, the Committee's primary concern is with the possible
economic loss attributable to the agencies' decisions to ban
harmful chemicals. Our primary concern is with possible human
loss.
It is easy to call upon an agency "to act only on the basis of
scientific fact," as the Committee does; but in this enormous,
complicated,
[p.102]
and uncharted field, little is known that can be designated as
scientific fact and renowned scientists may differ in their inter-
pretation of what is accepted as scientific fact. Tests that can
be performed on animals with specific results cannot be per-
formed on human beings. The Committee's apparent demand for
absolute proof for agency action cannot be attained in this field
at this time. The decisions prohibiting the use of DDT and DES
were made on the basis of the best scientific data available;
inadequate, admittedly, by the Committee's proposed standard,
but the best at hand.
Science has not been able to provide exact answers to the
question of whether substances that are carcinogenic in animals
will be carcinogenic in man. Nevertheless, science tells us that
-------
208 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
possibility exists, and there are few scientists, if any, who advo-
cate the elimination of the so-called Delaney clause. If it is not
known absolutely that a chemical which produces cancer in mice
will produce cancer in humans as well, should that chemical be
approved for human consumption? The scientists say no. We
say no. If there is any question, surely economic interests should
be sacrificed to human interests. We would urge regulatory agen-
cies having responsibility for protecting the American people
from dangerous food additives to be very conscious of their trust.
The Food and Drug Administration has the primary respon-
sibility of assuring that the American people shall not be sub-
jected to food additives that are harmful and dangerous or to
drugs that scar, or disfigure or harm or possibly kill. If there
is doubt in the mind of the regulatory agency whether a chemi-
cal seeking the market or actually marketed is harmful or danger-
ous, we hope and trust the agency will cast its vote for the
consuming public in the knowledge that the people are depending
upon the agency's integrity in protecting their health and well-
being.
The FDA deserves credit and criticism for its activities. We
applaud the Food and Drug Administration and particularly Dr.
Frances Kelsey for having had the enormous courage to resist
constant pressure by its manufacturer to market the drug Thalid
omide some years ago. The drug was used in Germany, in
England, possibly in other countries with horrible results now
known—the disfigured, distorted Thalidomide babies. It should
be noted that early animal tests showed nothing wrong with
Thalidomide. Only after several generations of testing did doubts
begin to occur to those conducting the experiment, and it was at
that time that the disfigured babies were born in Germany. The
FDA decided to deny approval of the drug, for which many
mothers in this country will be eternally grateful.
FDA is to be criticized for its failure to adequately carry out
its responsibility to see that food products shipped across the
state borders are processed under sanitary conditions and are
safe, pure, and wholesome to eat. The General Accounting Office
found that an inspection of 97 food manufacturing and processing
plants revealed 39 were operating under unsanitary conditions, of
which 23 were operating under serious unsanitary conditions
"having potential for causing, or having already caused, product
contamination. . ."
In this instance GAO concluded that the FDA did not have
the money or manpower to identify promptly all the food plants
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 209
operating under sanitary conditions. In short, it was not doing
what it should be doing to protect the public health.
[p.103]
We are pleased to note that the Committee has made additional
funds available for additional inspectors. Perhaps the problem
cited by GAO will now be corrected.
The Committee's concern for scientific fact is not sustained by
the table that appears on page 11 of the report. The fact that
DDT's substitutes may be more toxic than DDT does not mean
that DDT is not harmful. The point overlooked by the Committee
is that DDT accumulates in the environment and has dangerous
long-term genetic effects in animals.
The Committee charges that no provable damage has occurred
to humans by DDT application. Nevertheless, cases have ap-
peared like the following which was reported in the Washington
Star for December 28, 1971, at the 138th meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science:
Dr. Farver of Washington University of St. Louis dis-
closed that in a study in Gutemala by the United Nations
FAO, samples of mothers' milk from three peasant com-
munities revealed DDT levels as much as 24 times
higher than the half part per million concentration
considered acceptable in commercial cows' milk by the
FDA. This may explain, he said, why infant mortality
rates for these communities—162 per 1000 live births—
are nearly twice as high as those for Gutemala as a
whole, the more so because chickens and eggs as well
as milk are heavily contaminated by the pesticide. How-
ever, he stressed, no definite cause and effect relation-
ship has been proved.
Given such a situation, what should a regulatory agency do—
demand absolute cause and effect proof?
It is unfortunate, however, that the Committee saw fit to use
the money requested for laboratories at the National Center for
Toxicological Research at Pine Bluffs, Arkansas, to recruit ad-
ditional inspectors. The inspectors are needed. So, too, are the
laboratories. If the Committee is serious in its professed desire
to test the scientific validity of the Delaney clause, and we join
with it in that goal, it should provide $2.8 million for the addi-
tional laboratories at the NCTR. The Committee's allocation
of $200,000 for the purpose is woefully inadequate. It will pro-
vide only for another panel to discuss the clause, not for research.
The fact that FDA is authorized to transfer other funds for the
purpose will not correct the problem.
-------
210 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
After having checked with various authorities, including Dr.
Philip Handler, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
we believe that only through a concerted attack on the pro-
blem by the NCTR with the cooperation of other cancer-fighting
agencies will we be able to acquire answers. As was stated in the
conclusions to the report by the Library of Congress requested
by the Committee on the need for long-term, low-dosage toxicolo-
gical testing:
—there is general agreement concerning the need for
tests of the effect of long-term exposure to low doses
of toxic substances;
—the number of potentially toxic substances which will
require screening and testing to ascertain safety to
health and the environment is quite large. This number
increases by a
[p.104]
considerable number of new products each year;
—there are no simple, short-term tests which will
reveal with a high degree of accuracy the potential
danger from low-level, long-term, exposure to chemical
substances.
—since so many chemicals, particularly in foods, will
be ingested at low-levels over long periods of time, there
is a real need to insure, through some system of evalua-
tion, that the risk of incurring a hazard from such in-
gestion is reasonable in terms of the benefits afforded
by the use of the substance. .
II
We also feel that much of the criticism directed toward the
Environmental Protection Agency has been too harsh and many
of the suggestions for improvement are unrealistic.
For example, are the new automobile emission standards really
responsible for creating "serious problems for the American con-
sumer" as the Committee states? The automobile manufacturers
have been aware of the pollution problem associated with ex-
haust emissions for years and they have heretofore failed to act.
The Committee contends that emission control standards "have
greatly increased the requirements for gasoline, which is in ...
short supply and will probably require rationing." Yet, it is
known that added weight and accessories are the major causes
of increased fuel consumption. In a report entitled "Fuel Econ-
omy and Emission Control," EPA notes that emission controls
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 211
account for only 7 percent of the loss of fuel economy. But
the weight of the vehicle has a major impact on fuel consumption.
For example, the 1958 Chevrolet Impala weighed 4,000 pounds
and got 12.1 miles to a gallon. A comparable 1973 Chevrolet
Impala weighs 5,500 pounds and get only 8.5 miles to the gallon.
Air conditioners further reduce gas mileage.
The Committee report charges that the auto industry had no
choice in meeting the 1975 standards but to go the catalytic
exhaust converter route which it claims will result in—
An automobile that costs significantly more to buy,
significantly more to maintain, will provide poor fuel
economy, with a reduction in performance.
This statement is directly contradictory to the testimony of
General Motors before the Senate Public Works Committee on May
30. That testimony takes issue with the findings in the Com-
mittee report. Mr. Cole, GM's President, said catalyst and other
advanced automotive emission control hardware placed on its
1975 models would cost in the area of $150 per vehicle. He
further stated that its catalyst systems cause "no loss of fuel
economy (perhaps even an improvement) and better perform-
ance."
The Committee is also most unrealistic in its recommenda-
tions for preventing the increased costs and delays which often
accompany the filing of environmental impact statements. We
concur with the Committee's view that the procedure can and
should be more efficient. But can or should the Environmental
Protection Agency really be expected to "reduce the formal re-
view process from months down to
[p.105]
days?" A slight delay in initiating potentially environmentally
hazardous projects could be highly beneficial for it allows more
time for a calm reassessment of how the programs might im-
pinge on our health and the stability of our environment.
Ill
We question the Committee's approval of an appropriation of
$5,000,000 for a complete review of the programs of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency to be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences. The purposes of the study are itemized
on page 59 of the report.
The appropriation is the culmination of a five-page criticism
of the Congress for having passed various environmental laws
-------
212
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
and the EPA's effort to carry them out. It seems to us that the
appropriate forum for considering the points made are the legis-
lative committees of the Congress rather than the NAS.
DAVID R. OBEY,
EDMUND R. ROYBAL,
SILVIO 0. CONTE,
JOSEPH ADDABBO,
SIDNEY R. YATES,
CLARENCE D. LONG.
[p. 106]
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1973 AND THE BUDGET
ESTIMATES FOR 1974
PERMANENT NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY—TRUST FUNDS
[Becomes available automatically under earlier, or "permanent," law without further, or annual, action
by the Congress. Thus, these amounts are not included in the accompanying bill.!
Agency or item
Agricultural Research Service:
Miscellaneous trust funds __. -
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Miscellaneous trust funds - .__..
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Miscellaneous trust funds - - -
Farmer Cooperative Service-
Miscellaneous contributed funds
Soil Conservation Service:
Miscellaneous contributed funds
Environmental Protection Agency:
Miscellaneous contributed funds
Other agencies:
Miscellaneous contributed funds ._
Total, Permanent new budget (obligational)
New budget
(obligational)
authority, 1973
$390,000
1,659,000
40,129,000
115,000
1,300,000
25,000
66,000
43,684,000
Budget esti-
mate of
new budget
(obligational)
authority, 1974
$429,000
1,659,000 .
40,659,000
115,000
1,300,000 -
25,000
26,000
44,213 000
Increase (+)
or
Decrease (-)
+$39,000
+530,000
-40,000
+ 529 000
[p. 110]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
213
m u-f
SS
5 §§!
"" KSS
'§ §
gl *
"•
is r
E-o c ^""^
^ 3 o±- i-
fgggg
rocoooo
1 +3
?£o OOo
3O0 000
3 Oo OOO
•d-tHQ ! ^^
^n I inio —•
coino oo
r—l O OO O
O Is* O O CM
-
S lo
*^J O
J,'-T+ ' rH
OO O O
00 OO !
OO O O
Bo" o"o"
in oo
<-^cii] oo
i-Tm" O"CM"
r^^- o
CM (D
o i'
O I'
I 00 00
-
— •
So ;.
, 00
i 00
. o oo
000
I r-CMO
S"co"
CM
OJ CNJ
'§18'
— ' I — , c:
E ' J
o £ &- § g
Q-. ^ si ca c c *
°~fz ^ — ;
: «n s^
" - S° S t
^S E
'5.2 '
bfl*-
£ =
O o
og
Dep
rial
= 8
jo3^ ^2 u WE ^
— tlO —
[p. 121]
-------
214
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
e:
KG
mz
OUJ
~S
H
£S
°«t
0).Q 9 C
o o o
S o S
1-1 m r-
cn ^
§0 O
o o
to o o
oo" CM" co"
^t c-j m
co oo m
oo" m" o"
oo
to o o
°-
o o
o o
o o
o o
CM in
in o
O) (J)
r-. O
SR
§
o
s
'S
:&
1 4-
m o o o o
00000
^ o m o o
,577
,750
3,0
9,5
r-t (^ 00
CO O> ^J-
O O> CO
CD m
i^. in
CM_ to
m" «3-"
m to
CM UD
co" CM"
o o o o o
o o o o o
fx. O O O O
in" o" o" o o"
in o o o o
«-^ o in o o
^r" CM" in" co" oo"
O O-J CO **
oo CM to in
_ M
2^0. e s
00 tU CO O
Us |r
c ^_
TO
,
CL bO
.2 o- ^, ro c
IHIi
[p. 126]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
215
.
55
is I
"~E CL
OS 0.
^ CB
-------
216 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.17d(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-ENVIRONMENTAL
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION APPROPRIATION BILL,
1974
JUNE 26 (legislative day, JUNE 25), 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. McGEE, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8619]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 8619) making appropriations for the Agriculture,
Environmental and Consumer Protection Programs for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, and for other purposes, reports the
same to the Senate with various amendments and presents here-
with information relative to the changes made:
Amount of bill as passed by the House—Total new
(obligational) authority __ _ $9,385,737,600
Amount of increase by Senate Committee—New
(obligational) authority 773,470,900
Amount of bill as reported to Senate—New (obli-
gational) authority . _ __ 10,159,208,500
Amount of 1973 Appropriation Act—Budget (obli-
gational) authority to date _ _ _ _ _ _. 12,664,655,700
Amount of estimates, 1974—New (obligational)
authority _ _ . 9,505,750,600
The bill as reported to the Senate:
Under the Appropriation Act for 1973 _ _ 2,505,447,200
Over the estimates for 1974—New (obliga-
tional) authority . . .. _ 653,457,900
[p. 1]
GENERAL SUMARY STATEMENT
The Senate bill, as reported by the Committee, recommends
$10,159,208,500 of new obligational authority for fiscal year
1974, representing a net increase by the Committee of $773,470,-
900 over the House bill and $653,457,900 over the budget es-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 217
timates. The amounts of new obligational authority for each of
the four Titles contained in the bill for 1974, and the House
bill for 1974, compared with the Committee recommendations,
are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, showing
comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommenda-
tions for individual appropriation items, projects, and activities
are carried in the report under the appropriate item headings.
1973
Appropria- 1974 budget 1974 House 1974 Senate
tion Act estimates bill committee
Title I—Agricultural programs - - $5,410,031.200 $5,353,937,600 $4,978,348,600 $5,258,490,500
Title II—Rural development programs - 1,030,997,000 356,822,000 385,822,000 412,822,000
Title III—Environmental programs 2,968,348,000 785,414,000 1,019,230,000 1,097,746,000
Title IV—Consumer programs 3,255,279,500 3,009,577,000 3,002,337,000 3,390,150,000
Total, new budget (obligational)
authority . ._ 12,664,655,700 9,505,750,600 9,385,737,600 10,159,208,500
__
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This agency's activities to support a national program of en-
vironmental protection and pollution abatement are broken down
into the the following appropriation headings:
1. Research and Development programs to determine the
cause-and-effect relationships of environmental pollutants
and to develop and demonstrate technological solutions for
pollution abatement and control.
2. Abatement and Control programs which provide for
development and implementation of environmental standards,
monitoring and surveillance of pollution, pollution control
planning, financial and technical assistance to State and local
pollution control agencies, assistance to other Federal agen-
cies to minimize impact of their activities on the environ-
ment, and support of training of personnel engaged in pol-
lution control activities.
3. Enforcement programs to assist State and local agen-
cies and to carry out direct enforcement activities to assure
compliance with Federal pollution control standards, per-
mits, and regulations.
4. Agency and Regional Management activities to provide
both centralized and regional leadership and administrative
support for EPA's programs.
5. Construction Grants to local public agencies for con-
struction of municipal waste water treatment facilities to
assist States and localities in attaining and maintaining
water quality standards.
-------
218 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
6. Scientific Activities Overseas (Special Foreign Currency
Program) support cooperative programs of research and
demonstration to find solutions to environmental problems
which are of interest to the United States and to coopera-
ting foreign agencies or countries.
APPROPRIATION STRUCTURE
The Environmental Protection Agency presented its budget
based on functional areas such as research and development,
abatement and control, enforcement, and agency and regional
management.
This approach to appropriations creates some difficulty for
legislative oversight or program reviews by the Congress, the
General Accounting Office or others trying to examine EPA's
performance with regard to specific programs, including the
analysis of the level of resource commitment to Congressionally
established priorities.
To improve Congress' capacity to oversee implementation of
the laws it has enacted, and to assure that funds are being spent
according to priorities which Congress intends, the appropriations
approach which has been followed by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency should be reviewed.
Before formulating its budget presentation for fiscal year 1975,
the Agency is directed to confer with the Appropriations Com-
mittees of both the House and Senate to determine if any modi-
fication of its budget structure is advisable or necessary.
[p. -42]
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
The House recommendation for this program excluding the
$15 million originally associated with the Agricultural Conserva-
tion Program (REAP) would provide $10,200,000 under the
Research and Development appropriation and $3,560,000 under
the Abatement and Control appropriation. The Committee under-
stands that if the program proposed by the House were to be
carried out, particularly technical assistance which is normally
funded under Abatement and Control, an adjustment of $3,600,-
000 between the two accounts is necessary. Therefore, in order
to accommodate the House proposal, the Committee has reduced
the Research and Development appropriation and increased the
Abatement and Control appropriation accordingly.
The Committee is concerned with both the present status
and the future of the Solid Waste Management program for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 219
which a drastic reduction has been proposed for fiscal 1974. The
Committee has heard from no one except personnel of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency who agree that this drastic reduc-
tion in the Solid Waste Management program is justified and
even personnel within the Agency are in disagreement.
This Committee joins the House Committee in taking the
strongest possible exception to the proposal to reduce this activity.
This continues to be one of the major economic and environ-
mental problems facing the country today and this is no time
to relax or reduce our efforts.
The Agency, in its appeal letter, suggests that it concurs
with much of the House action in the area of solid waste and
that it is in the middle of reshaping its strategy for solid waste
and is considering reprogramming to meet this need. In the
opinion of the Committee, this language and this action is too
little and too late. The Committee does not feel that a program
of the significance of this one should be dependent on reprogram-
ming within available EPA resources. It agrees with the House
Committee that additional funds should be made available.
For the Solid Waste Program, the Committee recommends
$29,760,000. This includes $15 million for conservation and pol-
lution abatement practices including animal waste storage and
diversion facilities and disposal of solid waste. The Committee
recommends restoration of the House Committee language pro-
viding that this amount shall be transferred to the Department
of Agriculture.
The Committee concurs with the House recommendation for
additional funds for Resource Recovery technology, said funds to
be utilized for additional testing of established resource recovery
activities. The Committee has investigated EPA resource recovery
projects in depth and one program which produces electrical
power from solid waste using gas turbine technology is unique
in that it has been a research and development project (as op-
posed to a demonstration grant) into which, to date, the Federal
Government has invested more that $6 million.
The original intent of both Congress and the administration
was to demonstrate this system full-scale following research and
development to insure its commercial availability. As an alterna-
tive to full-scale demonstration, the existing pilot plant should be
updated to reflect and incorporate knowledge gained from the
research undertaken to date and it should be operated for dura-
tion testing to prove the system for commercial use.
[p. 43]
-------
220 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The Committee recommends that the $1.4 million approved by
the House be increased to $2.4 million, and that $1.4 million be
allocated to the gas turbine project for updating and duration
testing of this system.
The Committee, again this year, has had considerable discus-
sion in reference to the proposed sewer demonstration project
at Bend, Oregon. As pointed out in the report of the Committee
last year, this proposal has great national significance and prom-
ise. Therefore, the Committee again urges the Agency to review
and analyze this proposal in terms of its national significance..
The Committee is also including language in another part of
this report directing the attention of the National Study Com-
mission on Water Quality Management to this matter.
EMPLOYEES
The Committee recommends that the requested increase in
permanent employees, 345, be approved. The House report recom-
mended that only 232 additional employees be authorized for
specified programs. The Agency appealed this action.
Congress has provided many new programs and expanded
activities to be undertaken by EPA. The Committee feels that
the requested additional employees will be required to carry out
these new responsibilities and, therefore, recommends the 345
new positions and restoration of the $2,000,000 required to fund
these positions.
Likewise, the Agency has appealed the House reduction of
$3,000,000 for temporary employees and the Committee feels
that the Agency appeal sets forth good reasons for restoration
of this reduction. The use of temporary employees gives the
Agency some degree of flexibility in carrying out its activities
and, therefore, the Committee recommends full restoration of the
$3,000,000 reduction.
MISCELLANEOUS REDUCTIONS
The Committee concurs with the action of the House in re-
ducing funds for travel costs, overtime costs, and public relations.
With reference to the latter item, the Agency feels the activities
of its public affairs office extend beyond that usually considered
as public affairs in other agencies. If this is the situation, the
Agency should give some thought to reorganizing its program
so that this office and this appropriation account will more ac-
curately reflect the matter.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
221
The Committee does not concur with the general House reduc-
tion of $5 million and recommends restoration of this amount.
RE-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
The Committee is concerned with the proposal of the House
to reappropriate 1973 funds for purposes specified. This is of
particular concern with reference to $8 million in unobligated
funds. While these funds are technically and legally unobligated,
the Agency has made plans for their use and has applications
on hand and in process to obligate these funds early in fiscal year
1974. To direct their use to the purposes specified in the House
bill and report would cause considerable disruption in on-going
EPA activities. Undoubtedly, the Agency would have to termin-
ate the processing of many pending applications which
[p. 44]
have been under consideration and review for some time. The
Agency should be allowed to proceed with these pending matters.
The Committee does concur in the need for increased funding
of these programs but feels that in regard to the $8 million, new
funding should be provided so that the Agency will remain free
to obligate these carry-over funds for purposes now planned.
A breakdown and discussion of the budget proposals by media
and category follows:
Item
Air
Water quality
Water supply
Solid waste
Pesticides
Radiation
Noise - . __
Interdisciplinary
Program management
Agency and regional
Total
1 Excludes contract
Available
in 1973
- - _. .. $153,348,300
_ _ 138,700,800
4,280,800
36,120,300
19,915,300
_ - 7,366,100
- - 1,213,900
-. . 13,768,200
and support 46,039,900
management 46,183,580
466,937,180
authority; $50,000,000 in 1973
1974 budget
request
$145,502,800
' 172,085,600
4,355,700
5,760,000
25,783,100
7,121,200
4,037,500
14,472,200
60,082,100
50,799,800
490,000,000
and $96,000,00
House bill
$143,570,000
1 178,336,000
4,356,000
28,760,000
30,178,000
7,122,000
4,037,000
21,104,000
58,392,000
54,845,000
530,700,000
in 1974.
Committee
recommen-
dation
$167,070,000
185,176,000
4,356,000
34,760,000
30,428,000
7,122,000
4,037,000
21,179,000
59,102,000
55,470,000
568,700,000
AGENCY AND REGIONAL MANAGEMENT
1973 New budget (oblig-ational) authority . - - $41,960,400
1974 Budg-et estimate—New (obligational) authority 50,800,000
House bill—New (obligational) authority - . _ . _ 54,475,000
Committee recommendation—New (obligational) authority 55,375,000
Activities supported under this appropriation provide for top-
level management of EPA through the Administrator's immedi-
ate office and the immediate offices of the Regional Administra-
tors, and for administrative support to the program activities
-------
222 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
through the Office of Planning and Management and its regional
counterparts.
For Agency and Regional Management the Committee recom-
mends an appropriation of $55,375,000, which is $4,575,000 more
than the budget estimate, $900,000 more than provided by the
House and $13,414,600 more than the 1973 appropriation.
The Committee also recommends modification of the language
contained in the House bill which would require the Agency to
prepare Environmental Impact Statements pursuant to Section
102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Agency has advised the Committee that regulations are
now being promulgated which would require much of the in-
formation proposed to be obtained by the House action. The Com-
mittee recommends language which would require the agency to
prepare and submit reports and statements pertaining to the
environmental impact of its activities but would not require the
formal requirements and standards of National Environmental
Policy Act.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
1973 New budget (obligational) authority _ .. . $185,223,700
1974 Budget estimate—New (obligational) authority _ . _ _ 148,700,000
House bill—New (obligational) authority ^ * 159,175,000
Committee recommendation—New (obligational) authority ' 187,975,000
1 Includes $13,000,000 in prior year unobligated balances.
3 Includes 89,000,000 in prior year unobligated balances.
[P- 45]
Research and development efforts are conducted through
grants, contracts, and agreements with universities, industries,
other private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, State
and local governments, and other Federal agencies, as well as
through EPA's laboratories.
These efforts are oriented toward producing the scientific
knowledge and the tools for regulating, preventing, and abating
pollution and are specifically directed to problems of air pollu-
tion control, water pollution control, water supply protection,
solid and toxic waste management, pesticides control, radia-
tion, protection, noise abatement, and interdisciplinary studies.
Activities incompass research on the effects of pollution on man,
animal, and aquatic life, plant materials, and the general en-
vironment; research on processes such as dispersion that affect
pollution; the development of new and improved sampling and
analytical methods and instruments for measuring pollutants;
and the development and demonstration of new and improved
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 223
technology for preventing and controlling pollution and re-
covery of materials from wastes. Included with the research
and development program is the overall management and support
of the program.
For Research and Development the Committee recommends
new obligational authority of $178,975,000 which is $6,248,700
less than 1973 but $30,275,000 over the budget estimate and $32,-
800,000 over the House appropriation. In addition to this amount
the Committee recommends that $9,000,000 of prior year unobli-
gated balances be carried forward and made available for Re-
search and Development, making a total of $187,975,000 avail-
able.
Out of existing funds the Agency is directed to utilize an ad-
ditional $5,000,000 more than budgeted for the Air Health Effects
Research.
The Committee has also added $25,000,000, to be utilized as
follows:
1. Sulfur Oxide Research . . . - $20,000,000
2. Section 208, Demonstration Grants ------- 5,000,000
(Solid Waste.)
The Committee is particularly concerned with early initiation
and implementation of new sulfur dioxide control techniques to
existing large coal fires generation plans. High sulfur coal is
presently being utilized in a number of areas for generating
needed electricity. The Committee recommends demonstration of
new techniques to existing facilities, such as those in southern
Indiana, where high sulfur coal is being used now and can be
used economically in the future.
ABATEMENT CONTROL
1973 New budget (obligational) authority - 210,935,700
1974 Budget estimate—New (obligational) authority - _._ 243,100,000
House bill—New (obligational) authority - '271,100,000
Committee recommendation—New (obligational) authority 2 278,500,000
1 Includes $5,700,000 in prior year unobligated balances.
2 Includes $1,700,000 in prior year unobligated balances.
Abatement and control activities include programs in air and
water pollution control, water supply and radiation protection,
solid and toxic waste management, pesticides control, and noise
abatement.
Efforts entail developing environmental standards; monitoring
and surveillance of pollution conditions; grant support for State
and local
[p. 46]
-------
224 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
pollution control planning; direct Federal pollution control plan-
ning; grant support for State, regional, and local pollution control
programs; technical assistance to pollution control agencies and
organizations; assistance to Federal agencies in complying with
environmental standards and insuring that their activities have
minimum environmental impact; and training to increase the
supply of and improve the skills of pollution control personnel.
Also included is the overall management and support of the abate-
ment and control programs.
The committee recommends new obligational authority of $276,-
800,000 which is $65,864,300 more than appropriated in 1973,
$33,700,000 more than the budget estimate and $11,400,000 more
than the House bill. In addition the committee recommends that
$1,700,000 of unobligated funds be carried forward and made
accessible for fiscal 1974 resulting in total funding of $278,500,-
000.
Even with the full application to all sources of the effluent
limitations prescribed in the 1972 Water Pollution Law, the
bottom sediments of many harbors and waterways contain large
amounts of pollutants from past discharges and will continue to
degrade water quality for many years. Many of these in-place
pollutants are highly toxic. The 1972 law for the first time estab-
lished a policy that in-place pollutants be addressed as part of
an area-wide comprehensive waste treatment management plan.
In addition, section 115 of that Act authorized a program for
the identification and removal of deposits of toxic pollutants
from harbor areas. To begin this necessary work as quickly as
possible after the list of toxic pollutants required by section
307 (a) is published, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $2,000,000 to implement section 115 during fiscal year 1974.
Of the funds available the Committee directs the Agency to
utilize an additional $1,000,000 over the budget estimate to im-
prove staffing of certification and monitoring activities relating
to auto emissions.
ENFORCEMENT
1973 New budget (obligational) authority - - - - $28,894,200
1974 Budget estimate—New (obligational) authority _ -. 47,400,000
House bill—New (obligational) authority _ . . - 45,950,000
Committee recommendation—New (obligational) authority 46,850,000
Enforcement responsibilities are in the areas of air pollution
control, water pollution control, and pesticides control. Much of
the effort is in support of or in cooperation with State and local
enforcement programs, such as the enforcement of ambient
air quality and air stationary source standards; navigable and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 225
interstate water quality standards; and issurance of discharge
permits. Some efforts, however, are primarily Federal responsibil-
ities, such as the enforcement of air mobile source standards and
pesticides product registration. Enforcement includes such ac-
tions as notices of violation, abatement orders, enforcement con-
ferences, civil and criminal court actions, and in the case of pesti-
cides, recalls and seizures. Included also is the overall manage-
ment and support of the enforcement programs.
The committee recommends an appropriation of $46,850,000
which is $17,955,800 above the 1973 appropriation, $550,000 less
that the budget estimate and $900,000 more than provided by the
House.
[p. 47]
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
1973 New budget (obligational) authority . . _ $1,900,000,000
1974 Budget estimate—New (obligational) authority 0
House bill—New (obligational) authority _ .._ _ _ 0
Committee recommendation—New (obligational) authority _ 0
This program provides for making grants to municipal, inter-
municipal, State, and interstate agencies to assist in financing
the planning, design, and construction of municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Amounts approved from authorization for
contract authority for 1973 and 1974 are allotted to each State on
the basis of a formula set forth in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendment of 1972. Within these allotments, grants
are awarded on a priority basis for individual projects. Each
project is eligible for 75 percent in Federal assistance.
No new funds were required or requested for 1974 since this
program has been put on an advanced contract basis.
In December, 1972, a $5 billion program was announced and,
as indicated below, $600,000,000 is being provided to liquidate
this contract authority for fiscal 1974.
The Committee has added language which directs the Agency
to utilize $200,000,000 of available funds to reimburse those
cities which constructed facilities between 1956-1966 and re-
ceived less than the full statutory share of reimbursement at that
time. The Committee has been furnished the following list of
cities in this category:
Cities eligible for section 206(b) reimbursement grants for 1956-66*
Reimbursement Reimbursement
grant grant
Little Rock, Ark $30,000 Passaic Valley, N.J. $3,000,000
Phoenix, Ariz _ 2,050,000 New York 57,400,000
Los Angeles City 19,540,000 Greensboro Co., N.J. _ 1,160,000
Los Angeles County 3,770,000 Cincinnati, Ohio _ _ _ 14,200,000
-------
226
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Orange County, Cal
San Diego -
San Francisco
San Jose
Denver, Colo _
Honolulu . - -
Chicago
Indianapolis, Ind _ -
Des Moines
Wichita, Kansas
Louisville, Ken
Baltimore, Md _ - -
Wash., D.C. - __
Boston, Mass - -
St. Paul, Metro _
Kansas City
St. Louis, Mo _ -
Omaha, Neb
Bergen County, N.J.
Middlesex Co., N.J.
13,640,000
14,200,000
850,000
6,790,000
3,860,000
1,810,000
45,500,000
20,570,000
440,000
2,870,000
5,820,000
440,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
4,000,000
7,760,000
13,300,000
5,720,000
900,000
8,360,000
Columbus, Ohio
Dayton, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio _ - . - - -
Tulsa , . .__..._
Portland, Ore
Allegheny Co
Memphis, Tenn
Dallas
Ft. Worth
Norfolk (Hampton
Roads) - - .. _ ..
Seattle Metro - -
Spokane
Charleston _ . . - .
Huntington _ ,
Milwaukee
Total
7,470,000 ''
270,000
30,000
29,000
1,000,000
29,500,000
i nfifi nnn
2,510,000
Sonn nnn
2,970,000
640,000
930,000
30,330,000
50,000
1,300,000
1,720,000
30,130,000
378,150,000
LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY
0
1973 New budget (obligational) authority
1974 Budget estimate—New (obligational) authority _ ($600,000,000)
House bill—New (obligational) authority _. . _ ... . __ . _ (600,000,000)
Committee recommendation—New (obligational) authority _ (600,000,000)
[p. 48]
NATIONAL STUDY COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
1973 New budget (obligational) authority _. ...... . _ $200,000
1974 Budget estimate—New (obligational) authority .._ 1,000,000
House bill—New (obligational) authority .... 0
Committee recommendation—New (obligational) authority _ 7,500,000
This matter was not considered by the House committee since
the Commission was not activitated in time to appear before that
Committee. It did appear and testify before the Legislative Ap-
propriation subcommittee of the Senate in justification of its
1974 program. In that hearing a request for $14,800,000, the
balance of its authorization, was made.
[p. 49]
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,500,000,
which is $6,500,000 more than the budget estimate, $7,500,000
more than allowed by the House and $7,300,000 more than pro-
vided for fiscal 1973.
The Commission should give special attention to the proposed
sewer demonstration project at Bend, Oregon, since the Committee
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 227
feels language in another part of this report, the Committee is
is also calling this matter to the special attention of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
The Committee is concerned with the possible duplication of
resources and efforts by the Commission and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Before obligating itself to any final con-
tracts or studies the Commission should make every possible
effort to determine what if any programs the Environmental
Protection Agency has underway in the same or similar areas.
The Commission is directed to notify this committee 30 days in
advance of letting or awarding of any contracts.
[p. 50]
-------
228
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
OOOIOOO OO
SOO t OOO OO i
ooiooo oo i
rTo'o" o"o" ,' '
iSojSg : '
i i '
ooo' o"o o" o o ' '
~3OO OOO OO ' i
>oo;ooooo i
o"o"o" i o"o~ ,
moo i oin i ,
4- 4-..., i 4- \ \
*—• ».-• ,
I •*-*
I
i
So o" j oo o" oo o o
OQ i OOO OOOO
lor^ci^ f^co o ' n co o o
^- CM o f^oo r** ! in en o o
^"f-f ' +^+ OO '
oo^o_ r o_oo oo oo^
SvrTino i iri"o"c5 I o"o oo ;
h* P"-. o r^ o o i o in oo
co_o)_o_ | cn_co^rx_ inco o_o_
->— w^^ i *^ '§**
ooo , c?oo' o"o
OOO'OOO Oo
OOO_^ C3OO OO
to mi/io.moo o o~ —
tp r^r*-o i r-»oo om oo i
^•tDd i en in in ^nm^
\n*fr-< into"-—' rx^j- _
rH-—' I i~«CM CM 'CD
i ^ ^ ',^
00
oo
1 00
o'o"
OO
oor"l
§c
. ^ c
oco
COCNI
CO CM
| OO
i 'Vl
mm
CMfO
CMCf>
' f in"o"
< , oo<-<
in<*o o
i mcno i o
cnoo o , o
o'co'c" **"
rHCMO '
« — , > .
Q> O ~
I I : :|. «
II 1 irii i
CJ O Q) 1 TO *J *->
*? > J^iT^ > "»
CJ flJ
W Crt
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
229
<3
1
S oS1
OU. Ju
Sis1!
iio
1=1
iS~
~jea {/j
Hi
gS=u
Si|
u-fa
°~«
W2'o
liSl
§if
Ul |v *^
p2.E
SQ «
oca §
E
TO
I
o
z
E
0
0
CD
JjL
jJ
Q) "O
V) 03
Is
•S o
^ (J
a>
oo
CD
C
T
(
— •" ^.t
c
!
QJ TO
Mf=.
}|
' — '
O Q)
-^ w t»o
EO.— Si
OJ C
O> TO
^ -2-
1
I| s-
S ^"
a>
ooeD
•§« __
J3 E f^
^ »
S
•o
a>
u
(D
c -^
m
01
NS
I If S
3£°
•D —
sfs
~ £aj _
: E o 'w'
5 01
^ o
1_ —
s
? -§
- •&
3 Jr to --*
r .3 —
3 CO «J
S. Jo
sli ~
O £J CD
CU-D
f=
u
s
a
— ^^
CO t-t
s
=r
6 S §
£3 E
C "g
•^ a)
^ I 1
UJ_C Jj —
gv | |
z™ * i
5s ^ ~
i < c 2
ce i) £
-^ts •o "
~- c
al|
J- c ^
g
o_
"
~r
i 1
o °*
S~
+
g g
0 0
s g
O_ CO_
g "7
rH*
1
O
8
$562,000
-
§
o
g
0_
•^
in i
&•
o o
0 o
O o
O" r-T
0 o>
O
^
3
if)-
S" I
O CO
r>.
"I
CM"
, <"
'.2 '
!|
1 o !
!'i
•1 ;
>. F
c o
DO
.1^
CO
o
o
o
o"
s
^
o
g
K
trf
g
o
o"
«
•£
8
O
o
r-
;
o
O
g
°L
1 r- r
o
o
OJ
CO J
^ ;
c '
O '
e
o ,'
_OT
E"e
Ee
3|
>, m
w
X
.9 *
"TO
0
o
o
co"
CM
CO
|
O
0
o
CM
CO
1
o
o
o
CO
CM
O
o
CO"
CM
fO
1
[
°
c
O '
a c !
E -2 ,
E 3 i
u "o '
0> *t i
1 1.'
£ E
° ra'l
.2 o
(Q
z
~7
~
O
o
• 8
O
o
4"
1
s
§
PH
1
I
; o"
: 8
Q
i
I
I
o"
8
8
*-*
~
i i
1
8
Q
0
ca ,' '
"*" w
. O)
_ 03 i W
™ •? , C
^ 00 ' CO
,S S *o ! v
if s a
X> lo i 3
«S •! : !
(Q 3 >1
f ^1 1
"ci= °"
S"
'^>
1 1 1
8
O i
§.
=> ,
° 1
§
+
i
8
O
o"
o
J^
8
o
(400,000
1
1
o
1
^J-
T
^
1
m
W
'o
•2
i2
-------
230
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
R =
5s
•V JH
S-t TO
siii
Z-.2
2«S
^~ a>
«s?
as
»B~-
aP»
^11
-o o ±: w
||S
=•*==
*«-
*^ U ^~* ^**
JS Mta -2
E-o c^'"'
If III
—
8 8
CM_ O_
rC to
*t ^
*fr -*
5 8
'- +
S S 1
o o oo~
Sin *}•
i-v rx
in o^ r*T
rl CM 1-4
CO CM CO
a =
1 °
"S c
» S
u .2
•Is*"!
.2- 2$ a E
a I| « 3
tn "^2 ^ E
c c * o o
oo ^ >•
s es
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 231
1.17d(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 93-410, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)
AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION APPROPRIATION—1974
SEPTEMBER 20, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. WHITTEN, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8619]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
8619) "making appropriations for the Agriculture-Environmen-
tal and Consumer Protection programs for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, and for other purposes," having met, after full
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 1, 2, 6,
7a, 7b, 8, 10, 11, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 45, 50, 58, 62, 63,
65, and 66.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 3, 14, 21, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39, 41, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 70, 74, and 75, and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 4:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 4, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken insert:
None of the 'funds provided by this Act shall be used to pay
the salaries of any personnel which carries out the provisions
of section 610 of the Agricultural Act of 1970, except for research
in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000; projects to be approved
by the Secretary as provided by law.
None of the funds provided by this Act shall be used to pay
the salaries of personnel who formulate or carry out programs
for the 197 b crop year which exceed the limitations1 provided by
section 101 of Public Law 93-86, enacted on August 10, 1973,
which provides as follows:
-------
232 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
"Sec. 101. Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
[p-1]
"(1) The total amount of payments which a person shall be
entitled to receive under one or more of the annual programs
established by titles IV, V, and VI of this Act for the 1974
through 1977 crops of the commodities shall not exceed $20f>00,
"(2) The term, 'payments' as used in this section shall not
include loans or purchases, or any part of any payment which is
determined by the Secretary to represent compensation for re-
source adjustment or public access for recreation.
"(3) If the Secretary determines that the total amount of
payments which will be earned by any person under the program
in effect for any crop will be reduced under this: section, the set-
aside acreage for the farm or farms on which such person will be
sharing in payments earned under such program shall be reduced
to such extent and in such manner as the Secretary determines
will be fair and reasonable in relation to the amount of the pay-
ment reduction.
"(4) The Secretary shall issue regulations defining the term
'person' and prescribing such rules as he determines necessary
to assure a fair and reasonable application of such limitation:
Provided, That the provisions of this Act which limit payments
to any person shall not be applicable to lands oivned by States,
political subdivisions, or agencies thereof, so long as such lands
are farmed primarily in the direct furtherance of a public func-
tion, as determined by the Secretary. The rules for determining
whether corporations and their stockholders may be considered
as separate persons shall be in accordance with the regulations
issued by the Secretary on December 18, 1970."
