Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
702328
label
Clean Air (2 of 3) (1990) [4]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702328
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Clean Air (2 of 3) (1990) [4]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29148-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Issues Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702328
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4515b8074e0859ab
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[1]
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
OA/ID Number:
29148
Folder ID Number:
29148-005
Folder Title:
Clean Air (2 of 3) (1990) [4]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
24
7
7
Clean Air Act Amendments
Cost Comparisons
January 23, 1990
Office of Air and Radiation
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Air Act Amendments
Cost Comparisons
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary
1
Title by Title Cost Comparison
4
Detailed Cost Comparison
5
Cost Comparison Notes
6
Discussion of Cost Differences
9
Appendix 1: Nonattainment Cost Details
12
Appendix 2: Acid Rain Details
19
Appendix 3: Air Toxic Cost Details
21
Clean Air Act Amendments
Cost Comparisons
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Last June, President Bush announced a comprehensive proposed
set of amendments to the current Clean Air Act. The goal of this
legislation is simple -- to secure the right of all Americans to
breathe clean air and live in a cleaner environment. Moreover,
by utilizing innovative and cost effective pollution control and
prevention practices, the President's proposal protects our
public and environmental health without hindering our nation's
economic viability.
Both the House and the Senate have proposed similar bills to
amend the Clean Air Act. This executive summary compares the
economic costs of the Administration's original proposal, the
House amendments to that original proposal (H.R. 3030 as
reported), and the current Senate proposal (S. 1630).
All three proposals seek common environmental goals; curbing
acid rain, improving urban air quality, and reducing toxic air
emissions. These goals are achieved in different ways however -
- differences that will greatly affect the overall cost of clean
air. By restricting the discretion of EPA to implement the new
clean air provisions and by using federal mandates rather than
local solutions, H.R. 3030, and to a much greater degree the
Senate bill, result in higher costs with little additional
environmental benefits.
As introduced, the President's original set of amendments is
estimated to cost $18.9 billion annually in the year 2005. H.R.
3030 as reported would cost $22.2 billion and the Senate proposal
would cost $41.9 billion by the year 2005, or more than double
the cost of the original Administration bill. The relative
magnitudes of the costs are similar in the early years after
implementation. The original Administration bill is estimated to
cost $6.8 billion in 1995, H.R. 3030 (as reported) $8.0 billion,
and S. 1630 $12.0 billion annually by 1995.
Each title of the proposed bills has important differences
that result in substantial cost differences. The overall cost of
nonattainment provisions of the Senate bill are more than $11
billion more than the Administration nonattainment provisions.
The majority of this difference (over $7 billion) is due to the
tighter automotive tailpipe emission standards in S. 1630. This
$7 billion dollar increased cost accounts for minor improvements
(1-2%) in volatile organic chemical (VOC) reductions over the
provisions of the Administration and House bills.
1
In the air toxics title, the Senate's residual risk
requirement is estimated to cost approximately $4.5 billion more
than the Administration or House bills. These costs are due
largely to the potential closure of industrial sources unable to
meet the nondiscretionary "bright line" 1 X 10⁻⁴ provision of the
Senate bill. (Any source that imposes a cancer risk greater than
1 in 10,000 to the "maximum exposed individual" would be required
to shut down.) In addition, the more stringent leak detection
and accidental release provisions of S. 1630 are expected to cost
approximately $2.5 billion more than either the Administration or
House bill.
In the acid deposition provisions, the Senate bill is
expected to cost approximately $400 million more annually and
result in relatively little additional reductions of NOx and S02.
In addition to these differences in specific provisions, the
Senate bill adds important provisions that are not contained in
the Administration or the House bill. These additional
provisions will increase the cost of the Senate bill beyond the
current estimate. Some of the major additions to the Senate
bill (for which costs have not been estimated) include:
The carbon dioxide motor vehicle standards
will in effect increase the required motor
vehicle mileage standards to 33 miles per
gallon by 1996 and 40 mpg by the year 2000.
The potentially disruptive effect on the
competitiveness of the U.S. automotive
industry and the additional per-vehicle
technology costs of meeting these standards
are not included in the overall Senate bill
costs.
The costs of phasing out the production and
use of ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons,
halons, and carbon tetrachloride according to
the schedule in the Senate bill will exceed
those expected as a result of the current
Montreal Protocol. These costs are not
included in the overall Senate estimate.
O
The Senate acid deposition provisions require
federally-owned facilities to obtain 10% of
their electricity supply from alternative
clean sources. To the extent that these
alternative sources are costlier than current
sources, the cost of electricity to these
facilities will be increased. These costs
are not reflected in the acid deposition
costs of the Senate bill.
2
Significant Great Lakes and coastal waters
air toxic monitoring networks and research
programs are required in the Senate bill.
The costs of these provisions have not been
estimated or included.
The municipal waste combustor provisions of
the Senate bill would impose more stringent
controls on very small waste combustors
compared to the proposed EPA regulations.
These costs are not included in the analysis.
The cost of the Senate bill does not reflect
any additional costs for transportation
control measures in the Senate bill. For
example, employers that are not able to
reduce the average number of passengers per
car would be required to pay a monthly fee.
In sum, either by addition of provisions beyond the scope of
the President's original set of Clean Air Act provisions or by
omission of provisions designed to attain environmental benefits
in the most cost-effective manner, S. 1630 and to a lesser extent
H.R. 3030 (as reported) result in a higher price tag for clean
air. With overall costs for clean air in the billions, rather
than millions of dollars, these cost differences could have a
significant impact on the nation's economic health without
providing substantial additional environmental benefit.