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 5:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 5, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$175,938,400; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 13:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 13, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$.6,203,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 15:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 233
ment of the Senate numbered 15, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$1,500,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 16:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 16, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$89,880,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
[p. 2]
Amendment numbered 17:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 17, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $137,-
717,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 18:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 18, and agree to the same with
an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$1,500,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 19:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 19, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$199,527,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 22:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 22, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$15,780,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 29:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
-------
234 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ment of the Senate numbered 29, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$239,051,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 30:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 30, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$314,587,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 32:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 32, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$10,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 43:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 43, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$7,500,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
[p. 3]
Amendment numbered 44:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 44, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$4,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 46:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 46, and agree to the same with
an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment insert
$470,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 47:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 47, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$200,000,000; and community facility loans, $50,000,000; and the
Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 49:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 235
ment of the Senate numbered 49, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$49,675,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 52:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 52, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$161,775,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 55:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 55, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$257,100,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 56:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 56, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$3,700,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 61:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 61, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$46,150,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
[p. 4]
Amendment numbered 67:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 67, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$10,000,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 71:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 71, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$30,600,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 72:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 72, and agree to the same with an
-------
236 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$696,918,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 73:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 73, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert
$22,110,000; and the Senate agree to the same.
The committee of conference report in disagreement amend-
ments numbered 9, 12, 40, 42, 48, 57, 59, 64, and 69.
JAMIE L. WHITTEN,
GEORGE E. SHIPLEY,
FRANK E. EVANS,
BILL D. BURLISON,
WILLIAM H. NATCHER,
NEAL SMITH,
BOB CASEY,
GEORGE MAHON,
MARK ANDREWS,
ROBERT H. MICHEL,
BILL SCHERLE,
J. K. ROBINSON,
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG,
Managers on the Part of the House.
GALE W. MCGEE,
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
ROBERT C. BYRD,
HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
HIRAM L. FONG,
ROMAN L. HRUSKA,
MILTON R. YOUNG,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 5]
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8619) making appro-
priations for agriculture-environmental and consumer protection
programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for other
purposes, submit the following joint statement to the House and
Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 237
the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference
report:
Amendment No. 1: The following provision in the opening
paragraph of the Senate bill, "and shall be made available for
expenditure except as specifically provided by law" was not
agreed to by the conferees because it was deemed to be an un-
necessary restatement of existing provisions of law. It was there-
fore deleted without prejudice.
[p. 6]
TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The conferees agree that of the $715,000 provided in both the
House and Senate versions of the bill for research studies, not
less than $400,000 shall be utilized for carrying out the research
studies specified by the House Report. The conferees will expect
the Council, in the future, to justify their requests for research
funds in detail.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERSONNEL CEILINGS
The conferees are concerned about the apparent lack of coor-
dination between the Washington office of EPA and the Regional
Office. Far too much delay is being encountered because of this
lack of coordination. To help improve this situation the bill as
passed by both the House and Senate provided for 232 new posi-
tions for the Agency. However, the House bill had eliminated 345
other new positions requested by the Agency. The Senate bill
restored these 345 positions. The conferees have agreed to include
173 of the positions eliminated in the House bill. The action of
the conferees will establish a year-end ceiling if 9263 perman-
ent positions. However, this ceiling may be revised upward to
reflect the transfer of temporary employees to permanent status.
The conferees direct that the 405 additional positions provided
for fiscal year 1974 shall not be included in any personnel or
monetary ceiling heretofore or hereafter applied, levied or
charged against the Agency and shall be considered an incre-
mental increase to be accounted for separately.
AGENCY AND REGIONAL MANAGEMENT
Amendment No. 49: Appropriates $49,675,000 for Agency and
Regional Management activities instead of $49,475,000 as pro-
-------
238 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
posed by the House and $50,375,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The Senate bill restored House reductions of $500,000 for tempor-
ary employees and $400,000 for permanent employees. The con-
ferees agree that $200,000 above the House amount shall be avail-
able for permanent employees. The Senate recedes from the
increase of $500,000 for temporary employees.
Amendment No. 50: The House bill provided that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency prepare environmental impact state-
ments as required by the National Environmental Policy Act,
the same as all other agencies of the Federal Government. The
Senate bill provided that the Agency prepare "environmental
explanations" rather than environmental impact statements. The
conferees agree that the Agency shall be required to prepare en-
vironmental impact statements on all major actions of the Agency
having a significant impact on the environment.
Because of the need to maintain a common sense approach to
our efforts to improve and restore our environment, all points of
view need to be heard and taken into consideration. Therefore,
the conferees expect the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Chairman of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality to work with
[P. 18]
the Secretary of Commerce so that the advice and recommenda-
tions of private industry, so essential to the economy and well-
being of the people, will be given full consideration in the for-
mulation of environmental policy.
It is the opinion of the conferees that had the Agency pre-
pared environmental impact statements and given consideration
to such things as cost to consumers and producers our present
and foreseeable energy problems would likely not be as serious
as they now appear to be.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Amendment No. 51: Provides language which will allow the
Agency to purchase uniforms and lab coats as proposed by the
Senate.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53: Appropriate $161,775,000, of
which $9,000,000 will be derived from unexpended balances, in-
stead of $154,175,000 (which included $13,000,000 in unexpended
balances) as proposed by the House and $182,975,000 (which
included $9,000,000 in unexpended balances) as proposed by
the Senate.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOKY 239
The conferees concurred in the House reduction of $1,000,000
for temporary employees. The Senate had restored the House
reduction of $1,000,000.
The conferees agreed to a reduction of $200,000 for permanent
employees instead of a reduction of $400,000 as proposed by the
House.
The conferees agreed to an increase of $10,000,000 to speed up
initiation and implementation of new sulfur dioxide control tech-
niques to existing large coal fired electrical generation plants
instead of an increase of $20,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.
The Senate receded on the proposed increase of $5,000,000
for Sec. 208 grants.
The House receded on the Senate reduction of $3,600,000 for
the Solid Waste Program. The Agency proposed transferring
$3,600,000 from Research and Development to Abatement and
Control to more accurately reflect the workload of the program.
The House receded on the Senate increase of $1,000,000 for
Solid Waste Research.
The Senate receded on the general reduction proposed by the
House. The bill provides increases of $5,000,000 for research on
pesticides and $5,000,000 for preparation of environmental im-
pact statements. Funds for some of this work had been included
in the budget estimate, therefore, the conferees agreed to the
general reduction proposed by the House.
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Amendment No. 54: Provides language which will allow the
Agency to purchase uniforms and lab coats as proposed by the
Senate.
Amendments Nos. 55 and 56: Appropriate $257,100,000, of
which $3,700,000 will be derived from unexpended balances, for
abatement and control activities. The House proposed $251,100,-
000 (which included $5,700,000 in unexpended balances) and the
Senate proposed $258,500,000 (which included $1,700,000 in un-
expended balances).
The conferees concurred in the House reduction of $1,000,000
for temporary employees. The Senate had restored the House
reduction of $1,000,000.
The conferees agreed to a reduction of $400,000 for permanent
employees instead of a reduction of $800,000 as proposed by the
House.
[p. 19]
-------
240 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The House concurred in the transfer of $3,600,000 from Re-
search and Development to Abatement and Control as proposed
by the Senate.
The House receded in the Senate increase of $2,000,000 for
initial funding of Sec. 115 of P.L. 92-500 to begin the identifica-
tion and removal of toxic pollutants from harbor areas.
Amendment No. 57: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will move to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate bill added language
making funds available to carry out section 104(g)(l) and (2)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The authorization for
both of these sections expired on June 30, 1973.
Amendment No. 58: The Senate receded in the proposed in-
crease of $15,000,000 for carrying out section 314 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The conferees will expect the
Agency to expedite their work in connection with the identifica-
tion of eutrophic lakes and develop a program to carry out their
restoration. Once such a program has been developed, the plan
should be submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress
for review.
Amendment No. 59: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will move to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate added language
which provides for the transfer of $15,000,000 to the Agricultural
Conservation Program (REAP) for conservation and pollution
abatement practices including animal waste storage and diversion
facilities.
ENFORCEMENT
Amendment No. 60: Provides language which will allow the
Agency to purchase uniforms and lab coats as proposed by the
Senate.
Amendment No. 61: Appropriates $46,150,000 for enforce-
ment activities instead of $45,950,000 as proposed by the House
and $46,850,000 as proposed by the Senate. The Senate receded
on the increase of $500,000 for temporary employees. The Senate
had restored the House reduction of $400,000 for permanent em-
ployees and the conferees agreed to a reduction of $200,000 or
$200,000 above the House bill.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Amendment No. 62: Deletes language providing that EPA
shall obligate no less than $200,000,000 for reimbursement for
waste treatment facilities built between 1956 and 1966 as pro-
posed by the Senate.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 241
SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES OVERSEAS
(Special Foreign Currency Program)
Amendment No. 63: Appropriates $2,000,000 for scientific ac-
tivities overseas as proposed by the House instead of $4,000,000
as proposed by the Senate.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY
Amendment No. 64: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede
and concur
[p. 20]
in the Senate amendment with an amendment, the effect of
which will be to provide $10,000,000 for the Commission as pro-
posed by the Senate. In addition, the House amendment will also
extend the availability of the funds until June 30, 1975, and pro-
hibit the use of the funds to delay any existing project heretofore
authorized. The conferees also agreed to change the name of the
Commission to reflect the new name officially adopted by the
members of the Commission. The managers on the part of the
Senate will move to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate.
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT WATER AND SEWER GRANTS
The conferees wish to express their concern over the need to
implement the HUD and FHA water and sewer programs as
provided in the bill. Both the House and Senate versions of the
bill ware identical; therefore, the water and sewer program fund-
ing was not an item in conference. The bill provides for the
FHA program an appropriation of $30,000,000 and the reappro-
priation of $120,000,000 in frozen funds for a total program level
of $150,000,000 in 1974. In the case of HUD, the bill provides
for the reappropriation of $400,000,000 in frozen prior year
funds, including $100,000,000 to be transferred to EPA to start
the Great Lakes Program.
Both of these highly important programs were cancelled by
the Administration during fiscal year 1973, and the Great Lakes
Program was never started. Part of the rationale given is that
$5 billion was provided to EPA for the construction grant pro-
gram and P.L. 92-500 gave EPA the authority to make sewer
-------
242 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
grants; therefore, there was no longer a need for the FHA and
HUD programs. While EPA does have the authority to make
sewer grants, the agency does not have the authority to make
grants for water systems, as do the FHA and HUD programs.
Moreover, EPA's grants are made on the basis of a priority
listing developed by the States and traditionally sewer systems
are of low priority, as compared to treatment plants.
In addition to the above, P.L. 92-500 changed the allocation
formula of how funds were distributed to the States. In terms
of the $5 billion made available for grants during fiscal years 1973
and 1974, this change in formula resulted in 19 States receiving
more funds than under the old formula, but 31 States receiving a
reduction in funds. For example, the four largest increases and
the four largest decreases were in the following States:
New jersey
Michigan .
Maryland ,
New York
Texas - - -- -
North Carolina . . .
Alabama . - -_ --
Georgia
Old formula
$172,916 450
213,978,550
94,982,250
437,697,550
- - . 269,923,250
- --- 123,150,750
83,933,150
111,263 400
New formula
$385,200 000
399,070,000
212,910 000
552,890,000
138,470,000
46,145,000
18,060,000
48,650 000
Change
+ $212 283,550
+ 185,091,450
+ 117,927,750
+ 115,192,450
-131,453,250
-77,005,750
-65,873,150
-62,613,400
In reviewing the 31 States that lost funds as a result of the
formula change; clearly, rural America was the big loser.
The FHA and HUD programs were a major factor in the effort
of rural America toward a better life. The change in the alloca-
tion formula plus
[p.. 21]
the cancellation of the FHA and HUD water and sewer programs
were a severe blow to this effort.
Therefore, the Conferees direct that the FHA and HUD water
and sewer programs be reestablished at the level provided by this
bill. Reestablishment of these important programs will help to
offset to some degree the losses sustained by rural America by the
formula change in the distribution of EPA construction grant
funds..
[p. 22]
CONFERENCE TOTAL—WITH COMPARISONS
The total new budget (obligational) authority for the fiscal
year 1974 recommended by the Committee of Conference, with
comparisons to the fiscal year 1973 total, the 1974 budget esti-
mate total, and the House and Senate bills follow:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 243
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1973 . _ $12,738,992,700
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal
year 1974 9,519,550,600
House bill, fiscal year 1974 9,385,737,600
Senate bill, fiscal year 1974 10,176,926,500
Conference agreement _ 9,927,667,000
Conference agreement compared with—
New' budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year
1973 -2,811,325,700
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority
(as amended), fiscal year 1974 +408,116,400
House bill, fiscal year 1974 + 541,929,400
Senate bill, fiscal year 1974 -249,259,500
The conference report is $2.8 billion below last year's appropri-
ation. $300 million has been added for food stamps because eli-
gibility requirements were liberalized in the Farm Bill which
was passed after both houses had acted on the bill. The conferees
have been advised that a supplemental in excess of $700,000,000
for the food stamp amendments is currently being considered in
the Executive Branch. The effect is that the present conference
agreement is $408,116,400 above the present budget request, but
is well within the budget request which is in process.
JAMIE L. WHITTEN,
GEORGE E. SHIPLEY,
FRANK E. EVANS,
BILL D. BURLISON,
WILLIAM H. NATCHER,
NEAL SMITH,
BOB CASEY,
GEORGE MAHON,
MARK ANDREWS,
ROBERT H. MICHEL,
BILL SCHERLE,
J. K. ROBINSON,
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG,
Managers on the Part of the House.
GALE W. McGEE,
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
ROBERT C. BYRD,
HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
HIRAM L. FONG,
ROMAN L. HRUSKA,
MILTON R. YOUNG,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
-------
244
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.17d(4)(a) June 15: Considered and passed House, pp. H4767-
1.17d(4)a() June 15: Considered and passed House, pp. H4767-
H4768, H4770-H4771, H4778, H4782-H4785, H4802, H4805-
H4808, H4813-H4814;
AGRICULTURAL, ENVIRON-
MENTAL AND CONSUMER PRO-
TECTION APPROPRIATIONS,
1974
The SPEAKER. The question is
on the motion offered by the gentle-
man from Mississippi (Mr.
WRITTEN ).
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved
itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill
H. R. 8619, with Mr. WRIGHT in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the
bill.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed
with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the
unanimous-consent agreement, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
WHITTEN) will be recognized for
one and a half hours, and the gentle-
man from North Dakota Mr. AN-
DREWS) will be recognized for one
and a half hours.
The Chair now recognizes the gen-
tleman from Mississippi.
(Mr. WHITTEN asked and was
given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may re-
quire.
Mr. Chairman, for many years I
have had the privilege of bringing
to the floor of the House an appropri-
ation bill which affects all Americans
and, indeed, many people through-
out the world.
Mr. Chairman, since I first started
handling this bill on the floor there
have been many changes in the world,
but one thing has not changed; it
continues to be true that food, cloth-
ing, and shelter are the very basis for
human life, and that is what is pro-
vided by this bill.
It also continues to be true that
the amount of time people take to
provide the basic necessities of food,
clothing, and shelter largely deter-
mines the standard of living they
enjoy, because the less time it takes
to secure the basic things the more
time that is available for
other things. Our country has the
highest standard of living in history
because we spend less time providing
these basic necessities than any other
country in history.
SUMMARY BY TITLE
Mr. Chairman, with those brief
opening remarks, I would like to sum-
marize the bill. The bill is divided
into four major titles—a division
which is designed to demonstrate
the general impact of the appropria-
tion. Such a division is by no means
precise and is subject to individual
interpretation because of the mul-
tiple benefits derived from the pro-
grams funded in this bill.
The bill provides $813 million for
the regular activities of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, $3.3 billion to
restore capital impairment of the
Commodity Credit Corporation, and
$386 million for rural development
activities. $1 billion is included for
environmental activities, of which
$514 million is for the Environmental
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
245
Protection Agency and $322 mil-
lion is for the Soil Conservation Serv-
ice. The $3 billion for consumer
programs includes $166 million for
the Food and Drug Administration
$30 million for the Federal Trade
Commission, and $31 million for the
new Consumer Product Safety Com-
mission. The consumer programs al-
so include $2.2 billion for food stamps.
In all the bill totals $9.4 billion,
which is $120 million below the budget
estimates and $3.3 billion below the
1973 appropriation.
[p. H4767]
There are many changes between
the fiscal year 1973 and 1974 bills
because of legislative actions of Con-
gress such as the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) which
have changed the financing sources
of many of the programs in the bill
from a direct to an indirect basis.
The principal changes and their ef-
fect on the budget totals are discused
in the following summary and in the
detailed statements which follow in
the report.
*****
TITLE III—ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
Title III includes $516 million for
the programs of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Council
on Environmental Quality. In addi-
tion, $600 million, which is not in-
cluded in the totals, is provided for
the liquidation of contract authority
in the EPA construction programs.
The programs of the Soil Conser-
vation Service and the Agricultural
which both date back to the 1930's
before concern for the environment
became fashionable—total $492 mil-
lion. The total for title III exceeds
$1 billion. This is a convincing dem-
onstration of the Committee's concern
for the environment.
[p. H4768]
REGULATORY AGENCIES NEED FACTS
This bill funds some of the prin-
cipal regulatory agencies, including
the federal meat and poultry inspec-
tion program, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Food and
Drug Administration, the Federal
Trade Commission, and the new Con-
sumer Product Safety Commission.
Each of these agencies has tremen-
dous individual power over every
aspect of American life. The com-
bined effect of these agencies is even
greater, especially if one considers
in addition other agencies such as the
Occupational Safety and Health Ad-
ministration which are funded in
other bills.
If all of these agencies were to use
all of their power, the economy
could become immobilized. This can
only be avoided if these agencies use
their power responsibly acting only
on the basis of scientific fact and
with due consideration to the econom-
ic and social impact of their deci-
sions. They must always proceed with
a sense of priorities, placing that
which is dangerous to health ahead
of that which is merely undesirable
or unesthetic.
There must also be a considera-
tion of the competitive effects of reg-
ulatory decisions. Many small busi-
nesses are having difficulty comply-
ing with the complex regulations
being promulgated. They should re-
ceive all permissible help or else
the result may be the achieving of
one set of social objectives at the
expense of another. The maintenance
of competition-—a goal of the Federal
Trade Commission—may be en-
dangered by edicts of the EPA or
FDA or the Consumer Product
Safety Commission.
The goal of increasing exports
may also be hampered by excessive
regulation. The Committee has heard
allegation that some foreign countries
are trying to entice American in-
dustry overseas by establishing less
stringent regulatory policies. The
-------
246
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
new Consumer Product Safety Act
tacitly recognizes this problem by
permitting different export standards.
The Federal Trade Commission is
also becoming concerned about this
problem.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS TO INSURE
BALANCED DECISIONS
Because of these concerns, the Com-
mittee has taken the following ac-
tions to help insure that future reg-
ulatory decisions will have a sound
scientific and economic basis:
Provided $200,000 for a study of
the scientific basis for the Delaney
Clause.
Provided such sums as may be
necessary to enable the Consumer
Product Safety Commission to estab-
lish an economic analysis capability.
Provided $5,000,000 for the En-
vironmental Protection Agency to
prepare environmental and economic
impact statements on all of their
actions.
Provided $5,000,000 for the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences to con-
duct a complete review, analysis, and
Protection Agency, and to make ap-
propriate recommendations.
Provided $1,000,000 to the National
Industrial Pollution Control Council
to study the effects of environmenta
requirements on the competitive posi-
tion of American business.
There are three committee amend-
ments that we propose to offer today
to this bill which I think will pre-
vent much of the dissension and dif
ferences of view that have prevailed
[p. H4770]
The final committee amendmem
will provide $2.8 million for a new
toxicological laboratory at the Na-
tional Center for Toxicological Re-
search in Pine Bluff, Ark. The
National Center is doing important
research on low dosage testing of
chemicals. It is hoped that this
research will eventually help us to
establish standards which are based
upon realistic levels. The need for
realistic standards is something I
lave been advocating since 1965 when
I wrote a book: "That We May Live."
'. am proud that in 1965 I pointed
out the need to do something about
our environment, but I said that we
also have to see that American in-
dustry continues to produce and that
our standards of living continues at
its present high levels. I said we could
asily get rid of much of the pollu-
tion in New York City if all of the
folks there all moved out for a
month, or quit living. We have to
protect human health, and we support
all actions necessary to do so. But
we must also set priorities putting
first things first.
There are more than 17 Congres-
sional committees that review EPA
programs, and more than 20 com-
mittees that review EDA programs.
I do not know how many departments
and agencies there are, concerned
with these topics, but everyone seems
to want to use the current enthusiasm
for these programs to get permission
to build a new laboratory.
At the same time, we realized sev-
eral years ago that we on this com-
mittee and in the Congress have been
providing the money to staff the
laboratory space that we already
have, but which is not being used
because of personnel ceilings com-
posed by the Office of Management
and Budget. We have laboratories all
over the United States today running
at half blast or less because they
cannot get the personnel under the
ceiling to make use of the facility.
So this year when the PDA came
before us for funds for a labora-
tory in Pine Bluff, Ark., we had in
our minds the question of doing
something now, quickly, using facil-
ities that are already available, and
i not going out and building new facili-
| ties.
; Since that time we have discussed
the matter further, and the Admin-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
247
istration is convinced that they have
a need for this laboratory and that
it is at the right location. On the
basis of this additional information,
we expect to offer an amendment
that will provide $2.8 million for the
Pine Bluff Laboratory. In doing
that, we realize that it will take time
to complete it. It cannot be ready
until July of 1976.
[p. H 4771]
Mr. VEYSEY. I thank the chair-
man, the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. WHITTEN) for his reassurance.
The second question that I would
like to ask relates to page 65 of the
committee report dealing with the
$159 million set aside for research
by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
As the gentleman from Mississippi,
is aware, one of the responsibilities
of this agency is the enforcement
of standards under the Clean Air
Act. About the time the committee
report was being formulated the EPA
came forth with the rather startling
announcement, I believe it was on
the 8th of June, that their techniques
and methods for measuring the
health effects of levels of oxides of
nitrogen in our air were faulty, and
their test methods were invalid, and
that they were obliged to reclassify
their air controls based on this new
knowledge. I also believe that they
are uncertain as to what this will do
with respect to the enforcement of
the 1976 nitrogen oxides standards
on automotive emissions under the
Clean Air Act.
Therefore it seems to me that this
may call for a massive and very
rapid research program on the hu-
man health effects of various levels
of oxides of nitrogen. I wonder if
provision has been made or will be
made within this appropriation bill
to take care of that situation?
Mr. WHITTEN. May I say to my
colleague, the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. VEYSEY) that I men-
tioned earlier in the debate that in
1965 I wrote a book recommending
that we do something in this area.
There are about 190 individuals
who were willing to be identified with
those views, or who were willing, at
least, to have their names identified
with the conclusions we came to.
Certainly in the preparation of that
book, which took about 2 years, I
handled hundreds and hundreds of
texts, and among the approximately
200 individuals who we dealt with,
I found quite a few differences of
opinion.
I personally am convinced that in
lots of areas the EPA has acted
too hastily, frequently under the pres-
sure of Congress to come out with
something. For example, they had 40
deadlines to meet in the case of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
In order to meet a deadline, fre-
quently they rush out without proper
preparation. In their own agency I
know of high level executives who
have their own differences of opinion.
I am a former lawyer who has
been a Member of Congress a good
while. I do not feel capable of making
scientific decisions. Neither do I give
any such standing to my colleagues
who work in this area on other com-
mittees, but we did the very best
thing we could. We provided $5 mil-
lion for study in this area by the
National Academy of Sciences
which the gentleman knows was
created way back, I think, in the
time of Abraham Lincoln. There are
about 1,000 scientists who select from
their own number this group. So we
said all these things look to us as
though they may be wrong, but we
are not experts. So we put $5 million
in the bill to get the best folks we
could to make a study to see what
the situation is.
I might make a comment here. On
a recent weekend I was driving with
my wife through Virginia. I stopped
at a service station and asked the
-------
248
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
fellow if he had any trouble with
his gasoline supply. He said, "No, not
yet." I said, "Well, how about auto-
mobiles?"
He said, "Well you are driving a
1972 car. It will take about 7 gallons
to fill. It will take about 9 gallons
to fill a 1973."
Much of this can be traced back
to the EPA. So the Members can see
why we put $5 million in the bill
to get some scientists to decide this
matter. I do not want to pay that
extra $2 for gas if it is uncalled
for.
Mr. VEYSEY. I thank the chair-
man for that response and for his
guiding the committee in that par-
ticular direction. I do think we are
at an important point of decision-
making in this respect. Congress has
mandated a 90-percent reduction in
the oxide of nitrogen emissions under
the Clean Air Act by 1976, and now
EPA tells us that their methods of
measurement are knocked out, and the
health effects are unclear.
Mr. WRITTEN. I have worked in
this area for some several years. I
am sure the gentleman has, too. We
can talk all afternoon about this prob-
lem, but in this area we are dis-
cussing, despite our high desire, some-
where way back someone said, you
cannot change the sum total of mat-
ter." You can change it to a liquid
or you can change it to a solid. You
can take it out of water and put it
into the air or you can bury it, but
it is still there.
In the area of automobile emis-
sions someone said, "Why can we not
do like Japan does?" It do not know.
Some of the scientists say the reason
we cannot is because Congress set a
deadline, and we have got to meet a
certain date. If the auto companies
have to start with the engines they
they presently have, they cannot meet
the deadline if they take the time to
start experimenting with new engines.
That is the reason we look to
the National Academy of Sciences.
They have experts to make these deci-
sions.
There is another reason for put-
ting this in the bill. There are at
least 17 legislative committees that
have some degree of jurisdiction over
EPA. Therefore, we had better get
some outside referree to decide this
thing, and, preferably, someone from
the scientific world.
Mr. VEYSEY. I thank the Chair-
man for his response. I trust he will
make sure that there is adequate re-
search funding for competent scien-
tists to make the determinations as
to the human health effects of this
important air pollutant.
Mr. WRITTEN. Every year the
EPA and the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration have been before our
subcommittee, we have substantially
increased their appropriation.
Mr. VEYSEY. I thank the gentle-
man.
[p. H4778]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
am concerned about several provisions
of H.R. 8619 which we are consider-
ing today. As I have indicated in the
RECORD of June 13, at pages E4031
to E4032, and in the RECORD of June
14 at pages E4068 and E4069, I in-
tend to offer several amendments to
remove and correct some objection-
able features of this bill.
In addition, however, I am parti-
cularly concerned about several state-
ments made in the committee's re-
port (H. Kept. 93-275, June 12,
1973) on this bill.
The comimttee's report accuses the
Environmental Protection Agency of
playing "a major role in the current
energy crisis." I think this statement
is misleading and derogatory of an
agency that has been given a man-
date by the Congress to take meas-
sures which would halt decades of
pollution emanating from industrial
and municipal activities. It is clear
that there appear to be fuel short-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
249
ages in some parts of the country,
but I am not ready to say that the
cause of the
[p. H4782]
fuel shortages is EPA's enforcement
of statutes that we enacted. In my
opinion, the responsibility for these
fuel shortages, if, indeed, they exist,
lies squarely in the lap of the fuels
industry and the manufacturers of
products which guzzle fuel in the
same manner that a confirmed drunk
guzzles liquor. To emphasize my
point, I call the attention of my col-
leagues to the remarks of one of the
administration's officials, Mr. Russell
E. Train, Chairman of the Council
on Environmental Quality, before the
Rotary Club of Washington earlier
this week:
REMARKS Hox. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN,
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BEFORE
THE WASHINCfON, D.C. ROTARY CLUB, JUNE
13, 1973
Our current energy problem is complex
and closely related to a wide variety of forces.
Prominent among these forces is, of course,
the question of environmental Quality; but
prices, technology, regulatory requirements,
international relations, and national security
considerations are also integral parts of the
problem. There are some who simplisticafly
blame the strong concern over environmental
quality as the cause of our energy problems.
This assertion is simply not true. I emphasize
this point because there is a current tendency
to make the environment the whipping boy
for our energy problems.
A recent issue of a national news magazine
quoted the chief executive of a major inter-
national oil company as identifying environ-
mentalists as the major culprits in blocking
new generating facilities and new refinery
capacity. Tn my opinion, such statements
obscure the facts, confuse the issues, and
can only serve to delay effective solution of
our energy problems.
Similarly, a spate of advertising has tried
to convince the public that auto emission
standards are the cause of major reductions
in gasoline mileage. However, according to
a study conducted by the Environmental
Protection Agency, greater weight, automatic
transmissions and air conditioners are more
important causes of increased fuel consump-
tion than pollution controls. Data from
more than 2,000 1973 model cars show that
fuel economy loss (in miles per gallon) due
to pollution control systems is less than
eight percent as compared to uncontrolled
vehicles. By comparison, the fuel economy
loss due to air conditioning averages about
nine percent, and can run as high as 20
percent on a hot day in urban traffic. In
addition, the fuel loss from an automatic
transmission is about six percent.
EPA's engineers attribute much of the de-
crease in gas mileage to increases in vehicle
weight. Their investigation found that over
the years, new vehicles having the same
model designation have become heavier. For
example, the Chevrolet Impala weighed 4,000
pounds in 1958, but weighs 5,500 pounds
now. And as the weight of the car has gone
up, its gas efficiency has dropped. The study
found that a change of only 500 pounds in
the weight of 1973 vehicles—from 3,000 to
3,500—can lower the mileage from an aver-
age of 16.2 miles per gallon to 14,0 miles per
gallon—a decrease in fuel economy of nearly
14 percent. A thousand pound increase in
weight, from 3,000 to 4,000 pounds, could
lower gas mileage from 16.2 miles per gallon
to 11.2 miles per gallon—a decrease of 30
percent. The plain fact is that we need to
both reduce automobile emissions and im-
prove automobile fuel economy.
Environmental factors also have been cited
as a major reason for nuclear power plant
delays. However, data from the Atomic En-
ergy Commission does not support this al-
legation. According to the AEC, the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act review proc-
ess is not the controlling factor in bringing
a nuclear power plant into operation. The
major requisite for licensing a plant is its
readiness for fuel loading. And AEC data
submitted to the Council in March indicate
that final environmental impact statements
were available, on the average, 8.2 months
prior to the scheduled fuel loading.
And while environmentalists are blamed
for power plant siting: delays, it should be
remembered that it has been nearly two and
one half years since the President first sub-
mitted to Congress a "Power Plant Siting"
bill. Should his most recent submission, the
"Electric Facilities Siting Act of 1973," be
enacted, the review and approval process for
siting new plants would be simplified while
giving the public earlier notice and a larger
role in the decisions over power needs and
how and where to meet them. And although
some spokesmen for the power industry pub-
licly lament the difficulties in getting new
plants appi'oved, the National Association of
Electric Companies position before the Con-
gress has been that no new legislation is
needed. If this legislation had been enacted,
we might be two years closer to the institu-
tional arrangements necessary to deal with
some of our crucial energy problems.
-------
250
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Environmentalists have also been charged
with hindering the construction of new
petroleum refineries. Although some com-
panies have been refused sites for new re-
fineries, by and large the oil industry has
been most reluctant to commit large sums
to new refinery construction because of past
uncertainty about government policies, such
as oil import policies, and because of a severe
shortage of cash from current company earn-
ings. In addition, for the large international
oil companies, extreme uncertainty as to
their situation in the Middle East vis-a-vis
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries has created a wait-and-see atti-
tude. Now that one of these uncertainties—
the curbs on crude oil imports—has been re-
moved, and oil company profits have im-
proved, a number of oil companies have an-
nounced plans for expansion of existing
refineries.
But the same uncertainties that hindered
construction of new refineries and contrib-
uted to the shortage of distillate fuel oil this
past winter, are now factors in the projected
gasoline shortage this summer. Various oil
companies spent large sums to advertise that
they knew these shortages were coming. They
blamed environmentalists. I would add a
few points that were omitted from these ad-
vertisements.
Operating under conditions of uncertainty,
the oil industry quite properly has turned
to management science techniques—com-
puters—to assist them in maximizing: profit.
According to the computers, the level of
fuel oil inventory for the 1972-73 heating
season did not need to be maintained at the
same high level as the previous year. This
made sense in terms of profits because gaso-
line is a more profitable product to manufac-
ture and sell than heating oil. Unfortunate-
ly, the weather did not cooperate, and the
cold snap which occurred early in the win-
ter, after a cool, rainy autumn, unsettled the
optimum production schedules, and set the
stage for the supply dislocations experienced
early in 1973.
It must be pointed out as well that
through the first half of 1972, the U.S.
refineries were not operating at peak capac-
ity. Hopefully, now that the crude oil im-
port restrictions have been removed, refinery
production can be kept running at higher
levels.
Having gotten all that off my chest, I
would be less than candid not to admit that
environmental awareness has brought about
changes in the types of fuels we use and the
conditions under which they can be used.
Public concern over surface mining, land
use, air pollution, wildlife, and offshore drill-
ing has in some cases delayed the use of
some energy sources. These delays, however.
have been part of a national effort to great-
ly improve measures to protect the environ-
ment.
Let us not permit our current concerns
over energy supply to obscure the fact that
the environmental costs of energy production
are likewise very real. The high levels of
lung cancer and respiratory disease, such as
emphysema, in areas with high levels of air
pollution is a fact, not emotional imagining.
Nor is the D.C. Health Department's recent
warning about dangerous carbon monoxide
levels at several city intersections environ-
mental emotionalism. An official was quoted
as saying that the department has consid-
ered putting signs up that read: "Warning:
This Area May Be Hazardous to Your Health."
The areas cited were the corners of 16th and
17th and K Streets, 13th and F Streets, Con-
necticut Avenue and Ordway Street, Logan
Circle and Good Hope Road, S.E., between
13th and 14th Streets. This warning was
followed by the year's first area-wide pollu-
tion alert Monday. Our energy problems are
serious and they are real. Our environmen-
tal concerns are likewise serious and they
too are real. We need balance and restraint—
by both environmentalists and industry—as
we pursue both objectives as matters of high
priority national interest. Confrontation can
only lead to polarization and irrational re-
sponses from all sides. "We need to keep the
problems in proper perspective. Above all,
we need full disclosure of all the facts and
the broadest possible public understanding of
the issues.
Traditionally, our attitude toward energy
has centered on more: more coal, more oil,
and more gas to meet the needs of a growing
nation. But unless we take steps to conserve
our energy resources, we will exhaust sup-
plies, even from new sources, in a relatively
short time. There are many areas where we
can start to work for energy conservation.
The General Services Administration, for
instance, is constructing a new Federal office
building in Manchester, New Hampshire,
using advanced energy conservation tech-
niques, with a goal of reducing energy use by
20 percent over typical buildings of the same
size. The National Bureau of Standards is
evaluating energy use in a full-size house as
a means to develop analytical techniques for
predicting energy use for new dwellings.
These programs will assist the Federal gov-
ernment, architects and contractors to design
and construct energy-efficient buildings. Cur-
rent engineering and design of buildings is
often outrageously wasteful of energy.
During the past two years, the President
has twice directed the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to upgrade
insulation standards in single and multi-
family residences financed by the Federal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
251
Housing Administration. These revisions can
cut heat losses by one-third in new homes,
thus conserving energy in the residential sector.
Transportation offers many opportunities
for saving energy. Transportation uses about
25 percent of the Nation's energy and energy
efficiencies of various passenger transporting
modes very greatly. The fastest form of trans-
portation, the airplane, is also the one that
uses the most energy per passenger mile.
On the ground the automobile uses much
more energy per passenger mile than buses or
trains. While the automobile will not be re-
placed as man's favorite transportation mode,
at least it should be possible to shift to
smaller, lighter cars. With the fuel economy
characteristics of present small cars, about 22
miles per gallon instead of the current aver-
age for all cars of less than 14 miles per
gallon, the annual fuel savings could be
enormous. In my opinion, it is imperative
that our society shifts its reference to smaller
cars.
In addition to our use of smaller cars, per-
haps by providing alternative forms of trans-
portation, we can induce people to leave their
cars at home during peak travel hours. I am
hopeful that the up-coming Senate-House
Conference on the use of the Highway Trust
Fund for mass transit will result in more
emphasis on mass transit solutions to urban
transportation problems.
The President also has directed the De-
partment of Commerce to work with the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the
Environmental Protection Agency, to develop
a voluntary system of energy efficiency la-
bels for major home appliances, and auto-
mobiles, and automobile accessories. These
labels will not only provide data on energy
use but, most importantly, a rating compar-
ing the product's efficiency to similar prod-
ucts.
In the industrial sector, there are signifi-
cant opportunities for energy conservation—
in plant and process design, and even in the
choice of feedstock materials. For example,
in many cases significant amounts of energy
can be conserved by using secondary ma-
terials in place of virgin feedstocks. In the
paper industry, the energy consumption to
produce pulp from recycled fiber is 70 per-
cent less than the energy required using vir-
gin wood pulp. Similar figures for the steel
industry show a 74 percent savings in energy
when scrap is used to produce steel instead
of virgin iron ore. I believe we should ex-
plore aggressively the development of incen-
tives, including tax incentives, to encourage
greater recycling.
These proposals, for government, for in-
dustry, and for consumers, represent only a
beginning in our efforts to conserve energy.
By and large, however, they all represent
measures which are difficult to implement
in the short run. But there are conserva-
tion measures which can help us deal with
the immediate energy problems we face—
for example, the gasoline shortages projected
for this summer. Driving slower, forming car
pools, riding bikes, making greater use of
public transportation and practicing the an-
cient art of walking are but a few examples
of immediate ways to conserve energy.
The so-called "energy crisis" stems from
the economic forces and complexity of the
energy industry, from the difficulty in plan-
ning for our voracious energy appetite,
from the need to satisfy social values—other
than those that depend on energy, and from
a failure to address our growing energy prob-
lems earlier. To blame this "crisis" solely on
an increased concern over environmental
quality would be a grave failure to face the
problem honestly and squarely.
It seems to me that the best way to deal
with the difficulties presented by our current
energy position is to completely reorient our
thinking about energy. In the short run, we
are looking for increased energy supplies. But
in the long run, we must increasingly shift
our efforts from simply finding more energy
supplies to concerning ourselves with how to
use energy to best meet our many needs.
The committee report also points
out that last year it recommended
that EPA establish advisory com-
mittees to review its priorities and
advise the Agency as to which con-
tracts or grants "wil! provide the
greatest return to the Agency in line
with priorities." The report points out
that the committees have been estab-
lished and in this year's budget $1.2
million is included "to provide the
necessary funding for them," but
that EPA has requested that a
specific line item appropriation not
be provided for these committees
"since it creates bookkeeping require-
ments and adds complexity to the
management of the Agency's fiscal
resources." The committee has con-
curred in this recommendation.
I am somewhat puzzled and per-
plexed at this explanation. I think
it is imperative that matters of this
sort be included in the bill so that
we in Congress can judge their merits.
But more importantly, I am con-
-------
252
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
cerned about these committees their
makeup and their duties and re-
sponsibilities. While I do not per-
sonally object to such advisory com-
mittees, I have some reservations
about the need for them and about
their influence on EPA's programs. I
am particularly concerned when I
see that it costs over $1 million to
support such functions. I am not
convinced that this expenditure of
money is either sound or necessary.
As I indicated in my remarks
of June 13, I commend the committee
for cutting EPA's budget for public
affairs by $2 million. I think this
was a wise choice. Indeed, I think
the budget for public affairs could
be cut substantially more without
having any great effect on the ef-
ficiency and economy of the Agency.
I also think the Congress should
review the functions of the Public
Affairs Office to determine whether
those functions would be more ap-
propriately lodged in other offices of
the Agency. But I want to empha-
size that I think the efforts taken by
the Public Affairs Office of EPA in
assisting citizens in their efforts to
halt pollution through the filing of
lawsuits, complaints, and other means
should not only continue, but should
be encouraged. It is my understand-
ing of both the committee's bill and
its report that these functions will
continue and not be impeded in any
way by this cutback. If my under-
standing of this cutback is inaccurate,
then I expect the Environmental
Protection Agency to advise me
promptly.
I have examined the report of the
Committee on Appropriations on the
1974 agriculture-environmental and
consumer protection appropriation
bill—H.R. 8619—which contains the
appropriation for the Council and
Office of Environmental Quality. As
chairman of the subcommittee
charged with legislative oversight of
the Council on Environmental Qual-
ity, and as the initial sponsor of the
National Environmental Policy Act
which created the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, I am troubled
by the language of the language of
the Appropriation Committee report
as it pertains to the CEQ appropria-
tion for contract studies.
In the 3 years of its existence,
the Council has turned out a number
of policy studies, including studies
on "Ocean Dumping—A National
Policy," "Toxic Substances," "The
Quiet Revolution in Land Use Con-
trol," "Integrated Pest Management,"
"The Economic Impact of Pollution
Control," and "Coal Surface Mining
and Reclamation." These studies
have had a significant influence on
major policy decisions, new policy
proposals and legislative action.
Studies of stream channel modifica-
tion and the siting of deep water
ports for supertankers •will, we are
told, soon be available.
At the time of the fiscal year 1974
budget presentation, the Council had
selected potential study areas. These
were energy conservation, land use,
toxic substances, pollution financing
and additional monitoring indices.
These subject areas were discussed
with the Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment during hearings this
spring on the proposed extension of
the Council's appropriation authori-
zation. These areas reflected the
Council's careful assessment of cur-
rent and near-term environmental
priorities and it is my understand-
ing that the Council is continuing to
refine its proposed research objec-
tives for the next fiscal year. It is
critically important that the Council
not be constrained in the use of its
limited study funds and in its selec-
tion of the specific studies that may
come up during the year.
In view of the Council's relatively
small budget of $175,000 for re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
253
search studies, the extensive list of
studies mandated by the Appro-
priations Committee could, in practice,
effectively preempt the Council's
limited research capability. This
would be unfortunate and certainly
not consistent with the broad re-
sponsibilities that Congress gave the
Council in the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act.
In examining the list of studies
that the Council would be directed
to perform, I note several which
would seem to be largely outside of
the Council's normal area of ex-
pertise and more properly the re-
sponsibility of other agencies. In-
deed, several of the directed studies
duplicate parallel directives of the
Appropriations Committee to EPA
and NIPCC. Thus, I am confident
that the Appropriations Committee
recognizes the need for the Council
to retain its independence of profes-
sional policy judgment and to have
wide discretion in the manner in
which it seeks to carry out the stud-
ies in question. For example, in sev-
eral cases, it seems to me that the
role of the Council should more pro-
perly be a coordinative one and that
it should not in such cases be ex-
pected to perform the studies itself.
I am making this comment in the
expectation that the committee's
directive is to be read in this light.
What must be understood, however,
is that the Council must not be un-
duly constrained by the report lan-
guage in responding to the Appro-
priations Committee request and that
the Council will be calling on other
agencies under the section in the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act pro-
viding that they assist the Council on
Environmental Quality in performing
its functions. If the studies are pro-
posed to be undertaken by the Council
or under contract with the Council
I expect the Council to first consult
with my subcommittee about the scope
of the studies. Moreover; I am going
to insist that the studies are balanced,
and do not reflect a one-sided ap-
proach.
[p. H4784]
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman,
I have been listening with interest
to the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), who has
been very active in this area for
many years. Insofar as my observa-
tion of his work and his actions, and
insofar as I have been able to as-
certain, he has always stayed with-
in the limits of the existing tech-
nology. I think that is what many
of us sometimes fall to reflect in
our actions. We grew up with the
statement, "There ought to be a law."
We think there ought to be a law.
What we mean is there ought to be
some change or correction.
Statements were made with regard
to the EPA and the Food and Drug
Administration and various other
agencies. I just want to take this
time to say that in my opinion the
EPA has been given so many jobs
by so many of us in the Congress
that nobody could do as well as they
would like to do—and I certainly do
not mean anything in this record or
in this report or in this statment to
reflect on any of the agencies that I
deal with.
I am proud of the relationship
that I have had as chairman of this
committee—as I am sure are other
members of the committee—with Mr.
Ruckelshaus, Dr. Edwards, and var-
ious others. Much of what is in this
bill reflects our effort to help bring
about some improvement in handling
the problems with which they are
faced. Certainly that is what we
intend.
Mr. MICHEL. * * * *
And, while we are on the subject
of food prices, it is time again to
point out some of the factors that
have contributed to this upward
push, and will continue to do so in
-------
254
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
the future. Of course, until inflation'
is under control it will result in ris-
ing farm production costs as well
as increased expenses for processing,
packaging, transportation, labor and
all the other food marketing activi-
ties that account for about 60 percent
of every food dollar you spend at
the retail level.
Weather has always been an im-
portant factor in food prices, per-
haps more so right now than it has
been for some time. Rain or cold
weather at the wrong time can shoot
the prices of some foods up drasti-
cally.
Fuel is another factor, and I
mean not only shortages but price
as well. Fuel availability to farmers
for planting and harvesting is crit-
ical, but if farmers can get fuel only
at higher prices, this too would have
to be reflected sooner or later in
higher food prices.
But, there are some other things
here, too, that will have an increasing,
but perhaps more subtle, effect on
food prices, and these are the costs
of certain environmental and con-
sumer protection measures which
have the effect of increasing food
production costs.
Our pollution control efforts, for ex-
ample, are resulting in a whole new
series of standards and regulations
imposing restrictions on animal
feedlots around the country. This
means substantial additional capi-
tal investment for feedlot waste
treatment facilities, which will some-
how, sometime have to be reflected
in food prices.
Limitations on the use of pesticides
and animal feed additives are also
having their effect on food produc-
tion costs. If we want a clean en-
vironment we must understand that
it has to be paid for, and if our
legislation or our regulatory agen-
cies go overboard in setting stand-
ards, we have to pay for that, too.
As we point out in our committee
report, good commonsense is an es-
sential ingredient in all this, and we
need to make certain a fair amount
of it is used. So, on page 12 of our
report, you will note a list of sev-
eral actions we have taken to help
insure that future regulatory deci-
sions will have a sound scientific and
economic basis.
We are providing $200,000 for a
study of the scientific basis for the
Delaney clause; funds to enable the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
to establish an economic analysis
capability; $5 million for EPA to
prepare environmental and economic
impact statements on all of their ac-
tions; $5 million for the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a
complete review, analysis and evalua-
tion of EPA, and -1 million to the
National Industrial Pollution Control
Council to study the effects of environ-
mental requirements on the competi-
tive position of American business.
Because of the price-supply situa-
tion we are in this year much more
criticism is being focused on "farm
subsidies" than in the past, and that
is why I think it more important
than ever that we very clearly spell
out how much of this bill and the
Agriculture Department budget goes
for the benefit of consumers.
[p. H4785]
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman
members of the committee, it is my
purpose here to knock out the $150
million item which appears in here
for rural water and sewer grants.
Some Members of this body wanted
to force the Department of Agricul-
ture to reinstate the rural water and
sewer grant program in the Farmers
Home Administration. The Members
will recall that legislation was passed
to that effect, and the President ve-
toed it. Members will further recall
that those who favored restoring
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
255
the grants then were unable to muster
enough votes on an override, but
suddenly the measure is with us
again, this time through the back
door in this Department of Agricul-
ture appropriation bill.
The facts are really unchanged.
The grant program was one of sev-
eral rural priority programs elimi-
nated by the administration to avoid
illegally exceeding the budget ceiling
which also was set by the Congress.
No one suffered from the fact that
the grant program was taken from
the Department of Agriculture. Un-
der the Clean Water Act, communi-
ties are eligible for grants up to 75
percent of the construction cost of
water and sewer systems. Under the
Farmers Home Administration pro-
gram, they can obtain only 50 per-
cent. Kural communities in my
district are not so stupid but that
they would rather have 75 percent
than 50 percent grants any day.
The Environmental Protection
Agency also is authorized to deliver
block grants to the States. This al-
lows local people to set their own or-
der of priorities and to work which
best fits local needs and conditions.
Revenue sharing is another source
of Federal funds for communities
which decide to go this way.
And Farmers Home Administration
will continue to have a loan program
for those communities unable to ob-
tain necessary financing to repair or
develop urgently needed facilities.
I think the recent record for the
sewer and water loans made by the
Farmers Home Administration was:
In 1969, there were $164 million
plus. In 1971, it was $261 million
plus. In 1972, it is practically $300
million.
In 1973, it is $400 million and the
administration has requested an in-
crease of $100 million over that in the
coming year.
A grant program which taxes the
Nation in order to reduce the sewer
and water bills for a few, it seems to
me, is unjustified. The presence of
another Federal water and sewer
grant program may delay the con-
struction of these facilities when lo-
calities, which otherwise would fi-
nance the cost of their own, choose
instead to wait in line for a Federal
grant.
In our report, on page 46, we make
mention of the fact that there was
only some $30 million actually re-
leased from earlier appropriations of
$150 million, so there really is a
carryover of $120 million, or a re-
appropriation of that amount, to-
gether with the $30 million, making
$150 million. It just seems to me that
here is an opportunity for us to vote
for a significant reduction in this
bill of $150 million and really not do
violence to the water and sewer pro-
grams out in the rural areas, where
adequate loan funding from other
sources is available.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know of
anyone in the Congress I have en-
joyed working with more than my
colleague from Illinois. In my early
years, when I was 21, I went through
his area, to attend a Democratic Con-
vention. It is one of the finest areas
in the world. I enjoyed spending the
night there. I realize how he could
not understand what is needed in so
much of the United States. They have
so much abundance in his area, nat-
ural resources, fine soil, and all those
things.
But there are many, many areas of
this country where unless the people
can get water systems and sewerage
treatment systems they will have to
move away and crowd our cities even
more.
I have this problem in some of my
area. It is not Appalachia, but some
-------
256
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
of it is on the tailend of Appalachia.
We have lost some 8,000 or 10,000
people from agriculture there in the
last 10 years, but we have not lost the
people.
Most of these rural water systems,
which require grants with which to
build them, are needed. The reason
for the grants is that those people
live scattered all over the country-
side, and these water and sewerage
systems run along the highways.
When they build these water systems
along the highways, there are very
few houses there, and they almost
have to have a grant to get them
built. The minute they get water and
sewer systems, all of the houses then
are built along the highway, and very
soon it is a going proposition.
Under existing law, if you delete
the funds in this bill, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has the au-
thority to make grants to this kind of
area, but has to make them through
the Governor's office. One out of a
hundred will get a grant, and the
other 99 will not.
This is in the area of the Farmers
Home Administration, which brings
it back home. If there is anything in
this bill that will pay dividends 2, 3,
or 4 years from now, it is this pro-
gram.
When the grant program was
ended, impounded, or reserved, or
whatever anyone wants to say about
it, by the administration, the expan-
sion dropped off just like that.
I have not had any way to check
the figures as to those moving to
town, but I know it must have
speeded up, when the administration
stopped the program.
I believe that our friend has done
many fine things to improve the pro-
visions of the bill, but he has acted
wrong in offering this amendment,
and I hope the Members will vote the
amendment down.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRITTEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. The amend-
ment is saying that if we do not ap-
propriate the money in this bill and
have the rural areas' problem they
will be met by HUD money, the ad-
ministration cut that back also, and
if they have to divide the funds they
will have less for the big cities also.
Mr. WRITTEN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRITTEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
I want to give an example of what
can happen. There is a small com-
munity in my district called Menlo,
with a population of about 350 peo-
ple. They put in an application for a
water and sewer grant. They were
told it should be under revenue shar-
ing, and that this is the way to ap-
proach it. The community was en-
titled to $1,200 a year under revenue
sharing. The total cost of the project
naturally exceeded this amount and
if my people were to benefit under
the guise of revenue sharing they
would have to live approximately 434
years to obtain sufficient money to
complete the project.
We always pride ourselves on lon-
gevity in Iowa, but I do not believe
that anyone there will live that long.
I am saying, simply, that for the
small communities we have to do it
this way, because they are excluded
under the EPA formula. Certainly
the Governor of any party, politically
motivated, is not going to pay much
attention to a small community of
350 people.
[p. H4802]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
257
The Chairman: The clerk will read.
The clerk read as follows:
For an amount to provide for the prepa-
ration of Environmental Impact Statements
as required by section 102(2) (C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act on all
proposed actions by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, except where prohibited by
law, along with a statement setting forth
the economic, including the increased cost
to the consumer and the producer, and the
technical considerations as specified by sec-
tion 102 (2) (B) of the same Act, $5,000,000.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against lines 4 to 12
on page 31 on the ground that it is
legislation in an appropriation bill
and for the additional reason that
it requires additional duties by the
personnel of the agency.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a similar but different point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Michigan reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Illinois makes
a point of order against the language
on page 31, lines 4 through 12, on the
ground that it is legislation in an
appropriation bill.
Mr. YATES. And it provides for
additional duties on the part of the
personnel of the agency, which is
obvious from reading the language
referred to.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Mississippi desire to be
heard?
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
do, Mr. Chairman.
This is in line with the earlier point
of order, but as pointed out by the
committee this authorizes and repeats
that which is in the law, and we
have to provide an amount for prep-
aration and so forth, and this is in
line with section 102(2) of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act
which states that all agencies of the
Government shall do such and such,
and it follows the language which we
use in this bill. The Environmental
Protection Agency, I respectfully sub-
mit, is an agency of the Government,
and not only that it carries the name
in its title, and being an agency of
the Government it comes within the
purview of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Act, and clearly we
can make provision for funds for
them to file the environmental im-
pact statements required. For that
reason I believe we are within the
rule as outlined earlier here today.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman,
may I also be heard on my point of
order?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. DINGELL. I am sure the
gentleman from Illinois will cite rule
21, clause 2. I will not burden the
Chair with the reading of that. I
would point out the following, that
at page 470 of this year's edition
of the rules there appears this lan-
guage :
Existing law may be repeated verbatim in
an appropriation bill, but the slightest change
of the text causes it to be ruled out.
I would point out Mr. Chairman,
that the Environmental Policy Act,
section 102 (2) (B) which has been
referred to in the report and also
which has been referred to by the
gentleman from Mississippi provides
that:
All agencies of Government shall identify
and develop methods and procedures in con-
sultation with the Council on Environmental
Policy established by title 2 of this Act which
will insure that presently unquantified
amenities and endowments . . . along with
the economical and technical considerations.
I would point out that the lan-
guage of lines 8 through 12 reads as
follows, in part:
Along with a statement setting forth the
economic, including the increased cost to the
consumer and the producer, and the techni-
cal considerations as specified by section 102
(2) (B) of the same Act, . . .
This imposes upon all agencies of
Government, but particularly upon
EPA, which has another burden un-
der National Environmental Policy
Act to do that, and the duty to file
an additional statement which is not
-------
258
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
presently required by law.
Referring again to the House Man-
ual of Rules, I would point out that,
quoting from page 466 at the middle
of the page:
In the administration of the rule it is the
practice that those upholding an item of ap-
propriation should have the burden of show-
ing the law authorizing it.
I submit to the Chair that the
distinguished gentleman from Missis-
sippi, who is my good friend and a
very able member of this body, has
not borne that burden.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman,
after further studying the matter,
I find that I am within my rights
but was wrong in insisting on over-
ruling the point of order.
There is language in the bill which
makes it subject to a point of order.
To save time, I ask unanimous con-
sent that from the language in the
bill, we strike out on line 8 of the
words after '"law," down through the
word "producer," in line 10.
If we can strike that out by unani-
mous consent; otherwise I will offer
an amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw the point of order.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that those
words be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair un-
derstands that the points of order
have been withdrawn. The unanimous
consent request of the gentleman from
Mississippi is that the words be
stricken on page 31, lines 8 through
10, beginning, "along with," and con-
cluding with the word, "producer."
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
do not believe that is the request. It
all goes right down to the end of
the line; am I not correct? The gen-
tleman's unanimous consent request
was to strike beginning at line 8 on
page 31, beginning with the word
"along," down through the word
"Act." That is at the end of line 11.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman,
inadvertently my request did not
cover that, but at this point I do
cover that and ask unanimous consent
that those words be stricken through
the word, "Act."
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
report the unanimous consent request.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 31, line 8: Strike out "along with a
statement setting forth the economic, in-
cluding the increased cost to the consumer
and the producer, and the technical consid-
erations as specified by section 102(2) (B) of
the same Act, . . ."
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
[p. H4805]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number
of words.
In order to assist my good friends,
the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Mississippi, I
would like to stress that it is the
intention of the national environmen-
tal policy, environmental impact
agreements should include, among
other things, a clear statement of
alternatives including such things as
cost to consumers and producers and
technical considerations.
I do this simply to make appro-
priate legislative history, to assist
my good friend from Mississippi so
that we can have a good legislative
history.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate my colleague saying that,
because while technically the lan-
guage was out of line, the statement
made by the gentleman from Michi-
gan was very appropriate. I appre-
ciate his saying that.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
am sure this language now will be
construed in the light of the very
broad provisions of section 102.
Mr. WRITTEN. I thank the gen-
tleman very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
259
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
For research and development activities,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft
and the purchase of not to exceed one for
replacement only; services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the rate of GS—18; purchase of reprints;
library memberships in societies or associa-
tions which issue publications to members
only or at a price to members lower than
to subscribers who are not members; $154-
175,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $13,000,000 shall be derived from
the unexpended balance of amounts appro-
priated under this head in fiscal year 1973.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have
a point of order to the lines 1 through
7 inclusive at the top of page 32.
Is this the proper time to present
the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk has
not yet reached that language.
Mr. YATES. It is a part of that
section, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
protect the gentleman.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
For an amount to provide for the testing
and review of chemical substitutes prior to
banning or restricting the use of any chem-
ical by the Agency, not determined to be an
imminent hazard to human health, so as to
determine in advance that a substitute chem-
ical is available that is not more harmful
to humans and the environment than the
chemical to be replaced, $5,000,000.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to make a point of order against
the language on the grounds that
the language is legislation on an ap-
propriation bill and for the addi-
tional reason that it provides for
additional duties on the part of per-
sonnel of the agency not covered by
present legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Mississippi desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, we
have a rather tenuous, if I admit
that, position that this does not re-
quire additional duties, because most
of the things said here are required
under basic law. However, I do not
intend to present a tenuous argument
to the Chair.
At this point I want to say that
our report calls on them to make
i these determinations the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency insists and rec-
ognizes it should. However, I cannot
insist that the point of order should
not be well taken.
Mr. YATES. I thank the gentle-
man.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man concede the point of order?
Mr. WRITTEN. I do, Mr. Chair-
man, but I have an amendment to
offer.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. WEIGHT).
The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
AMENDMENT OFFERED KY MR. WHITTEN
Amendment offered by Mr. WHITTEN : On
page 32, line 1, insert:
"For an amount to provide for research
on and testing of substitute chemicals, $5,-
000,000."
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman,
the amendment speaks for itself. I
believe the reasoning for it is well
understood. I ask that the amend-
ment be approved.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Mississippi (Mr. WRIT-
TEN).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the necessary number of
words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. I find in this bill, I
will say to the gentleman from Mis-
sissippi, in at least three places, this
language in relation to the hiring of
individuals:
-------
260
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The rates for individuals not to exceed the
per diem rate equivalent to the rate of GS-18.
That is the top of the classified ser-
vice. How many of these individuals
are proposed to be hired under the
various provisions of this bill? The
number is unlimited as to those that
I have discovered so far.
Mr. WRITTEN. May I say to my
colleague from Iowa that in this in-
stance the committee has gone along
with language recommended by the
Office of Management and Budget in
the President's budget.
In these periods of difficulty of find-
ing experts in this field I recognize
good salaries must be offered to get
scientific help. Whether we are right
or wrong in going along with the
Office of Management and Budget in
setting that amount I do not know,
but the language was not prepared
by the committee. We did go along
with the Office of Management and
Budget as to what rates would be
required to get the class of personnel
we ought to have.
May I say that in this area they
had so many temporary employees
that we scaled them back by $3 mil-
lion below the amount of money they
requested. We did feel that without
more knowledge than we had we
could not drop back the rate.
I would be glad to assure the gen-
tleman from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) that
we could go into that field next year,
but that is the situation as it stands.
Mr. GROSS. Of course, by next
year, if they are able to hire an un-
limited number of individuals at the
rate of $36,000 a year, it will come
much late. We are trying to main-
tain some kind of control on the
supergrades in this government, but I
do not see how it can be done if
these agencies, new and old, are going
to be permitted to hire unlimited
numbers outside the Class Act at the
GS-18 rate. If that is permitted,
there will be no stopping of this
thing.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman,
may I say to my colleague, the gen-
tleman from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) that
I could not agree with him more. I
know the gentleman has had long ex-
perience in this area, and we have
had this experience under four or
five different Presidents.
In this instance, may I say that I
hope on my part that something can
be done, but I do not know what we
can do about it here intelligently; I
just simply do not have any informa-
tion.
I also have knowledge here that
this committee has a problem as far
as the Environmental Protection Ag-
ency is concerned. Some people call it
a very real need, and it is a need
we all recognize, but it makes it
extremely difficult for us to use our
own best judgment on some occasions,
at least someone will not say that
we held back that which they ac-
tually needed.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the
other agencies are doing a good job,
but we have given them too much
to do. We have been a little slow in
trying to restrain them as far as
personnel, because we did not want
to give them the excuse that they
could not hire qualified personnel.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate the response by the gentle-
man from Mississippi (Mr. WHIT-
TEN) but I have the feeling that by
this time next year we are going
to have a horde of individuals, es-
pecially in these new agencies, at
$36,000 a year.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
For abatement and control activities, in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
261
eluding hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; serv-
ices as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per
diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18;
purchase of reprints; library memberships in
societies or associations which issue publi-
cations to members only or at a price to
members lower than to subscribers who are
not members; to remain available until ex-
pended, $261,100,000, of which $5,700,000 shall
be derived from the unexpended balance of
amounts appropriated under this head in fiscal
years 1973.
For an amount to provide for a complete
and thorough review, analysis, and evaluation
of the Environmental Protection Agency, its
programs, its accomplishments and its failures,
and to recommend such changes, cancellations,
or additions as necessary, to be conducted
under contract with the National Academy of
Sciencies, $5,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
[p. H4806]
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, at
this point I make a point of order
against the language appearing at
lines 20 through 24 on page 32, and
on through the first two lines of page
33.
The reason for my point of order,
Mr. Chairman, is two fold. First, this
is legislation in an appropriation bill;
and it constitutes an appropriation
of funds not previously authorized by
law.
So that the language referred to is
again violative of rule XXI, clause
2, and I would point out again, Mr.
Chairman, that the rule should be
so interpreted as to require strict
compliance.
Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from
page 466 of the Manual of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, as
follows:
In the administration of the rule, it is the
practice that those upholding an item of
appropriation should have the burden of
showing the law authorizing it.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out
that neither the statute setting up
the EPA nor the statute setting up
the National Academy of Sciences
affords the National Academy of
Sciences the duty, responsibility, or
power to investigate or to study EPA.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I
make this point of order.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I
make the additional point of order
that the language in the paragraph
appearing at the top of page 33,
containing the words, "to remain
available until expended," is also sub-
of order?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Mississippi (Mr. WHIT-
TEN) desire to be heard on the point
of order-
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
seem to have a little difficulty find-
ing it at the moment, but the lan-
guage setting up the National Aca-
demy of Sciences, after establishing
the Academy, provides for making
this kind of study when asked by any
department or agency of the Govern-
ment.
While we seem to have difficulty
finding it—I do not know whether the
Chair has it in his hands or not—
it does so provide. Based on that,
we have directed this agency to make
such a request. That is the situation
as we submit it at this time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman. I
would point out that the committee in
its kindness, in the report at page 99
and page 100, under the words "limit-
ations and legislative provisions" has
set forth precisely the language
which I have alluded to.
I would point out since it is clearly
not a limitation and since it does not
limit the level of expenditures, then
it becomes, in the words of the dis-
tinguished committee, then legisla-
tion, since to exclude one is neces-
sarily to require the expression of
the other alternative. Therefore, it
is conceded at page 100 of the report
in the second to last paragraph to
which I referred the Chair that this
does in fact constitute legislation in
an appropriation bill.
Mr, WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
shall not press the matter further.
-------
262
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The language on which we rely is to
be found—and we have finally found
it here—March 3,1863, and it provides
in section 3 of such act:
Be it further enacted that the National
Academy of Sciences shall hold an annual
meeting at such place in the United States
to be designated and the Academy shall when
called upon by any department of the Gov-
ernment investigate, examine, and report on
any subject of science or art the actual ex-
penses for which are to be paid for in an ap-
propriation which may be made for the
purpose. The Academy shall receive no com-
pensation whatever for its services to the
Government of the United States.
If I may have a second to write a
similar amendment to that which we
substituted a while ago in a similar
point of order, we will provide the
money for such an expense if I might
have the cooperation of my friends.
I have to acknowledge the point of
order at this point.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. WRITTEN. If the Chair will
oblige me for a second while I write
the amendment, we will provide $5
million for such study by the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, and we
shall be happy to so amend the legis-
lation.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the Chair
understand that the gentleman from
Mississippi concedes the point of or-
der?
Mr. WRITTEN. I do. And I beg the
indulgence of the Chair that we may
write an amendment to replace the
section.
Mr. DINGELL. Out of deference
to my good friend from Mississippi
and in order to have the business of
the committee go forward, I will ask
unanimous consent that he be per-
mitted to return at a time later
Mr. WRITTEN. I think we have
it ready.
Mr. DINGELL. Very well.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of or-
der is sustained, and the language
is stricken.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WRITTEN
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WRITTEN : For
an amount for a study of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, $5,000.000.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
is recognized for 5 minutes in sup-
port of his amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I am
not sure I heard the amendment read.
All it does is provide for a study by
the National Academy of Sciences.
Is that the intention of the gentle-
man? Does he not want to describe
what the study covers? I do not think
the words sufficiently describe it.
I ask unanimous consent that the
Clerk again report the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Clerk reread the amendment.
Mr. WRITTEN. "In connection
with the operations of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency."
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be re-
vised so to read.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels
that the amendment as corrected by
the unanimous consent request should
be read by the Clerk so that we will
all understand precisely what is in-
volved.
The Clerk will report the amend-
ment as modified by the unanimous
consent request.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WRITTEN: Page
32, line 20, insert: "For an amount for a
study by the National Academy of Science
$5,000,000 in connection with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
263
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
WHITTEN).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
For an amount to provide for conservation
and pollution abatement practices including
animal waste storage and diversion facilities
and disposal of solid waste, to be transferred
to and merged with the authority of the
Agricultural Conservation Program (REAP)
of the Department of Agriculture for the
1974 program, $15,000,000 to remain available
until expended.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman,
again I would note a point or order
at this point, which I would reserve,
and I would ask to be recognized for
the purpose of striking the requisite
number of words. I would ask for
the attention of the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. WRITTEN) to whom
I shall direct a question.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) reser-
ves a point of order.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
believe we can expedite the proce-
dure here by directing a point of
order, if the gentleman from Missis-
sippi wishes, to the entire language
beginning at line 3, page 33, down
through the end of line 9 on page 33.
Or I would ask that an amendment
be offered, in the interest of saving
the time of all of us that, beginning
with the words "to be transferred"
on line 5 down through the end of
that sentence on line 8, ending with
the words, "Agriculture for the 1974
program,".
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman from Michigan would
limit himself to that language I
would ha've to admit his point of or-
der, and I think it would be a help
in the bill if we were able to leave
the remainder there.
Mr. DINGELL. What I am trying
to do is to expedite the situation, Mr.
Chairman.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of
order so far as the language of the
bill at page 33, beginning with the
words, "to be transferred" on lines
5 and 6 down to the end of the sen-
tence on line 8, page 33, ending with
the words, "Agriculture for the 1974
program,".
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, if
I might be permitted to do so, I ask
unanimous consent that those words
be stricken in case the other proce-
dure might not be the appropriate
way; I ask unanimous consent that
the words read by my colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan, be
stricken.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in
that case I would withdraw my point
of order, and I would agree with the
unanimous-
[p. H4807]
consent request made by the gentle-
man from Mississippi (Mr. WHIT-
TEN).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) with-
draws his point of order.
The unanimous-consent request has
been made to strike out the words
beginning on line 5 on page 33, "to
be transferred", and continuing down
through and including on line 8 the
words, "Agriculture for the 1974 pro-
gram,".
Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Not to exceed 7 per centum of any ap-
propriation made available to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency by this Act (ex-
cept appropriations for "Construction Grants"
-------
264
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT ir
and "Scientific Activities Overseas") may be
transferred to any other such appropriation:
Provided. That funds in this Act shall not be
available for transfer, to comply with or en-
force any deadline or due date unless such
funds are identified as an appropriation to
meet a specific deadline or due date.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
would note a point of order against
the language on page 33 in the para-
graph which the Clerk has just read,
and I would reserve my point of
order and I would then ask to be
recognized for the purpose of striking
the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Michigan reserves a point of
order.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
would point out that the language
again concedes as legislation in an
appropriation bill, the words on page
33, line 14:
Provided, That funds in this Act shall
not be available for transfer, to comply with
or enforce any deadline. . . .
And so forth, down through the
period at the end of the sentence on
line 17.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unani-
mous consent that it be stricken. The
gentleman from Mississippi may do
so, or I will do so.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
will be glad to ask unanimous con-
sent that it be stricken.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The proviso be-
ginning on line 14, page 33, includ-
ing down through the end of that
sentence on line 17, is without objec-
tion stricken from the bill.
[p. H4808]
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman. I
move that the committee do now rise
and report the bill back to the House
with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments
be agreed to and that the bill as
amended do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the committee rose:
and the Speaker having resumed the
chair, Mr. WRIGHT. Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union, reported that
that committee, having had under con-
sideration the bill (H.R. 8619)
making appropriations for Agricul-
ture Environmental and Consumer
Protection program for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974, and for other
purposes, had directed him to report
the bill back to the House with sun-
dry amendments, with the recom-
mendation that the amendments be
agreed to and that the bill as amended
do pass.
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I
move the previous question on the bill
and all amendments thereto to final
passage.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote
demanded on any amendment. If not,
the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be en-
grossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is
on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Speaker,
I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and
make the point of order that a quo-
rum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quo-
rum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify
absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were—yeas 304,
nays 3, not voting 126, as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
265
Abdnor
Abzug
Addabbo
Alexander
Andrews, N.C.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
Baker
Barrett
Beard
Bennett
Bergland
Bevill
Blaggi
BJ ester
Blackburn
Boland
Boiling
Bowen
Brademas
Brasco
Bray
Breaux
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Mich.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Buchanan
Burke, Fla.
Burke, Mass.
Burleson, Tex.
Burlison, Mo.
Burton
Butler
Byron
Camp
Carney, Ohio
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chappell
Chisholm
Clancy
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.
Clawson, Dele
CJay
Cleveland
Cochran
Cohen
Collier
Collins, Tex.
Conte
[Roll No. 230]
YEAS— 804
Gorman
Cotter
Cronin
Daniel, Dan
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen, Wash.
Harrington
Hastings
Daniel, Robert Hechler, W. Va.
W., Jr.
Davis, Ga.
Davis, S.C.
Davis, Wis.
de la Garza
Delaney
Dellenback
Dellums
Dennis
Derwinski
Devine
Dickinson
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
L>orn
Downing
Drinan
Dulski
Uumcan
du Pont
Eckhardt
Esch
Eshleman
Evans, Colo.
Evins, Tenn.
Findley
Flood
Foley
Ford, Gerald R.
Ford,
William D.
Fountain
Freiinghuysen
Frenzel
Fulton
Gaydos
Gettys
Gilman
Ginn
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Grasso
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Gross
Grover
Gubser
Guyer
Haley
Hamilton
Hammer-
schmidt
Hanley
Hanrahan
Heinz
Helstoski
Henderson
Hicks
Hillis
Hinshaw
Hogan
Holilield
Holtzman
Horton
Hosmer
Howard
Hunt
Hutchinson
Jarman
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Jones, Ala.
Jones, N.C.
Jones, Tenn.
Milford
Miller
Minish
Mink
Mitchell, Md.
Mitchell, N.Y.
Mizell
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morgan
Murphy, III.
Myers
Natcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nichols
Nix
Obey
O'Brien
O'Hara
O'Neill
Passman
Patten
Perkins
Pickle
Pike
Poage
Jordan ! Podel,
Karth Powell, Ohio
Kazen ' Preyer
Keating Pricei nl_
Ketchum Price Tex.
Koch
Quie
Kuykendall Qui,,en
Kyros Railsback
Latta
Randall
Lehman Range,
Lent , Rees
Long, La. Kegula
Long, Md. , Reuss
Lott Rhodes
Lujan ;
McClory
McCollister Crane
McCormack
Riegle
Rinaldo
Roberts
Robinson, Va.
Robinson.N.Y.
Rodino
Roe
Rogers
Roncallo, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Rose
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roush
Roy
Ruth
Sandman
St Germain
Sarasin
Sarbanes
Satterfleld
Saylor
Scherle
Schroeder
Sebelius
Seiberling
Shipley
Shoup
Shriver
Shuster
Skubitz
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
James V.
Steed
Steiger, Ariz.
Stokes
NAYS — 3
Fascell
Stubblefield
Stuckey
Studds
Sullivan
Symington
Talcott
Taylor, N.C.
Teague, Calif.
Thomson, Wis.
Thone
Thornton
Tiernan
Towel], Nev.
Udall
Oilman
Vander Jagt
Vanik
Veysey
Vigorito
Waggonner
Walsh
Wampler
Ware
Whalen
White
Whitehurst
Whitten
Widnall
Williams
Wright
Wyatt
Wylie
Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Young, Ga.
Young, Alaska
Young, HI.
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
Zion
Wolff
NOT VOTING—126
McEwen Adams
McFall ! Anderson,
McKay Calif.
McKinney Anderson, 111.
McSpadden Armstrong
Madden , Ashbrook
Madigan , Ashley
Mahon , Aspin
Mann Badillo
Maraziti Bafalis
Martin, Nebr. Bell
Martin, N.C. Bingham
Mathias, Calif. Blatnik
Matsunaga Boggs
Mazzoli Breckinridge
Meeds Broyhill, Va.
Melcher Burgener
Mezvinsky Burke, Calif.
Michel Carey, N.Y.
Denholm
Dent
Edwards, Ala.
Edwards, Calif.
Eilberg
Erlenborn
Fish
Fisher
Flowers
Flynt
Forsythe
Fraser
Frey
Froehlich
Fuqua
Giaimo
Gibbons
Grittiths
Gude
Huber
Hudnut
Hungate
Ichord
Johnson, Pa.
Jones, Okla.
Kestenmeier
Kemp
King
Klnezynski
Landgrebe
Landrum
Leggett
Litton
McCloskey
McUade
Macdonald
Mailliard
Mallary
-------
266
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Collins, 111.
Conable
Conlan
Conyers
Coughlin
Culver
Daniels,
Gunter
Harms
Harsha
Harvey
Hawkins
Hays
Hebert
Mathis, Ga.
Mayne
Metcalfe
Mills, Ark.
Minshall, Ohfo
Moorhead,
Calif.
Dominick V. Heckler, Mass. Moorhead, Pa.
Danielson Holt Mosher
Moss Ruppe Thompson,
Murphy, N.Y. Ryan N.J.
Owens Schneebeli Treen
Parris Sikes Van Deerlin
Patman Sisk Waldie
Pepper Slack Wiggins
Pettis Snyder Wilson, Bob
Peyser Stark Wilson,
Pritchard Steele Charles, H.,
Rarick Steelman Calif.
Reid Steiger, Wis. Wilson,
Roncalio, Wyo. Stephens Charles,Tex.
Rooney, N.Y. Stratton Winn
Rousselot Symms Wydler
Roybal Taylor, Mo. Young, Flu.
Runnels Teague, Tex. Young, S.C.
Zwach
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Macdonald.
Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Adams.
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Wydler.
Mr. Ashley with Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Stark with Mr. McCloskey.
Mr. Mills of Arkansas with Mrs. Heckler of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Edwards of California with Mr. Mail-
Hard.
Mr. Hungate with Mr. Froehlich.
Mr. Fisher with Mr. Landgrebe.
Mr. Rluczynski with Mr. Anderson of Ill-
inois.
Mr. Litton with Mr. Erlenborn.
Mr. Gunter with Mr. King.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Young of Florida.
Mr. Dent with Mr. Coughlin.
Mr. Roncalio of Wyoming with Mr. Conlan.
Mr. Mathis of Georgia with Mr. Rarick.
Mr. Culver with Mr. Minshall of Ohio.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Conable.
Mr. Roybal with Mr. Pettis.
Mr. Breckinridge with Mr. Broyhill of Vir-
ginia.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. Mosher.
Mr. Dominick V. Daniels with Mr. Forsythe.
Mr. Danielson with Mr. Moorhead of Cali-
fornia.
Mr. Eilberg with Mr. Harsha.
Mr. Frasher with Mr. Peyser.
Mr. Fuqua with Mr. Bafalis.
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Johnson of Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. Moss with Mr. Mallary.
Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania with Mr.
Kemp.
Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Leggett with Mr. Harvey.
Mr. Hays with Mr. Ashbrook.
Mr. Hawkins with Mr. Bell.
Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. Gude.
Mr. Gibbons with Mr. Frey.
Mr. Reid with Mr. Fish.
Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Pritchard.
Mr. Denholm with Mr. Hudnut.
Mr. Flowers with Mr. Edwards of Alabama.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Steelman.
Mr. Ichord with Mr. Mayne.
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma with Mr. Taylor of
Missouri.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Huber.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Sikes with Mr. Schneebeli.
Mr. Sisk with Mrs. Holt.
Mr. Stratton with Mr. McDade.
Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Bob Wilson.
Mr. Anderson of California with Mr. Wig-
gins.
Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Steiger of
Wisconsin.
Mr. Aspin with Mr. Ruppe.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Steele.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California with
Mr. Zwach.
Mr. Bingham with Mr. Slack.
Mr. Waldie with Mr. Owens.
Mrs. Burke of California with Mr. Rous-
selot.
Mr. Young of South Carolina with Mr.
Treen.
Mr. Badillo with Mr. Patman.
Mr. Kastenmeter with Mr. Winn.
Mr. Runnels with Mr. Parris.
Mr. Ryan with Mr. Symms.
Mrs. Collins of Illinois with Mr. Charles
Wilson of Texas.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
267
1.17d(4)(b) June 28: Considered and passed Senate, amended,
pp. S12374-S12376, S12378-S12383, S12390-S12394;
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL-
TURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS,
1974
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 8619)
making appropriations for the De-
partment of Agriculture and environ-
mental and consumer protection pro-
grams for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1974, and for other purposes.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that Jack
Lewis have the privilege of the floor
during the consideration of this meas-
ure.
[p. S12374]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the amend-
ments of the Appropriations Subcom-
mittee on Agriculture and the En-
vironment be considered and agreed
to en bloc, and that the bill as thus
amended be regarded for the purpose
of amendment as original text, pro-
vided that no point of order shall
be waived by reason of the agree-
ment to that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? The Chair hears
none, and it is so ordered.
The amendments agreed to en block
are as follows:
On page 1, in line 4, after "appro-
priated," insert "and shall be made
available for expenditure except as
specifically provided by law,";
On page 2, in line 14, strike out
"$10,822,000" and insert "$10,872,-
000";
On page 3, beginning in line 13,
strike out:
None of the funds provided by this Act
shall be used to pay the salaries of any per-
sonnel which carries out the provisions of
section 610 of the Agricultural Act of 1970.
None of the funds provided by this Act
shall be used to pay the salaries of personnel
who formulate or carry out:
(1) programs for the 1974 crop year under
which the aggregate payments for the wheat,
feed, grains, and upland cotton programs for
price support, set aside, diversion, and re-
source adjustment to one person exceed
$20,000, or.
(2) a program effective after December 31,
1973, which sanctions the sale or lease of
cotton acreage allotments.
On page 5, in line 1, strike out
"172,790,000" and insert "$178,828,-
900".
On page 6, at the end of line 1,
insert "Provided further, That $830,-
000 of this appropriation shall re-
main available until expended for
plans, construction, and improvement
of facilities without regard to the
foregoing limitations;"
On page 7, in line 2, strike out
"$5,000,000" and insert "$10,000,000";
in line 22, strike out "$287,171,000"
and insert "$342,871,000";
On page 8, at the end of line 1,
strike out "conditions" and insert
"conditions, and $49,000,000 shall be
for repayment to the Commodity
Credit Corporation of advances (and
interest thereon) made in accordance
with authorities contained in the pro-
visions of the appropriation items
for the Agricultural Research Serv-
ice in the Agriculture-Environmental
and Consumer Protection Appropria-
tion Act, 1972, and for the Animal
and Plant Health Inspector Service
in the Agriculture-Environmental
and Consumer Protection Appropria-
tion Act, 1973:".
On page 9, beginning in line 11,
insert: "Provided further, That $6,-
700,000 shall remain available until
expended for plans, construction, and
improvement of facilities, without re-
-------
268
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
gard to limitations contained herein:."