The remainder of this report compares the costs of each bill
and discusses important differences between each title.
3
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
ANNUAL COST COMPARISON
(million $)
1995
2005
Administration
House
Senate
Administration
House
Senate
(H.R. 3030) 2
(S.1630)
(H.R. 3030)
(S. 1630)
NONATTAINMENT
5,400
6,600
8,500
10,100
11,900
23,200
//
ACID RAIN
400
400
300
# H
4,100
4,100
4,500
//
AIR TOXICS
1,000
1,000
3,200
4,700
6,200
14,200
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
$6,800
$8,000
$12,000
$18,900
$22,200
$41,900
("best" estimate)
3
1
As transmitted by the President.
2
Administration bill as amended in Health and Environment Subcommittee.
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
ANNUAL COST COMPARISON
(million $)
1995
2005
Administration¹
House
Senate
Administration
House
Senate
(H.R. 3030)²
(S.1630)
(H.R. 3030)
(S. 1630)
NONATTAINMENT
5,400
6,600
8,500
10,100
11,900
23,200
Stationary
2,207
2,207
2,707
2,350
2,350
2,920
Motor Vehicles/Fuels^
1,635
2,685
3,376
1,691
3,494
11,413
Area Specific⁸
542
732
1,306
589
799
1,244
Progress Requirements
680
656
369
5,150
4,940
7,000
Fees
300
300
755
300
300
600
5 ACID RAIN
400
400
300
4,100
4,100
4,500
AIR TOXICS
1,000
1,000
3,200
4,700
6,200
14,200
Phase I MACTD
1,010
1,010
2,603
3,145
3,145
4,141
Mobile Sources
0
0
0
0
1,505
1,500
Accidental, Monitoring
0
0
591
84
84
2,591
& Leak Detection
Residual RiskE
Unreasonable Risk
0
0
0
1,500
1,500
1x10⁻ & 1x10⁻⁶ Risk
0
0
0
6,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
$6,800
$8,000
$12,000
$18,900
$22,200
$41,900
("best" estimate)
[See following pages for Notes A-E]
1
As transmitted by the President.
2
Administration bill as amended in Health and Environment Subcommittee.
Additional Notes for Cost Comparison Table
Nonattainment Cost Notes
A.1
The EPA-estimated cost increase for the full set
of Phase 2 standards in the Senate bill represents
about 5 percent of the average purchase price of a car.
Economists generally agree that in the short term this
will reduce new car sales by about 5 percent from
whatever they would otherwise be. The transportation
services that would have been provided by these lost
units will be made up via older cars being kept in
service longer and used more intensively. The
reduction in emissions benefits from tailpipe
hydrocarbon controls and the increased progress
requirement reductions reflect this price effect.
A.2
The tailpipe standard cost for the original
Administration bill does not reflect possible savings
from permitting averaging across models. The original
Administration bill would permit averaging only under
conditions that preserve the emission reductions
otherwise achieved by applicable standards. EPA
believes that even with this constraint, averaging
might provide industry and consumers with significant
savings and/or more product choice. It can allow
manufacturers to avoid high per vehicle development and
hardware costs on low-volume or difficult-to-control
models by substituting extra reductions from models
with more emissions payback per dollar spent. It can
also allow new model production to start on schedule
despite delays in achieving full compliance. The
standards proposed by the Administration are feasible
with known technology for all models, and EPA would
expect that averaging would be used only sparingly,
with moderate cost savings overall but significant
savings for a fraction of customers. If, for example,
averaging saved one-half the cost of control on 10
percent of production, the overall cost of the tailpipe
standards would be reduced 5 percent.
B.
The Senate bill lowers the ton per year cutoff to
25 tpy in long-term nonattainment areas and 10 tpy in
Los Angelas for reasonably available control technology
(RACT). This provision will automatically subject
these smaller sources to controls. In the
Administration bill, local areas retain the discretion
to regulate such sources as deemed necessary to meet
the progress requirements. Any additional costs of the
less flexible Senate RACT standards are not reflected
in the area source cost estimates.
6
Acid Rain Cost Notes
C.1
The present value of the cost of the
Administration proposal is $13 - $18 billion (1988$).
The present value of the Senate bill is $14 - $22
billion. The $1 - $4 billion dollar additional cost of
the Senate bill is due to the additional NOx
requirements and the one year earlier starting date of
each phase of reductions.
C.2
S. 1630 contains additional requirements for
federally owned facilities as part of the Title IV Acid
Deposition Control provisions. Sec. 403 requires
federally owned facilities operating in affected
utility service areas to install cost effective energy
conservation improvements and to utilize renewable and
alternative clean energy technologies to satisfy at
least 10 percent of each facility's electricity needs.
The requirement to transfer 10% of the electricity
demand of these facilities to clean alternative sources
could greatly increase the cost of electricity if the
price of the clean substitute was more than current
supply. Moreover, this requirement may only result in
a reshuffling of power usage, resulting in little net
environmental benefit. By requiring facilities to
purchase electricity from nonfossil sources for
example, the requirement would shift nonfossil power
from existing customers to federal facilities and
fossil capacity previously used by federal facilities
to nonfederal facilities.
Air Toxics Cost Notes
D.
Part of the Phase I MACT technology costs include
costs for controlling toxics from electric utility
boilers. EPA's detailed air toxics cost analysis
indicates that boiler control costs could range from
$750 million to $2.6 billion in the year 2003. This
range of control costs does not include the use of
scrubbers which may be necessary in some cases to
control emissions of acid gaseous emissions (e.g.
fluorides, chlorine, formaldehyde). If such gaseous
emissions were considered in the analysis, an estimated
230 additional coal-fired generating plants would
exceed the major source trigger criteria. Adding
scrubbers to these boilers would cost approximately
$7.3 billion annually. The control of acid gas
emissions and the interplay between the air toxics and
acid rain provisions of the various bills will both be
elements of the utility boiler study required by the
Administration bill.