On page 10, in line 7, strike out
"$68,565,000" and insert "$69,104,-
000"; in line 15, strike out "$5,962,-
OO'O" and insert "$6,444,000"; in line
18, strike out "$11,183,000" and in-
sert "$11,583,000"; in line 21, strike
out "$500,000" and insert $2,500,000;
On page 11, in line 5, strike out
"$86,700,000" and insert "$90,121,-
000"; in line 16, strike out "$434,-
217,000" and insert "$141,217,000";
On page 12, in line 6, strike out
"$500,000" and insert $2,500,000";
in line 8, strike out "$195,027,000"
and insert "$204,027,000";
On page 13, in line 2, after "$4,-
546,000" insert a colon and the fol-
lowing "That not to exceed $15,000
shall be available for employment
under 5 U.S.C. 3109." In line 22,
strike out "$22,834,200" and insert
"22,859,200:"
On page 14, in line 22 strike out
"$15,505,000" and insert "$15,780,-
000";
On page 16, in line 3, strike out
"$34,528,000" and insert "$34,865,-
000";
On page 17, in line 3, strike out
"$508,560,000" and insert "$510,560,-
000 (including not to exceed $2,000,-
000 to assist local public or nonprofit
agencies with the cost of distributing
supplemental foods to pregnant and
lactating women and infants and";
On page 18, in line 6, strike out
"$4,054,650" and insert "$4,154,650";
in line 23, strike out "25,805,000"
and insert $26,000,000";
On page 19, in line 18, strike out
"$189,051,000" and insert "$289,051,-
000"; in line 21, strike out "264,587,-
000" and insert "$364,587,000: Pro-
vided, That the availability of this
appropriation is contingent upon en-
actment of necessary legislative au-
thorization."
On page 24, in line 18, strike out
"$5,000,000" and insert "20,000,000."
On page 25, in line 20, after
"loans," insert "not less than"; and
in the same line, after "$618,000,000"
insert "but not more than $750,000,-
000"; in line 21, after "loans," insert
"not less than"; in line 22, after the
first comma, insert "but not more
than $200,000,000,";
On page 27, in line 1, strike out
"$1,500,000,000" and insert "$2,144,-
000,000"; in line 2, after "not"
strike out "to exceed $500,000,000"
and insert "less than $1,200,000,000";
in line 3, after "for" insert "subsi-
dized interest"; in line 5, after
"Secretary" insert a colon and the
following: "Provided, That the Secre-
tary may, on an insured basis or
otherwise, sell any notes in the fund
or sell certificates of beneficial owner-
ship therein to the Secretary of the
Treasury, to the private market, or
to such other sources as the Secre-
tary may determine. Any sale by the
Secretary of notes or of beneficial
ownership therein shall be treated as
a sale of assets for the purpose of
the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921,
notwithstanding the fact that the
Secretary, under an agreement with
the purchaser or purchasers, holds
the debt instruments evidencing the
loans and holds or reinvests pay-
ments thereon for the purchaser or
purchasers of the notes or of the
certificates of beneficial ownership
therein:".
On page 28, in line 15, after "dis-
aster" insert a colon and the follow-
ing: "Provided, That, the Secretary
may, on an insured basis or other-
wise, sell any notes in the fund or
sell certificates of beneficial owner-
ship therein to the Secretary of the
Treasury, to the private market, or
to such other sources as the Secretary
may determine. Any sale by the Sec-
retary of notes or of beneficial owner-
ship therein shall be treated as a sale
of assets for the purpose of the Bud-
get and Accounting Act, 1921, not-
withstanding the fact that the Sec-
retary, under an agreement with the
purchaser or purchasers, holds the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
269
debt instruments evidencing the loans
and holds or reinvests payments
thereon for the purchaser or purchas-
ers of the notes or of the certificates
of beneficial ownership therein."
On page 29, in line 16, strike out
"$5,000,000" and insert "$15,000,-
000"; in line 22, strike out "$3,000,-
000" and insert "$5,000,000";
On page 30, at the beginning of
line 5, strike out "water and sewer"
and insert "water, waste disposal and
other community"; in line 6, strike
out "$445,000,000;" and insert "545,-
000,000 and"; in line 7, strike out
"$100,000,000; and community facility
loans, $50,000,000" and insert "$400,-
000,000; Provided, That the Secretary
may, on an insured basis or otherwise,
sell any notes in the fund or sell cer-
tificates of beneficial ownership there-
in to the Secretary of the Treasury, to
the private market, or to such other
sources as the Secretary may deter-
mine. Any sale by the Secretary of
notes or of beneficial ownership
therein shall be treated as a sale of
assets for the purpose of the Budget
and Accounting Act, 1921, notwith-
standing the fact that the Secretary,
under an agreement with the pur-
chaser or purchasers, holds the debt
instruments evidencing the loans and
holds or invests payments thereon for
the purchaser or purchasers of the
notes or of the certificates of benefi-
cial ownership therein."
On page 33, in line 19, strike out
"$49,475,000" and insert "$50,-
375,000"; beginning in line 20, strike
out:
For an amount to provide for the prepara-
tion of Environmental Impact Statements as
required by section 102(2),(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act on all proposed ac-
tions by the Environmental Protection Agency,
except where prohibited by law, $5,000,000.
And insert
For an amount to provide for the prepara-
tion of environmental explanations on all
proposed actions by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, $5,000,000.
On page 34, in line 7, after the
semicolon, insert "uniforms, or al-
lowances therefor, as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;" in line 14, strike
out "$154,175,000" and insert "$182,
975,000"; in line 15, strike out "$13,-
000,000" and insert "$9,000,000"; in
line 23, after the semicolon, insert
"uniforms, or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;".
On page 35, in line 5, strike out
"$251,100,000" and insert "$258,500,-
000"; in line 6, strike out "$5,700,000"
and insert "$1,700,000"; in line 3,
strike out "1973" and the period and
insert "1973: Provided, That these
funds shall be available to carry out
the activities authorized by sections
104(g)(l) and (2) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act." In
line 17, after "waste" insert "to be
transferred to and merged with the
authority of the Agricultural Con-
servation Program (REAP) of the
Department of Agriculture for the
1974 program".
On page 36, in line 6 after the
semi-
[p. S12375]
colon, insert "uniforms, or allow-
ances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902;" in line 12, strike
out "$45,950,000" and insert "$46,-
850,000". Beginning in line 19, in-
sert:
In allocating funds for reimbursement
under Section 206 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1972, of
the total amount of $1.9 billion available for
the purposes of that Section, the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall obligate no less than $200 million for
reimbursement provided for by Subsection
260(b).
[p. S12376]
Mr. McGEE.
We also added considerable funds
for environmental programs. At a
time when the administration is giv-
ing considerable lip service to solving
environmental problems, and I cer-
tainly agree that some headway is
being made, they are still submitting
-------
270
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
budget estimates at a small fraction
of the authorized levels of many pro-
grams.
Mr. President, later in my remarks
I shall include a short table indicat-
ing the increases we made in several
selected items but I did want to dis-
cuss just a few of them to indicate,
to some degree at least, some of the
priorities of the committee. I think a
review of these items will show that
the committee did act responsibly and
I bring this bill to the floor of the
Senate today with no apologies for
being $650 million over the budget,
but rather with this explanation of
that action.
By way of further discussion, I
feel there is no man in this body
with a greater fiscal responsibility
or with a greater dedication to dis-
charging that responsibility than the
chairman of the Appropriations Com-
mittee, the senior Senator from Ar-
kansas. Mr. McCLELLAN. He has been
a leader in this area and early this
year he called upon his subcommittee
chairmen to submit an estimate to
him indicating what would be re-
quired in the various bills within the
committee. To his great credit, he did
not impose or even attempt to impose
an artificial ceiling of his own on the
subcommittee chairmen, but simply
wanted the best estimates of the
amounts which would be required to
maintain at least a minimal program
level for the various agencies in-
cluded in the respective subcommittee
jurisdictions.
At that time, I advised him that 1
expected to exceed budget estimates
by approximately $800,000,000. The
bill which we are considering here
today falls about $150 million short
of that figure, about $650 million over
the budget, so it is obvious that we
on the subcommittee and the ful
committee did not take our responsi-
bilities lightly. We rejected severa'
new programs, many worthwhile pro-
grams. We have recommended only
jne new construction item for the
Department of Agriculture and that
one is the critically needed animal
quarantine facility at Fleming Key,
Fla. This is, in my opinion, a bare-
Dones appropriation bill.
Now, Mr. President, I shall list sev-
eral of the major items of increases
over the budget estimate contained
in this bill:
Over Budget
1. Agricultural Research Service - $8,038,900
2. Animal and Plant Health In-
spection Service 6,700,000
3. Cooperative State Research
Service 16,421,000
4. Extension Service 11,742,000
5. Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (REAP
and Water Bank) Salaries
and Expenses 17,235,000
6. Rural Water and Waste Dis-
posal $30,000,000
7. Environmental Protection
Agency 68,000,000
8. Soil Conservation Service 68,246,000
9. ASCS-REAP 160,000,000
10. Water Bank 10,000,000
11. Food and Nutrition Service _. 384,673,000
We added: $300,000,000—to the
1973 appropriation for food stamps;
$72,123,000—special milk; $12,000,-
000—nonfood assistance—equipment.
The committee is reporting this
bill, H.R. 8619, the agriculture, en-
vironmental and consumer protection
appropriations bill for fiscal year
1974, without subcommittee hearings
having been held. While this is some-
what of a deviation from past com-
mittee and subcommittee practices, it
was done only after serious delibera-
tions and thought and for good rea-
son.
In past years, the subcommittee
conducted extensive hearings and re-
ceived considerable testimony from
both agency and nongovernmental
witnesses. For example, the subcom-
mittee hearings for fiscal year 1973
consisted of almost 2,700 pages of
printed testimony and supporting
documents. Those hearings com-
menced on March 6, 1972, and con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
271
eluded on April 13, 1972. The sub-
committee examined the administra-
tion's budget estimates in detail and
in good faith. Agency witnesses were
questioned extensively and consider-
able weight was given to their
views and comments because it was
felt that they were familiar with
their respective programs and had a
real and significant input in the bud-
geting processes. This is not to say
or suggest, of course, that their views
were accepted because the committee
was well aware that the recommenda-
tions of the agency heads were sub-
ject to review and adjustment at
higher echelons, both within the De-
partment and elsewhere in the admin-
istration. But their views were solic-
ited to be considered by the com-
mittee in arriving at an overall judg-
ment on the various items under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
The entire appropriations procedure
—and the legislative procedure for
that matter—was drastically and
abruptly changed by the administra-
tion late in calendar year 1972 and
early in 1973. At that time, as is well
known, the administration suddenly
announced the termination of many
programs within the Department of
Agriculture. The acts of termination
were made without prior notice and
without consultation with Congress.
These were programs which had
been duly enacted by Congress
through the regular legislative proc-
esses set forth in the Constitution.
They were programs which had been
reviewed by the President of the
United States at the appropriate
time—prior to their having been
signed into law for the President's
signature, as provided by the Con-
stitution. Some of these had been
enacted into law as late as last year,
others had been on the statute books
for several years. But one thing is
common to all of them—they were
enacted into law and became the law
of the land.
Likewise, the terminated programs
had been funded for fiscal year 1973,
again through the estblished legisla-
tive and
[p. S12378]
constitutional processes. They were
programs for which specific requests
had been made in the President's
budget requests for fiscal year 1973
and/or proposals to utilize carryover
funds from prior years' appropria-
tions and which were contained in
the official budget estimates. After
having been approved by an over-
whelming majority in both Houses of
Congress, the bill for fiscal year 1973
was reviewed by the President and
was signed into law on August 22,
1972.
At no time during this process
was it even remotely suggested by
anyone that programs such as the
2-percent direct loan program of the
REA, the rural environmental assist-
ance program, or the water and
sewer grant program under the
Farmers Home Administration and
others would be terminated. As a mat-
ter of fact, the record clearly shows
that administration witnesses sup-
ported these programs.
It is only too clear then that the
administration completely ignored
not only the unquestioned and clearly
expressed intent of Congress, but also
the laws which had been duly en-
acted. The work of the committee in
developing the bill for fiscal year
1973 was completely obliterated by
Executive' fiat. With this back-
ground, the subcommittee could see
little justification for convening the
subcommittee and for devoting sev-
eral weeks to hearings only to have
their carefully considered judgments
and decisions emasculated by some
"higher authority" in the executive
branch of our Government.
[p. S12379]
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, the im-
-------
272
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
portance of the pending appropria-
tion measure, which provides funds
for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
for agricultural, environmental, and
consumer protection programs, can-
not be overestimated.
High among our national concerns
at this time is the need to expand pro-
duction of food and to protect and
enhance our environmental resources.
The pending measure provides funds
that will enable our Nation's farm-
ers to increase their crop yields, to
carry on conservation measures, to
develop our rural areas, and to con-
tinue the Environmental Protection
Agency's drive to clean up America's
air and water, dispose of solid wastes,
and advance the technology necessary
to permit even greater antipollution
efforts in the future.
For agriculture programs, the Sen-
ate Appropriations Committee, on
which it is my privilege to serve as
ranking minority member of the Ag-
riculture, Environmental and Con-
sumer Protection Subcommittee, rec-
ommends a total of $5,258,490,500 in
new authority to obligate funds.
This is $280,141,900 more than the
House of Representatives provided,
but it is $95,447,100 less than the
President's budget request and $151,-
540,700 less than Congress appropri-
ated for the current 1973 fiscal year.
For rural development programs,
our committee recommends a total of
$412,822,000 in new authority to obli-
gate funds. This is $27,000,000 more
than the House of Representatives
approved and $56,000,000 more than
the President's budget request, but
$618,175,000 less than Congress ap-
propriated for 1973.
For environmental programs, our
committee recommends a total of
$1,097,746,000. This figure is $78,-
516,000 higher than the House
amount and $312,332,000 more than
the President requested, but $1,870,-
602,000 less than Congress provided
in fiscal year 1973.
The reason for the big decrease in
new obligational authority is in the
construction grant program. No new
funds are required or were requested
for 1974 as this program has been
put on an advanced contract basis.
EPA will be able to make grants
to municipal, intermunicipal, State,
and interstate agencies to help fi-
nance planning, design, and construc-
tion of municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Grants are made to
States on a formula basis, with the
Federal share at 75 percent.
Thus, the apparent decrease in en-
vironmental funds for fiscal year
1974 is not a real decrease in terms
of program.
For consumer programs, our com-
mittee recommends $3,390,150,000 to
fund such programs as the Office of
Consumer Affairs; Food and Drug
Administration salaries, expenses,
buildings and facilities; the Con-
sumer Information Center of the
General Services Administration; the
National Commission on Consumer
Finance; the Consumer Product
Safety Commission; the Federal
Trade Commission; and the child nu-
trition programs; special milk pro-
gram; and food stamp program.
Our committee total is $387,813,000
more than the House provided, $380,-
573,000 more than the President re-
quested, and $134,870,500 more than
Congress approved for fiscal year
1973.
The grand total recommended by
the Senate Appropriations Commit-
tee in this far-reaching bill is $10,-
159,208,500 in new obligational au-
thority.
This is $773,470,900 more than the
House provided and $653,457,900
more than the President's budget re-
quest. It is, however, $2,504,447,200
less than Congress appropriated for
the 1973 fiscal year which ends
June 30.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
273
I believe the committee bill is a
sound and well-balanced bill. While I
personally would increase some items
more than the committee did and
would decrease some, on the whole I
believe the committee has put em-
phasis where it belongs in the areas
of agriculture production and quality
of life in rural areas and on en-
vironmental needs and consumer pro-
tection.
As the Senator has a heavy work-
load during the remainder of this
week, I shall not take any more time
to explain the bill. The committee re-
port is quite clear and comprehensive
on the various items included.
I hope the Senate will move quickly
to pass the pending bill, so that it
can go to a House Senate conference
for differences to be resolved and be-
come law as soon as possible follow-
ing the July 4 recess.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I yield 5
minutes to the Senator from Minne-
sota.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator from Hawaii. I
notice that the distinguished floor
manager of the appropriations bill is
not on the floor at the moment. I
have discussed this amendment with
both the Senator from Wyoming and
the Senator from Hawaii.
I send an amendment to the desk
and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as fol-
lows:
On page 35, between lines 11 and 12, insert
the following:
[p. S12380]
For carrying out the provisions of section
314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act $50,000,000.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President,
this amendment is to carry out the
provisions of section 314 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act.
Section 314 is the so-called clean
lakes amendment which authorizes
funds for the restoration of Ameri-
ca's fresh water community lakes.
As the Senate is aware, most of
our environmental programs to pro-
tect the quality of our water affect
interstate waters such as Lake Super-
ior, the Mississippi River, and other
major waterways and do not deal
with the problems of the thousands
and thousands of fresh water com-
munity lakes that are deteriorating—
some of which have already died.
In 1972 we passed strong new legis-
lation to fill that gap and to provide
funding for State and local communi-
ties to restore lakes and protect the
lake shores. Funding was authorized
for sewage collection and treatment
to protect these lakes from further
eutrophication, and money was also
made available for restoration proj-
ects.
Unfortunately, there is no money
in the pending appropriations bill,
even though we now have a study
by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency that shows dramatic de-
terioration in the fresh water com-
munity lakes surveyed in various
parts of the country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent at this point that the prelim-
inary results of the study submitted
to me by Robert Sansom, assistant
administrator of the Office of Air
and Water Programs be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the study
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCT,
Washington, D.C., Mav 7, 197S.
Hon. WALTER F. MONDAIE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE : The Administrator
has asked me to respond to your correspond-
ence of March 29 in which you requested
additional information regarding implementa-
tion of Section 314 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments.
Your letter addressed two specific issues:
first, how many lakes the EPA has identified
-------
274
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
as endangered by accelerated eutrophication,
sedimentation and pollution; and second, how
much it is estimated it would cost to restore
these lakes.
With regard to your first question, the data
which currently are available indicate the
following.
a. A state-by-state survey was conducted
in 1971 under EPA contract to provide a pre-
liminary assessment of the number of pol-
luted lakes nationwide. The data for this
survey were provided primarily by the Water
Resources Board of each individual State. A
total of 376 lakes in 33 States were identified
as polluted and in need of rehabilitation. The
TABLE I.—NUMBER
survey results indicate the type and fre-
quency of occurrence of pollution in these
lakes to be as shown in Table I. The sources
of pollution of these 376 lakes are as indi-
cated in Table II.
b. A second sources of data concerning en-
dangered or polluted lakes in the EPA Na-
tional Eutrophication Survey. This program
was initiated during 1972 in ten states, will
expand into seventeen additional states dur-
ing 1973, and is scheduled to start west of
the Mississippi River during 1974. We ex-
pect to include about 800 lakes nationwide in
our Survey; interim results will be published
as they become available, with the final series
of reports to be issued during 1976.
OF POLLUTED LAKES
Only eutro-
Lake size (surface acres) phication
0 to 50
50 to 100
100 to 500
500 to 1,000 .
1,000 to 5.000
5,000 to 10,000
10,000 ... .
Total
50
35
84
33
46
13
13
274
Only sedi-
mentation
0
1
2
0
4
1
3
11
Other
pollution
0
3
3
1
1
4
10
19
Combined
forms of
pollution
11
4
27
7
12
3
8
72
TABLE II.— NUMBER OF LAKES WITH SOURCE OF POLLUTION
Lake size
(surface acres)
0 to 50
50 to 100
100 to 500
500 to 1,000
1,000 to 5,000
5,000 to 10,000 . -
10000
Total - -- -
Municipal
effluent
20
10
37
24
35
. , 12
14
--_ 152
Rural
runoff
3
4
25
15
13
6
9
75
Septic
tanks
6
4
22
12
15
6
6
71
Indutrial
wastes
2
4
17
5
12
4
15
59
Urban
runoff
4
2
16
2
6
3
5
38
Ground
water
0
1
5
2
3
1
2
14
Feed
lots
1
1
4
2
I
1
2
12
March
drain-
age
2
1
4
0
2
0
2
11
The Survey involves periodic collection of
water sample data on each lake over a one-
year interval. We are now about half way
through the sampling period for most of the
lake projects initiated during 1972 and thus
are in a position to provide only preliminary
findings at this time.
A total of 242 lakes were sampled by our
helicopter team in the ten-state area from
Maine to Minnesota. The majority of these
lakes are subject to potential accelerated
eutrophication because they receive effluent
from municipal sources. Preliminary results
for these 242 lakes indicate that 64 lakes (26
percent) have algae problems, 29 lakes (12
percent) have nuisance weed problems, 54
additional lakes (22 percent) have both algae
and weed problems, and 10 lakes (4 percent)
have potential near-term algae or wood prob-
lems. Twelve lakes (5 percent) were found to
be free from both algae and weed problems.
The status of the remaining 73 lakes has not
been established at this time. In terms of
water quality as determined from chemical
analyses of lake samples, it currently is esti-
mated that 13 of the 242 survey lakes are
oligotrophic (very pure), 25 are mesotrophic
(good condition), 15 are mesoeutrophic
(starting to go bad), 139 are eutrophic (bad
condition), and 50 are hypereutrophic (go-
ing dead).
One of the important objectives of the EPA
National Eutrophication Survey is to provide
a sound scientific basis for developing a na-
tional lake rehabilitation program. To com-
plete this objective requires that we deter-
mine a nutrient balance for each of the
survery lakes and assess the significance of
controllable sources of pollution. To assist us
in this effort, National Guard volunteers are
collecting tens of thousands of water samples
from streams tributary to the Survey lakes;
in June ,the State of Vermont's year-long
tributary sampling program will be the first
to be completed. A third sampling activity,
involving monthly collection of composit ef-
fluent samples by the operators of municipal
sewage treatment plants (over 200 plants),
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
275
will be completed by mid-to-late 1973 for the
first ten states. Final interpretation of the
Survey data for each lake requires completion
of the three sampling programs outlined
above followed by appropriate chemical
analysis and assessment of the results.
Another fundamental part of our lake clas-
sification activity relates to the water basin
planning required of all States under Sec-
tion 303 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments. Section 303 basin
plans, which will include area-by-area as-
sessment of lake water quality, will begin to
be submitted for EPA approval starting in
July 1973. In those situations where exist-
ing water quality and pollution source in-
formation is not adequate to develop ac-
ceptable 303 basin plans, the EPA will work
closely with the States in implementing
necessary monitoring and analysis programs.
Funding support for this basin planning
work will be provided to the States as a
part of their program grants under Section
106 of the Act.
The second question -which you raised in
your letter to the Administrator was how
much it is expected to cost to implement a
national lake restoration program. In re-
sponding to this question, let me first review
briefly for you our water pollution control
strategy as it applies to lake restoration.
Phase I: Planning and Assessment. The
planning and assessment phase of our clean
lakes strategy consists of three elements:
Prepare an assessment of the national
lake pollution problem. This requires a de-
scription of the pollution problem in each
lake, its severity and causes.
Prepare an assessment of alternative meas-
ures available to eliminate the sources of
pollution of each lake.
Determine what restoration techniques
(chemical seeding, biological control, etc.)
can be used most effectively in dealing with
each specific polluted lake.
Phase If: Lake Rehabilitation. The lake
rehabilitation phase of our clean lakes strat-
egy consists of two elements:
Provide Federal assistance to the States
under Title II of PL 92-500 in those situa-
tions where improvements in municipal
waste water treatment systems are needed
to achieve lake or impoundment water
quality standards. It is noted that the data
presented previously in Tabes I and II in-
dicate that effluent control of municipal
sources is necessary for rehabilitating a large
percentage of the polluted lakes identified
by the States in our 1971 survey.
Development of a program for implement-
ing approved Jake renewal methods and pro-
cedures where our experience with demon-
strated restoration techniques indicates there
is high probability of accomplishing effective
lake rehabilitation projects at reasonable cost.
In all cases the commitment of Federal,
State, or local funds for dealing with lake
pollution problems should be consistent with
the water basin plans and the water pollu-
tion control plans submitted by the States
and approved by the EPA.
Let me comment further about the three
elements of our lake pollution control plan-
ning and assessment activities and indicate
specifically what the EPA is doing as a pre-
requisite to estimating lake restoration costs.
First, we need a reliable ecological assess-
ment of the nation's lakes, including the
following diagnositics information for each
individual lake or impoundment which may
require treatment: (a) water quality: (b)
[p. S12381]
sources of pollution; and (c) effect of each
source of pollution on water quality. Al-
though such information exists for some
lakes, quantitative and reliable data are not
available at this time on anything approach-
ing a national scaJe. The need for this data
is recognized in Section 314 (a) (1) wherein
each State is required to prepare and sub-
mit, lake classification information to the
Administrator. The State pollution control
plans required under Section 106 and the
State basin plans which I discussed previ-
ously, supported by our own lake survey
work, will provide the lake ecological assess-
ment information which we need to deter-
mine the magnitude of the lake pollution
problem on both a lake-by-lake basis and
in a total national sense.
Second, we need, for each individual pol-
luted lake, an assessment of the alternative
measures that can be taken to reduce or
eliminate the root causes of pollution, be
this from sewage treatment plants, septic
tanks, agricultural runoff, industrial wastes,
ground water, or other causes. The need for
this information is recognized under the
provisions of Section 314 (a) (2) wherein each
State is required to establish procedures,
processes, and methods for controlling sources
of lake pollution. The State basin plans being
prepared under Section 303 and the State
pollution control program reports to be sub-
mitted under Section 106 will serve as primary
sources of information concerning measures
that can be implemented to reduce or eleminate
the flow of pollutants into our lakes.
Third, we need, for each individual polluted
lake, a determination of what lake restoration
technique should be adopted. In some instances,
desired water quality can be achieved simply
by eliminating pollutant sources. In other
situations, additional measures such as chemi-
cal seeding, weed harvesting, biological control,
draw-down and sediment consolidation, etc.,
may be required. The importance of this area
is recongized in Section 314 (a) (3) wherein it is
required that each State establish methods
and procedures for restoring the quality of its
-------
273
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
polluted lakes. The Office of Research and
Monitoring within EPA is conducting a series
of research projects aimed at developing im-
proved lake restoration processes. One phase
of this work is the EPA National Eutrophica-
tion Research Program, a companion program
to the national EutropMcation Survey, under
which we are investigating many promising
lake restoration techniques via projects rang-
ing from laboratory experiments through pilot
demonstration programs. This effort currently
is funded at some $2.1 million annually. A
second phase of this work consists of a series
of projects aimed specifically at developing and
demonstrating advanced technology for reduc-
ing municipal sewage-related pollution, a pri-
mary source of pollution to the nation's lakes.
These projects are concerned with nutrient,
solid, and organic removal techniques, sludge
disposal techniques, treatment of combined
storm and sanitary sewer runoff, land-spread-
ing disposal of treatment plant effluents, and
the like. The level of EPA funding for this
work in FY '73 is some $8.5 million; projected
funding for FY '74 is approximately $9.0 mil-
lion. In July of this year we will publish the
results of an EPA contract study which re-
views the state-of-art of lake rehabilitation
activities and experiences worldwide. Further,
as required under Section 304 (i), the EPA
shortly will issue a report summarizing all
available pertinent information on lake resto-
ration techniques.
Turning once again to your question of
funding, I feel that the only way in which
we can make credible estimates of the costs
of carrying out lake restoration programs is
to base such estimates on the results of the
ongoing State planning activities together
with our own assessment of what lake re-
newal projects appear to be justified on the
basis of need and likelihood of success. I "wish
to emphasize that we currently are able to
make good estimates of what a prescribed
pollution control program on a given lake will
cost, once it has been determined what con-
trol measures would be effective and should
be implemented. However, at this time we do
not have an accurate national inventory of
the number of lakes which warrant restora-
tion nor do we have an analysis of each pol-
luted lakes sufficient to permit us to deter-
mine the type and level of remedial action
needed to achieve desired water quality ob-
jectives. Our guidance to the States for im-
plementing PL 92-500 requires that the
States prepare and submit such inventory
and analysis information to the EPA as part
of their 303 planning process and their pro-
posed pollution control programs. Only when
this information is available will we be able
to provide you with an accurate accounting
of the level of funding needed to accomplish
the lake restoration provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments,
Because there may be significant delays in
receiving and analyzing State basin plans and
State pollution control program submissions
upon which future funding decisions will
be based, I have directed my staff to prepare
an interim preliminary estimate of the level
of funding that we believe reasonably may
be required to implement a national lake
restoration program. We will issue guidelines
to the States later this month which will
direct the States to submit to the EPA, as
part of their Section 106 reports, available
information on the nature and extent of
their lake pollution problems, sources of
pollution, and measures that could be imple-
mented to aleviate recognized lake eutrophi-
cation problems. These data are to be sub-
mitted to the EPA by June 15, 1973. Upon
receipt of the 106 reports, we -will prepare an
overall analysis of the national lake pollution
situation, including an assessment of resto-
ration efforts which the States are planning
to undertake as part of their FY 74 program.
Although we will initiate this analysis as
soon as the State 106 reports are submitted,
please understand that both the time re-
quired to complete this project and the de-
gree of its success will depend in large meas-
ure on the ability and responsiveness of the
States in providing the necessary input data.
If we receive good cooperation from the in-
dividual State water pollution control agen-
cies, I anticipate that preliminary results
will be available by late July. If we find that
we do not receive good States cooperation or
that the State data simply are not acceptable
for making preliminary lake restoration
funding estimates, I will so advise you and
indicate at that time what additional steps
we will take to provide you with the informa-
tion you have requested.
We sincerely appreciate your interest in
our lake restoration activities and your ef-
forts toward achieving1 the goal of improved
water quality. The EPA is vitally interested
in this area, and I believe that the program
which I have outlined for you will lead to
effective State and national progress.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT L. SAXSOM,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Water Programs.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President,
this is the most thorough study that
has yet been undertaken on the prob-
lem. I thank the EPA for its full re-
sponse. I think that it shows we must
act immediately. The study I have
had printed in the RECORD shows that
a total of 242 lakes were sampled by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
277
a helicopter team in the 10-State area
from Maine to Minnesota.
The majority of these lakes are
subject to potential accelerated eutro-
phication because they receive efflu-
ent from municipal sources. Prelim-
inary results from these 242 lakes
indicate that 64 lakes—26 percent—
have algae problems, 29 lakes—12
percent—have nuisance weed prob-
lems, 54 additional lakes—22 per-
cent—have both algae and weed prob-
lems, and 10 lakes—4 percent—have
potential near-term algae or weed
problems. Twelve lakes—5 percent—
were found to be free from both algae
and weed problems.
The study further shows that of
the 242 lakes studied, 25 are in good
condition. However, 15 are starting
to go bad, 139 are in bad condition,
and 50 are near dead.
Based on the preiminary results
of this survey by the EPA, the first
survey of its kind in the country,
they have concluded that most of the
lakes studied are in serious condition
and many are near dead. Therefore,
I think that the time is running out
on us.
Congress passed the Clean Lakes
Act unanimously. It is a program
that is long overdue.
I would hope that we could begin
to make a start by obtaining funds
for States and communities in this
long-overdue effort.
I would appreciate the response of
the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. McGEE, Mr. President, if the
Senator will excuse me, I was negoti-
ating on behalf of the proposal of the
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. MONDALE. And I was pray-
ing for the Senator as he was doing
so.
Mr. McGEE. This measure which
has been submitted by the Senator
from Minnesota has had very care-
ful attention paid to it. It has an
excellent background and history. It
was submitted to the committee with
plenty of time for the committee to
consider it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I will
be glad to yield such time as may be
necessary for this colloquy.
The case is not only a very sub-
stantial one, but it is also a very ur-
gent one, as well.
The committee felt, in view of the
pressures that were on this year, and
in view of the fact that all of these
programs were being severely cut
back, that we were compelled to dis-
allow it at this time. They were not
ready to implement it in the agency,
and therefore, it would be subject to
ongoing reconsideration. However,
due to the Senator's case which he
has articulated so well, my colleague
and I want to be responsive to the
request.
I must confess that I did not hear
the Senator quite correctly. I thought
the Senator mentioned the sum of
$15 million. I now discover that he is
asking for $50 million. I would be
prepared to accept the $15 million
request on behalf of the committee.
It gives a toehold and gets it going
along, which I think is important.
[p. S12382]
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President,
that would be satisfactory to me. I
modify my amendment accordingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is accordingly modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as
follows:
On page 35, between lines 11 and 12, in-
sert the following:
For carrying out the provisions of section
314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, $15,000,000.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I
am most grateful to the Senator form
Wyoming and the Senator from Ha-
waii for their thoughtfulness.
Mr. PONG. Mr. President, we are
very happy to accept the amendment
of the Senator from Minnesota which
requests $15 million. I believe it is a
-------
278
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
very worthwhile project. We think
that it should be funded.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I
am advised that the EPA has now
issued guidelines requesting States to
identify and classify lakes needing as-
sistance under the act. Many States
are ready to act. Although a year
ago we were in a condition where
they were not ready to use the money,
we now have a pioneer study and the
guidelines. And several States are
ready to go. So, I am very hopeful
that the same recognized and persua-
sive powers of the chairman of the
subcommittee will prevail in confer-
ence.
Mr. McGEE, Mr. President, it is
strarge how my hearing has sud-
denly improved. I can hear that with
great clarity [laughter].
We pledged to make every effort to
hold as much of that as possible.
The Important thing is to get it go-
ing. They are moving on it now,
and as these are implemented, that
would certainly be one of the prime
items for the supplemental, in order
to keep it moving at an accelerated
rate.
Mr. MONDALE. I thank the floor
manager and the ranking minority
member (Mr. FONG).
Miv President, last year the Con-
gress authorized the creation of a
clean lakes program under section
314 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments. That
law authorized $50 million for fiscal
1973, $100 million for fiscal 1974 and
$150 million for fiscal 1975 for grants
to the States to carry out lake restor-
ation and pollution control programs.
Unfortunately, the administration re-
quested no money to carry out this
program in fiscal 1973 and proposed
no expenditures for the program dur-
ing fiscal 1974.
The amendment I offer today makes
clear that it is the intention of Con-
gress that this program be carried
out in accordance with the 1972 law
and, as modified, specifies that $15
million shall be made available in
grants to the States.
Mr. President, soon after I dis-
covered that no funds were inlcuded
in the administration's fiscal 1974
budget for the clean lakes program,
I wrote to Administrator Ruckelshaus
at the EPA, requesting the agency's
estimate of how many lakes the EPA
has identified as endangered by ac-
celerated eutrophication, sedimenta-
tion, and pollution, and how much
money the agency estimated it would
cost to restore them. On May 7 I
received a reply.
EPA's letter of May 7 describes
survey results which show a severe
pollution problem in lakes located
near sewage outfalls and widespread
eutrophication of lakes from sources
other than municipal effluent.
The results of a survey of 242
lakes in 10 eastern and midwestern
States indicate that 26 percent have
algae problems, 12 percent have nuis-
ance weed problems, another 22 per-
cent have both algae and weed prob-
lems; and another 4 percent have
potential near-term algae or weed
problems. Only 5 percent of the lakes
were found to be free from both algae
and weed problems.
In terms of water quality, it was
estimated that 13 of the 242 lakes
are very pure, 25 are in good condi-
tion; nevertheless, 15 are starting to
go bad, 139 are in bad condition and
50 are near death.
Although we do not have figures on
every lake in the Nation, the evidence
clearly shows that many lakes are in
desperate need of help.
The Environmental Protection
Agency has issued guidelines to the
States which will yield needed infor-
mation from the States on the extent
of their lake pollution problems,
measures which can be utilized to al-
leviate these conditions and programs
which are now planned or underway.
Many communities in Minnesota
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
279
and throughout the Nation are strug-
gling to clean up their lakes and
keep them clean. Technology is avail-
able to do the job, but the cost is far
beyond the ability of States and local-
ities to meet without Federal help.
In 1972 Congress clearly recog-
nized this problem, and also recog-
nized that the Federal Government
had a responsibility to help.
By including an appropriation of
$15 million specifically for lake res-
toration and pollution control, we
can begin to treat lakes that are suf-
fering, and prevent them from being
destroyed.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption
of my amendment by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HATHAWAY). The question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MON-
DALE) .
The amendment was agreed to.
[p. S12383]
THE ENERGY CRISIS
Mr. HART. Mr. President, the Sen-
ate Appropriations Committee recom-
mends that "in light of the current
energy crisis, particularly in the pe-
troleum and natural gas sectors," $2
million be added to the budget of the
Federal Trade Commission to fund
a detailed investigation of the energy
shortage.
It is my hope that the Senate will
accept that recommendation and that
our conferees will press for the in-
crease when they meet with their
counterparts from the House.
Based on a discussion of a similar
amendment offered on the floor when
the House considered this bill, I think
it is fair to state that there is dis-
position in the House to accept this
amendment.
Before outlining the justification
for the increase, I would like to thank
Senator McGEE, chairman of the Ag-
ricultural, Environmental, and Con-
sumer Protection Appropriations
Subcommittee, for taking the lead in
securing committee approval of the
amendment.
As the committee report states, the
justification for the increase stems
from the energy shortage.
Recent events in the energy industries,
particularly the petroleum and natural gas
sectors, lead me to believe that a detailed,
hard-hitting study of the current situation
is desperately needed. Thousands of small
branded and independent service stations
are either being curtailed in their fuel sup-
ply or completely cut off. Independent re-
finers are operating well below capacity, in
a time of shortages, because they can no
longer get adequate crude oil supplies from
the majors who control these supplies. Sig-
nificant dislocations and major oil company
withdrawals from various geographic areas
are in process. The rate of possible anti-
competitive market structure changes in
both refining and marketing is accelerating.
On June 8, the Subcommittee on Antitrust
and Monopoly heard testimony from the At-
torney General of six States concerning the
lack of competitive behavior in the petroleum
industry. Several of these gentlemen have
already filed antitrust cases against the major
companies. Five days later, the National As-
sociation of Attorneys General passed, with-
out dissent, a resolution encouraging con-
gressional legislation to establish a task force
with adequate funding for a thorough in-
vestigation,
A number of persons have charged that a
conspiracy among the major companies is the
most probable reason for the present short-
ages. Other insist that, even absent an il-
legal conspiracy, the structure of the industry
is such that the present crisis was almost
inevitable. Any investigation should be deep
and thorough enough to establish the validity
or lack of validity of either fo these positions.
Three years ago, I urged the Federal Trade
Commission to conduct a comprehensive in-
vestigation into the petroleum industry. Even
earlier, the then Chairman, Casper Wein-
berger, had included the energy industry in
an announcement of a detailed study of a
group of concentrated industries. Most re-
cently, Commission Chairman Ehgman has
promised a preliminary report on or about
July 1 of this year. This is a long period
of time for Congress to wait for guidance.
In fairness to the Commission, let me point
out that staff resources are limited and must
be allocated to a broad area of Commission
responsibilities. It is for this reason that I
proposed that the Commission budget be in-
creased by $2.6 billion in order to carry out
-------
280
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT u
a special "task force" type of study of the
energy industry.
In its report to the Congress, the Commis-
sion should be specifically charged with pre-
senting findings on whether either conspiracy
or market structure is at fault. If the former,
certainly cases should be immediately insti-
tuted. If the latter, then the Commission
should be prepared to make responsible sug-
gestions for correction of the market structure.
WATER POLLUTION
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, as
we consider the 1974 Environmental
Appropriation bill, I think that it is
appropriate to direct our attention
to the serious problems that have
arisen as a result of the impoundment
of previous congressional appropria-
tions of a similar nature. Specifi-
cally, I refer to appropriations for
the implemenation of the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1972. I am concerned about
the failure of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to spend funds appro-
priated for much-needed water pollu-
tion abatement.
In December of 1972, the adminis-
tration impounded 55 percent of the
congressional appropriation for mu-
nicipal waste treatment plant con-
struction for 1973 and 1974. This im-
poundment has severely retarded the
national effort for water quality im-
provement.
In Wisconsin, 130 water quality
control projects are currently being
delayed because of the impoundment
of Federal funds. The twin cities of
Neenah and Menasha are under Fed-
eral order to cease their discharge of
wastes into the Fox River. Neenah
and Menasha have been promisee
Federal funding for a new municipal
waste treatment facility, and on the
basis of that promise have spent over
$1 million in planning and bid-letting
processes. These cities are ready to
begin construction of their project,
but construction cannot be com-
menced until the receipt of Federal
funds. During this period of delay,
Neenah and Menasha have been fined
$46,900 by the Environmental Protec-
;ion Agency for failure to comply
with Federal orders. And while these
ities await the receipt of promised
Federal funds, they anticipate added
xpenses of over $2 million for addi-
tional planning and reopening of bids.
All of this delay period results in 31
million gallons of municipal and in-
dustrial wastes being discharged into
the river every day, wastes which
would be handled by the new waste
treatment facility, were it completed.
In the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District, the 1973 construc-
tion schedule has come to a complete
halt as a result of the lack of Federal
funds. One project pending in Mil-
waukee would eliminate the discharge
of raw waste into Lake Michigan
during storm periods, when the pres-
ent sewerage system becomes over-
loaded. Milwaukee currently faces a
lawsuit brought by the State of Illi-
nois to cease and desist the discharge
of waste into Lake Michigan. With
the completion of the new sewerage
system, the discharge will cease, but
until the district receives Federal aid,
this serious situation will continue.
Nationally, as in Wisconsin, many
cities have had to halt construction
of new waste treatment facilities be-
cause of a lack of funds. The Chi-
cago Regional Office of Environ-
mental Protection Agency, which
serves Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana,
Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin, has over
500 project applications from cities
awaiting Federal funding. The mat-
ter of cleaning up our environment,
which has been recognized as a na-
tional priority by the American peo-
ple has been grossly neglected by
the administration.
We in the Congress have set stand-
ards and deadlines for cleaning up
our Nation's waterways. We have ap-
propriated the funds to implement
these standards and deadlines. I urge
the administration to allow this coun-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
281
try to get on with the business of
improving the quality of our water-
ways by releasing all appropriated
funds for the implementation of the
Water Quality Act of 1972.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the
Senator from Hawaii has a proposal.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
On page 37, between line 18 and 19, in-
sert the following:
"DEPARTMENT OF CO.li.lIERrE, NATIONAL INDUS-
TRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL COUNCIL
"For necessary expenses to provide staff
support for the National Industrial Pollution
Control Council, $323,000."
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, my
amendment would restore to the pend-
ing bill (H.R. 8619) $323,000 for the
National Industrial Pollution Control
Council.
This is the amount of the Presi-
dent's budget request and is the same
amount that Congress appropriated
for fiscal year 1973.
In reporting H.R. 8619, the House
Appropriations Committee recom-
mended $1,323,000 for the Council,
an addition of one million dollars
above the budget request.
This is what the committee stated
in its report on this matter:
The National Industrial Pollution Control
Council was established by Executive Order
11523, April 9, 1970 to advise the Presi-
dent and the Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality on programs of in-
dustry relating to the quality of the en-
vironment. The primary objectives of the
Council are to provide top-level industrial
advice on formulation and implementation
of environmental policy and to stimulate
more vigorous pollution cleanup action by
industry.
The Committee is impressed with the work
of the Council and will expect the Council to
continue to provide the Council on Environ-
mental Quality and the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency with industrial advice on environ-
mental policy. The Committee also encourages
the Council to study and report on the cost
of agricultural pollution abatement practices.
The Committee recommends adding $1,-
000,000 over the budget request to allow the
Council to conduct a major study of the
effect of environmental requirements on the
competitive position of American business.
The study should also examine the extent to
which American business or branches of
American business are relocating to foreign
countries in order to protect their competitive
position in world trade.
To the maximum extent possible the Council
should seek the assistance of the appropriate
agencies of the Department of Commerce in
conducting the study and preparing the final
report. The Committee will expect the Council
to make preliminary reports to the Committee
periodically and to complete the report by
February 1, 1974. Copies of the report shall be
provided to the appropriate executive depart-
ments and agencies and to the Congress.
When H.R. 8619 came up in the
House of Representatives for debate,
the language and funding for the
National Industrial Pollution Control
Council were stricken on a point of
order as not authorized by law.
The chair ruled that it was not in
a position to construe the origin of
the President's authority to issue the
Executive order establishing the
Council. Because the Executive order
was the only authority cited in the
committee provision in H.R. 8619, the
chair was compelled to rule that un-
der House rule XXI, the Executive
order is not a law and does not qual-
ify as a law and therefore, the point
of order was sustained.
Actually, the Council is established
by law. Originally, it was set up by
Presidential Executive Order No.
11523 on April 9, 1970. But it has
been continued pursuant to the au-
thority of section 9 (a) (1) of the Fed-
eral Advisory Committee Act of
1972—Public Law 92-463. October 6,
1972—as an advisory committee au-
thorized by the President. Charters
have been filed with the appropriate
congressional committees for NIPCC
and each of its subcouncils under sec-
tion 9(c) of the act, and it has other-
wise been operating under other pro-
visions of the act.
-------
282
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Additional statutory basis for the
Council is the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act of 1969—Public Law
91-910, January 1, 1970. Pursuant to
section 205, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality is
[p. S12391]
authorized to consult with industry
representatives and to utilize infor-
mation thereby obtained. The NIPCC
advises the Council on industry pro-
grams relating to the quality of the
environment and in other respects,
in accord with Executive Order 11523
and as the Council otherwise deems
advisable.
In addition, under section 102 of
the act, the Secretary of Commerce
utilizes the NIPCC to assist and ad-
vise him in identifying and develop-
ing methods and procedures, sepa-
rately and in consultation with the
Council on Environmental Quality,
which insure that environmental val-
ues are considered along with other
considerations in departmental deci-
sionmaking.
Also, the Secretary of Commerce
utilizes the NIPCC not only as an
industry advisory committee to assist
and advise him in fulfilling his re-
sponsibilities under the National En-
vironmental Policy Act, but also pur-
suant to his general authority in 15
U.S.C. 1512 to foster, promote, and
develop the foreign and domestic
commerce of the United States. Com-
merce of the United States. Com-
merce Department employees who
support NIPCC operations are paid
under this and above-related authori-
ties.
There are 63 top industry execu-
tives who serve on the Council. In
addition, there are 167 top industry
executives who serve on industry sub-
councils of the Council. None of these
executives receives any pay or com-
pensation for his service. Neither do
they, under NIPCC policy, receive
any per diem or travel expenses.
I reiterate, Mr. President, that 63
top industry executives serve on this
Council. In addition to the 63 top
industry executives, 167 top industry
executives serve on industry subcoun-
cils, and none of these executives re-
ceives any pay whatever, nor any
per diem or travel expenses.
The Council has 11 staff members,
including seven professionals and
four clerical workers, all Department
of Commerce employees. The $323,000
which my amendment would provide
is to pay their salaries and expenses.
This small staff, working with the
Council and industry subcouncils, has
prepared more than 50 reports with
recommendations on a wide range of
industrial pollution problems. A list-
ing of the reports follows my re-
marks.
I am not requesting the $1 million
the House Appropriations Committee
proposed for the Council to conduct a
major study of the effect of environ-
mental requirements on the competi-
tive position of American business
and the extent to which American
business or branches of American
business are relocating to foreign
countries in order to protect their
competitive position in world trade.
Although I believe such a study is
urgently needed to give us a compre-
hensive picture of the impact of en-
vironmental requirements on Ameri-
can industry, I am not asking for
the $1 million. I am only asking that
the budget amount of $323,000 be
provided.
This is less than two-thousandths
of 1 percent of the total increment
| expenditures industry will make be-
tween fiscal year 1971 and 1980.
They will make probably $65 bil-
lion worth of expenditures for main-
taining pollution control facilities.
These capital investments are over
and above the costs of operating and
maintaining pollution control facili-
ties in 1970.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
283
Inasmuch as industrial pollution
comprises one of the largest segments
of our Nation's pollution problems, I
urge approval of my amendment.
The Council has done very fine
work. Reports which have been made
by the National Industrial Pollution
Control Council are as shown on a
list I have before me. I ask unani-
mous consent that the list may be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the list
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
POLLUTION CONTROL COUNCIL
The following list represents reports pre-
pared by the National Industrial Pollution
Control Council or its Sub-Councils on spe-
cific environmental problems. These reports
have been submitted to the President and
the Chairman of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality and are made publicly avail-
able through the U.S. Government Printing
Office:
Acid Mine Drainage.
Air Pollution by Sulfur Oxides.
Airport and the Community.
Animal Slaughtering and Processing.
Animal Wastes.
Appliance X-Ray Pollution Problem, An
Evaluation of the Cans.*
Chemical Industry and Pollution Control.
Council Report.
Deep Ocean Dumping of Baled Refuse.
Detergents.
Detergents ( A Status Report).
Disposal of Major Appliances (The).
Electric Power Industry (The).
Engineer's Responsibility in Environmental
Pollution Control (The).
Exhaust Emissions from Diesel Locomotives.
Exhaust Emissions from Gas Turbine Air-
craft Engines.
Fertilizers and Agriculutral Chemicals.
Fluorescent Lamps.
Forest Chemicals.*
Glass Containers.
Industrial Solid Waste.
Junk Car Disposal.
Land and Water Pollution from Recrea-
tional Use.
Leisure Time Product Noise.
Maintaining Vehicular Emission Control Sys-
tem Integrity.
Mathematical Models for Air Pollution Con-
trol Policy Decision-Making.
Mercury.
*For submission in the near future.
Natural Gas Industry & the Environment
(The).
Noise from Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines.
Non-Coal Surface Mining.*
Paper.
Paper and Wood Packaging in Solid Waste.
Plastic and Solid Waste.
Pollution Control Costs & Research Priori-
ties in the Animal Slaughtering & Processing
Industries.
Pollution Problems in Selected Food In-
dustries (Excludes Meat, Poultry and Grain-
Based Foods).
Railroads and the Environment.*
Railroads and the Environment in Rail
Freight Operations.
Regionally Consolidated Industrial Waste-
water Treatment.
Rubber.
Self-Analysis of Pollution Problems.
Synthetic Rubber Industry, Environmental
Protection in the.*
Steel Industry and Environmental Quality
(The).
Tank Car Cleaning and Pollution Problems.*
Textile Industry and Pollution Control (The).
Tobacco Industry and Pollution (The).
Use and Disposal of Electrical Insulating
Liquids (The).
Waste Disposal in Deep Wells.
Wastewater Reclamation.
Wood Products.
In addition, the following have been pre-
sented to the President and the Chairman of
the Council on Environmental Quality as
evidence of the members taking seriously the
President's charge of industry leadership im-
plicit in Council membership:
Commitments: Industry Cleanup Actions
in Progress—Volume I—February 10, 1971;
Volume II—December 21, 1971; and Volume
III—March 5, 1973.
Casebook: Pollution Cleanup Actions—•
February 10, 1971.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I also
ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a memorandum
covering: examples of commitments
by the National Industrial Pollution
Control Council members to pollution
abatement practices within their own
corporate organizations.
There being no objection, the
memorandum was ordered to bfi
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[ NIPCC COMMITMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL Pol i.u-
j TION CLEANUP
The following are examples of commit-
| ments by National Industrial Pollution Con-
-------
284
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
trol Council members to pollution abatement
practices within their own corporate organi-
zations.
These examples have been summarized for
brevity from the three volumes of Commit-
ments presented to the President and the
Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality over the past three years. Copies of
the Commitment volumes are attached as
well as the specific letters from which these
summarized examples were taken:
Trans-World Airlines:
Has spent or committed $16.8 million capi-
tal investment for noise attenuation programs.
Initiated a new fuel dumping policy in
regard to unscheduled landings which during
its first six months in operation resulted in
an estimated 1,000,000 pounds less of fuel being
dumped into the atmosphere.
Burlington Northern: Has expenditures of
$750,000 in 1971; $100,000 in 1972, and pro-
posed expenditures of $125,000 for reclaiming
to useful purposes its strip mined coal land
in Montana.
CPC International, Inc.: Has met with
other industry members to give them the
benefit of CPC developments in an unique
wastewater treating facility for corn wet
milling operations.
Long Star Industries, Inc.: Has initiated a
$3.5 million program involving highly efficient
electrostatic precipitation at cement plant in
Birmingham, Alabama, which is scheduled to
be on stream eighteen months from July 1972.
Interlake, Inc.:
One of the first companies in Illinois to
analyze its pollution problems voluntarily,
report effluent loading and provide a time-
table of projects to local officials.
Pioneered development of a recirculation
water system for blast furnaces through a
Federal grant for $175,000. Invested $1 mil-
lion to perfect and install it.
Adolph Coors Company: Coors Distributors
continue to pay $200,000 a month for return
of aluminum cans and Coors bottles. As of
[p. S12392]
July 1972, 36 million pounds of aluminum
cans had been turned in for recycling—in
some areas amounting to 60-75% of COOTS
cans coming back for recycling.
General Electric Company: Has undertaken
ft major plant improvement program at the
Erie, Pennsylvania facility involving use of
low-sulfur coal and installation of electro-
static precipitators that is scheduled for
completion July 1973. Capital cost is—esti-
mated at $2.3 million.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company: Ex-
pended a total of $6,710,000 since 1971,
including $34(7,000 for eliminating sulfur di-
oxide and particulates, $2,560,000 for in-
stalling air pollution control facilities from
production processes, $3,427,000 for water
treatment, and $376,000 for solid waste man-
agement.
Outboard Marine Corporation: Reported
that its operating division, producing leisure
products throughout various locations in the
Midwest and Northern Plain states, was com-
mitted to 1972 expenditures of $1.6 million;
and a probable B-year spending level for pol-
lution abatement of an estimated $7.7 million.
National By-Products, Inc.: Since 1969
has completed installations at 9 plants, total-
ling almost $12 million. This includes $785,000
for rendering odor control, $180,000 for water
treatment, and the remainder for incineration
and other air cleaning. Projected expenditures
at 4 plants total $720,000, of which $150,000
will be spent on water treatment and the
remainder on odor and other air emission
control.
Atlantic-Richfield Company: In 1971, At-
lantic-Richfield spent $170 million on environ-
mental control. This involved control facilities,
devices, new procedures, land improvements,
and noise considerations.
Armco Steel Corporation: Through 1971,
Armco had total capital expenditures of $115
million at its installations. At its Middletown,
Ohio plant alone, the company spent $42 mil-
lion in 1965-71, including almost $20 million
for hot strip mill water clarification and $15.2
million for high-energy wet scrubbers to re-
move air particulates.
Ideal Basic Industries, Inc.: This com-
pany identified seventeen projects, primarily
to control air pollution. They were to be
undertaken at an authorized cost of up to
$20 million. By the time of this report, nine
projects had been completed, and environ-
mental improvement expenditures exceeded
$10 million. All these figures excluded the
sizeable operation and maintenance costs as-
sociated with these improvements.
Stauffer Chemical Company: Stauffer com-
pleted capital commitments of $4.8 million
in the 16-month period ending on May 1,
1971. These expenditures included in excess
of $1 million for mist elimination and dust
emission control and the remainder for waste-
water treatment.
The Procter & Gamble Company: Procter
& Gamble had capital expenditures of $65
million during the five-year period 1970-74
for environmental control, mainly air and
j water control. Since then, supplemental spill
j protection type projects have involved ex-
i penditures of $500 million and pretreatment
projects amount to another $500 million.
! Shell Oil Company:
! As noted in the report of the Shell Chemi-
j cal Company, its parent organization had
i been expending some $50 million a year in
1 environmental improvements.
Over and above this, the Chemical Com-
pany reported that Shell Oil's decision to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
285
provide a third, unleaded, gasoline pump at
its retail outlets, resulted in obligation of $70
million for this particular action leading to
cleaner-burning automobiles.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD a memorandum show-
ing accomplishments of the Council
and what would not have been ac-
complished without the Council.
There being no objection, the
memorandum was ordered to be
printed in the EECORD, as follows:
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION
CONTROL COUNCIL
WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS ACCOMPLISHED
1. Furnished a legal entity to bring chief
executives of American industry together in
partnership with government to address pol-
lution problems.
2. Educated consumers, through 50 reports
on subjects as diverse as mercury and animal
wastes, on industry's assessment, solutions,
and recommendations on various pollution
problems. (Approx. 160,000 items have been
distributed through the Government Printing
Office.)
3. Made industry aware of the nation's en-
vironmental concern and elicited industry's
support for improving the environment
through a yearly commitment program.
4. Stimulated industry to initiate cost-
benefit studies on pollution problems.
B. Focused on the need for government to
examine international market effects of pol-
lution abatement policies.
6. Focused, through cross-industry rela-
tionships, on multi-industry pollution prob-
lems.
7. Focused on the need for technology de-
velopment and international marketing of pol-
lution control equipment.
8. Focused on the need for industrial en-
vironmental impact statements as a policy
for industrial planning.
9. Reduced adversary attitudes between
government and industry.
10, Provided industry's views and com-
ments to the Executive Branch on legislation
dealing with: water pollution; land use; pesti-
cides; toxic substances; ocean dumping PCB's;
noise; and radiation.
11. Become a major source of industrial in-
formation for Commerce and other govern-
ment agencies on industrial pollution activi-
ties.
WHAT WOUU> XOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED
WITHOUT NIPCC
1. Top management of industry would have
been on the side-lines in the country's fight
against pollution.
2. Industry's adversary role with government
regulations would not have been mollified.
3. Government would not have access to
top level industrial advice and counsel.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I
shall be brief. I must be brief be-
cause of the vote at 12:30 p.m. on
the Schlesinger nomination.
As a member and vice charman of
the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution of the Committee on Public
Works, it was my privilege to hold
hearings last year on the implemen-
tation of the Clean Air Act. During
those hearings in March and April
of 1972 we inquired into the utiliarian
Pollution Control Council, the agency
referred to in the amendment of the
Senator from Hawaii. We found no
legitimate purpose being served by
this Council. It was created by Exec-
utive order. It is one of the classic
examples of a committee wandering
around with some vague authority
which then seeks certain funding to
conduct its business.
The amount of money in the amend-
ment of the Senator from Hawaii,
insofar as the total Federal budget
is concerned, is not large—only $323,-
000. But an important principle is
involved.
This council, which represents 500
of the biggest and wealthiest corpora-
tions in the country has no business
utilizing taxpayers' money to the ex-
tent of $323,000. In effect, the tax-
payers are subsidizing this group to
represent themselves before the Fed-
eral Government. It gives industry
disproportionate influence in the sense
that this group, by reason of the fact
that it has official standing, can in-
fluence EPA regulations even before
they are printed in the Federal Reg-
ister. It has a leg up that no other
citizen, consumer or organization has.
When EPA regulations come out they
are printed in the Federal Register
for public comment, but NIPCC has
its nose in the tent before that proc-
ess begins.
-------
286
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
I want to point out and emphasize
that this item was stricken on the
floor of the House and eliminated
from the budget. As pointed out by
the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee (Mr. McGEE) when it
was voted on at the full committee
level by the Senate Committee on Ap-
propriations the item likewise was
stricken, even though it was defended
by the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
FONG).
Mr. President, this agency is of
highly dubious value. During the
hearings we had last year, Mr. Hamil-
ton of the Council tesifled before our
committee for a considerable period
of time. We could find little if any-
thing the Council was doing of a
constructive and useful nature. It
printed some reports, but libraries
are filled with reports printed by
councils and commissions. We do not
need another collector's item on a big
shelf. We have more reports printed
and hanging around now than we
need. So
[p. S12393]
far as I can determine, the Council
has no legitimate function. Its pur-
pose is to provide input and thereby
gain advantage in framing EPA reg-
ulations prior to promulgation.
Therefore, when the time is yielded
back, pursuant to the unanimous-
consent request obtained by the Sena-
tor from West Virginia, I shall move
to table the amendment to restore
funding of this Council and I request
a vote after the vote on the Schle-
singer nomination.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, this
Council is doing yeoman work. Rep-
resenting the chief executives of in-
dustry, this Council is giving its
talent and time, and the only expense
for the Council is for the 11 staff
members comprised of seven profes-
sionals and four clerks. These are
all employees of the Commerce De-
partment, and the real work is being
done by these men themselves.
It is helping the Government to a
very great extent, because they them-
selves will be expending approxi-
mately $65 billion on these antipol-
lution projects.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, if
all time on the amendment has been
yielded back, I move to table the
Fong amendment. I ask for the yeas
and nays on that motion.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[p. S12394]
1.17d(4)(c) Sept. 25: House agreed to conference report, con-
curred in Senate amendment with amendments, pp. H8239-H8248;
(No relevant discussion of pertinent sections.)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
287
1.17d(4)(d) Oct. 10: Senate agreed to conference report and
agreed to House amendments, pp. S18973-S18978, S18984.
AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
APPROPRIATIONS, 1974—CON-
FERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ABOWREZK). Under the previous
order, the Senate will now proceed to
the consideration of the conference
report on H.R. 8619.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of con-
ference on H.R. 8619, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be stated by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The committee of conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendments of the Senate to
the bill (H.R. 8619) making appro-
priations for the Agriculture-Envir-
omental and Consumer Protection
programs for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, and for other purposes,
having met, after full and free con-
ference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective
Houses this report, signed by all the
conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the consideration of
the conference report?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is printed
in the House proceedings of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of September
20, 1973, at pages H8155-H8156.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time for debate on this conference
report is limited to 2 hours, to be
equally divided between and control-
led by the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) and the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. McGEE).
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I com-
mend the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Environmental and Con-
sumer Protection (Mr. McGEE) for
the outstanding job he has done on
this bill in committee, in the Senate,
and in conference. He gave us fine
leadership, and we have a very fine
conference report before us.
I especially want to thank him for
all the courtesy he has extended to
me throughout the consideration of
this legislation, and I also wish to
join him in his commendation of the
distinguished chairman of our full
Appropriations Committee, the Sena-
tor from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN),
for his excellent work in the confer-
ence.
Mr. President, the bill as reported
by the Committee of Conference pro-
vides
[p. S18973]
funds for the current 1974 fiscal year
for the Department of Agriculture,
the Environmental Protection Agency,
various consumer programs, and re-
lated independent agencies of the
executive branch. While the amount
of new obligational authority is some
$400 million over the budget, it is
nonetheless almost $3 billion below
the appropriation for fiscal year 1973.
The largest increase over the budget
is the amount for the food stamp
program. The $300 million increase
is necessary because the Agriculture
and Consumer Protection Act of 1973,
recently enacted by Congress, man-
dated various increases in eligibility.
We have, therefore, provided a total
of $2,500,000,000 for food stamps.
Another large increase over the
budget is the amount for the special
milk program. We have provided a
spending level for the special milk
program of $97,123,000 which will
insure that milk is made available
-------
288
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
to all schoolchildren. This spending
level accounts for $72,123,000 of the
amount we are over the budget.
Most of the other increases are to
be found in the funds provided for
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Overall, we have increased the En-
vironmental Protection Agency budget
request by $40 million, with most of
the increase—$30,000,000—being for
abatement and control.
Mr. President, as the chairman will
explain the conference report in de-
tail, I shall not take the time of the
Senate to cover the same ground.
Mr. President, I believe this is a
good bill, and I urge my colleagues
to support the conference report.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the
conference report and the joint state-
ment on the part of the managers
which are available discuss the partic-
ulars of this bill and the action
taken by the conferees but, in pre-
senting this matter to the Senate, I
would like to discuss a few matters
in further detail.
This bill, as agreed upon by the
conferees, contains new obligational
authority in the approximate sum of
$9.9 billion. This is more than $2.8
billion less than for fiscal year 1973,
but is more than $400 million above
the administration's budget estimates
for fiscal year 1974. Lest someone
jumps to the conclusion that this $400
million represents excessive or irre-
sponsible spending on the part of the
Senate committee, I want to point out
to my colleagues early in these re-
marks that this excess is represented
primarily by three separate items
and if anyone has any doubts as to
the merits of any of these items, I
wauld suggest that now is the time
for him to speak out.
Being $400 million over the budget
estimate, the question of a Presiden-
tial veto has been discussed since the
conference reached its agreement last
month. Personally, I make no apolo-
gies for the spending levels provided
in this bill. The committee and
the conference made every possible
effort to hold spending to a bare
minimum. As a matter of fact, I
feel we may have cut too closely on
several items, but this is the price
we are prepared to pay to cooperate
with the administration in its efforts
to combat the inflationary trend which
has been running rampant these past
several months. While I am not satis-
fied with some of the concessions we
had to make in conference, I do feel
that this bill is a responsible one
and one which will allow rural Amer-
ica to move forward.
*****
The other major item of increase is
with the Environmental Protection
Agency, where we are $40 million
over the budget estimate. This is a
most troublesome area for, while we
are substantially over the budget es-
timate, there are many who question
whether even this increased spending
is adequate to meet the environ-
mental challenges facing the coun-
try today. But, here again, we have
provided a minimum level of spend-
ing consistent with our desire to co-
operate in meeting the fiscal crisis
facing the Nation. So, we have these
three major items:
[In millions]
Food stamps
School milk
EPA
Total
$300
77
40
417
[p. S18974]
These items represent an amount
greater than the net amount the en-
tire bill exceeds the budget estimates.
By way of further explanation, I
would point out that for title I pro-
grams—agriculture programs—we
are well below the budget estimates.
For title II—rural development—we
are slightly in excess of the estimates
and we are substantially over the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
289
budget estimates for titles II and
IV—environmental programs and con-
sumer protection.
So, this is the story in capsule
form. I hope that we can have an im-
pressive vote today in support of the
bill as cleared by the conference com-
mittee because, while it does not con-
tain all that many of us would like,
it is a responsible bill and one which
I can recommend and endorse. A
strong vote in the Senate would give
a clear indication that we support
the major items of increase which I
have discussed but if anyone here
does not support these measures, I
think now is the time for him or
them to be heard.
While I feel that the Senate con-
ferees did an excellent job of sustain-
ing the Senate position on the bill
generally, there were some points on
which we were compelled to recede
but I can assure you that we did so
most reluctantly and only after it
was made quite clear that we had no
alternative. One of these was amend-
ment No. 62, sponsored by the senior
Senator from Washington (MR. MAG-
NUSON), which directed the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to obligate at least $200
million to reimburse those municipal-
ities which constructed waste treat-
ment facilities between 1956-66 with-
out receiving their full Federal
share of construction costs.
This amendment had broad sup-
port in the Senate, and several Sena-
tors contacted me in reference to it
but we were faced with a situation
in which we simply could not con-
vince the House conferees on the mer-
its of this proposal. I think my col-
leagues on the conference committee
will agree that we would be confer-
ring yet, today, if we had continued
to insist on adoption of the Senate
amendment. We have several items
in this bill, school milk for example,
which have not fared well under the
| continuing resolution and for that
reason we felt it imperative that the
bill not be subjected to further de-
lay—for that reason, we receded on
amendment No. 62.
The same thing holds true for
amendment No. 50, the one involving
the necessity for EPA to file environ-
mental impact statements. Here,
again, this involved lengthy and de-
tailed discussions. It was originally
brought up for discussion on Mon-
day, the first day of our conference,
and was passed over until Wednes-
day when we reconvened. In the in-
terim, Senator FONG, the subcommit-
tee's ranking member, and a member
of my staff met EPA officials and
discussed this matter at length in
an effort to have all of the ammuni-
tion possible to sustain the Senate's
! position. At our Wednesday meeting,
all of the arguments were made most
forcibly—principally by the Senator
! from Hawaii—but to no avail. From
comments made during the official
conference, and from some private
conversations I have had with mem-
! bers of the House committee, it was
apparent that the House Members
i spoke with one voice on this matter
and there was no chance that they
would recede and accept the Senate
language.
EPA officials told us that the en-
vironmental explanations which they
have planned to prepare actually
! would contain most of the informa-
tion required by environmental im-
pact statements but they did not want
I to be bound by the requirements of a
formal statement. This argument
was not persuasive with the House
, conferees, however, and they were
most adamant in sustaining the
{ House position.
! [p. S18975]
I Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the
bill reported from conference would
appropriate $5,000,000 "for the prep-
aration of environmental impact
-------
290
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
statements as required by section pollution sources under the Federal
102 (2) (c) of the National Environ- Water Pollution Con-
mental Policy Act on all proposed j [p. S18976]
actions by the Environmental Pro- trol Act. Section 511(c)(l) and the
tection Agency, except where pro-
hibited by law." The ambiguous
legislative history of that act clearly
state that all of the provisions of
language of this section requires | NEPA are to apply to those two
specific activities. Except for that
some clarification, since an unwar-
ranted and improper construction of
it could call into question the settled
relationship of the National Environ-
narrow extension of NEPA's cover-
age authorized under section 511 (c)
(1), the Congress has never wavered
mental Policy Act—NEPA—to the from the intention expressed in en-
regulatory activities of the Environ- acting NEPA that the legislative
mental Protection Agency—EPA.
Therefore, I would first like to ask
the Senator from Wyoming whether
the conferees intended for this lan-
guage to change or modify existing
substantive law in any way?
Mr. McGEE. The answer, of course,
to the question raised by the Senator
from Maine is, "No." As we all know,
mandates of the environmental im-
provement agencies—now EPA—
were not to be changed in any way
by NEPA.
The courts have enforced this legis-
lative intent in dealing with the ques-
tion of NEPA's application to the
EPA's regulatory functions. In sev-
eral recent Clean Air Act decisions—
it would not be in order for the (including Appalachian Power Co.
Congress to legislate through the ve-, against EPA, Getty Oil Co. against
hide of an appropriations bill. In Ruckelshaus, Anaconda Co. against
fact when the House passed this bill j Ruckelshaus, Portland Cement As-
on June 15 a point of order was (sociation against Ruchelshaus, and
raised on aspects of this item. The others—several circuit courts of ap-
House manager, Mr. WHITTEN, j peals have held uniformiy that the
struck that part of this provision, law prohibits the application of
which was legislation. I can only as- ! NEPA to the EPA's regulatory func-
sume that the remainder to which i tions.
you refer was not considered legisla- j Mr' McGEE. In view of the Senator
turn in the other body either or it from Maine,g knowledge on this com.
also would have been stricken. j plgx j^ T wouW regpect hig yiew
Mr. MUSKIE. In that case, let j of the law on this question. In that
me outline for the benefit of the Sena- connection, I would point out that
tor my understanding of the existing tne ianguage of the section which
law governing the application of j we are discussing provides explicitly
NEPA to the EPA. I would appre-1 that the funds appropriated are to
ciate knowing whether it corresponds I be used only for the preparation of
to the view of the law held by the ; impact statements where such state-
Senate conferees when they agreed to j ments are not prohibited by existing
accept this amendment. Under exist-j law.
ing statutory and case law, the only) Mr. MUSKIE. Am I correct, then,
instances wherein the EPA is re- j in my understanding that the Ian-
quired to prepare environmental im-' guage of this section should be con-
pact statements are in connection
with the making of waste treatment
strued to provide funds for the EPA
to prepare environmental impact
construction grants and the issuance i statements where the Agency is re-
of discharge permits for new water quired to do so by existing law?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
291
Mr. McGEE. Yes. |
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator,
and I express to him my appreciation j
for helping to make available the
funding necessary to expedite the
Agency's environmental regulatory
and improvement efforts with which i
we are all so deeply concerned.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I wish
to express my complete endorsement
of the statements made by the most
able chairman of the Air and Water
Pollution Subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Public Works (Mr.
MUSKIE), and of the distinguished
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. McGEE)
who is the Senate manager of the
pending conference report. I believe
that they have fully and carefully
laid out the appropriate interpreta-
tion of the language of the confer-
ence report which calls "for the prep-
aration of the environmental impact j
statements as required by section
102(2) (c) of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act on all proposed I
actions by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, except where prohibited
by law."
Without any intention to prolong
further the discussion of this matter,
I would like to ask the distinguished
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. FONG)
whether he concurs with the state-
ments which have been made to the
effect that, in adopting this section,
the conference committee did not in-
tend to modify existing substantive
law and that the intention was solely
to provide an appropriation of funds
for EPA to prepare impact state-
ments for activities which are now I
covered by existing law.
Mr. FONG. Yes, I believe it is clear
that the conference committee did not
intend to modify existing substantive
law and that the intention was solely !
to provide an appropriation of funds j
for EPA to prepare impact state-
ments for activities which are now
covered by existing law.
Mr. President, by way of back-
ground on this issue, we must search
the House debate on the agricultural
environmental and consumer protec-
tion appropriations bill (H.R. 8619),
the same bill on which we are now
considering the conference report.
As originally reported by the
House Appropriations Committee,
H.R. 8619 contained the following
provision:
For an amount to provide for the prepara-
tion of Environmental Impact Statements
as required by section 102 (2) (C) of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act on all pro-
posed actions by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, except where prohibited by law,
along with a statement setting forth the eco-
nomic, including the increased cost to the
consumer and the producer, and the technical
considerations as specified by section 102(2)
(B) of the same Act, $5,000,000.
Points of order were raised in the
House against this provision on the
ground it contained legislation in an
appropriation bill. Specifically, it was
contended that the language "along
with a statement setting forth the
economic, including the increased cost
to the consumer and the producer,
and the technical considerations as
specified by section 102 (2) (B) of the
same Act"—meaning the National
Environmental Policy Act—was leg-
islation in an appropriation bill. The
point of order raised noted that this
language imposed a duty on EPA to
file an additional statement not pres-
ently required by law.
The floor manager of the bill in the
House thereupon moved to strike the
portion I just quoted and the House
concurred.
The language as passed by the
House then read:
For an amount to provide for the prepara-
tion of Environmental Impact Statements as
required by section 102 (2) (C) of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act on all pro-
posed actions by the Environmental Protection
Agency, except where prohibited by law,
$5,000,000.
When H.R. 8619 came over to the
Senate, we changed the language to
-------
292
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
require "environmental explana-
tions," rather than environmental
impact statements as stated in the
House version.
The Senate provision in H.R. 8619
read as follows:
For an amount to provide for the prepara-
tion of environmental explanations on all
proposed actions by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, $5,000,000.
As we all know, the rules of both
the House and the Senate prohibit
legislation in an appropriation bill.
Sometimes, however, legislation is
enacted in an appropriation bill be-
cause no point of order was raised
against it. In this instance, a point
of order was raised against legisla-
tive language in the environmental
impact provision of H.R. 8619 when
it was before the House.
It is clear, therefore, that in the
pending agriculture bill we cannot
add to, nor subtract from, the au-
thorizing statutes governing the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
The House provision which con-
feres adopted, although different from
the Senate provision, can not add to
nor subtract from, existing law gov-
erning the Environmental Protection
Agency. The chairman of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee which
handled H.R. 8619 indicated no in-
tention to legislate in this bill when
he moved to strike the language that
did constitute legislation in an ap-
propriation bill.
As the Environmental Protection
Agency already prepares impact
statements on its grant activities and
as the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Amendments of 1972 specifically
exempt water related regulatory ac-
tivities from the impact statement
requirement of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, the provision in
the pending measure (H.R. 8619) re-
lates only to the other environmen-
tally protective regulatory activities
of EPA, activities for which a sub-
stantial body of evidence indicates
EPA is excluded from the NEPA im-
pact statement requirements.
The legislative history of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act in-
dicates that Congress intended for en-
vironmental regulatory activities to
be exempt from the NEPA impact
statement requirements.
Further, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, in their original
guidelines implementing NEPA,
dated April 23, 1971, provided an
exemption from the impact statement
process for EPA's environmentally
protective regulatory activities.
As I mentioned before, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments
of 1972 provide a specific exemption
from the impact statement require-
ment of NEPA for water related
! regulatory activities.
Several recent decisions of the U.S.
court of appeals have upheld EPA's
i position that the impact statement
| process does not apply to its regula-
tory activities.
In view of the legislative history
of NEPA; in view of the interpreta-
tions that have been made by com-
petent bodies that EPA's regulatory
activities are excluded from the
NEPA impact statement process; in
view of the fact that an appropria-
tions bill cannot alter the text of
existing law; in view of the fact that
the chairman of the House Appropria-
tions Subcommittee, who wrote the
language that was in the House
version and is retained in the con-
ference version, indicated no inten-
tion to legislate in this provision;
j and in view of the fact that there is
no language in H.R. 8619 mandating
! that the $5,000,000 be spent, as one
conferee I hold that EPA is not re-
; quired to do anything more or less
than required by existing law.
If there is a question as to whether
! or not EPA must file environmental
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
293
impact statements on its regulatory
activities, this should be decided by
the Congress in separate authorizing
legislation, first considered by the
proper committees, and not in an ap-
propriation bill.
We, in Congress, surely do not
want to be in the position of tying,
through
[p. S18977]
appropriations, the regulatory hands
of the very agency we have created
to regulate air, water, noise, and
other pollution control problems in
our country. EPA has already given
notice in the Federal Register of its
intentions to issue "environmental
explanations" on its regulatory ac-
tivities beginning next January 1.
As I noted earlier, it is already is-
suing environmental impact state-
ments on its grant activities, except
where not required by the Water Pol-
lution Control Amendments of 1972.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I move
the adoption of the conference re-
port.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the con-
ference report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. S18978]
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLU-
TION 315—CORRECTION OF
AN ENGROSSED BILL
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I ask
the Chair to lay before the Senate a
message from the House on House
Concurrent Resolution 315.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid
before the Senate House Concurrent
Resolution 315 which was read as
follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring), That the Clerk of
the House of Representatives, in the enroll-
ment of the bill (H.R. 8619) making ap-
propriations for Agriculture-Environmental
and Consumer Protection programs for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for
other purposes, is authorized and directed
to make the following change: In lieu of the
word "Community" on pages 21, line 23, of the
House engrossed bill, insert the word "Com-
modity".
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I ask
i unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of this concurrent re-
solution.
' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
I there objection?
, There being no objection, the con-
current resolution (H. Con. Res. 315)
was considered and agreed to.
[p. S18984]
-------
294 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.17e SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
January 3 1974, P.L. 93-245, 87 Stat. 1071.
An Act
Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, to supply supplemental appropria-
tions (this Act may be cited as the "Supplemental Appropria-
tions Act, 1974") for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and
for other purposes, namely:
CHAPTER I
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREIGN AGRICULTURE SERVICE
For an additional amount for "Foreign Agricultural Service",
$1,300,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
For an additional amount for "Research and Development",
$10,500,000.
No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be used
by the Environment Protection Agency to administer any pro-
gram to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities.
1.17e(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
H.R. Rep. No. 93-663, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1974
NOVEMBER 26, 1973.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. MAHON, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 295
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11576]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following re-
port in explanation of the accompanying bill making supple-
mental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
and for other purposes.
[p.l]
-------
296
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
w
I
[p. 4]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 297
CHAPTER I
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE-ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
JAMIE L. WRITTEN, Mississippi, Chairman
GEOKGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois BOB CASEY, Texas
FRANK E. EVANS, Colorado MARK ANDREWS, North Dakota
BILL D. BURLISON, Missouri ROBERT H. MICHELL, Illinois
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa
NEAL SMITH, Iowa J. KENNETH ROBINSON, Virginia
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,500,000
for additional research and development activities of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. These additional funds will be used
to accelerate the development of technology to control the emis-
sion of air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources and to
accelerate research on the health and environmental impacts of
air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels. The expanded
research in these activities is to provide immediate knowledge
and technology for more nearly controlling air pollution from
the use and consumption of coal and other fuels, seemingly now
necessary.
The agency had requested that these funds be "available until
expended," however, because of the emergency nature of this
problem, the Committee recommends that these funds be obligated
this fiscal
[p. 6]
year. If they cannot be used effectively, the subject can be dealt
with in the regular bill.
Testimony before the Committee confirms that many of the
agency's earlier decisions and actions were made without ade-
quate consideration of either their environmental or economic
impact. Since the results of some of these earlier decisions and
actions seem to be highly questionable, the Committee directs
that the agency restudy them and report their findings to the
appropriate committees of Congress.
The Committee is convinced that the Agency has been drag-
ging its feet on advising the public of the economic impact
of many of its decisions. Had the public been informed in ad-
-------
298 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
vance of the potential economic consequences of many of EPA's
rules and regulations, many of these actions would have been
considered unwise and too costly in relation to the benefits to be
received. The Committee feels it is absolutely essential that the
American people be fully informed of the costs and likely effect
of environmental efforts so that they can weigh the cost versus
the benefits.
[p. 7]
1.17e(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
S. REP. No. 93-614, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1974
DECEMBER 11, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. McCLELLAN, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11576]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 11576) making supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for other purposes, reports
the same to the Senate with various amendments and presents
herewith information relative to the changes recommended.
Amount of bill as passed by House $1,433,035,718
Amount of increase by Senate 375,889,668
Total of bill as reported to Senate 1,808,925,386
Estimates considered by House 1,428,790,218
Estimates considered by Senate 1,534,183,886
The bill as reported to the Senate: Over the bud-
get estimate 274,741,500
[p.l]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
299
z
^t
o
SI*
^is
°"S
+st
'—'C °
(DO)"
tflCO
"8*3
^
[p. 2]
-------
300 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
1974 Appropriations to date $157,775,000
Prior year unobligated balance _ ._ . _ (9,000,000)
1974 Supplemental estimate . .. _. 10,500,000
House allowance _ _ 10,500,000
Committee recommendation - 10,500,000
For the research and development activities of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the Committee recommends a supple-
mental appropriation of $10,500,000. This is the same amount as
the budget estimate and the House allowance.