7
E.
The $6 billion dollar residual risk cost of the
Senate bill includes both the potential costs of
closure of the sources unable to meet the 1 X 10⁻⁴
"bright-line" risk goal as well as the costs sources
are expected to incur costs in striving to meet the 1 X
10⁻⁶ Senate residual risk standard. Research on
improved control technologies and implementation of
better pollution management and control practices will
impose costs on those sources who meet the 1 X 10⁻⁴
risk level but fall short of the 1 X 10⁻⁶ risk level.
The nationwide cost of this 1 X 10⁻⁶ residual risk
requirement is difficult to estimate. In the most
recent NESHAPS regulations promulgated by EPA for
stationary sources of benzene, the incremental control
costs of reducing risk from 1 X 10⁻⁴ to 1 X 10⁻⁶ totaled
over $100 million annually for those sources able to
meet the stricter standard. Similar or greater costs
can be expected for other industrial sources required
to meet the Senate's 1 X 10⁻⁶ residual risk requirement.
In addition to the economic costs of potential
industrial source closure resulting from the Senate's 1
X 10⁻⁴ risk standard, approximately 11,000 - 14,000
workers may lose their jobs.
8
DISCUSSION OF COST DIFFERENCES
I. Nonattainment
A. Ozone Nonattainment
By the year 2010, each bill results in attainment of the
ozone ambient air standard in all areas in the nation. The
Senate bill has earlier attainment deadlines than the
Administration or House bill, resulting in greater overall costs.
By the year 1995, the ozone attainment costs of the Senate bill
are $700 million more than the original Administration bill. By
2000, ozone attainment costs are $1.1 billion more, and by 2005
they jump to over $10 billion more annually. The majority of
this cost differential is due to the Senate proposal's Phase II
automotive tailpipe standards which are estimate to add an
additional $500 to the price of each car.
B. Carbon Monoxide Attainment
The more stringent oxygenated fuels provisions of the Senate
bill are estimated to cost $320 million in 1995 compared to $117
for the original Administration bill.
II. Acid Rain
The Senate bill is estimated to cost approximately $400
million more than the Administration bill by the year 2005.
Each bill achieves similar S02 reductions (8.2 million tons from
1980 baseline by 2005 for the Administration bill and 8.6 million
tons for the Senate bill). Each bill is estimated to result in
approximately 2.1 million tons of NOx reductions. Although the
NOx reduction requirements are greater in the Senate bill because
the incremental reductions would be extremely expensive, the
analysis indicates that utilities will comply by substituting SO₂
reductions for part of the NOx reduction requirement. This
substitution effect accounts for the 400,000 ton increase in SO₂
reductions in the Senate bill.
The Administration and House bills have the same costs for
acid rain control.
III. Air Toxics
In 1995 the Senate air toxics provision is estimated to cost
$3.2 billion compared to $1.0 billion for the House and
Administration bills. The increased cost is due to urban air
toxics monitoring network costs not mandated in the
9
Administration bill and the earlier potential control of utility
boilers. The Administration bill contains a provision to
complete a study of the toxic emissions from utility boilers
before regulation.
By 2005, the costs of the Senate bill ( $14.2 billion) are
over double the estimated cost of the amended Administration bill
($6.2 billion). This is due to accidental release and leak
detection provisions more stringent than the Administration bill
and the potential costs of closure of industrial sources that
cannot meet the Senate's 1 X 10⁻⁴ "bright-line" residual risk
standard.
The major difference between the original Administration and
H.R. 3030 is H.R. 3030's more stringent mobile source air toxic
requirements which result in an additional $1.5 billion cost --
primarily for the control of benzene.
IV. Additional Senate Provisions
A. Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate: CFC Phaseout
Title VII of S. 1630, Stratospheric Ozone and
Global Climate Protection, requires the scheduled phase
out of production of listed CFCs, halons and other
ozone depleters. The schedule would require a total
ban of production by the year 2000, in contrast to the
current international agreement. (Montreal Protocol)
which only freezes production in 1998 at half of the
1986 levels. In addition, the Senate bill does not
provide the Administrator with discretion to consider
the toxic potential of CFC substitutes.
The Administration proposal does not contain
amendments to the Clean Air Act for the control of
stratospheric ozone depletion. EPA and the
Administration believe that multilateral negotiations
and actions for such control should go forward as
scheduled, rather than unilateral action. The process
of strengthening the Montreal Protocol is well underway
and should be allowed to run its course. Changes to
the protocol are schedule to be decided at the second
meeting of the of signatories which is scheduled for
June 1990. In addition, the agency currently has broad
regulatory authority to undertake many of the specific
requirements contained in the Senate bill. Moreover,
the Administration believes that complicating an
already full and complex package of amendments at this
stage of the legislative process may unnecessarily
jeopardize passage of the bill.
10
B. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Automobiles
In response to global warming concerns, S. 1630
requires new cars beginning in 1996 to meet a C02
standard corresponding to a 33 miles per gallon fuel
efficiency level, and beginning in 2000 the standard
increases to about 40 miles per gallon.