These additional funds are provided to accelerate the develop-
ment and demonstration of new and improved technology for
controlling emissions from stationary sources of air pollution
(to enable industry to use coal, particularly high sulphur coal,
without harming the environment or having to seek variances
from applicable air quality standards); to expand health and en-
vironmental effects research efforts; and to accelerate the develop-
ment and demonstration of improved technology for controlling
emissions from automobiles.
The Committee concurs with the House in recommending that
these funds be obligated this fiscal year.
[p. 7]
The Committee also concurs with the House limitation and has
incorporated the following language in the bill:
No part of any funds appropriated under this Act
may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency
to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise
regulate parking facilities.
The Committee recommends that the appropriate authorizing
Committees of Congress review EPA programs and regulations
and obtain from EPA an analysis of the implications of those
programs and regulations.
[p. 8]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
301
z
o
o
<
Q
I
OI-O
00
oo
00
"
t-> ^
ii»i
C3S°
s§
OO
=8 8
=g g g
° R. c»
OO O , CM
CM O '-*
1
[p. 9]
-------
302 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
1.17e(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 93-736, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1974, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
DECEMBER 17, 1973. — Ordered to be printed
Mr. MAHON, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11576]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
lllVifft) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 80, 1974, and for other purposes, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do rec-
ommend to their respective Houses as follows:
**********
[P. 1]
.10UMT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE
OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11576) making
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974, and for other purposes, submit the following joint state-
ment to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of
the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the
conference report:
Amendment No, 1: The following provision in the opening
paragraph of the Senate bill, "and shall be made available for
expenditure except as specifically provided by law" was not
•vgreed to b> the conferees because it was deemed to be an un-
restatement of existing- provisions of law. It was there-
deleted without prejudice.
[P. 7]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 303
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Amendment No. 4: Restores House language deleted by the
Senate. The House language prohibits the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency from using funds to administer any program to
tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities.
[P-8]
1.17e(4) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 93-745, 93rd Cong., 1st (1973).
MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIS-
CAL YEAR 1974
DECEMBER 20, 1973.—Ordered to be printed
Mr, MAHON, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11576]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
11576) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974, and for other purposes, having met, after
further full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 1, 2,
4, 25, 39, 44, 69, 78, 85, 88, 93, 96, 99, and 101.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 23, 27, 28,
30, 32, 33, 46, 49, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 81,
82, 98, 105, 106, and 107.
And agree to the same. [p. 1]
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE
OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at
the further conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11576) making
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974, and for other purposes, submit the following joint state-
-------
304
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
ment to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of
the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the
accompanying conference report:
Amendment No. 1: The following provision in the opening
paragraph of the Senate bill, "and shall be made available for
expenditure except as specifically provided by law" was not
agreed to by the conferees because it was deemed to be an un-
necessary restatement of existing provisions of law. It was there-
fore deleted without prejudice.
[p. T]
CHAPTER I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Amendment No. 4: Restores House language deleted by the
Senate. The House language prohibits the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency from using funds to administer any program to
tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities.
[p. 8]
1.17e(5) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 119(1973)
1.17e(5)(a) Nov. 30: Considered and passed House, pp. H10424,
H10426-H10429;
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIA-
TIONS BILL, 1974
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 11576)
making supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974, and for other purposes; and
pending that motion. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that general
debate be limited to 1 hour, the time
to be equally divided and controlled
by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. CEDERBERG) and myself.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. H10424]
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to lend my strong support to the
provisions in the supplemental ap-
propriations measure which pro-
vide $50 million in additional funds
for energy related work. In partic-
ular, I would call the attention of
my colleagues to the $25 million ear-
marked for the vital -work of the
Department of the Interior's Office
of Coal Research.
It has been estimated that coal re-
serves in the United States alone
amount to more than 1 trillion tons.
So vast is this reserve that experts
have recently been quoted as saying
that these reserves could serve as a
major source of energy for 400 years.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
305
Of that amount, some 97 percent is
available only through deep mining,
according to Russell Train, Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
These figures alone suggest the
great importance of coal as a poten-
tial energy source, for the midterm.
Certainly, for the long term, we shall
wish to concentrate on developing
nonfossil fuel sources. Problems do
stand in the way of greater utiliza-
tion of these coal reserves, however.
American deep mining techniques are
considered to be antiquated by Euro-
pean standards, for example. In ad-
dition, much of our coal is of a high-
sulfur, high-ash content variety
which cannot meet clean air stand-
ards.
Therefore, it is urgent for this Na-
tion to get on with the job of finding
ways to get at and utilize these coal
reserves. It is this latter point which
is specifically addressed in this legis-
lation.
The Office of Coal Research has
been pursuing several promising ave-
nues of research into coal gasifica-
tion and liquefaction. Pilot plants in
Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
and New Jersey have begun to de-
velop these various techniques needed
to obtain useful fuel from our coal
reserves.
One very interesting, and promis-
ing, process is known as the solvent
refined coal method. In lay terms,
this process "melts" coal, removes the
high sulfur and ash content, and can
then turn the material into a liquid
fuel—such as is already being- used
to power the U.S.S. Johnson, a U.S.
naval destroyer—it can gasify the
coal, or it can resolidify the coal
into environmentally clean coal. Some
of our technicians tell me that we
can expect the emergence of a com-
mercial gasified coal industry by the
end of the decade, if adequate re-
sources are committed to the neces-
sary energy R. & D. programs.
Certainly, the money provided in
this legislation, while far from
enough to do the whole job, will pro-
vide needed funding for this urgent
coal, and other energy, R. & D. work.
If we are ever to become energy
self-sufficient, in particular for the
midterm period ahead, we must move
with all deliberate speed to develop
alternatives to oil as a source of
energy. I again urge the full support
of my colleagues for this vital effort.
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chair-
man, I have no further request for
time and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further request for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
KESEAUCH AND DEVELOPMENT
For an additional amount for "Research
and Development", $10,500,000.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. LEGGETT
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LEGGETT : Page
2, immediately after line 9, insert the follow-
ing new paragraph:
No part of any funds appropriated under
this Act may be used by the Environmental
Protection Agency to administer any program
to tax limit, or otherwise regulate parking
facilities . . .
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I
have always supported the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in the past,
and expect to continue to support it
in most cases in the future. I en-
thusiastically support vigorous ef-
forts to purify our air and water,
even though in many cases they are
inconvenient and costly.
But as is the case with fine wine,
what is good in small or moderate
doses can be disastrous in excess.
And EPA's proposed parking regula-
tions just have to win the prize for
excess of the decade.
-------
306
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
In the Los Angeles area, EPA
wants to charge all owners and op-
erators of free parking lots of more
than five spaces an annual surcharge
increasing to $450 per space in 1976.
This surcharge cannot be passed on
to the consumer, but must be ab-
sorbed by the lot owner. Thus, the
free parking spaces will become an
intolerable financial burden; one
chain of stores has told me the total
parking surcharge will approach the
level of its Federal income tax. As
a result, the parking spaces will have
to be abolished or converted to paid
spaces.
Next, EPA wants to raise the price
of paid commercial parking by im-
position of a massive tax of as much
as $2 per day. In the Washington,
D.C., area, EPA would also require
the large number of Government of-
fice parking spaces to charge pre-
vailing commercial rates and to pay
a surcharge on top of that, with the
result that, by 1976, presently free
parking spaces will cost $6 and $7
per day.
Finally and most ill-advisedly,
EPA is setting out to mandate di-
rectly the reduction of parking
spaces. In the Sacramento area in
my district, EPA is requiring a 20-
percent reduction in the total num-
ber of parking spaces by 1975. Park-
ing lots will have to simply rope off
one-fifth of their spaces, paint yellow
X's on them, and prevent people from
using them.
EPA's goal is to reduce automo-
bile use by 57 percent in the Los
Angeles area, 49 percent in the Sac-
ramento Valley, and 65 percent in
the San Francisco Bay area.
EPA section 52.251, published in
the Federal Register this November
12, prohibits the creation of more
than 50 new parking spaces by any-
one in various areas of California
unless it can be demonstrated that
the new spaces will not interfere
with the creation or maintenance of
any air quality standard for 10 years.
Since future residential and indus-
trial patterns are impossible to pre-
dict with such precision, this regu-
lation will effectively ban the con-
struction of all new apartments, in-
dustrial plants, universities, hospit-
als, and shopping centers. The only
possible exception would be for a
"company town" or military base
kind of arrangement in which all the
workers live adjacent to their place
of work and can commute either by
foot or by company-supplied mass
transit; obviously, the number of
cases in which this arrangement will
be possible or desirable is so small
as to be negligible. So EPA is, in
short, mandating complete stagnation.
In California a facility without a
parking lot is a facility that cannot
be used.
Ironically, many of these new fa-
cilities might well reduce automobile
travel, by obviating longer trips
people in the area would otherwise
have to make to a more distant fa-
cility.
Gentlemen, I suggest that in this
case EPA has taken a good cause and
hardened it to the point of counter-
productive dogma. Consider what will
happen if we reduce the number of
parking spaces. Consider what hap-
pens in downtown areas we have
known where parking is presently
insufficient:
Traffic is not reduced, nor is air
pollution. Both, are increased. The
streets become choked with automo-
biles and drivers trying to get at the
few parking spaces remaining. Aver-
age speeds drop to less than a walk-
ing pace, resulting in the maximum
conceivable level of polluting ex-
haust emission. Tempers get shorter
and horn blows get longer, adding
noise pollution to the exhaust pollu-
tion—this is New York, a living city
where a parking place costs as much
as a hotel room.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
307
If EPA deliberately creates situa-
tions like this in our major cities,
imagine what the American people
will think as they circle the block
again and again, weaving between
the double parkers and triple parkers,
burning precious rationed fuel while
they wait for a space to open up.
As they burn with resentment of the
dozens of invitingly empty but unus-
able roped-off parking spaces, their
thoughts regarding the entire environ-
mental movement will be unprinta-
ble. EPA will be discredited, and so
will we in the Congress if we allow
this to happen.
It is true we could do without the
parking spaces if we had adequate
mass transit, and that reduction of
parking provides an incentive to im-
prove our mass transit.
It is also true that our national
priorities are distorted, and that we
should have spent far more than we
have on mass transit. It is true that
there is something wrong with prior-
ities that require us to buy fuel for
our energy policy director's gas-guz-
zling limousine, that require us to
spend $3 billion for an aircraft car-
rier we do not
[p. H10426]
need and three-quarters of a trillion
dollars for a war we did not need,
but which regard necessary mass
transit expenditures as inflationary
and budget busting.
I say let us spend what we need
for mass transit, but let us not make
life intolerable for the average Amer-
ican in the meantime. The energy
crunch is going to do more than
enough to reduce automobile traffic
and inconvenience all of us; let us
not add to the disaster by allowing
some well-meaning EPA bureaucrats
to run hog wild.
So let us get EPA out of the park-
ing business, completely and perma-
nently. Let us not lose sight of our
objective, which is not clean air per
se but maximum quality of life. Let
us not forget that, while clean air
contributes to the quality of life be-
yond question, so does adequate and
convenient transportation. As we
would not return to the smog-choked
days of before the birth of EPA,
let us also not return to the unpol-
luted days of the stone age. They
were not too nice, either.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEGGETT. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS. This section does
not provide for money to apply to
the parking problem. It is simply
for research on different matters. So
I do not think it is germane; but
nevertheless, I understand the gen-
tleman's concern. Our committee, too,
is concerned and I believe it should
be appropriately raised in the legis-
lative committee.
Let me just mention this, if I
may—
Mr. LEGGETT. Is it possible to
pass such legislation before this reg-
ulation becomes final next month
in California?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes; it is possible
if the legislative committee acts.
Mr. LEGGETT. Is it probable?
Mr. ROGERS. It is quite possible.
We are holding hearings Monday and
Tuesday of this coming week to try
to see about some of these problems,
the energy problem and all, and I
hope we can get to some decision.
I share the gentleman's concern on
the issue.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the necessary number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend
the gentleman from California (Mr.
LEGGETT) for a very timely and use-
ful and, very sensible statement.
Even though, as the gentleman from
Florida suggests, it may not affect this
particular bill, at least it is a mes-
-------
308
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
sage to one of the legislative com-
mittees of this Congress that it ought
to get busy on a very important prob-
lem that affects so disastrously so
many areas in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gen-
tleman's amendment.
Mr. BURGENER. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support on the amendment.
(Mr. BURGENER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BURGENER. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the motion of
my colleague from California (Mr.
LEGGETT) as a means of saying, loud
and clear, that the regulations which
have been promulgated by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency for
transportation control in the area
I represent would be nothing less
than an economic and social disaster.
For over 20 years local govern-
ments have been passing ordinances
requiring offstreet parking in proj-
ects within their jurisdiction. There
were valid, public interest reasons
for these requirements; relief of con-
gestion from busy streets, conven-
ience for nearby homeowners, and
proper management of our land re-
sources.
During these 20 years industry has
been required to foot the bill for
these facilities, and properly so. Those
who would build a plant were re-
quired to build a parking lot. Those
who would build a shopping center
were required to build a parking lot.
This was, and, I suspect, still is
good policy.
Now, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, without any visable
serious consideration of the economic
impact of their decision, has decreed
that we must perform a retroactive
about-face. Not only are we to dis-
courage the construction of new park-
ing facilities, we are to penalize those
who complied with legal requirements
to build these facilities by placing a
surcharge or tax on their property.
The committee report on this meas-
ure, on page 7, accuses the EPA
of "dragging its feet on advising
the public of the economic impact of
many of its decisions." Nothing
could be clearer than the fact that
the parking regulations issued by
the EPA constitute a very real
threat to the economic well-being of
literally millions of residents of
southern California.
The passage of this motion is but
one way for the Congress to say to
the EPA "you have gone too far, you
have exceeded the mandate we gave
you in passing the Clean Air Act,
you must reevaluate your actions."
I urge the Members to vote "aye."
(Mr. WRITTEN asked and was
given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the necessary number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak for
the committee, but I have no objec-
tion to this amendment. I agree that
the funds in this particular section
are not for this purpose. In this
particular section, the funds are for
the purpose of additional research to
obtain answers that the EPA should
have had long before they issued lots
of orders which they have issued.
Mr. Chairman, I might also say
that in the report and in the action
of the Congress, we directed that
hereafter the agency, EPA, give us
the benefit of findings by them-
selves before taking such type ac-
tion. While the money here is not
for that purpose, I think it is well
that this amendment be adopted here
so as to serve notice to EPA to get
back to its primary purpose, and if
persent law gives them any claimed
authority such as they are attempt-
ing to enforce in the way of park-
ing tax as that the Administration
be smart enough not to attempt such
action.
The public will not put up with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
309
such actions, the economy will be un-
able to stand such action, and in the
long run the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency will lose for us much
of the progress we have made in
restoring the environment.
We expect to take appropriate
action on the regular bill to prohibit
such actions when the regular ap-
propriation for this agency comes up
early next year.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I
would like to advise the House of the
actions taken by our committee with
respect to the supplemental funds
for the Foreign Agricultural Service
and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I read from the
report regarding the Foreign Agri-
cultural Service:
The Committee recommends an appropria-
tion of $1,000,000, a reduction of $628,000
below the budget estimate, to offset the
impact on overseas programs in fiscal year
1974 of the 1973 devaluation of the dollar.
Of the total amount provided, $286,000
is for Agricultural Attaches and $715,000 is
for Market Development.
Notwithstanding the current situation re-
garding agricultural exports, the committee
feels that in view of the outlook for a big
crop this year and the need under normal
conditions to export approximately 30 per-
cent for a prosperous U.S. agriculture which
in turn benefits the overall economy, a vigor-
ous market development program should be
continued in foreign countries so that when
the world agricultural production situation
changes, the United States will be in a com-
petitive position to market its production.
The committee is of the opinion, however,
that the reduction of $628,000 below the
budget estimate can be absorbed without im-
pairing the efficiency of the market develop-
ment program if additional administrative
economies are instituted.
Mr. Chairman, I read from the re-
port reagarding the Environmental
Protection Agency:
The committee recommends an appropria-
tion of $10,500,000 for additional research
and development activities of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. These additional
funds will be used to accelerate the develop-
ment of technology to control the emission
of air pollutants from stationary and mobile
sources and to accelerate research on the
health and environmental impacts of air pol-
lution caused by the use of fossil fuels. The
expanded research in these activities is to
provide immediate knowledge and technology
for more nearly controlling air pollution from
the use and consumption of coal and other
fuels, seemingly now necessary.
The agency had requested that these funds
be "available until expended," however, be-
cause of the emergency nature of this prob-
lem, the Committee recommends that these
funds be obligated this fiscal year. If they
cannot be used effectively, the subject can
be dealt with in the regular bill.
Testimony before the Committee confirms
that many of the agency's earlier decisions
and actions were made without adequate con-
sideration of either their environmental or
economic impact. Since the results of some
of these earlier decisions and actions seem
to be highly questionable, the committee di-
rects that the agency restudy them and re-
port their findings to the appropriate com-
mittees of Congress.
The Committee is convinced that the
Agency has been dragging its feet on advising
the public of the economic impact of many
of its decisions. Had the public been informed
in advance of the potential economic con-
sequences of many EPA's rules and regula-
tions, many of these actions would have been
considered unwise and too costly in relation
to the benefits to be received. The Committee
feels it is absolutely essential that the
American people be fully informed of the
[p. H10427]
costs and likely effect of environmental ef-
forts so that they can weigh the cost versus
the benefits.
Mr. CASEY of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRITTEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texa,3.
Mr. CASEY of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, my subcommittee chairman will
recall that we went into this very
thoroughly, because I was quite ex-
ercised about the proposed regulations
in Texas, and I would refresh the
memory of some of my colleagues
that we were hit first in Texas, and
when I exploded a little on the floor
of the House about it, some of you
were not too concerned because it
had not hit you yet.
However, EPA is hitting everyone
now. I think we had better unite,
because I think that Agency is as-
suming authority it has no function
-------
310
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
to assume and no legal right to as-
sume.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Chairman,
I can add to that and say that un-
less we in Congress attempt to help
hold this Agency back, it will have
abolished itself, judging by public
reaction to recent orders and an-
nouncements by the Agency.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
would agree that there is no reason
not to adopt this amendment since
the funds do not go to it anyhow
and it is an expression of our con-
cern, but I do not think it has
any legislative effect.
Therefore, I have no objection to
the amendment.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. ROUSSELOT asked and was
given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the amendment
by the gentleman from California
(Mr. LEGGETT). I would like to re-
mind some of my colleagues, as
others have here today and in the
past that this agency, the EPA, is
attempting to assume substantial
powers unto itself. It is going to
require, as the gentlemen of this com-
mittee, and those of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
have said that the Congress is going
to have to watch EPA's actions much
more closely, because these regula-
tors believe they have almost total
power to do as they see fit. Although
we are all genuinely concerned about
improving the environment in our Na-
tion, I think we are finally learning
that when we legislate so broadly,
an overzealous agency just assumes
unto itself incredible dictatorial
powers, always in the name of "the
public good." Some of the regulators
in the EPA have assumed the atti-
tude that most Americans are chil-
dren when it comes to protecting the
environment, and only "they" and
Ralph Nader have a corner on in-
telligence in this field.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I yield to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, it
seems very evident to me that there
is considerable unanimity among
the Members of the House in regard
to this amendment. Therefore, I sug-
gest we accept the amendment and
move on.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr.
LEGGETT) .
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was
given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in general support of H.R. 11576.
On page 14 of House report No.
93-663, the committee states that
the bill includes $6,940,000 for the
Forest Service and together with 333
additional positions "to manage the
1 billion board feet increase in the
timber sales program announced by
the Cost of Living Council on March
26, 1973."
This expanded timber sales pro-
gram is a major Federal action signif-
icantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. It is also of
dubious value in light of our cur-
rent energy shortage which is bound
to have an adverse effect on the fuel
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
311
requirements of the homebuilding in-
dustry, making the need for this sale
less and less appropriate. The For-
est Service has failed, thus far, to
prepare an impact statement con-
cerning this sales program as re-
quired by section 102(2) (C) of
NEPA and initiated the program on
July 1, 1973, without an impact state-
ment.
I note that the Natural Resources
Defense Council has filed suit against
Secretary Butz—Civil Action No.
1358-73—seeking a summary judg-
ment declaring defendants to be in
violation of NEPA and enjoining
them from proceeding further with
the expanded timber sales program.
The court has not, as yet ruled on
this matter.
I take this opportunity to note my
understanding that, consistent with
current judicial holdings, the enact-
ment of this bill will have no effect
on the Forest Service's failure to
comply with NEPA. The claim of
illegality remains to be resolved by
the court. If there is a violation of
NEPA as many of us claim, the
court will supply the remedy.
Mr. Chairman, I note the following
comments on page 7 of the House
Report, supra:
Testimony before the Committee confirms
that many of the agency's earlier decisions
and actions were made without adequate
consideration of either their environmental
or economic impact. Since the results of some
of these earlier decisions and actions seem
to be highly questionable, the Committee di-
rects that the agency restudy them and re-
port their findings to the approprite com-
mittees of Congress.
The Committee is convinced that the Agency
has been dragging its feet on advising the
public to the economic impact of many of its
decisions. Had the public been informed in
advance of the potential economic consequences
of many of EPA's rules and regulations, many
of these actions would have been considered
unwise and too costly in relation to the bene-
fits to be received. The Committee feels it is
absolutely essential that the American people
be fully informed of the costs and likely effect
of environmental efforts so that they can
weigh the cost versus the benefits.
Mr. Chairman, for nearly 2 years
now the committee, in reporting out
an appropriation bill affecting EPA,
has made similar statements and is-
sued similar directives. On previous
occasions such directives were in-
cluded in the bill itself. On such oc-
casions the directives were deleted
from the bill in the Committee of
the Whole because they were in viola-
tion of the rules of the House. When
this last occurred in June of this
year, I and many of my colleagues
had hoped that the matter had ended.
But obviously it has not.
I share the committee's view that
EPA has not given adequate consid-
eration to the effects of many of its
actions, such as its decisions last
January and February to arbitrarily
exempt thousands of feedlots from
the permit requirements of section 402
of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, on grounds
of administrative convenience, rather
than on pollution control grounds.
This decision is now under intensive
investigation by the House Committee
on Government Operations, Sub-
committee on Conservation and Nat-
ural Resources, as noted in the news
media today. But I find the com-
mittee's directive to be too vague and
sweeping and clearly inconsistent
with present requirements of con-
gressional acts.
The committee is right in chastis-
ing EPA for its failure to consider
adequately the environmental and
economic impacts of its actions. The
National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 requires that Federal agen-
cies prepare environmental impact
statements for major Federal ac-
tions having a significant effect on
the quality of the human environ-
ment. If these statements are prop-
erly prepared, they will fully cover
the economic impacts as well. Except
for its permit program, EPA is re-
quired by NEPA to prepare such
statements. But EPA has not done
-------
312
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
so. Indeed, section 501 of the FWPC
Act, as amended, adds further em-
phasis to NEPA by specifically
directing that EPA prepare such
statements in connection with its
waste treatment grants. But EPA
has once again failed to comply with
the law and, unfortunately, left it-
self wide open to law suits in con-
nection with many of these grants.
Last, June the General Accounting
Office ruled that EPA must comply
with NEPA. On September 27, 1973,
I transmitted that ruling to EPA
and asked EPA when it would begin
to comply with the law. I have, as
yet, received no response.
The FWPC Act also provides that,
in many actions, EPA must consider
economic factors. They have in some
cases done so, but in others, EPA has
not. Also some of their analyses are
not adequate.
I appreciate the committee's com-
ments and reminder that EPA is not
complying with the law. But, as I
have noted, Congress has provided a
means by which the committee's quite
proper objectives can and should be
achieved. Let us turn our
[p. H10428]
attention toward EPA complying
with these laws rather than adding
new directives, not considered by the
entire Congress, which are vague and
of questionable value.
[p. H10429]
1.17e(5)(b) Dec. 12: Considered and passed Senate amended, pp.
S22682-S22685, S22700;
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The second assistant legislative
clerk read as follows:
On page 2 strike lines 13 through 16.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this
is an amendment which I discussed—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order. The Senator
from Maine has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is an amend-
ment which I have discussed with the
distinguished Senator from Wyo-
ming (Mr. McGEE). It has to do
with language which is present on
page 2 of the bill, lines 13 through
16. I understand that Senator McGEE
will be on the floor shortly. The lan-
guage reads as follows:
No part of any funds appropriated under
this Act may be used by the Environmental
Protection Agency to administer any program
to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking
facilities.
Mr. President, I oppose this lan-
guage for several reasons. First of
all, it is legislation on an appropria-
tion bill, which is not reachable on
the Senate floor by a point of
order, as I understand from the Par-
liamentarian, because it is language
that was put in the bill by the House
of Representatives.
Second, as tc its merits, this lan-
guage raises a number of issues in
connection with the Clean Air
Act of 1970—some of them
controversial—which are going to be
tackled in the course of the regular
legislative process, and ought not to
be resolved by such indirect and
peripheral means.
What is involved in this language,
Mr. President, is the whole question
of how we regulate traffic in our
central cities to minimize the air
pollution impact upon life in those
cities. What this amendment would
do would be to take out of the hands
of people the effective power needed
to control that traffic.
Mr. President, when the Clean Air
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
313
Act was adopted, language was in-
cluded in the committee report which
indicated our understanding of the
degree to which our ability to move
around in the cities would be affected
by the health objective of the Clean
Air Act. Let me read from that
report:
If the Nation is to continue to depend on
individual use motor vehicles, such vehicles
must meet high standards. The bill recognizes
that a generation, or 10 years' production,
of motor vehicles will be required to meet
the proposed standards. During that time, as
much as 75 percent of the traffic may have
to be restricted in certain large metropolitan
areas if health standards are to be achieved
within the time required by this bill.
So, Mr. President, we fully under-
stood in 1970 that if we were to
meet the health standards of the act,
something would have to be done to
lessen traffic.
Some of the means were provided
by the Clean Air Act. We established
standards for new cars to meet. If
those standards had been met, if they
could have been met, the controls
necessary by other means would have
been minimized. But already the Ad-
ministrator of EPA has granted the
extensions which he has the power
under the act to grant. There is
pressure here in Congress, in both
bodies, to further relax those stand-
ards on new cars.
If those efforts suceed, then what
will be required is even more strin-
gent controls upon the use of auto-
mobiles that are already in the hands
of consumers.
We simply cannot have it both
ways. So the pressure will be on may-
ors and city councils, as well as EPA,
to find other
[p. S22682]
ways to restrict the use of the auto-
mobile in central cities.
I do not intend to belabor the issue;
I was simply using some time until
the distinguished Senator from Wyo-
ming could reach the floor. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD, Mr. President, further
legislative history to illuminate the
point which I have been making.
There being no objection, the ma-
terial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND THE CLEAN AIR
ACT
The Committee on Public Works has been
reviewing the activities of EPA regarding
transportation control plans, parking re-
strictions, and related activities for quite
some time. While these tools for achieving
clean air require continual refinement, it
would be premature to take action at this
time that would totally block the use of
these strategies.
To improve air quality and conserve en-
ergy, it is necessary to achieve large increases
in the use of transit and carpools in cities
and corresponding decreases in the use of low
occupancy automobiles.
If Congress enacts a prohibition on the
use of EPA funds for any charges, limita-
tions, reviews or controls of any kind on
parking, the transportation control plans
currently projected for metropolitan areas
around the country will be largely negated and
the achievement of air quality standards will
be drastically set back. Experience to date in
U.S. cities indicates that when mass transit
has the ability to compete with the auto in
terms of quality and cost, substantial numbers
of travelers switch from the auto to mass
transit.
Plans for 23 of the 31 metropolitan areas
i requiring transportation controls now in-
clude parking restrictions of some type. Over
half of the plans include parking controls
suggested by local authorities, not EPA.
If the parking measures are not imple-
mented, the expected shifts to carpools and
mass transit will not materialize. Further-
more, the incentive for the planned transit
improvements would be diminished since
transit companies would no longer have any
assurance of increased ridership which they
need to jutify new buses and equipment.
Planned reductions in gasoline consumption
and improvements in air quality therefore
would not take place.
As a result, the ability of at least IB major
cities ever to achieve the air quality levels
needed to protect public health would be
severely impaired.
EPA is showing increased sensitivity to the
need to be reasonable in using parking re-
strictions as a strategy for achieving clean
air.
EPA yesterday promulgated regulations de-
laying for one year the California parking
surcharge.
-------
314
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
The agency is now considering exempting i
parking lots under 250 spaces from their j
review. The present cutoff is 50. •
EPA regulations were issued Nov. 12 con- |
trolling parking in California. They appl ied
to projects all the way back to Aug. 15. EPA
is very close to a decision to rescind this
retroactivity.
There are indications that EPA will con-
sider the amount of money spent on a new
parking facility in determining whether or
not to apply their review for cases that fall
into a grey area as to when the project
actually began.
(Environmental Protection Agency [40 CFR
Part 52])
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION* CONTROL PLAV—
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE IM-
PLEMENTATION PLANS
This notice of proposed rulemaking is is-
sued for reconsideration and amendment of
five regulations contained in the California
transportation control plan promulgated by
EPA on November 12, 1973, 38 FR 31232. These
regulations, 40 CFR 52.247 through 52.251,
would establish a comprehensive program to
reduce automobile traffic in the three most
heavily polluted California Air Quality Con-
trol Regions through the control of practi-
cally all existing and future parking spaces.
Two of them would apply in all five Regions
covered by the plan. The basic means of
regulation would be surcharges imposed on
all free and commercial parking spaces by
the relevant local government, and on non-
carpool employee parking by the relevant
employer In addition, a permit would be
required to construct any new parking fa-
cility over 50 spaces. All surcharges would be
collected either by the relevant local govern-
ment or the relevant employer. All net reve-
nues over and above the cost of collection
would be spent on improving mass transit.
This notice of proposed rulemaking an-
nounces deferral of all steps in the imple-
mentation of the surcharge regulations—40
CFR 52.248, 52.249, and 52 250—for a period
of six months or until they can be reconsid-
ered and amended in an orderly manner,
whichever period is longer. In addition, a de-
ferral of one year in the date for imposing
any surcharge, however modified, on free and
commercial parking spaces will be promul-
gated.
Public reaction to these particular meas-
ures since the plan was announced has
been intense. The surcharges in particular
have been widely criticized as arbitrary, ille-
gal, administratively burdensome, and eco-
nomically disastrous. A great many petitions
for judicial review of the EPA promulgation
have been filed.
In the preamble to EPA's November 12
promulgation, the Administrator recognized
that "many aspects of the surcharge and em-
ployer incentive regulations are new and in-
deed unprecedented," and promised to re-
vise them if revision were appropriate in the
light of comments received. 38 FR 31237.
This notice of proposed rulemaking is being
issued to assist that public comment process.
This notice is divided into three parts.
The first, which is designed to help EPA
obtain the necessary information for com-
prehensive modifications to the regulations,
gives background and asks specific questions.
The second part contains more specific pro-
posals for comments, based on the regula-
tions as they now stand. The third describes
corrective, technical, or clarifying amend-
ments which EPA will make shortly to the
regulations. Persons affected may proceed as
if these had already been made.
The latter two categories of proposals are
designed to focus attention on the problems
of detail that must be considered in devel-
oping any revised transportation control plan
for California. Comprehensive changes made
in the regulations as they now stand may
well render many of the proposals in these
categories moot.
BACKGROUND AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
To assist public comment on the regula-
tions covered by this Notice, and to assist
EPA in making revisions that may well be
substantial, an explanation of the reasons
behind their promulgation, and a list of
I questions concerning them are set out below.
; In promulgating these regulations, EPA
I was guided by the following considerations:
1. The Clean Air Act requires all measures
I that are "reasonably available" to be put
into effect to achieve air quality standards
! before 1977. "Transportation controls" are
I specifically mentioned in both the Act and
1 its legislative history. Though a measure
' that would lead to major economic or social
dislocation cannot be considered "reason-
ably available/' the intent of the Clean Air
[Act is unmistakably to require significant
' changes in habits and travel patterns as a
I means of achieving the standards.
2. California has the country's worst
I automobile-caused ah- pollution problem.
j The peak readings of photochemical oxi-
I dants in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San
j Francisco are all higher than have been
recorded anywhere else in the country; the
reading for Los Angeles is almost twice as
high. In addition, the problem in California
is caused almost exclusively by automobiles.
3. Studies have repeatedly indicated that
shifts away from single-passenger automo-
biles and towards carpools and mass transit
are unlikely to occur without both signifi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
315
cant disincentives to the use of the former
and significant incentives to the use of the
latter.
Particularly in regions of spread-out de-
velopment the only two methods that appear
to be capable of obtaining a significant VMT
reduction are (i) comprehensive restrictions
on the sale of gasoline and (ii) comprehen-
sive restrictions on parking. The first alter-
native was proposed for comment in many
Regions, including the five California re-
gions, and rejected because the Administra-
tor found that "The possibilities of evasion,
the likelihood of noncompliance, and the
difficulty of enforcement are too great to
make this measure practicable." 38 FR 30632
(November 6, 1973). Accordingly, the Califor-
nia plan was promulgated containing the
second strategy.
The Clean Air Act places the responsibility
for developing implementation plans on the
State governments in the first instance. If
the State of California, or local governments
such as cities, come up with measures that
would achieve significant VMT reduction,
their measures will be accepted and this plan
or any future EPA plan will be withdrawn to
the extent warranted.
4. In all the hearings EPA has held on
transportation control plans, a recurring
theme has been that VMT reductions will
only be acceptable if mass transit is im-
proved at the same time.
If the present energy crisis leads to dras-
tic restrictions on gasoline supply, the Cali-
fornia transportation control plan will actu-
ally help-alleviate the crisis by providing
mass transit funds, express but lanes, com-
puterized carpool systems and so forth.
Particularly in California, if the trans-
portation control plans are to produce any-
thing like the degree of VMT reduction that
Congress contemplated might be necessary,
mass transit must be significantly expanded.
A phased system of surcharges on automobile
use is a uniquely effective regulatory instru-
ment for accomplishing both these goals.
The same surcharge that discourages auto-
mobile use in a gradual and flexible way by
making it more expensive can also raise the
revenue to expand mass transit to accom-
modate the displaced travel demand. Once
mass transit has been expanded, a further
VMT reduction by increasing the surcharge
will be possible, and this in turn will provide
revenue to increase mass transit still more.
Under the EPA plan, the surcharge revenues
could be used for capital expansion, operat-
[p. S22683]
ing subsidies, or any other approvable
transit-related purpose.
5. Employers who provide parking spaces
for their employees, particularly those who
provide free parking spaces, encourage the
use of single-passenger automobiles by com-
muters as against the use of less-polluting
forms of transportation. Such employers may
therefore be made responsible for the pol-
lution their own actions have induced, and
may be regulated as "indirect sources" of air
pollution as that term is defined in the
General Preamble. Such employers are also
the persons best equipped to encourage shifts
in the pattern of commuter travel, since for
them the data and the administrative ma-
chinery necessary to an effective program to
regulate such travel are to a considerable ex-
tent already in existence. Through additional
expense to employers might result, that
expense is expected to fall well within the
range of expenses that pollution abatement
requirements will impose on such industries
as, for example, electric power generation and
the manufacture of new automobiles.
In the course of this rule making, EPA
will wish to have factors which may have
been overlooked or undervalued brought to
its attention. Detailed public comment is of
the greatest importance to the development
of revised, workable, and publicly acceptable
transportation control measures. Comment is
particularly invited on the following points:
1. Is a comprehensive system of surcharges
on free and commercial parking an accept-
able means of obtaining significant VMT
reduction ? Is there another preferable sys-
tem ? Specifically, are any of the following
preferable: (i) Cutbacks on gasoline supply
(ii) surcharges on gasoline sales (iii) directly
requiring reductions in the number of park-
ing: spaces (iv) far more widespread or more
rapid conversion of streets to the exclusive
use of busses and carpools ?
2. Are the surcharge rates in the regula-
tions as they stand too high ? Would they
impose intolerable competitive or financial
burdens on a significant number of busi-
nesses, even though all businesses that main-
tain their own parking facilities would be
equally burdened9 "Would certain categories
of noncommercial activities be intolerably
burdened ? "What degree of VMT reduction
would result from implementing the present
surcharge schedules ? Would this be more
than is economically or socially tolerable ?
3. Would the revenues generated by imple-
menting the surcharge on the schedule pro-
mulgated be more than can usefully be spent
on mass transit in the three regions affected ?
For the first few years, would this be the
case ? In each of the three regions affected,
what are the total, long-term funding re-
quirements for the kind of mass transit sys-
tem capable of eventually absorbing a 20
percent VMT reduction ? Of absorbing a 40
percent VMT reduction ?
4. If there is to be a system of parking
surcharges, and if it is to be phased in,
-------
316
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
is the current approach of phasing it into
the large cities first the best approach ?
Specifically, would it be preferable to
phase it in (i) throughout the regions in
question, but at a reduced level ? If so, what
levels should be chosen ? (ii) in areas "ade-
quately served by mass transit" ? In areas "po-
tentially adequately served by mass transit" ? !
If one of these last two approaches were
adopted, how would these areas be deter-
mined ? Given the current inadequacy of
mass transit in these regions, what assurance
would there be that such a surcharge would
have a significant impact on VMT in its
first years ? If it would not, how could it be
phased so as to provide assurance that after
a few years it would have a significant im-
pact? (iii) in areas to be designated by the
affected localities ? If this were done, what
guidelines could be established to make sure
each of these localities would designate more
than a minimum area ? Should they, for ex-
ample, be required to designate a certain
minimum percentage of the parking spaces
within their boundaries for surcharge ?
6. The regulation surcharging free parking
spaces on an annual basis was adopted to
avoid the potentially severe administrative
burdens that could result from compelling
all free parking spaces to switch to com-
mercial operation. If such a switch was re-
quired, would the administrative burdens in
fact be served? Would they be justified by
the increased VMT reduction that could be
expected to result from surcharging the mo-
torist directly, rather than only surcharg-
ing those who provide the parking spaces ?
If, even so, the administrative burdens would
be too severe, could they be reduced to an
acceptable level by exempting certain cate-
gories of spaces from surcharge entirely (for
example, on-street parking) ? If one or more
such exemptions were established, what al-
ternate form of regulations of the exempted
spaces should be adopted to avoid inequitable
treatment of the spaces still subject to sur-
charge ? To ensure that the surcharges re-
maining would in fact lead to a VMT reduc-
tion, and not simply to a switch of parking
to unregulated spaces ?
6. Based on all the factors outlined above,
precisely how should the surcharge provi-
sions be revised ? If they are to be aban-
doned, precisely what form of regulation
should be substituted for them ?
7. Should a system of surcharges on em-
ployee parking be retained ? Is it adminis-
tratively practicable ? If it is not, how can it
be modified to be made administratively
practicable ? In general, is the use of fees on
employee parking to reduce VMT a good idea ?
Is the schedule of fees contained in § 52.250
as it now stands too steep? If undue expense
might result in some cases, how could that
be mitigated ? If the surcharge levels are to
be relaxed, should the relaxation (a) reduce
the maximum surcharge level (b) allow more
smaller employers from some or all of the
time for its implementation (c) exempt
requirements imposed on larger ones?
8. Is a requirement that employee use of
mass transit be subsidized administratively
practicable ? If not, how can it be amended
so as to become practicable? "Would such a
subsidy program be too expensive either (a)
in itself, or (b) if financed in part out of
revenues from surcharges on employee park-
ing ? How doeg any expense of such a pro-
gram compare with the expense of maintain-
ing employee parking facilities? With other
pollution abatement expenses imposed on
industry ?
9. What other measures by employers
should be suggested or required? Should
greater emphasis be placed on measures of
the employer's own choosing ? If a greater
degree of freedom were allowed, what en-
forceable assurance would there be that em-
ployers subject to this regulation would do
their part in meeting the requirements of the
Clean Air Act?
10. Should all residential parking spaces
be exempted from review under § 52.251 ?
Alternatively, should all such spaces be re-
viewed? If they are to be reviewed, should
review be under a different standard ?
11. Is the 50-space cut-off for review un-
der § 52.251 too low? If it is, what should
the minimum cut-off number be ? Whatever
minimum cut-off number is established,
should lots under that number be reviewed
under a less stringent test? If so, what should
the test be ? Should such smaller lots be
reviewed at the option of the Administra-
tor in certain areas or circumstances? If so,
how should those areas or circumstances be
determined ?
SPECIFIC PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
EPA currently intends to modify the
California transportation control plan as set
forth in the succeeding paragraphs. Public
comment on these proposals is invited. The
change proposed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of
this section may be promulgated at any time
after January 10, 1974.