The Administration and House bills do not contain
such a standard and the Administration opposes its
inclusion because it represents unilateral, rather than
the necessary multilateral actions needed to solve
global environmental problems. In addition, these
changes to fuel economy levels require detailed
consideration of feasibility, cost and the impact on
U.S. automotive industry competitiveness. Finally, as
with the addition of the CFC requirements, the
inclusion of a CO2 standard into the ongoing amendment
process injects a host of new complicated issues into
the debate, seriously jeopardizing action on the
already crowded clean air agenda.
11
NONATTAINMENT COST DETAILS
12
Nonattainment Costs
The following costs tables compare the costs of reducing
VOC's for ozone nonattainment purposes for the years 1995, 2000,
2005, and 2010.
Measures analyzed in the tables are divided into five categories.
1. The base program and RVP I represent regulations
and standards that are already in force and therefore
will affect emissions regardless of how the Clean Air
Act is amended. The major controls of the base program
are full implementation of existing SIPs, the existing
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), and new
source controls. The cost of the base program and RVP
are not included in the totals ascribed to each bill.
2. National stationary measures are those that affect
all sources nationwide whether or not they are located
in nonattainment areas.
3. Measures that affect motor vehicle emissions are
listed as a group.
4. Area specific measures are those that, when mandated
by a bill, are applied to a selected number of areas,
whether it be all nonattainment areas or a subset of
nonattainment areas. (Two of the motor vehicle
measures, Stage II and alternative fuels, are also area
specific measures).
5. Costs listed as progress requirements are those
beyond the specific measures mandated by each bill, but
that are necessary to meet interim emission reduction
requirements or to attain the standard, whichever is
binding. Identifiable controls (for which cost and
emission reduction information is available) are
applied first. The remainder of the progress
requirements is made up of as yet unspecified "assumed"
controls for which no specific cost data are available.
Costs of assumed controls are estimated to range from
$2,000 to $10,000 per ton with a best estimate of
$5,000 per ton.
As indicated in the footnotes to Table 3, the percentage
reduction is estimated based on what is expected to occur in
ozone nonattainment areas. For most categories, the percentage
reduction is calculated as the expected 1995 nonattainment area
emissions for that category under the current EPA policy minus
the modeled 1995 nonattainment area emissions divided by the 1987
nonattainment area total emissions. (For projection years other
than 1995, the percentage reduction is calculated in the same
way, with that year's emissions substituted into the above
relationship.) For measures that are not applied to all
13
nonattainment areas, the percentage reduction is calculated by
substituting into the above equation the emissions for the areas
where the measure is applied. As an example, stage II refueling
controls are only applied in moderate, serious, and severe
nonattainment areas in the Administration bill, so the emissions
in marginal nonattainment areas are excluded from the calculation
for that measure.
In addition to the costs reflected in the tables for ozone
nonattainment, each bill contains NOx mobile source costs for
ozone attainment, and carbon monoxide attainment costs
(oxygenated fuels and cold temperature CO control costs).
These costs are as follows:
NOx Motor Vehicle
Administration 1995 -- $ 380 million
2005 -- $ 415 million
H.R. 3030
1995 -- $1,387 million
2005 -- $1,741 million
S. 1630
1995 -- $1,568 million
2005 -- $2,395 million
Oxygenated Fuels
Administration 1995 -- $ 117 million 2005 -- $ 140 million
H.R. 3030
1995
--
$ 154 million
2005 -- $ 187 million
S. 1630
1995
--
$
320 million
2005 -- $ 392 million
Cold Temperature Carbon Monoxide
Administration, H.R. 3030, and S. 1630 (costs same for all bills
for Phase I standard)
1995 -- $108 million
2005 -- $128 million
In addition to these costs, the Senate provisions will
result in additional control costs for the years 2000-2003, for
the cost of equipment that must be installed on cars in certain
areas prior to the installation of the control equipment required
to meet the rest of the Senate bill's Phase II tailpipe standards
in 2003.
14
Table 1
Comparison of Ozone Nonattainment Bills - 1995
(1/23/90)
Original
Administration
House H.R.3030
Senate S.1630
Measure
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3) Cost(2)
Base Program
15.3
-
15.3
-
15.3
-
RVP I
6.4
-
6.4
-
6.4
-
NATIONAL STATIONARY
TSDF(1)
3.8
1,700
3.8
1,700
3.8
1,700
Municipal Lendfills(1)
0.6
65
0.6
65
0.6
65
Cons./Comm. Solvents
0.9
400
0.9
400
2.1
900
Arch. Coatings
1.5
0
1.5
0
1.5
0
Marine Vessels
0.1
42
0.1
42
0.1
42
MOTOR VEHICLES/FUELS
RVP 11
7.5
240
7.5
240
7.5
240
Evap/Running Losses
0.8
60
0.8
60
0.8
60
Tailpipe/Useful Life
<0.1
460
<0.1
430
0.3
870
Refueling:
Stage 11 and Onboard
1.3
120
1.3
76 to 236
1.3
130 to 290
Alternative Fuels
<0.1
150
<0.1
150
AREA SPECIFIC MEASURES
RACT to 50 tpy
-
-
-
0.4
84
New CTG
2.9
400
4.1
590
4.4
480
Enhanced 1&M
1.1
73
1.1
73
1.2
92
Basic I&M
-
69
-
69
Ozone Transport Regions
*
*
*
*
-
250
PROGRESS REQUIREMENTS
Identifiable Controls
**
130
**
36
**
79
Assumed Controls
**
550
**
620
**
290
NATIONAL TOTALS
42
4,500
43
4,700
46
5,400
(4,100 to 5,000)
(4,300 to 5,300)
(5,300 to 5,700)
RESIDUAL NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
19
18
19
(1) Measures EPA will implement under other legislation
(2) Millions of dollars
(3) Percentage reductions in VOC emissions are estimated from nonattainment
area totals or as a percentage of 1987 emissions in the areas where
those measures are scheduled to be applied.
* Bill requires assessment to determine nature and extent of controls needed
for transport. Additional controls are likely, but estimates are not available.
** Percentage reductions for progress requirements are not shown because they apply
only to a limited number of areas.
15
Table 2
Comparison of Ozone Nonattainment Bills - 2000
(1/23/90)
Original
Administration
House H.R.3030
Senate S.1630
Measure
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3) Cost(2)
Base Program
13.7
-
13.7
-
13.7
.
RVP I
6.7
-
6.7
-
6.7
-
NATIONAL STATIONARY
TSDF(1)
3.9
1,800
3.9
1,800
3.9
1,800
Municipal Landfills(1)
0.6
67
0.6
67
0.6
67
Cons./Comm. Solvents
1.0
420
1.0
420
2.3
980
Arch. Coatings
1.5
0
1.5
0
1.5
0
Marine Vessels
0.1
47
0.1
47
0.1
47
MOTOR VEHICLES/FUELS
RVP 11
7.6
260
7.6
260
7.6
260
Evap/Running Losses
2.3
63
2.3
63
2.3
63
Tailpipe/Useful Life
0.4
480
0.4
570
0.9
910
Refueling:
Stage II and Onboard
1.4
140
1.7
82 to 252
1.7
140 to 310
Alternative Fuels
0.2
0
0.2
300
-
AREA SPECIFIC MEASURES
RACT to 50 tpy
.
-
-
-
0.4
84
New CTG
3.4
430
4.4
620
4.7
490
Enhanced 1&M
1.1
80
1.1
80
1.2
100
Basic I&M
-
75
-
75
Ozone Transport Regions
*
*
*
*
-
300
PROGRESS REQUIREMENTS
Identifiable Controls
-
260
-
63
-
97
Assumed Controls
-
2,300
#
2,200
-
2,400
NATIONAL TOTALS
44
6,400
45
6,800
48
7,900
(5,000 to 8,600)
(5,500 to 9,000)
(6,500 to 10,300)
RESIDUAL NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
4
4
4
(1) Measures EPA will implement under other legislation
(2) Millions of dollars
(3) Percentage reductions in VOC emissions are estimated from nonattainment
area totals or as a percentage of 1987 emissions in the areas where
those measures are scheduled to be applied.
*
Bill requires assessment to determine nature and extent of controls needed
for transport. Additional controls are likely, but estimates are not available.
Percentage reductions for progress requirements are not shown because they apply
only to a limited number of areas.
16
Table 3
Comparison of Ozone Nonattainment Bills - 2005
(1/23/90)
Original
House H.R.3030
Administration
Phase I Only ***
Senate S.1630
Measure
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3) Cost(2)
Base Program
8.6
-
8.6
.
8.6
-
RVP I
7.1
-
7.1
-
7.1
-
NATIONAL STATIONARY
TSDF(1)
4.0
1,800
4.0
1,800
4.0
1,800
Municipal Landfills(1)
0.6
69
0.6
69
0.6
69
Cons./Comm. Solvents
1.0
430
1.0
430
2.4
1,000
Arch. Coatings
1.5
0
1.5
0
1.5
0
Marine Vessels
0.1
51
0.1
51
0.1
51
MOTOR VEHICLES/FUELS
RVP II
8.2
280
8.2
280
8.2
280
Evap/Running Losses
3.5
68
3.5
68
3.5
68
Tailpipe/Useful Life
0.6
510
0.6
610
1.2
7,800
Refueling:
Stage II and Onboard
1.5
150
2.0
90 to 270
1.9 160 to 340
Alternative Fuels
0.9
0
0.4
300
-
AREA SPECIFIC MEASURES
RACT to 50 tpy
-
-
-
-
0.4
84
New CTG
3.4
420
4.6
630
4.9
520
Enhanced I&M
1.2
87
1.2
87
1.2
110
Basic I&M
-
82
-
82
Ozone Transport Regions
*
*
*
*
-
330
PROGRESS REQUIREMENTS
Identifiable Controls
-
280
-
70
-
100
Assumed Controls
-
4,900****
-
4,900****
-
7,000*****
NATIONAL TOTALS
42
9,100
43
9,600
46
19,600
(6,200 to 13,900)
(6,700 to 14,400)
(15,500 to 26,400)
RESIDUAL NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
3
3
0
(1) Measures EPA will implement under other legislation
(2) Millions of dollars
(3) Percentage reductions in VOC emissions are estimated from nonattainment
area totals or as a percentage of 1987 emissions in the areas where
those measures are scheduled to be applied.
* Bill requires assessment to determine nature and extent of controls needed
for transport. Additional controls are likely, but estimates are not available.
** Percentage reductions are not shown for progress requirements because they apply
only in a limited number of areas.