1. "Residential parking spaces" were ex-
empted from surcharge to avoid surcharging
the parking spaces where motor vehicles are
stored when they are not in use. In con-
formity with this logic, it is proposed to
include in this exemption the spaces where
fleet vehicles owned by businesses, govern-
ments, car rental agencies, and the like are
parked when not in use.
2. The current EPA regulation for review
of new parking spaces requires that all lots
over 50 spaces receive & permit. EPA pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
317
poses to amend this requirement to limit
the permit requirement to lots of 250 or
more, except to the extent that the Admin-
istrator may determine that lots between 50
and 250 spaces in a certain area to be
designated by him are having a significant
adverse impact on the regional transporta-
tion control strategy.
3. Section 52.251 requires review of any
"parking facility" which has more than 50
spaces. The most natural reading of this lan-
guage is that if more than 50 spaces are
located in one place, for example, an apart-
ment house parking lot, review is required.
while if they are scattered in small groups
throughout an area, as they would be in a
subdivision, review is not required. To
eliminate this inconsistency, EPA currently
intends to eliminate all residential parking
facilities from review and such an amend-
ment is proposed.
4. Section 52.250 in its present form would
require even an employer with many times
more employees than parking spaces to pay
the mass transit fees of all its employees
whenever it maintained more than the
minimum number of parking spaces. Since
this particular class of employers will,
almost by definition, be doing more than
most others to discourage single-car com-
muting, such a result is unjust, and was not
intended. One way of avoiding it would be
to provide that mass transit subsidies could
not exceed the revenues collected from park-
ing surcharges, or could not exceed some
multiple of that amount such as 1.5 or 2.
Such an amendment is proposed.
SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO BE PROMTJLAGATED
The following specific amendments to the
regulations covered by this notice will be
promulgated shortly:
1. The definition of "employer" in § 52.247
covers any person who employs "50 or more
persons," The reference to 50 or more persons
has no regulatory significance, since the em-
ployer regulation itself, § 52.250, reads ex-
clusively in terms of the number of employee
parking spaces maintained. This reference
will be eliminated.
2. Read literally, § 52.250 would apply to
any employer with more than 700 (or 70)
spaces, even if those spaces were in several
different locations. Since it is intended that
an incentive program is only required to the
extent that the individual employment facil-
ity itself has more than the minimum num-
ber of spaces in one location, this will be
clarified.
3. Section 52.250 should have included a
provision allowing any individual employer
to submit to the Administrator an alternate
mass transit incentive plan which the Ad-
ministrator could approve upon finding that
it would have the same VMT reduction po-
tential as the measures prescribed by the reg-
ulation itself. Such a provision will be added.
4. The parking review regulation, as re-
quired by court order, applies to all parking
facilities for which a construction contract
had not been signed as of August 15, 1973.
In many instances, builders subject to review
under this provision will have made substan-
tial commitments in good faith before Au-
gust 15, even through no contract was signed.
[p. S22684]
For such situations, it is EPA's intent to
consider the difficulty to the builder based
on actions taken before August 15 of modify-
ing his design, and to weigh such factors
against the Air quality or VMT reduction
benefits of such modification in determining
whether to approve an application. An
amendment to make this explicit will be
added.
5'. It is the Agency's intent that churches
be exempted from surcharge since they are
used mainly on weekends when oxidant read-
ings are relatively low. This will be clarified.
6. It is the Agency's intent to exempt from
surcharge any parking by emergency ve-
hicles. "Emergency vehicles" will be denned
as "any ambulance, police car, rescue truck,
piece of fire fighting equipment, or any other
vehicle customarily used for the emergency
protection of life or property."
7. In many areas of California, it would
be impossible to determine a "commercial
rate" by the method specified by S 52.250
(a) (2) without looking to parking facilities
located many miles away from the employer
in question. Such cases, when they arise, in-
dicate that most parking in the vicinity of
the employer is in fact free, and that there
is accordingly no meaningful commercial
rate to apply. This section will be amended
to clarify that if no "commercial rate" can
be determined by looking only to facilities
of 100 or more spaces within two miles of the
employment facility in question, the em-
ployer may consider the "commercial rate"
to be zero and collect only the surcharge.
Public hearings will be held on this pro-
posal in each of the five affected Regions
early next year at times and places to be
announced later. All public comment re-
ceived up to thirty days after the close of
the last such hearing will be considered in
developing revised regulations.
This notice of proposed rulemaking is is-
sued under authority of sections 110 and
301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 1857C-5 and 1857g(a).
SMALL CAPS
JOHN QUARLES,
Acting Administrator.
December 6, 1973.
[FR Doc. 73-26266 Filed 12-10-73; 8:45aml
Mr. President, I urge the Senate
-------
318
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
conferees to hold fast to my amend-
ment in their conference with the
House. I assure my colleagues that
the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution will consider the implica-
tions of parking regulations and sur-
charges at an early date next year.
Mr. MUSKIE. At this point I
yield to the distinguished Senator
from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President,
I would like to ask the Senator one
question. Does the Environmental
Protection Agency contend, and does
the Senator agree with it if it does,
that it has the power or authority
to tax automobiles for parking any
place?
Mr. MUSKIE. EPA has, of course,
asserted that authority. I think its
right to do so is debatable.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Well, I—
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is the intention
of my subcommittee to hold hearings
on that question, and I would
be surprised if the tax-writing com-
mittees of Congress did not also con-
duct hearings on that issue.
My objection to this language is
that it is an attempt by means of
a floor amendment in the House of
Representatives to resolve an issue
that the appropriate committees of
Congress have not had an opportunity
to study. With respect to the sur-
charge by EPA—
Mr. McCLELLAN. Let me inter-
rupt to say that I agree with the
Senator on that issue. The appropri-
ate committees should have the juris-
diction, of course. I do not think
that it was ever intended for the
Environmental Protection Agency *o
have this taxing power.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I further state,
in answer to the Senator from Ark-
ansas, that there is published in the
Federal Register, dated Tuesday,
December 11, 1973, an order by EPA
delaying the use of the surcharge
in Los Angeles, and I read this much
of the order:
This notice of proposed rulemaking an-
nounces deferral of all steps in the imple-
mentation of the surcharge regulations for
a period of 6 months, or until they can be
reconsidered and amended in an orderly
manner, whichever period is longer. In addi-
tion, a deferral of 1 year in the date for
imposing any surcharge, however modified,
on free and commercial parking spaces will
be promulgated.
So, by action of EPA, we are given
the time to consider this issue in an
orderly way. May I say to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Arkansas,
I think we ought to take that time
to consider it.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I appreciate the
Senator's giving us that information.
I just wanted to state for the record
personally that I do not believe it
was ever the intent of Congress to
empower this Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to impose a tax on the
parking of automobiles anywhere. I
could be wrong, but I do not believe
that was the intent, and since it is
suspended, and the efforts they have
been making now are suspended by
Executive order, it does give Con-
gress time to evaluate this problem
and determine whether it wishes to
empower the agency to impose such
a tax. In the meantime, it will not
be done.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. May
I say in addition to the Senator that
frankly I did not envision the use of
this means to control parking, and
to control the use of vehicles through
the use of such controls. So I think
it is an issue. Since it was not dis-
cussed or envisioned at the time, I
think we do need to evaluate it in
hearings. And let me say I appre-
ciate the understanding of the dis-
tinguished Senator from Arkansas
and the distinguished Senator from
Wyoming on this point.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
319
I understand fully, as all of us do,
that changing- our style of moving
about in the cities is not going to be
comfortable. Those changes are now
imposed not only by the environ-
mental crisis, but also by the energy
crisis, so we are going to have to
take a long look at them. But I think
we ought to do it as a result of
the rational hearings process, and I
am deeply grateful for the under-
standing of both my colleagues.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I
have discussed this matter with the
ranking minority member of the sub-
committee, the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. FONG). We have discussed it
together with the chairman of the full
committee (Mr. MCCLELLAN) and we
are prepared to accept the Senator's
proposal here on this majtter and get
on to other matters.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate that
cooperation. I am ready to yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE).
The amendment was agreed to.
[p. S22685]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall it pass? On this
question the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced—yeas
90, nays 0, as follows:
So the bill (H.R. 11576) was passed.
[p. S22700]
1.17e(5)(c) Dec. 19: House recommitted conference report, pp.
H11698, H11702-H11703;
Mr. PARRIS. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on page 8 of the
conference report, particularly refer-
ring to amendment No. 4, as I under-
stand it, the House language as pre-
viously approved has been restored
by the conference, which would have
the net effect of prohibiting the En-
vironmental Protection Agency from
using funds in this bill to administer
any parking tax, or regulation.
Mr. CEDERBERG. That is correct.
The Senate had deleted the House
° language, and the language reads:
No part of any funds appropriated under
this Act may be used by the Environmental
Protection Agency to administer any pro-
gram to tax limit, or otherwise regulate park-
ing facilities.
This is an area wherein I think
the Environmental Protection Agency
has gone far afield from any juris-
diction that they have at all.
I see that some of the gentlemen
from California are having a rather
dramatic experience with this prob-
lem. I understand that the District
j of Columbia is probably going to be
involved, as a matter of fact, prob-
ably most of the country. I cer-
tainly think that the Environmental
Protection Agency has no business
setting any taxes or limits, or any-
thing else, on parking facilities. I
I think we should be sure that they
understand this. That is my under-
j standing, that this should limit and
I prohibit them from doing that.
j They may try to get out of that to
I a degree because-it says "under this
act," but it certainly is congress-
ional intent, I believe. We have a
vote in the House to emphasize that.
Mr. PARRIS. If the gentleman will
-------
320
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
yield further, I should like to extend
my congratulations to him and to
his conferees on their understanding
of the ludicrous nature of this with-
out alternative means of transporta-
tion.
(Mr. P ARRIS asked and was
given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CEDERBERG. I yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WRITTEN. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding.
The money before us in this bill
was limited, but the action of the
conferees and of the Congress came
because as you know various acts
have directed the EPA to do certain
things by a certain date, even though
money for such purposes was not in-
cluded in those acts.
The EPA had never justified any
money before my appropriations sub-
committee to implement whatever au-
thority they may claim in this area.
They have, however, been going
ahead and using money appropri-
ated for other purposes. So in this
instance, and only because the rules
of Congress limited what we could
do, we said that no money in this
act could be used. By making this
expression, we also mean to say that
no money we have already appropri-
ated for other purposes shall be used
for purposes other than for which we
approved in the appropriations proc-
ess as justified, and that should reach
the overall problem.
Mr. CEDERBERG. That is impor-
tant legislative history, especially
coming from the chairman of the
committee that handles programs for
the entire Environmental Protection
Agency. I am glad to have that as a
part of the record.
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CEDERBERG. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. LEGGETT. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding.
I want to commend the committee
for retaining this amendment in con-
ference. As I understand the gentle-
man's statement, this would cover
permits over and above just taxes
and surcharges, so the net effect
would be, as I understand it, that
the amendment would be a little bit
more extensive than was included in
the House. I would hope that because
of that, the EPA, regardless of what
currently in conference, would sum-
action is taken on the energy bill
marily nullify some of their existing
regulations, in spite of the fact that
perhaps the coverage of this bill does
not precisely get at the money that
we are currently spending to do the
job we are objecting to.
[p. H11698]
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman
opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONTE. I sure am, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re-
port the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conte moves to recommit the con-
ference report on the bill (H.R. 11576) to
the committee on conference with the fol-
lowing instructions to the managers on the
part of the House: To agree to Senate amend-
ment No. 5.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I make
a point of order against the motion
i to recommit on the ground that it is
j legislative, it is not authorized in law.
| Under the precedents of the House
[ a motion to instruct conferees or to
i recommit a bill to conference under
, instructions may not
[p. H11702]
include instructions directing the
- House conferees to do that which
would be inadmissable if offered as an
amendment in the House, Cannon's
| Precedents, volume 8, section 3235.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
321
The SPEAKER. The point of order
is not in order at this time.
Under clause 2 of rule XX, a mo-
tion to recommit a conference report [
with instructions to House conferees)
to agree to a Senate amendment
which violates clause 2, rule XXI is
in order. The motion to recommit of-
fered by the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts does not instruct the con-
ferees to add additional legislation
or an additional unauthorized item,
but merely to concur in Senate
amendment 5.
Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quo-
rum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify
absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were—yeas 216,
nays 180, not voting 36, as follows:
*****
So the motion to recommit was
agreed to.
[p. H11703]
1.17e(5)(d) Dec. 20: House agreed to further conference report
and concurred in certain Senate amendments;
(no relevant discussion of pertinent section.)
1.17e(5)(e) Dec. 21: Senate agreed to Conference report and
House amendments, pp. S23809-S23810, S23816.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when
the supplemental appropriations bill
was on the floor of the Senate De-
cember 12, I proposed an amendment
to delete language that was designed
to restrict the authority of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency to
administer programs that would regu-
late parking facilities. This amend-
ment was accepted by the manager
of that portion of the supplemental
appropriations bill, Mr. McGEE. How-
ever, in conference, the House pro-
vision prevailed and the conference
report includes the restrictive langu-
age contained in the House bill.
I oppose the language in this con-
ference report for many reasons, but
I do not intend to delay the passage
of the appropriations measure. This
is primarily because the language
has no real effect, since there are
no funds in this supplemental appro-
priations bill for EPA's programs
that regulate parking facilities. The
only EPA funds in this supplemen-
tal appropriation are for research
and development.
I do want to make a very clear
record about the inappropriateness of
the attempt to legislate on an appro-
priations bill. This is an issue that
falls within the jurisdiction of the
appropriate legislative committees of
Congress. I made this point at the
time my amendment was accepted
during Senate action on this legis-
lation. I promised at that time that
this matter would be considered care-
-------
322
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
fully by the Senate Public Works
Committee.
As a demonstration of that pledge,
I can now report that the emergency
energy bill, which will be on the floor
later today, contains language that
would satisfy the objectives of those
who originally proposed the amend-
ment to the supplemental. The emer-
gency energy legislation carries a pro-
vision that suspends the authority of
EPA to impose a parking surcharge
upon States and localities. Many
other parking management activities
have been delayed to allow further
congressional consideration of these
measures. So I believe we have clearly
demonstrated that the appropriate
legislative committees can and will
carry out their responsibilities in this
area. I hope that in the future, ap-
propriations bills will not become the
vehicle for further attempts to deal
with questions that properly belong
to the legislative committees of Con-
gress.
In further clarification of this mat-
ter, I would point out that my judg-
ment of the effect of the language in
this supplemental on EPA's activities
is shared by the Members of the
House of Representatives who have
responsibility for legislation govern-
ing EPA's activities. When Mr. LEG-
GET offered his amendment on the
House floor on November 30, Mr.
ROGERS and Mr. WRITTEN both
agreed that the amendment would
have no real effect on EPA's legal
authority or its regulatory program
funds. Let me quote from that floor
debate:
Mr. Leggett. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Leggett: Page
2, immediately after line 9, insert the follow-
ing new paragraph:
No part of any funds appropriated under
this Act may be used by the Environmental
Protection Agency to administer any pro-
gram to tax limit, or otherwise regulate park-
ing facilities . . .
Mr. Rogers. This section does not pro-
vide for money to apply to the parking prob-
lem. It is simply for research on different
matters. So I do not think it is germane;
but nevertheless, I understand the gentle-
man's concern. Our committee, too, is con-
cerned and I believe it should be appropri-
ately raised in the legislative committee.
*****
Mr. Whitten. Mr. Chairman, I cannot
speak for the committee, but I have no ob-
jection to this amendment. I agree that the
funds in this particular section are not for
this purpose. In this particular section, the
funds are for the purpose of additional re-
search to obtain answers that the EPA should
have had long before they issued lots of
orders which they have issued.
Mr. Chairman, I might also say that in the
report and in the action of the Congress, we
directed that hereafter the agency, EPA,
give us the benefit of findings by themselves
before taking such type action. While the
money here is not for that purpose, I think
it is well that this amendment be adopted
here so as to serve notice to EPA to get back
to its primary purpose, and if present law
gives them any claimed authority such as
they are attempting to enforce in the way
of parking tax as that the Administration be
smart enough not to attempt such action.
*****
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I would agree
that there is no reason not to adopt this
amendment since the funds do not go to it
anyhow and it is an expression of our con-
cern, but I do not think it has any legisla-
tive effect.
The distinguished Senator from
Wyoming and I have discussed this
matter extensively. I appreciate his
cooperation and his assurance that
the language in this supplemental
will not have any binding impact. I
look forward to working with him
in the future on matters dealing with
the funding of EPA's programs and
know that he carries a strong com-
mitment to the goals these programs
seek to reach.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, in re-
sponse to the senior Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , I assure him
that we have made no attempt to
legislate on this supplemental appro-
priation bill, as I understand the sit-
uation. The language, in my opinion,
is simply a limitation on the use of
the specific EPA funds contained in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
323
this particular bill. As such, this lim-
itation is well within the rules and
procedures of the Appropriations
Committee and the Senate.
There can be no question, however,
but that the language in question will
have but a limited effect. It is clear
from the language itself that it limits
only the funds provided to the EPA
in this bill. It makes no attempt to
reach back and limit funds provided
in prior appropriations bills, nor does
it attempt to restrict or limit any
funds which might be provided in
future appropriations bills.
The EPA funds in this bill were
requested and provided for specific
and definite research areas. I am
certain that EPA fully intends to
utilize them for the purposes for
which they were requested, justified
and appropriated. EPA has advised
that this limitation will not cause
them any problems for the balance
of this fiscal year or during the life
of this supplemental.
If there are any attempts to in-
clude this limitation, or any others
on appropriations bills in the future,
those matters would have to be con-
sidered on the merits and after a
consideration of all appropriate is-
sues at that time.
Mr. President, the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and I discussed
this on the floor of the Senate a few
days ago. At that time, he made cer-
tain assurances on his own behalf
and on behalf of the legislative com-
mittee. As he pointed out in his re-
marks, he made good on that com-
mitment and, I might add, in great
haste. As I recall, he promised to
have this matter considered by the
proper legislative committee early
next year. He expedited that time-
table considerably and, in fact, the
action he promised is
[p. S23809]
contained in the emergency energy
bill which will be considered later
today. I commend the gentleman from
Maine for this, and I want to assure
him that I look forward to working
with him on these environmental and
related matters in the future.
[p. S23810]
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President,
one of the most important tasks of
the Government is to provide the
people of our Nation with a stable
economy, a sound dollar, and a return
to a balanced budget.
*****
[p. S23815]
AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
SUBCOMMITTEE
The appropriation for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, environmental,
and consumer agencies under the jur-
isdiction of the subcommittee was
$9,927,667,000. This is approximately
$2.8 billion less than that appropri-
ated for fiscal year 1973, but $408,-
116,400 in excess of the budget esti-
mates for fiscal year 1974. While
there are several offsetting increases
and decreases, the principal net items
of increase amounted to $300,000,-
000 for the food stamp program and
$72,000,000 for the school milk pro-
gram. The bill also contains $263,-
000,000 in excess of the budget re-
quests for various environmental
programs, including reinstatement of
the rural environmental assistance
program, as well as additions to the
soil conservation programs and vari-
ous programs of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
[p. S23816]
-------
-------
Executive
Orders
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
327
2.5 E.G. 11749, CONSOLIDATION OF FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP-
MENT
Dec. 10, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 34177 (1973) superceeding E.G. 11575,
Administration of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, as amended by E.G. 11662.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11749
Dec. 10, 1973, 38 F.R. 34177
Consolidation of functions assigned to the secretary of housing and urban
development
By virtue of the authority vested in me
by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973
[set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Gov-
ernment Organization and Employees].
the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4401, et seq.) [this
chapter], and section 301 of title 3 of the
United States Code [section 301 of Title
3, The President] and as President of
the United States of America, it is here-
by ordered as follows:
Section 1. (a) The Secretary of Hous-
ing and Urban Development is desig-
nated and empowered to exercise with-
out the approval, ratification, or other
action of the President, all of the author-
ity vested in the President by the Disas-
ter Relief Act of 1970, as amended [this
chapter], hereinafter referred to as the
"Act", except (1) the authorities vested
in the President by section 102(1) of the
Act to declare a major disaster [section
4402 of this title], by section 251 of the
Act [section 4481 of this title] to provide
for the restoration of Federal facilities,
and by section 253 of the Act [section
4483 of this title] to prescribe time lim-
its for granting priorities for certain
public facilities and certain public hous-
ing assistance which are hereby reserved
to the President; (2) the authority vest-
ed in the President by section 210 of the
Act [section 4420 of this title] concerning
the utilization and availability of the
civil defense communications system for
the purpose of disaster warnings which
the Secretary of Defense is empowered to
exercise by this order; and (3) the au-
thority vested in the President by sec-
tion 238 of the Act [section 4457 of this
title] concerning food coupons and sur-
plus commodities, which the Secretary of
Agriculture is empowered to exercise by this
order.
(b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development is hereby empowered to ex-
ercise without the approval, ratification, or
other action of the President all of the au-
thority conferred upon the President by
section 4 of the act entitled "An Act to
authorize for a limited period additional loan
assistance under the Small Business Act for
disaster victims, to provide for a study and
•eport to the Congress by the President setting
'orth recommendations for a comprehensive
revision of disaster relief legislation and for
other purposes."
(c) The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may delegate or assign to the
lead of any agency of the executive branch
of the Government, subject to the consent of
:he agency head concerned in each case, any
authority or function delegated or assigned
to the Secretary by the provisions of this
section. Any such head of the agency may
redelegate any authority or function so dele-
gated or assigned to him by the Secretary
to any office or employee subordinate to
such head of the agency whose appointment
is required to be made by and with the ad-
vice and consent of the Senate.
Sec. 2. The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development is designated and em-
powered to exercise, without the approval,
ratification, or other action of the Presi-
dent:
(1) All authority which was vested in the
Office of Emergency Preparedness, or the Di-
rector thereof, by the Disaster Relief Act
of 1970, as amended [this chapter], and
which was transferred to the President by
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 [set out in
the Appendix to Title 5. Government Or-
ganization and Employees].
(2) All authority which was vested in the
Director of the Office of Emergency Pre-
paredness with respect to determining whe-
ther a major disaster has occurred within the
meaning of (A) section 16 of the Act of
September 23, 1950, as amended (20 U.S.C.
616) [section 646 of Title 20, Education],
(B) section 7 of the Act of September 30,
1950, as amended (20 U.S.C. 241-1) [section
241-1 of Title 20, Education], and (C) section
762 (a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
as added by section 161 (a) of the Education
Amendments of 1972. Public Law 92-318, 86
Stat. 288 at 299 (relating to the furnishing
by the Commissioner of Education of disaster
relief assistance for educational purposes)
[section 1132d-l of Title 20, Educational],
and which was transferred to the President by
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 [set out in
-------
328
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
the Appendix to Title 5, Government Or- '
ganization and Employees]. '
Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby established
the National Council on Federal Disaster
Assistance (hereinafter referred to as the
"Council") which shall be composed of the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,
who shall be the Chairman of the Council,
and policy level representatives of the De-
partments of Defense; the Interior; Agricul-
ture; Commerce; Labor; Health, Education,
and Welfare; and Transportation; and of the
Small Business Administration and the Office
of Economic Opportunity, and such other
members as the President may from time to
time designate. This Council supersedes the
National Council on Federal Disaster Assist-
ance established by Executive Order No.
11526. Representatives of the other Federal
departments or agencies, officials of State and
local governments, and private citizens may"
be invited by the Chairman to participate
in the deliberations of the Council.
(b) The Council shall advise and assist
the Secretary of Housing and Urban De-
velopment in: (1) Insuring that the Federal
agencies furnish necessary assistance follow-
ing a large-scale disaster on a priority basis
to the Federal Coordinating Officer appointed
by the President to operate under the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, pursuant to section 201 of the Disaster
Relief Act of 1970 [section 4411 of this
title]; (2) developing policies and programs to
provide a strong and integrated total Federal
disaster assistance effort; (3) stimulating co-
operation and the sharing of data, views,
and information concerning disaster assist-
ance among Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and private organizations having
disaster assistance responsibilities and in-
terests; (4) facilitating cooperation among
Federal, State, and local governments with
special concern for the maintenance of local
initiative and decisionmaking with respect to
emergency restoration and rebuilding pro-
grams; (5) promoting the participation of
Federal agencies in providing Federal assist-
ance for rebuilding efforts; (6) encouraging
research on means of preventing disasters and
ameliorating the effects of those that occur;
(7) reviewing, from time to time, the effec-
tiveness of the Federal disaster assistance pro-
grams and suggesting needed changes.
(c) Consistent with law, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development shall
provide staff and other assistance to the
Council, and executive departments and
agencies shall furnish to the Council such
available information as the Council may re-
quire in performance of its functions.
(d) Nothing in this order shall be con-
strued as subjecting any Federal agency
or officer, or any function vested by law
in, or assigned, pursuant to law to, any
Federal agency or officer to the authority
of the Council or of any other agency or
officer or as abrogating any such function in
any manner.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development is designated and em-
powered to exercise, without the approval,
ratification, or other action of the President
all other incidental authority relating to
matters described in secions 1 through 3 of
this Executive order that haa been vested in
the Office of Emergency Preparedness or the
Director thereof by the President by letter,
memorandum, or other form of directive, or
otherwise.
Sec. 5. (a) The Secretary of Defense is
designated and empowered to exercise, with-
out the approval, ratification, or other action
of the President, all of the authority vested in
the President by section 210 of the Act con-
cerning the utilization and availability of the
civil defense communications system for the
purpose of disaster warnings [section 4420
of this title].
(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is
designated and empowered to exercise, without
the approval, ratification, or other action of
the President, all of the authority vested in
the President by section 238 of the act con-
cerning food coupons and surplus commodities
[section 4457 of this title].
Sec. 6. (a) Executive Order NOS. 11526,
11575, 11662, and 11678, and section 1 of
Executive Order No. 11725 are hereby
superseded.
(b) This order shall be effective thirty days
after the date of its issuance.
RICHARD NIXON
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 329
2.10 E.G. 11731, Amending Executive Order No. 11647 Relating
to Federal Regional Councils
38 Fed. Reg. 19903(1973)
Amending Executive Order No. 11647 Relating to
Federal Regional Councils
On February 10, 1972, I formally established Federal Regional
Councils for each of the ten Federal regions, and established an
Under Secretaries Group for Regional Operations to strengthen
and improve services to the public at the regional level. I have
now determined that the mandate of the Federal Regional Coun-
cils should be broadened to include the coordination of direct
Federal program assistance to State and local governments (as
well as grant assistance as now provided), that the membership
of the Councils and the Under Secretaries Group for Regional
Operations should be changed, and that the Deputy Director of
the Office of Management and Budget should be substituted
as Chairman of the Under Secretaries Group in place of the As-
sociate Director of that agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me
as President of the United States of America, sections 1, 2, and
3 of Executive Order No. 116471 of February 10, 1972, are
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 1. Federal Regional Councils, (a) There is hereby con-
tinued a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard
Federal regions. Each Council shall be composed of the principal
regional officials of the Departments of Labor, Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture,
the Interior, and Transportation, the Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law En-
forcement Assistance Administration.
The President shall designate one member of each such Council
as Chairman of that Council and such Chairman shall serve at
the pleasure of the President. Representatives of the Office of
Management and Budget may participate in any deliberations of
each Council.
(b) Each member of each Council may designate an alternate
who shall serve as a member of the Council involved whenever
the regular member is unable to attend any meeting of the Coun-
cil.
(c) When the Chairman determines that matters which signif-
1 37 PR 3167; 3 CFR, 1970 Comp., p. 146.
-------
330 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
icantly affect the inerests of the Federal agencies which are not
represented on any such Council are to be considered by the
Council, he shall invite the regional director or other appropriate
representative of the agency involved to participate in the de-
liberations of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions of the Council. Each Federal Regional
Council shall be constituted as a body within which the partici-
pating agencies will, under the general policy formulation of the
Under Secretaries Group, and to the maximum extent feasible,
assist State and local government by the coordination of the
Federal program grants and operations through:
(1) the development of better ways to deliver the benefits
of Federal programs over the short term;
(2) the development of integrated program and funding plans
with Governors and local chief executives;
(3) the encouragement of joint and complementary Federal
grant applications by local and State governments;
(4) the expeditious resolution of conflicts and problems which
may arise between Federal agencies;
(5) the evaluation of programs in which two or more member
agencies participate;
(6) the development of more effective ways of allocating
Federal resources to meet the long-range needs of State and local
communities;
(7) the supervision of regional interagency program coordina-
tion mechanisms; and
(8) the development of administrative procedures to improve
day-to-day cooperation on an interagency and intergovernmental
basis.
Sec. 3. Under Secretaries Group for Regional Operations. The
Under Secretaries Group for Regional Operations is hereby
continued and shall be composed of the Under Secretaries of
Agriculture, the Interior, Labor, Health Education, and Welfare
Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation, the Ad-
ministrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
the Deputy Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the
Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
an Associate Director of the Domestic Council, and the Deputy
Director of the Office of Managment and Budget, who shall serve
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 331
as the Chairman of the Group. When the Chairman determines
that matters which significantly affect the interest of Federal
agencies which are not represented on the Group are to be con-
sidered by the Group, he shall invite an appropriate representa-
tive of the agency involved to participate in the deliberations of
the Group. The Under Secretaries Group for Regional Opera-
tions shall, consistent with the objectives and priorities estab-
lished by the President and the Domestic Council, establish policy
with respect to Federal Regional Council matters, provide guid-
ance to the Councils, respond to their initiatives, and seek to
resolve policy issues referred to it by the Councils. The Under
Secretaries Group, under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Direc-
tor of the Office of Management and Budget, shall be responsible
for the proper functioning of the system established by this order.
RICHARD NIXON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
2.11 E.G. 11742, Delegating to the Secretary of State Certain
Functions with Respect to the Negotiation of International
Agreements Relating to the Enhancement of the Environ-
ment, October 25, 1973, 38 F.R. 29457
DELEGATING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE CERTAIN FUNC-
TIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE NEGOTIATION OF INTERNA-
TIONAL AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF
THE ENVIRONMENT
Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3
of the United States Code and as President of the United States, I hereby
authorize and empower the Secretary of State, in coordination with the
Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and other appropriate Federal agencies, to perform, without the approval,
ratification, or other action of the President, the functions vested in the
President by section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500; 86 Stat. 898) with respect to inter-
national agreements relating to the enhancement of the environment.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October S3, 1973.
RICHARD NIXON.
-------
332 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
2.12 E.G. 11743, Modifying Proclamation No. 3279, as amended,
with Respect to the Oil Policy Committee, October 25, 1973,
38 F.R. 29459
MODIFYING PROCLAMATION NO. 3279, AS AMENDED, WITH
RESPECT TO THE OIL POLICY COMMITTEE
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes
of the United States, including section 301 of title 3 of the United States
Code and section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, it is
hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The Oil Policy Committee, as reconstituted by this order is
hereby continued.
Sec. 2. Sec. 8 of Proclamation No. 3279, as amended, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"Sec. 8. The Oil Policy Committee shall consist of the Director of the
Energy Policy Office as Chairman, and the Secretaries of State, the
Treasury, Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Transpor-
tation, the Attorney General, the Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The President may, from time to time, designate other officials to serve as
members of the Committee."
Sec. 3. So much of the personnel, property, records, and unexpended
balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds employed, used,
held, available, or to be made available in connection with the functions
transferred by section 2 of this order from the Deputy Secretary of the
Treasury, to the Director of the Energy Policy Office, as Chairman of
the Oil Policy Committee, as the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall determine, in conformity with section 202 (b) of the
Budget and Accounting Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 581c(b)), shall be trans-
ferred at such time or times as he shall direct for use in connection with
the functions transferred.
Sec. 4. Executive Order No. 11703 of February 7, 1973, is hereby
superseded.
RICHARD NIXON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 23, 1973.
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 333
2.13 E.G. 11752, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environ-
mental Pollution at Federal Facilities, December 19, 1973,
38 F.R. 34793
Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environmental Pollution
at Federal Facilities
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the
United States of America, including section 301 of title 3 of
the United States Code, and in furtherance of the purpose and
policies of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857), the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
1251), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
3251), the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901), the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C. 1431), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, as amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Con-
trol Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 136), and the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), it is ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the purpose of this order to assure that
the Federal Government, in the design, construction, manage-
ment, operation, and maintenance of its facilities, shall provide
leadership in the nationwide effort to protect and enhance the
quality of our air, water, and land resources through compliance
with applicable standards for the prevention, control, and abate-
ment of environmental pollution in full cooperation with State
and local governments. Compliance by Federal facilities with
Federal, State, interstate, and local substantive standards and
substantive limitations, to the same extent that any person is
subject to such standards and limitations, will accomplish the
objective of providing Federal leadership and cooperation in the
prevention of environmental pollution. In light of the principle
of Federal supremacy embodied in the Constitution, this order
is not intended, nor should it be interpreted, to require Federal
facilities to comply with State or local administrative procedure
with respect to pollution abatement and control.
Sec. 2. Definitions. A used in this order:
(1) The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) The term "Federal agencies" means the departments,
agencies, establishments, and instrumentalities of the executive
branch.
-------
334 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
(3) The term "State, interstate, and local agencies" means
any of the following:
(A) a State agency designated by the Governor of that State
as an official State agency responsible for enforcing State and
local laws relating to the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution;
(B) any agency established by two or more States and having
substantial powers or duties pertaining to the prevention, control,
and abatement of environmental pollution;
(C) a city, county, or other local government authority charged
with responsibility for enforcing ordinances or laws relating to the
prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution;
or
(D) an agency of two or more municipalities located in the
same State or in different States and having substantial powers
or duties pertaining to the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution.
(4) The term "facilities" means the buildings, installations,
structures, land, public works, equipment, aircraft, vessels, and
other vehicles and property, owned by, or constructed or manu-
factured for the purpose of leasing to, the Federal Government.
(5) The term "United States" means the fifty States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands.
Sec. 3. Responsibilities, (a) Heads of Federal agencies shall,
with regard to all facilities under their jurisdiction in the United
States:
(1) Ensure that applicable standards specified in section 4 of
this order are met on a continuing basis.
(2) Cooperate with the Administrator and State, interstate,
and local agencies in the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution and, in accordance with guidelines issued
by the Administrator, provide to the Administrator and to those
agencies such information as is necessary to determine compliance
with applicable standards. Such cooperation shall include devel-
opment of an abatement plan and schedule for meeting applicable
standards.
(3) Present to the Director of the Office of Management and
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 335
Budget, annually, a plan to provide for such improvement in
the design, construction, management, operation, and mainte-
nance of existing facilities as may be necessary to meet applicable
standards specified in section 4.
(4) Consider the environmental impact in the initial stages
of planning for each new facility or modification to an existing
facility in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act.
(5) Include with all budget requests for the design and con-
struction of new facilities or for modification of existing facilities
funds for such measures as may be necessary to meet applicable
standards specified in section 4. Budget requests shall reflect
the most efficient alternative for meeting applicable standards.
(6) Consult, as appropriate, with the Administrator and with
State and local agencies concerning the best techniques and
methods available for the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution.
(7) Ensure that any funds appropriated and apportioned for
the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollu-
tion are not used for any other purpose unless permitted by law
and unless specifically approved by the Office of Management and
Budget.
(b) Where activities are carried out at Federal facilities ac-
quired by leasing or other Federal agreements, the head of the
responsible agency may at his discretion, to the extent permissible
under applicable statutes and regulations, require the lessee or
permittee to assume full responsibility for complying with stand-
ards for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental
pollution.
(c) Heads of Federal agencies responsible for the construc-
tion and operation of Federal facilities outside the United States
shall assure that such facilities are operated so as to comply
with the environmental pollution standards of general appli-
cability in the host country or jurisdictions concerned.
(d) The Administrator shall:
(1) Provide technical advice and assistance to the heads of
Federal agencies in connection with their duties and responsi-
bilities under this order.
(2) Maintain such review of Federal facilities' compliance
with the standards specified in section 4 as may be necessary.
-------
336 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
(3) Provide liaison as required to assure that actions taken
by Federal agencies pursuant to this order are coordinated with
State, interstate, and local programs for the prevention, control,
and abatement of environmental pollution.
(4) Mediate conflicts between Federal agencies and State, in-
terstate, or local agencies in matters affecting the application of,
or compliance with applicable standards specified in section 4.
(5) Develop in consultation with the heads of other Federal
agencies a coordinated strategy for Federal facility compliance
with applicable standards specified in section 4 which incorporates,
to the maximum extent practicable, common procedures for an
integrated approach to Federal agency compliance with such
standards, and issue such regulations and guidelines as are deemed
necessary to facilitate implementation of that strategy and to
provide a framework for coordination and cooperation among
the Environmental Protection Agency, the other Federal agen-
cies, and the State, interstate, and local agencies.
(6) Maintain a continuing review of the implementation of
this order and, from time to time, report to the President on the
progress of the Federal agencies in implementing this order.
Sec. 4.. Standards, (a) Heads of Federal agencies shall ensure
that all facilities under their jurisdiction are designed, con-
structed, managed, operated, and maintained so as to conform
to the following requirements:
(1) Federal, State, interstate, and local air quality standards
and emission limitations adopted in accordance with or effective
under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
(2) Federal, State, interstate, and local water quality stand-
ards and effluent limitations respecting the discharge or runoff of
pollutants adopted in accordance with or effective under the pro-
visions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
(3) Federal regulations and guidelines respecting dumping
of material into ocean waters adopted in accordance with the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
(4) Guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection, storage,
separation, and disposal systems issued by the Administrator
pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, an amended.
(5) Federal noise emission standards for products adopted
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 337
in accordance with provisions of the Noise Control Act of 1972
and State, interstate, and local standards for control and abate-
ment of environmental noise.
(6) Federal guidance on radiation and generally applicable
environmental radiation standards promulgated or recommended
by the Administator and adopted in accordance with the Atomic
Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011), and rules, regulations,
requirements, and guidlelines on discharges of radioactivity as
prescribed by the Atomic Energy Commission.
(7) Federal regulations and guidelines respecting manufacture,
transportation, purchase, use, storage, and disposal of pesticides
promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended by the Federal En-
vironmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972.
(b) In those cases in which there are no environmental pol-
lution standards as specified in subsection (a) for a particular
geographic area or class of Federal facilities, the Administrator,
in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, interstate, and
local agencies, may issue regulations, which shall be published
in the FEDERAL REGISTER, establishing environmental pollu-
tion standards for the purpose of this order.
Sec. 5. Exemptions, (a) The heads of Federal agencies, in con-
sultation with the Administrator, may, from time to time, identify
facilities or uses thereof which are exempted from applicable
standards specified in section 4 in the interest of national security
or in extraordinary cases in which it is in the paramount interest
of the United States. No such exemptions shall be made except
as are permissible under applicable Federal law.
(b) In any case in which the Administrator does not agree
with a determination to exempt a facility or use thereof from
the provisions of this order, the head of the Federal agency
making such a determination must have the approval of the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget to exempt
that facility or use thereof; except that, the Administrator is
solely responsible for approval of exemptions under section 18 of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as
amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of
1972.
(c) The heads of Federal agencies shall present to the Direc-
tor of the Office of Management and Budget at the end of each
-------
338 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT 11
calendar year a report of all exemptions made during that year,
together with the justification for each such exemption.
Sec. 6. Saving Provisions. Except to the extent that they are
inconsistent with this order, all outstanding rules, regulations,
orders, delegations, or other forms of administrative action issued,
made, or otherwise taken under the order superseded by Section
7 hereof or relating to the subject of this order shall remain in
full force and effect until amended, modified, or terminated by
proper authority.
Sec. 7. Order Superseded. Executive Order No. 11507 of Feb-
ruary 4, 1970, is hereby superseded.
RICHARD NIXON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 17, 1973.
-------
Regulations
-------
-------
REGULATIONS 341
A. General (cont'd)
3. Regulations
3.1 Reorganization and Republication, Environmental Protection
Agency, 36 Fed. Reg. 22369 (1971).
3.2 Statement of Reorganization and General Information, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1.1—1.43 (1972).