*** Assumes only phase I tailpipe standards are implemented
**** If the 4 severe areas meet less stringent EKMA estimated reductions for attainment,
costs decrease by $270 ($110 to $540)
***** If the 4 Administration bill severe areas meet less stringent EKMA estimated
reductions for attainment, costs decrease by $2,700 ($1,100 to $5,400)
17
Table 4
Comparison of Ozone Nonattainment Bills - 2010
(1/23/90)
Original
House H.R.3030
Administration
Phase I Only ***
Senate S.1630
Measure
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3)
Cost(2)
%VOC(3) Cost(2)
Base Program
2.9
-
2.9
-
2.9
-
RVP 1
7.7
-
7.7
-
7.7
-
NATIONAL STATIONARY
TSDF(1)
4.0
1,900
4.0
1,900
4.0
Municipal Landfills(1)
1,900
0.6
71
0.6
71
0.6
71
Cons./Comm. Solvents
1.0
440
1.0
440
2.5
Arch. Coatings
1,100
1.6
0
1.6
0
1.6
0
Marine Vessels
0.1
55
0.1
55
0.1
55
MOTOR VEHICLES/FUELS
RVP II
8.8
310
8.8
310
8.8
310
Evap/Running Losses
4.3
72
4.3
72
4.3
72
Tailpipe/Useful Life
0.8
540
0.8
650
2.9
Refueling:
8,800
Stage 11 and Onboard
1.7
160
2.2
99 to 290
2.1
170 to 360
Alternative Fuels
1.4
0
0.6
300
-
AREA SPECIFIC MEASURES
RACT to 50 tpy
-
-
-
-
0.4
84
New CTG
3.6
430
4.8
650
5.1
530
Enhanced 1&M
1.3
94
1.3
94
1.3
120
Basic I&M
-
88
-
88
Ozone Transport Regions
*
*
*
*
-
330
PROGRESS REQUIREMENTS
Identifiable Controls
-
280
-
78
-
110
Assumed Controls
-
7,800
-
7,900****
-
8,500*****
NATIONAL TOTALS
40
12,200
41
12,900
44
22,300
(7,600 to 20,100)
(8,200 to 20,800)
(17,300 to 30,900)
RESIDUAL NONATTAINMENT
AREAS
0
0
0
(1) Measures EPA will implement under other legislation
(2) Millions of dollars
(3) Percentage reductions in VOC emissions are estimated from nonattainment
area totals or as a percentage of 1987 emissions in the areas where
those measures are scheduled to be applied.
* Bill requires assessment to determine nature and extent of controls needed
for transport. Additional controls are likely, but estimates are not available.
** Percentage reductions are not shown for progress requirements because they apply
only in a limited number of areas.
*** Assumes only Phase I tailpipe standards are implemented
**** If the 4 severe areas meet less stringent EKMA estimated reductions for attainment,
costs decrease by $1,900 ($770 to $3,800)
***** If the 4 Administration bill severe areas meet less stringent EKMA estimated
reductions for attainment, costs decrease by $3,700 ($1,500 to $7,500)
18
ACID RAIN COMPARISON
&
19
ADDITIONAL ACID RAIN PROVISION AND COST COMPARISON
Low Base Case Flexible to High Base Case Flexible Scenarios
1995
2005
Administration
Senate
Administration
Senate
Utility. S02
-4.1 to -2.8 -3.8 to -2.7
-8.6 to -8.2 -8.4 to -8.6
(millions tons reduced
from 1980 baseline)
Utility NOx
-0.02
-0.1
-2.0 to -2.1 -2.1 to -2.1
(millions tons)
Retrofit Scrubber +0.4 to +0.5
--
+15.0 to +22.0 +14.5 to +34.1
Capacity (gigawatts)
Coal Production
(millions of tons)
N. Appalachia
-16 to -23
-16 to -23
-37 to -35
-28 to -35
Midwest
-32 to -32
-27 to -29
-56 to -50
-55 to -49
C&S Appalachia
+33 to +41
+39 to +43
+59 to +46
+50 to +47
West
+10 to +11
+ 5 to + 7
+31 to +39
+29 to +34
Total U.S.
- 4 to - 3
0 to -2
- 3 to 0
- 4 to - 2
*
The NOx reduction requirements are about 0.2 to 0.5 million tons greater in
2005 than in the Administration bill. This chart reflects the projections
that utilities will comply by substituting S02 reductions (at a 1.5 to 1
trading ratio) for part of the NOx reduction requirement.
AIR TOXICS COST DETAILS
21
UPDATED AIR TOXICS COST COMPARISON
Net Annualized Cost by 1995 (million 1989$)
PHASE I TECHNOLOGICAL CONTROL COSTS
Source Category
Administration
3
S. 816
Range
Best Estimate
Range
Best Estimate
Major Stationary
505-1,364
935
505-1,365
935
Utility Boilers
0
0
750-2,585
1,668
Area Sources
30 - - 119
75
0
0
Mobile Sources
0
0
0
0
MONITORING, ACCIDENTAL RELEASE, DETECTION
Urban Monitoring
NA
0
87
87
Leak Detection
NA
0
0
0
Accidental Release
NA
0
336-672
504
RESIDUAL RISK COSTS
Residual Risk
NA
0
NA
0
TOTAL - - - -
$535-$1,483
$1,010
$1,678-$4,709
$3,194
3
Original Administration bill and House (H.R. 3030 as
reported) have same 1995 costs.
UPDATED AIR TOXICS COST COMPARISON
Net Annualized Cost by 2003 (million 1989$)
PHASE I TECHNOLOGICAL CONTROL COSTS
Source Category
Administration
2
S. 816
Range
Best Estimate
Range
Best Estimate
Major Stationary
805-3,388
2,097
882-3,468
2,175
Utility Boilers
0-2,585
750
750-2,585
1,668
Area Sources
120 - 475
298
120 - 475
298
Mobile Sources
0-3,010
1,505
0-3,000
1,500
MONITORING, ACCIDENTAL RELEASE, DETECTION
Urban Monitoring
NA
0
87
87
Leak Detection
NA
0
2,000
2,000
Accidental Release
42 - 126
84
336-672
504
Subtotal - - - -
967-9,584
4,734
7,155-12,287
8,232
RESIDUAL RISK COSTS
Unreasonable Risk
0 - 5,100
1,500
NA
1 X 10-4 Bright-Line
NA
5,100-6,900
6,000
& 1 X 10-6 Risk Goal 3
TOTAL - - -
$967-$14,684
$6,234
$12,255-$19,187
$14,232
2
Administration bill as amended in the House. Original
Administration bill best cost estimate is $4,729 ($967 -
$11,674). Difference due to no mobile source toxic control costs
attributed to original Administration bill.