3.2a Introduction—Subpart A
§ 1.1 Creation and Authority
§ 1.3 Purpose and Function
§ 1.5 Organization and General Information
§ 1.7 Location of Principal Offices
3.2b EPA Headquarters—Subpart B
§ 1.21 General
§ 1.23 Office of the Administrator
§ 1.25 Staff Offices
§ 1.27 Office of the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Water Programs
§ 1.29 Office of the Assistant Administrator for
Categorical Programs
§ 1.31 Office of the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and General Counsel
§ 1.33 Office of the Assistant Administrator for
Planning and Management
§ 1.35 Office of the Assistant Administrator for
Research and Monitoring
3.2c EPA Field Installations—Subpart C
§ 1.41 Regional Offices
§ 1.43 National Environmental Research Centers and
Western Environmental Research Laboratory
3.3 Public Information, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§ 2.100-2.111 (1973).
§ 2.100 Scope
§ 2.101 General Policy
§ 2.102 Procedures Applicable to the Public
§ 2.103 Agency Procedures in Response to Requests
§ 2.104 Duties of Responsible EPA Offices
§ 2.105 Exemptions
§ 2.106 Determinations by the Office of the General
Counsel or a Regional Counsel
§ 2.107 Determinations by the Office of Public Affairs
§ 2.107a Trade Secrets and Priviledged or Confidential
Information
§ 2.108 Creation of Records
§ 2.109 Denial of Requests for Records
-------
342 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 2.110 Copies of Documents
§ 2.111 Payment
3.4 Employees Responsibilities and Conduct, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.P.R. §§ 3.100-3.607 (1973).
3.4a General Provisions—Subpart A
§ 3.100 Purpose
§ 3.101 Coverage
§ 3.102 Definitions
§ 3.103 Ethical Standards of Conduct for Employees
§ 3.104 Other General Statements of Conduct
§ 3.105 Statutes Relating to Employees Conduct
3.4b Advisory Service and Enforcement—Subpart B
§ 3.200 Purpose
§ 3.201 Use of Advisory Service
§ 3.202 Designation of Counselors and Statement of
Functions
§ 3.203 Review Enforcement Reporting and Investigation
3.4c Financial Interest and Investments—Subpart C
§ 3.300 Purpose
§ 3.301 General
§ 3.302 Statutory Prohibitions Against Acts Affecting a
Personal Financial Interest
§ 3.303 Waiver of Statutory Prohibitions
§ 3.304 Confidential Statements of Employment and
Financial Interest
3.4d Acceptance of Gifts, Gratuities or Entertainment—Subpart
D
§ 3.400 Purpose
§ 3.401 Policy
§ 3.402 Statutory Prohibitions
3.4e Outside Employment—Subsection E
§ 3.500 Purpose
§ 3.501 Definitions
§ 3.502 Policy
§ 3.503 Guidelines and Limitations
§ 3.504 Distinction Between Official and Non-Official
Activities
§ 3.505 Compensation, Honorariums, Travel Expenses
§ 3.506 Special Conditions Applicable to Teaching, Lectur-
ing and Speech-Making
-------
REGULATIONS 343
§ 3.507 Special Conditions Applicable to Writing and
Editing
§ 3.508 Special Conditions Applicable to Publishing
§ 3.509 Administrative Approval
§ 3.510 Related Statutory Provisions
3.4f Standards of Conduct for Special Government Employees
§ 3.600 Scope »?
§ 3.601 Applicability
§ 3.602 Standards of Ethical Conduct
§ 3.603 Statement of Employment and Financial Interests
for Special Government Employees
§ 3.604 Advisory Service
§ 3.605 Review, Enforcement, Reporting, and Investiga-
tion
§ 3.606 Application of Conflict of Interest Statutes
§ 3.607 Other Statutes
3.5 Interim Regulations and Procedures for Implementing the Uni-
form Allocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-
4.263 (1971).
3.5a General—Subpart A
§ 4.1 Purpose and Policy
§ 4.3 Definitions
§ 4.5 Applicability
§ 4.7 Displaced Persons; Qualifications
§ 4.11 Comparatable Replacement Dwellings; Require-
ments
§ 4.13 Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Dwellings; Require-
ments
§ 4.17 Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Rental Sleeping Rooms;
Requirements
§ 4.19 Records
3.5b Requirements for Federal Projects—Subpart B
§ 4.31 Scope
§ 4.33 Determinations; Displacement of Persons
§ 4.35 Determination; Acquisitions of Real Property
§ 4.37 Appeals
§ 4.39 State Agency Providing Real Property for a
Federal Project
3.5c Requirements for Federally Assisted Projects—Subpart C
§ 4.51 Scope
§ 4.53 State Agency Required to Submit Relocation Plan
and Statement of Relocation Procedure
§ 4.55 Prerequisites to EPA Approval of Federal
-------
344 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
Financial Assistance to Project and Project
Phase; Displacement
§ 457 Use of Federal Financial Assistance
§ 4.61 Federal Share of Costs
§ 4.63 Appeals
§ 4.65 Retroactive Effect
§ 4.67 Required Amendment of Existing Grants, etc.
3.5d Relocation Assistance Advisory Programs—Subpart D
§ 4.71 Scope
§ 4.72 Extension of Services to Adjacent Occupants
§ 4.75 Relocation Programs; General Requirements
§ 4.77 Organizational Requirements
§ 4.79 Coordination with Other Agencies
§ 4.81 Public Information; General
§ 4.83 Public Information; Hearings
§ 4.85 Public Information; Brochure
§ 4.87 Public Information; Announcements
§ 4.89 Public Information; Notices
§ 4.91 Waiver of Public Information Requirements
§ 4.93 Information for Displaced Persons
3.5e Moving and Related Expenses—Subpart E
§ 4ail Scope
§ 4.113 Eligibility Not Dependent on Length of
Occupancy
§ 4.115 Payment Limited to One Move; Exception
§ 4.117 Family Treated as Person
§ 4.119 Non-Eligibility Notice to Rental Occupants
Required
§ 4.121 Moving Expenses; Application and Payment
§ 4.123 Exclusions
§ 4.125 Moving Expenses; Occupants of Dwellings
§ 4.127 Moving Expenses; Businesses and Farm Opera-
tions
§ 4.129 Moving Expenses; Advertising Businesses
§ 4.131 Low Value, High Bulk Property; Businesses and
Farm Operations
§ 4.133 Actual Direct Losses; Businesses and Farm Opera-
tions
§ 4.135 Expenses in Searching For Replacement Business
or Farm Operations
•3.5f Fixed Allowance in Lieu of Moving and Related Expenses—
Subpart F
§ 4.151 Scope
§ 4.153 Schedule of Moving Expenses Allowances; Occu-
pants of the Dwelling
§ 4.156 Family Treated as Person
-------
REGULATIONS 345
§ 4.157 Application and Payment
§ 4.159 Fixed Allowance; Businesses
§ 4.161 Fixed Allowance; Farm Operations
§ 4.163 Computing Average Annual Net Income; Busi-
nesses and Farm Operations
3.5g Replacement Housing Payments—Subsection G
§ 4.171 Scope
§ 4.173 Purchase of a Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Dwelling
§ 4.175 Occupancy
§ 4.177 Inspection of Replacement Dwelling Required
§ 4.179 Application and Payment
§ 4.181 Eligibility
§ 4.183 Replacement Housing Payment; Purchase Price
§ 4.185 Replacement Housing Payment; Rent and Down
Payment
§ 4.187 Rules for Considering Land Values
§ 4.189 Limitations; Payments for Purchase Price
§ 4.191 Reasonable Cost of Comparatable Replacement
Dwellings
§ 4.193 Owner Retention
§ 4.195 Increased Interest Cost
§ 4.197 Incidental Expenses
§ 4.199 Computation of Rental Payment; Tenants
§ 4.201 Computation of Rental Payment; Homeowners
§ 4.203 Determining the Reasonable Monthly Rent
§ 4.205 Rental Payment; Method of Payment
§ 4.207 Computation of Down Payment
§ 4.209 Down Payment
§ 4.211 Provisional Payment Pending Condemnation
§ 4.213 Combined Payments
§ 4.215 Partial Use of Home for Business or Farm
Operation
§ 4.217 Multiple Occupants of a Single Dwelling
§ 4.219 Multi-Family Dwellings
§ 4.221 Certificate of Eligibility Pending Purchase of
Replacement Dwelling
3.5h Relocation Assistance Functions Carried Out Through
Other Agencies—Subpart H
§ 4.231 Authority to Carry Out Relocation Assistance
Through Other Agencies
§ 4.233 Inter-Agency Agreement Required
§ 4.235 Amendment of Existing Agreements Required
3.5i Acquisition of Real Property—Subpart I
§ 4.251 Scope
§ 4.253 Real Property Acquisition Practice
§ 4.255 Statement of Just Compensation to Owner
§ 4.257 Equal Interest in Improvements to be Acquired
-------
346 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 4.259 Payments to Tenant for Improvement
§ 4.261 Expenses Incidental to Transfer of Title
§ 4.263 Litigation Expenses
3.6 Tuition Pees for Direct Training, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 5.1-5.7 (1973).
§ 5.1 Establishment of Fees
§ 5.2 Definition
§ 5.3 Schedule of Fees
§ 5.4 Registration of Offices
§ 5.5 Procedure for Payment
§ 5.6 Refunds
§ 5.7 Waivers
§ 5.8 Appeal of waiver denial
3.7 Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 6.10-6.95 (1973).
3.7a General—Subpart A
§ 6.10 Purpose and Policy
§ 6.11 Definitions
§ 6.12 Summary of Environmental Impact Statement
Process
§ 6.13 Applicability
§ 6.14 General Responsibilities
§ 6.15 Timing for Proposed Agency Actions on Which
Impact Statements Are to be Prepared
3.7b Procedure—Subpart B
§ 6.20 Guidelines for Determining When to Prepare An
Impact Statement
§ 6.21 Environmental Review
§ 6.22 Notice of Intent
§ 6.23 Draft Impact Statements
§ 6.24 Final Impact Statements
§ 6.25 Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact
Appraisals
3.7c Content of Environmental Impact Statements—Subpart C
§ 6.30 Cover Sheet
§ 6.31 Summary Sheet
§ 6.32 Body of Statement
3.7d Public Participation—Subpart D
§ 6.40 General
§ 6.41 Public Hearings
§ 6.42 Comments on Draft and Final Statements
§ 6.43 Availability of Documents
3.7e Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Impact State-
-------
REGULATIONS 347
ments for Waste-water Treatment Works and Associated
Plants—Subpart E
§ 6.50 Purpose
§ 6.51 Definitions
§ 6.52 Applicability
§ 6.53 Responsibility
§ 6.54 Criteria for Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements
§ 6.55 Procedures for Preparation of Impact Statements
for Plans
§ 6.56 Procedures for Preparation of Impact Statements
for Wastewater Treatment Works
§ 6.57 Content of Environmental Impact Statements
§ 6.58 Public Hearing Requirements
§ 6.59 Project Commencement
3.7f Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements for Research and Monitoring Projects and
Activities—Subpart F
§ 6.60 Purpose
§ 6.61 Definitions
§ 6.62 Applicability
§ 6.63 Responsibility
§ 6.64 Criteria for the Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements
§ 6.65 Procedures for Preparation, Distribution, and Re-
view of EIS's and other EIS—Associated Docu-
ments
3.7g Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements for the Air Quality Project and Activities—
Subpart G
§ 6.70 Purpose
§ 6.71 Definitions
§ 6.72 Applicability
§ 6.73 Responsibility
§ 6.74 Criteria for the Preparation of Environmental
Assessments and Impact Statements
§ 6.75 Procedure for Preparation, Distribution, and Re-
view of EIS's and Other EIS—Associated Docu-
ments
3.7h Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements for Solid Waste Project and Activities—
Subpart H
§ 6.80 Purpose
§ 6.81 Definitions
§ 6.82 Applicability
-------
348 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 6.83 Responsibility
§ 6.84 Criteria for the Preparation of Environmental
Assessments and Impact Statements
§ 6.85 Procedures for Preparation, Distribution, and Re-
view of EIS's and Other EIS—Associated Docu-
ments
3.7i Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements for Construction of Special Purpose Facilities
and Facility Renovations—Subpart I
§ 6.90 Purpose
§ 6.91 Definitions
§ 6.92 Applicability
§ 6.93 Responsibility
§ 6.94 Criteria for the Preparation of Environmental
Assessments and Impact Statements
§ 6.95 Procedures for Preparation, Distribution, and Re-
view of EIS's and Other EIS—Associated Docu-
ments
3.8 Administrative Claims Under Federal Court Claim Acts, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 10.1-10.11 (1973).
3.8a General—Subpart A
§ 10.1 Scope of Regulations
3.8b Procedure—Subpart B
§ 10.2 Administrative Claims; When Presented; Place of
Filing
§ 10.3 Administrative Claims; Who May File
§ 10.4 Administrative Claims; Evidence to be Submitted
§ 10.5 Investigation, Examination, and Determination of
Claim
§ 10.6 Final Denial of Claims
§ 10.7 Payment of Approved Claims
§ 10.8 Release
§ 10.9 Penalties
§ 10.10 Limitations on Environmental Protection Agency's
Authority
§ 10.11 Relationship to Other Agency Regulations
3.9 Security Classification Regulations Pursuant to Executive Order
11652, Environmental Protection Agency 40 C.F.R. §§ 11.1-11.6
(1972).
§ 11.1 Purpose
§ 11.2 Background
§ 11.3 Responsibilities
§ 11.4 Definitions
-------
REGULATIONS 349
§ 11.5 Procedures
§ 11.6 Access by Historical Researchers and Former Gov-
ernment Officials
3.10 Certification of Facilities, Environmental Protection Agency, 40'
C.F.R. §§ 20.1-20.10 (1971).
§ 20.1 Applicability
§ 20.2 Definitions
§ 20.3 General Provisions
§ 20.4 Notice of Intent to Certify
§ 20.5 Application
§ 20.6 State Certification
§ 20.7 General Policies
§ 20.8 Requirements for Certification
§ 20.9 Cost Recovery
§ 20.10 Revocation
3.11 General Grant Regulations and Procedures, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency 40 C.F.R. §§ 30.100-30.1001—3 (1972).
§ 30.100 Purpose of Regulation
§ 30.101 Authority
§ 30.102 Applicability and Scope
§ 30.103 Publication
§ 30.104 Copies
§ 30.105 Citations
§ 30.106 Amendment
§ 30.107 Grant Information
S.lla Basic Policy—Subpart A
§ 30.200 The Role of EPA
§ 30.201 The Role of the Administrator
§ 30.202 Responsibility of the Grantee
§ 30.203 Grant Objectives
§ 30.204 Comprehensive Grants
§ 30.205 Foreign Grants
§ 30.206 Cost Sharing
3.lib Application and Award—Subpart B
§ 30.300 Application and Procedures
§ 30.300—1 Pre-Proposals
§ 30.301 Application for Grant
§ 30.301—1 Form
§ 30.301—2 Content
§ 30.301—3 Time of Submission
§ 30,301—4 Place of Submission
§ 30.301—5 Number of Copies Submission
§ 30.302 Evaluation of Application
§ 30.302—1 Supplemental Information
§ 30.302—2 Procedure
-------
350 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 30.303 Criteria for Award of Grants
§ 30.304 Responsible Prospective Grantee
§ 30.304—1 Scope
§ 30.304—2 General Policy
§ 30.304—3 Standards
§ 30.304—4 Determination of Responsibility
§ 30.305 Award of Grant
§ 30.305—1 Amount and Term of Grant
§ 30.305—2 Grant Agreement
§ 30.305—3 Effect of Grant Award
§ 30.306 Continuation Grant
S.llc Grant Conditions—Subpart C
§ 30.400 General
§ 30.401 Statutory Conditions
§ 30.402 Executive Orders
§ 30.403 Additional Requirements—Federally Assisted
Construction
§ 30.404 Non-compliance With Grant Conditions
S.lld Patents, Data, and Copyrights—Subpart D
§ 30.500 Patents and Inventions
§ 30.500—1 Scope
§ 30.500—2 Definitions
§ 30.501 General
§ 30.502 Required Patent Provisions
§ 30.503 Requests for Rig-hts to Identified Inventions
§ 30.504 Data and Copyright
§ 30.504—1 General
§ 30.504—2 Required Provisions
§ 30.505 Deviations
3.11e Administration and Performance of Grants—Subpart E
§ 30.600 General
§ 30.601 Adherence to Original Budget Estimates
§ 30.602 Payment
§ 30.602—1 Retention
§ 30.603 Grant Related Income
§ 30.604 Grantee Publications and Publicity
§ 30.604,—1 Publicity
§ 30.604—2 Publications
§ 30.604—3 Surveys and Questionnaires
§ 30.604—4 Signs
§ 30.605 Accounting
§ 30.605—1 Personnel
§ 30.606 Audits and Inspections
§ 30.607 Reports
3.11f Expenditures by Grantee—Subpart F
-------
REGULATIONS
351
§ 30.700 Use of Funds
§ 30.701 Allocation and Allowability of Costs
§ 30.702 Cost Sharing
S.llg Grantee Accountability—Subpart G
§ 30.800 Equipment, Materials, or Supplies
§ 30.800—1 Waiver of Equipment Accountability
§ 30.800—2 Retention by the Grantee
§ 30.800—3 Sale or Other Disposition by Grantee
§ 30.800—4 Transfer to the United States
§ 30.800—5 Other Provisions
§ 30.801 Final Accounting
§ 30.802 Final Settlement
S.llh Modification, Extension and Termination of Grants—Sub-
part H
§ 30.900 Project Changes
§ 30.900—1 Notice of Project Changes
§ 30.900—2 Disapproval of Project Changes
§ 30.901 Grant Amendments
§ 30.902 Suspension of Grants
§ 30.902—1 Use of Stop-Work Orders
§ 30.902—2 Content of Orders
§ 30.902—3 Subsequent Actions
§ 30.902—4 Disputes Provisions
§ 30.903 Termination of Grants
§ 30.903—1 Termination Agreement
§ 30.903—2 Project Termination by Grantee
§ 30.903—3 Termination by EPA
§ 30.903—4 Termination Costs
§ 30.903—5 Dispute Provisions
S.lli Miscellaneous—Subpart I
§ 30.1000 Definitions
§ 30.1000—1 Administrator
§ 30.1000—2 Agency
§ 30.1000—3 Applicant
§ 30.1000—4 Budget
§ 30.1000—5 Budget Period
§ 30.1000—6 Cost Sharing
§ 30.1000—7 Educational Institutions
§ 30.1000—8 Federal Assistance
§ 30.1000—9 Grant
§ 30.1000—10 Grant Agreement
' § 30.1000—11 Grantee
§ 30.1000—12 Grant Offices
§ 30.1000—13 Matching Share
§ 30.1000—14 Non-Profit Organization
§ 30.1000—15 Project
-------
352 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 30.1000—16 Project Costs
§ 30.1000—17 Project Manager
§ 30.1000—18 Project Period
§ 30.1000—19 Subagreement
§ 30.1001 Deviation
§ 30.1001—1 Applicability
§ 30.1001—2 Requests for Deviation
§ 30.1001—3 Approval of Deviation
3.12 State and Local Assistance, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§ 35.001-35.955 (1973).
§ 35.001 Purpose of Regulation
§ 35.002 Applicability and Scope
3.12a Planning- Grants—Subpart A
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
§ 35.150 Applicability
§ 35.150—1 Basin Control Plans
§ 35.150—2 Regional and Metropolitan Plans
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING GRANTS
§ 35.200 Purpose
§ 35.201 Authority
§ 35.202 Definitions
§ 35.202—1 Administrative Expenses
§ 35.202—2 Basin
§ 35.202—3 State
§ 35.205 Grant Limitations
§ 35.210 Eligibility
§ 35.215 Application Requirements
§ 35.220 Criteria for Award
§ 35.225 Water Pollution Control Comprehensive Basin
Plan
§ 35.230 Reports
§ 35.230—1 Report of Project Expenditures
§ 35.230—2 Interim Plans
§ 35.240 Continuation Grant
SOLID WASTE PLANNING GRANT
§ 35.300 Purpose
§ 35.301 Authority
§ 35.302 Definitions
§ 35.302—1 Inter-Municipal Agency *
§ 35.302—2 Interstate Agency
§ 35.302—3 Municipality
§ 35.302—4 Solid Waste
§ 35.302—5 Solid Waste Disposal
-------
REGULATIONS 353
§ 35.302—6 State
§ 35.304 Solid Waste Planning Projects
§ 35.304—1 Management Planning
§ 35.304—2 Special Purpose Planning
§ 35.305 Grant Limitations
§ 35.310 Eligibility
§ 35.315 Application
§ 35.315—1 Reapplication Procedures
§ 35.315—2 Application Requirements
§ 35.320 Criteria for Awards
§ 35.320—1 All Applications
§ 35.320—2 State Applications
§ 35.320—3 Local and Regional Applications
§ 35.330 Reports
§ 35.330—1 Progress Reports
§ 35.330—2 Report of Project Expenditures
§ 35.330—3 Final Report
§ 35.340 Continuation Grants
3.12b Program Grants—Subpart B
§ 35.400 Purpose
§ 35.400—1 Grants May Be Awarded to Air Pollution
Control Agencies and Interstate Planning
Agencies
§ 35.400—2 Water Pollution Control Program Grant
Awards
§ 35.401 Authority
§ 35.405 Criteria for Evaluation of Program Ob-
jectives
§ 35.410 Evaluation of Program Performances
§ 35.415 Report of Project Procedures
§ 35.420 Payment
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM GRANTS
§ 35.501 Definitions
§ 35.501—1 Air Pollution
§ 35.501—2 Air Pollution Control Agency
§ 35.501—3 Air Pollution Control Program
§ 35.501—4 Air Quality Control Region
§ 35.501—5 Implementation Plans
§ 35.501—6 Interstate Air Quality Control Region
§ 35.501—7 Interstate Planning Agency
§ 35.501—8 Maintenance Programs
§ 35.501—9 Municipality
§ 35.501—10 Non-Reoccurant Expenditures
§ 35.501—11 Pre-Maintainance Program
§ 35.501—12 Program Descriptions
§ 35.501—13 State
§ 35.505 Allocation of Funds
§ 35.507 Federal Assistance for Agency Programs
-------
354
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 35.507—-1 Limitations on Assistance
§ 35.507—2 Limitations on Duration
§ 35.507—3 Schedule of Federal Support
§ 35.510 Grant Amount
§ 35.510—1 Determinations
§ 35.510—2 Limitations
§ 35.515 Eligibility
§ 35.515—1 Control Programs
§ 35.515—2 Interstate Planning
§ 35.520 Criteria for Award
§ 35.520—1 Control Programs
§ 35.520—2 Interstate Planning
§ 35.525 Program Requirements
§ 35.525—1 Pre-Maintainance Programs
§ 35.525—2 Maintainance Program
§ 35.525—3 Interstate Planning
§ 35.530 Supplemental Conditions
§ 35.535 Assignment of Personnel
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL STATE AND INTERSTATE
PROGRAM GRANTS
§ 35.551 Scope and Purpose
§ 35.551—1 Allotments
§ 35.551—2 Federal Share
§ 35.551—3 Interstate Agency
§ 35.551—4 Per-Capita Income
§ 35.551—5 Plan
§ 35.551—6 State
§ 35.551—7 State Water Pollution Control Agency
§ 35.552 Definitions
§ 35.552—1 Allotments
§ 35.552—2 State Program Grant
§ 35.552—3 State Program
§ 35.552—4 Number of Pollution Sources
§ 35.552—5 State Agency
§ 35.552—6 Interstate Agency
§ 35.552—7 Reasonable Cost
§ 35.552—8 Interstate Segment
§ 35.552—9 Reoccurant Expenditures
§ 35.553 Annual Guidance
§ 35.554 State Strategy Information and Progrs
Development
§ 35.554—1 State Strategy Information
§ 35.554—2 State Program Development
§ 35.554.—3 Major Program Elements and Outputs
§ 35.555 State Program Submission
§ 35.555—1 Notification of Funding
§ 35.555—2 Allotments to States
§ 35.555—3 Allotments to Interstate Agencies
§ 35.555—4 Population Compulation
-------
REGULATIONS
355
§ 35.556 Public Participation
§ 35.557 Program Approval
§ 35.557—1 Determination of Federal Share for States
§ 35.557—2 Determination of Federal Share for Inter-
state Agencies
§ 35.558 Allocation of Funds
§ 35.558—1 Computation of State Allotment Ratio
§ 35.558—2 Computation of Interstate Allocations
§ 35.558—3 Computation of State Allocations
§ 35.558—4 Notification of Funds
§ 35.559 Grant Amount
§ 35.559—1 Computation of Maximum Grant
§ 35.559—2 Determination
§ 35.559—3 Reduction of Grant Amount
§ 35.559—4 Grant Amount Limit and Duration
§ 35.559—5 Eligibility
§ 35.559—6 Limitation of Awards
§ 35.559—7 Grant Conditions
§ 35.560 Program Evaluation and Reporting
§ 35.560—1 Evaluation
§ 35.560—2 Reports
§ 35.560—3 Reduction of Grant Amount
§ 35.563 Grant Limitations and Duration
3.12c Grant for Construction of Waste Water Treatment
Works—Subpart C
§ 35.800 Purpose
§ 35.801 Authority
§ 35.805 Definitions
§ 35.805—1 Construction
§ 35.805—2 Inter-Municipal Agency
§ 35.805—3 Interstate Agency
§ 35.805—4 Muncipality
§ 35.805—5 State
§ 35.805—6 State Water Pollution Control Agency
§ 35.805—7 Treatment Works
§ 35.810 Applicant Eligibility
§ 35.815 Allocation of Funds
§ 35.815—1 Allotment to States
§ 35.815—2 Re-Allotments
§ 35.820 Grant Limitations
§ 35.820—1 Exceptions
§ 35.825 Application for Grants
§ 35.825—1 Pre-Application Procedures
§ 35.825—2 Formal Applications
§ 35.830 Determining the Desirability of Projects
§ 35.835 Criteria for Award
§ 35.835—1 State Priority
§ 35.835—2 Basin Control
§ 35.835—3 Regional and Metropolitan Plan
§ 35.835—4 Adequacy of Treatment
-------
356
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 35.835—5 Industrial Waste Treatment
§ 35.835—6 Design
§ 35.835—7 Operation and Maintainance
§ 35.835—8 Operation During Construction
§ 35.835—9 Post-Construction Inspection
§ 35.840 Supplemental Grant Conditions
§ 35.845 Payments
§ 35.850 Reimbursements (RESERVED)
3.12d RESERVED—Subpart D
3.12e Grants for Condition of Treatment Works—Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972—Subpart E
§ 35.900
§ 35.901
§ 35.903
§ 35.905
§ 35.905—1
§ 35.905—2
§ 35.905—3
§ 35.905—4
§ 35.905—5
§ 35.905—6
§ 35.905—7
§ 35.905—8
§ 35.905—9
§ 35.905—10
§ 35.905—11
§ 35.905—12
§ 35.905—13
§ 35.905—14
§ 35.905—15
§ 35.908
§ 35.910
§ 35.910—1
§ 35.910—2
§ 35.915
§ 35.920
§ 35.920—1
§ 35.920—2
§ 35.920—3
§ 35.925
§ 35.925—1
35.925—2
35.925—3
35.925—4
35.925—5
35.925—6
35.925—7
§
Purpose
Authority
Summary of Construction Grant Program
Definitions
The Act
Combined Sewer
Construction
Excessive Infiltration/Inflow
Infiltration
Inflow
Infiltration/Inflow
Interstate Agency
Municipality
Project
Sanitary Sewer
State
State Agency
Storm Sewer
Treatment Works
Advanced Technology and Accelerated Con-
struction Techniques
Allocation of Funds
Allotment
Reallotment
State Determination and Certification of
Project Priority
Grant Application
Eligibility
Procedure
Content of Application
Limitations on Award
Facility Planning
State Plan
Priority Certification
State Allocation
Applicants Funding Capabilities
Permits
Design
-------
REGULATIONS
357
§ 35.925—8 Environmental Review
§ 35.925—9 Civil Rights
§ 35.925—10 Operation and Maintainance Programs
§ 35.925—11 User Charge System
§ 35.925—12 Sewage Collection Systems
§ 35.925—13 Alternative Techniques and Technology
§ 35.927 Sewer System Evaluation
§ 35.928 User Charges System (RESERVED)
§ 35.930 Grant Awards
§ 35.930—1 Types of Grants
§ 35.930—2 Grant Amount
§ 35.930—3 Grant Term
§ 35.930—4 Project Scope
§ 35.930—5 Grant Percentages
§ 35.935 Grant Conditions
§ 35.935—1 Non-Restrictive Specifications
§ 35.935—2 Procurement
§ 35.935—3 Bonding and Insurance
§ 35.935—4 State and Local Laws
§ 35.935—5 Davis-Bacon and Related Statutes
§ 35.935—6 Equal Employment Opportunity
§ 35.935—7 Access
§ 35.935—8 Supervision
§ 35.935—9 Project Completion
§ 35.935—10 Copy of Contract Document
§ 46.935—11 Project Changes
§ 35.935—12 Operation and Maintainance
§ 35.940 Determination of Allowable Cost
§ 35.940—1 Allowable Cost
§ 35.940—2 Unallowable Cost
§ 35.940—3 Cost Allowable, If Approved
§ 35.940—4 Indirect Cost
§ 35.940—5 Disputes
§ 35.945 Grant Payment
§ 35.950 Suspension or Termination of Grants
§ 35.955 Grant Amendments to Increase Grant
Amounts
3.13 Research and Demonstration Grants, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 40.100-40.165 (1973).
§ 40.100 Purpose of Regulation
§ 40.105 Applicability and Scope
§ 40.110 Authority
§ 40.115 Definitions
§ 40.115—1 Construction
§ 40.115—2 Intermunicipal Agency
§ 40.115—3 Interstate Agency
§ 40.115—4 Municipality
§ 40.115—5 Person
§ 40.115—6 Recovered Resources
§ 40.115—7 Resource Recovery System
-------
358
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 40.115—8 Solid Waste
§ 40.115—9 Solid Waste Disposal
§ 40.115—10 State
§ 40.120 Determination of EPA Research Objective
§ 40.120—1 Environmental Research Need
§ 40.120—2 Need Statements
§ 40.120—3 Publication of Research Objectives
§ 40.125 Grant Limitations
§ 40.125—1 Limitations on Duration
§ 40.125—2 Limitations on Assistance
§ 40.130 Eligibility
§ 40.135 Application
§ 40.135—1 Preapplication Coordination
§ 40.135—2 Application Requirements
§ 40.140 Criteria for Award
§ 40.140—1 All Applications
§ 40.140—2 Solid Waste Disposal Act
§ 40.140—3 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
§ 40.145 Supplement Grant Conditions
§ 40.145—1 Solid Waste Disposal Act
§ 40.145—2 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
§ 40.145—3 Projects Involving Construction
§ 40.150 Evaluation of Applications
§ 40.155 Confidential Data
§ 40.160 Reports
§ 40.160—1 Progress Reports
§ 40.160—2 Report of Project Expenditures
§ 40.160—3 Reporting of Inventions
§ 40.160—4 Equipment Report
§ 40.160—5 Final Report
§ 40.165 Continuation Grants
3.14 Training Grants and Manpower Forecasting, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§ 45.100-45.155 (1973).
3.14a Training Grants—Subpart A
§ 45.100 Purpose of Regulation
§ 45.101 Applicability of Scope
§ 45.102 Authority
§ 45.103 Objectives
§ 45.105 Definitions
§ 45.105—1 Professional Training
§ 45.105—2 Scholarship
§ 45.105—3 Stipend
§ 45.105—4 Technician Training
§ 45.115 Eligibility
§ 45.125 Application Requirements
§ 45.130 Evaluation of Applications
§ 45.135 Supplemental Grant Conditions
§ 45.140 Project Period
-------
REGULATIONS 359
§ 45.145 Allocation and Allowability of Cost
§ 45.150 Reports
§ 45.150—1 Interim Progress Report
§ 45.150—2 Final Progress Report
§ 45.150—3 Report of Expenditures
§ 45.150—4 Equipment Report
§ 45.155 Continuation Grant
3.14b Manpower Forecasting—Subpart B
[RESERVED]
3.15 Fellowships, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§
46.100-46.165 (1973).
§ 46.100 Purpose of Regulation
§ 46.101 Applicability and Scope
§ 46.102 Authority
§ 46.103 Objective
§ 46.104 Type of Fellowships
§ 46.105 Definitions
§ 46.105—1 Full-Time Fellowship
§ 46.105—2 Part-Time Fellowship
§ 46.105—3 Stipend
§ 46.110 Benefits
§ 46.115 Eligibility
§ 46.120 Application Requirements
§ 46.122 Evaluation of Applications
§ 46.135 Award and Duration of Fellowship
§ 46.135 Initiation of Study
§ 46.140 Fellowship Agreement
§ 46.141 Fellowship Agreement Amendment
§ 46.145 Payment
§ 46.150 Publication and Thesis
§ 46.155 Deviations
§ 46.165 Termination
3.16 General, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§ 15-1—
15-1.53 (1973)
§ 15.1000 Scope of Part
3.16a Regulation System
§ 15-1.001 Scope of Subpart
§ 15-1.002 Purpose
§ 15-1.003 Authority
§ 15-1.004 Applicability
§ 15-1.006 Issuance
§ 15-1.006—1 Code Arrangement
§ 15-1.006—2 Publication
§ 15-1.007 Arrangement
-------
360 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 15-1.007—1 General
§ 15-1.007—2 Numbering
§ 15-1.007—3 Citation
§ 15-1.008 Agency Implementation
§ 15-1.009 Deviation
§ 15-1.009—2 Procedure
3.16b General Policies
§ 15-1.318 Disputes Clause
§ 15-1.318—1 Contracting Officers Decision Under Dis-
putes Clause
§ 15-1.350 Release of Procurement Information
§ 15-1.351 Purpose and Scope
§ 15-1.352 Exemption
§ 15-1.353 Changes for Copies, Services, etc.
3.16c Debarred, Suspended and Ineligible Bidders
§ 15-1.600 Scope of Subpart
§ 15-1.602 Establishment, Maintainance, and Distri-
bution of a List of Concerns of Individuals
Debarred, Suspended, or Declared Ineligible
§ 15-1.602—1 Basis for Entry on the Debarred, Sus-
pended, or Declared Ineligible
§ 15-1.603 Treatment to be Accorded Firms of Indi-
viduals and Debarred, Suspended, or Ineli-
gible Status
§ 15-1.604 Causes and Conditions Applicable to De-
termination of Debarrment
§ 15-1.604—1 Procedural Requirements Relating to the
Imposition of Debarrment
§ 15-1.605 Suspension of Bidders
§ 15-1.605—1 Causes and Conditions Under Which EPA
May Suspend Contractors
§ 15-1.605—2 Notice of Suspension
§ 15-1.606 Agency Procedures
3.16d Small Business Concerns
§ 15-1.704 Agency Program Direction and Opera-
tion
§ 15-1.704—1 Small Business Assistance Officer
§ 15-1.704.—2 Small Business Specialists
§ 15-1.706-50 Procurement Set-Aside for Small Busi-
ness When an PDA Representative is
Not Available
§ 15-1.705-50—1 General
§ 15-1.705-50—2 Review of Set-Aside Recommendations
Initiated by Small Business Specialists
§ 15-1.706-50,—3 Withdrawal or Modification of Set-
Asides
-------
REGULATIONS 361
§ 15-1.706-50—4 Small Business Set-Aside for Proposed
Construction Procurement
3.16e Novation Agreement and Change of Name Agreement
§ 15-1.5100 Scope of Subpart
§ 15-1.5101 Definitions
§ 15-1.5102 Agreement to Recognize a Successor in
Interest
§ 15-1.5103 Agreement to Recognize Change of Name
of Contractor
§ 15-1.5104 Procedures
§ 15-1.5105 Novation Agreement Format
§ 15-1.5105—1 Successor in Interest Agreement Format
§ 15-1.5105—2 Change of Name Agreement Format
§ 15-1.5105—3 Administrative Change Format
3.16f Code of Conduct
§ 15-1.5300 Code of Conduct
§ 15-1.5301 Organizational Conflicts of Interest
3.17 Procurement by Formal Advertising, Environmental Protection
Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§ 15-2.406-15-2.407—8 (1972)
3.17a Opening for Bids and Award of Contract
§ 15-2.406 Mistakes in Bid
§ 15-2.406—3 Other Mistakes Disclosed Before Awards
§ 15-2.406—4 Disclosure of Mistakes After Awards
§ 15-2.467—8 Protest Against Awards
3.18 Procurement by Negotiations, Environmental Protection Agency,
41 C.F.R. §| 15-3.103—15-3.5100 (1972)
3,18a Use of Negotiations
§ 15-3.405 Cost Reimbursement Type Contracts
§ 15-2.405—3 Cost Sharing Contract
3.18c Small Purchases
§ 15-3.600 Scope of Subpart
§ 15-3.601 Purpose
§ 15-3.602 Policy
§ 15-3.603 Competition
§ 15-3.603—1 Solicitation
§ 15-3.603—2 Data to Support Small Purchases
§ 15-3.604 Imprest Funds (Petty Cash) Method
§ 15-3.605 Purchase Order Forms
§ 15-3.605—1 Standard Form 44, Purchase Order-Invoice-
Voucher
-------
362 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT n
§ 15-3.605—2 Standard Form 147 and 148, Order for Sup-
plies of Services
§ 15-3.606 Blanket Purchase Arrangements
§ 15-3.650 Oral Purchase Orders
§ 15-3.650—1 Policy
§ 15-3.651 Procedure
3.18d Price Negotiation Policies and Techniques
§ 15-3.805 Section of Offerers for Negotiations and
Award
§ 15-3.805—1 General
§ 15-3.808-50 Profit of Fee Guidelines
3.18e Protest Against Award
§ 15-3.5100 Protest Against Award
3.19 Special Types and Methods of Procurement, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 41 C.F.R. §§ 15-4.5300—15-4.5303 (1972)
3.19a Procurements Involving Use of Radio Frequencies
§ 15-4.5300 Scope of Subpart
§ 15-4.5301 General
§ 15-4.5302 Policy
§ 15-4.5303 Procedures
3.20 Procurement Forms, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§ 15-16.553-1—15-16.701-50 (1973)
3.20a Illustration of Forms
§ 15-16.553—1 General Provisions
§ 15-16.553—2 General Provisions For Use In Fixed
Development Contracts With Profit
Making Organizations
§ 15-16.553—3 Forms of Advertised and Negotiated
Non-Personnel Service Contracts
Other Than Construction and Architect-
Engineer Contracts
§ 15-16.553—4 General Provisions
3.20b Forms for negotiated architect-engineer contracts
§ 15-16.701 Additional provisions to U.S. Standard
form 253.
3.21 , Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R.
§§ 15-19.302—15-19.305 (1972)
3.21a Contract Delivery Terms
§ 15-19.302 F.O.B. Origin
§ 15-19.303 F.O.B. Origin, Contractors Facility
-------
REGULATIONS 363
§ 15-19.305 F.O.B. Origin, Plate Prepaid
3.22 Contract Financing, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R.
§ 15-30.1—15-30.104—1 (1973)
3.22a Forms of Financing
§ 15-30.103 Advance payment authority
§ 15-30.104—1 Letters of Credit
3.23 Contract Financing, Environmental Protection Agency, 41 C.F.R.
§§ 15-30.403—15-30.412-2 (1973)
3.23a Advance Payments
§ 15-30.403 Interest
§ 15-30.406 Responsibility-Delegation of authority
§ 15-30.410 Findings, determinations and authorization
§ 15-30.412—2 Contract provisions for advance payments
3.24 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, Internal Revenue
Service, Department of Treasury, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.169 (1972)
§ 1.169 Statutory Provisions; Authorization of Pollu-
tion Control Facilities
§ 1.169—1 Amoritization of Pollution Control Facilities
§ 1.169—2 Definitions
§ 1.169—3 Amoritizable Basis
§ 1.169—4 Time and Manner of Making Selections
3.25 Statutory Provisions; Additional First-Year Depreciation Allow-
ance, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury, 26 C.F.R.
§§ 1.179-1.179—4 (1972)
§ 1.179 Statutory Provisions; Additional First-Year
Depreciation Allowance
§ 1.179—1 Additional First-Year Depreciation Allowance
§ 1.179—2 Dollar Limitation
§ 1.179—3 Definitions of Special Rules
§ 1.179—4 Time and Manner of Making Elections
3.26 Amortization Deductions, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of Treasury, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.642(f)-1.642(f)-l (1971)
§ 1.642(f) Statutory Provisions; Estate and Trust;
Special Rules for Credits and Deductions;
Amortization Deductions
§ 1.642 (f)-—1 Amortization Deductions
3.27 Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines,
Council on Environmental Quality, 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq (1973)
^ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1974 O- 548-493 (Vol.1)
-------
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V. Library
230 South Dearborn Street - *'"'
Chicago, 'IMnois €0604
-------
-------
DATE DUE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
-------
------- |