3
See Residual Risk additional cost note on page 7 above.
CLEAN AIR ACT
I.
Summary of Major Differences Between
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)
Bill and Administration Bill
Non-Attainment: Stationary Sources
EPW bill reduces definition of "major source" from 100
tons per year to 25 tons per year in many cases,
10 tons per year in L.A. Affects thousands of small
businesses.
EPW bill eliminates "netting" and requires higher
offsets to expand plants.
EPW bill has over $700M in "fees." Administration bill
has $300M in fees to pay for program.
EPW bill has mandatory Federal Implementation Plans (FIPS)
EPW bill would require all employers of over 100 people
in 10 largest cities to reduce drivers to work by 25%,
or pay $50.00 per month for each free parking space.
EPW bill requires 4% "annual progress"; Administration bill
requires 3%.
Non-Attainment: Mobile Sources
EPW bill have 2nd phase tailpipe for VOC's and NOx that
could cost an additional $8 billion.
EPW bill has no alternative fuels provision.
EPW bill requires on-board refueling cannisters.
EPW bill has CO2 tailpipe standards equal to 33mpg CAFE in
1996, 40mpg CAFE in 2000.
Air Toxics
EPW bill contains inflexible risk-based second phase at
10 (-4) with goal of 10 (-6) i Administration bill would
prevent "unreasonable risk" in second phase.
EPW bill would apply air toxics control to electric
utilities.
EPW bill would require extensive leak monitoring equipment
and reporting that will cost an additional $2 billion.
EPW bill requires MACT for all sources; could require
non-cost-effective controls.
Acid Rain
EPW bill contains no regulatory incentives for clean
coal technology.
EPW bill requires greater NOx reductions.
EPW bill requires mandatory conservation measures at
Federal facilities.
EPW bill deadlines are one year earlier.
Other
EPW bill contains unilateral phaseout of CFC's and
extension of Montreal Protocol to new chemicals.
II.
Additional Points
Administration remains opposed to "cost-sharing"
or electricity tax on acid rain.
Administration believes trading system must
survive in workable form in any final bill.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 19, 1990
Dear Senator Dole:
Last July I submitted to the Congress a comprehensive proposal
for reauthorizing and strengthening the Clean Air Act. That
proposal was the result of a long and careful debate within
the Administration, and reflected extensive consultation with
Members of the House and Senate, representatives of affected
industries, state and local governments, and environmental and
public health groups.
Consistent with my belief that environmental protection and
economic growth can be compatible, the Administration's Clean
Air bill seeks to achieve public health and environmental
protection in an economically efficient way by making exten-
sive use of market principles. My comprehensive proposal
carefully balanced our mutual desire for enhanced public
health, a cleaner environment, and sustained economic growth.
Even so, the cost estimate of the Administration's bill to the
American economy is approximately $19 billion annually when
fully phased-in.
As the Senate moves toward floor consideration of the Clean
Air Act, I am convinced that we must maintain the balance
reflected in the Administration's bill. Initial cost
estimates of the Clean Air bill reported by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee exceed $40 billion
annually -- more than double the cost of the Administration's
bill. Yet the Committee bill provides little incremental
environmental benefit above that proposed by the Adminis-
tration. And the additional costs of some of the Committee
bill's far-reaching provisions have yet to be incorporated in
these estimates.
I want to sign a Clean Air bill this year -- so that the 1990s
can indeed be known as the "Clean Air decade. " But I will
only sign legislation that balances environmental and economic
progress.
2
Specifically, I will only approve legislation which meets the
following minimum tests of balance and reasonableness:
1.) The important environmental protections afforded by the
Administration's bill must be maintained in the final legis-
lation and preserved over time. The Administration proposes
to: reduce sulfur dioxide emissions permanently by 10 million
tons; achieve attainment of ozone, carbon monoxide and
particulate matters standards; and sharply curtail the hazards
posed by air toxics emissions. These represent critically
important steps in achieving clean and healthy air for all
Americans. In view of the environmental and health risks
posed by acid rain; the fact that 100 million Americans now
live in cities which are out of attainment with public health
standards for ozone; and the estimate that current excessive
levels of air toxics emissions may result in premature cancer
deaths and other serious adverse health effects; it is vital
that we move quickly and decisively to reduce these pollu-
tants. The Administration's proposed bill would do just that.
2.) The bill should not impose aggregate costs on the economy
that exceed the already considerable costs embodied in the
Administration's bill -- with an adjustment of no more than
ten percent to reflect certain mobile source provisions added
in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and
the Environment. The House subcommittee added certain provi-
sions affecting mobile sources to the titles of the bill which
relate to non-attainment that will modestly increase the cost
of these titles. Unfortunately, several provisions currently
contained in the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee's bill -- such as mandatory nationwide second phase
tailpipe standards for automobiles, an inflexible second phase
of air toxics control, and carbon dioxide emissions standards
for mobile sources -- cause the Senate bill to exceed substan-
tially the cost of the Administration bill. The result of an
excessively costly bill will be a less competitive American
economy with fewer jobs for American workers.
The Administration has received letters from around the
country, for example, indicating that a considerable number of
plant closings could result from adoption of the Senate's air
toxics provisions. The Administration has set up a task force
under the chairmanship of the Council of Economic Advisers,
and including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office
of Management and Budget, the Department of Energy, and the
White House Office of Policy Development, to monitor and
estimate the economic cost of various clean air proposals as
the debate proceeds.
3
3.) Controls in the bill should be designed to achieve
reductions in the most cost-efficient way -- that is, for the
least cost per ton of reduced pollutant. By incorporating
flexibility and innovation in its recommended control
strategies, the Administration's bill would allow environ-
mental and health standards to be met in a way that creates
maximum choice for both states and regulated industries and
places fewer burdens on consumers. For example, the
Administration's alternative fuels proposal will challenge the
automobile and oil industries to produce cleaner vehicles and
cleaner fuels at the lowest cost to the consumer.
The "command and control" approach embodied in several
provisions of the Environment and Public Works Committee's
bill -- such as that which disallows "netting" for factories
and commercial facilities seeking to meet ozone non-attainment
standards in the most cost-effective way -- results in the
same environmental benefit, but at greatly increased cost
and with sharply increased impediments to economic growth.
Similarly, the provisions in the Environment and Public Works
Committee's bill which move up emissions reduction deadlines
while failing to provide incentives for clean coal technology
needlessly inflate the cost of acid rain control.
4.) The system of emissions trading, which allows acid rain
reductions to be achieved in the least costly and most
equitable fashion, must be allowed to work. The Adminis-
tration's proposed acid rain emissions trading program
inherently reduces the cost of any given level of sulfur
dioxide or nitrogen oxide reduction, and provides an efficient
mechanism for balancing the burdens imposed on any given
region of the country. The Administration has provided
information to several Senators which indicates that this
trading system can dramatically reduce the impact of acid rain
controls on electric utility rates in any given state, while
at the same time reducing the cost of the overall bill by up
to billions of dollars per year. In the first phase, the
initial allocation of required reductions to 107 plants is
essential to ensuring that effective trading opportunities
exist. The trading system must survive in a form that
achieves environmental benefits comparable to those in the
Administration's bill and involves a sufficient number of
plants in the first phase to ensure its workability.
5.) The legislation must not include a national electricity
tax to pay for controls, which would penalize consumers in
those states which have already undertaken reductions by
making them in effect "pay twice" for clean air. Supporters
of such "cost sharing" argue that it is needed to address
regional inequities. Any imbalance in control costs can be
addressed far more effectively, efficiently, and equitably
through the operation of a robust emissions trading
system -- which would not require new taxes.
4
The Administration took substantial time and effort to craft a
balanced proposal. My staff and I stand ready to assist you
and the other Members of both the House and Senate as you work
to develop legislation which maintains this vitally important
balance, and which does not violate one or more of the above
mentioned "tests."
I look forward to signing legislation that will accelerate
progress toward cleaner air for a. growing America at the
earliest possible opportunity.
Sincerely,
Bal
The Honorable Robert Dole
Republican Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
GEORGE J. MITCHELL
MAINE
United States Senate
Office of the Majority Leader
Mashington, DC 20510-7010
January 16, 1990
Dear Colleague:
The Senate reconvenes at 12 noon on Tuesday, January 23. As
previously announced, the Senate will begin consideration of
S. 1630, the Clean Air Act reauthorization on that day. There may
be roll call votes in connection with this legislation beginning
on Tuesday and continuing on Wednesday and Thursday.
The leadership of the House of Representatives plans to take
up the President's veto of H.R. 2712, the Chinese students
legislation, on Wednesday, January 24. If the veto is overridden
by the House, the Senate will consider the matter as soon as
possible thereafter. It is not possible to precisely predict the
time of this vote, but Senators should be aware of the possibility
of a veto override vote on Wednesday, January 24 or Thursday,
January 25.
I look forward to working with you during the Second Session
of the 101st Congress.
Sincerely,
Geope
George Mitchell
January 16, 1990
TO:
Senator Lugar
FROM:
Andy Semmel
RE:
Senate List for White House Meeting on China
Here is a possible list of Senators that might be amenable
to listening to the President's explanation of his actions on
China sanctions and on the Chinese visa extention. I looked at a
number of factors to develop the list: votes on key China
legislation; general willingness to vote with the President when
needed; feedback from State Department on their survey; and the
attached letter on the immigration issue.
It may make more sense to invite only Republicans, since the
vote will likely be a partisan issue. Nonetheless, I included
some possible Democrats.
Republicans
Democrats
Lugar
Cranston
Kassebaum
Biden
Boschwitz
Dodd
Murkowski
Sanford
Dole
Robb
Simpson
Boren
Chafee
Nunn
Cochran
Rockefeller
Domenici
Graham
Rudman
Lieberman
Warner
Conrad
Hatfield
Packwood
Thurmond
Bond
McCain
Coats
D'Amato
Heinz
Specter
Roth
Durenberger
Stevens
SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS-TEMPORARY
101st Congress
November 1, 1989, 11:19 a.m.
Vote No. 280
1st Session
Page S-14482 (Temp. Record)
COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE APPROPRIATIONS/China Sanctions
SUBJECT:
Conference Report w the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill. FY 1990
H.R. 2991. Hollings motion to table the Helms amendment No. 1076 to the Senate
amendment in disagreement No. 182.
ACTION: MOTION TO TABLE AGREED TO, 53-45
SYNOPSIS:
A pertinent votes on this legislation include Nos. 218-221 and 278.
As reported by the conferees, H.R. 2991 appropriates for FY 1990 a total of $17.25 billion for the
following agencies:
Department of Commerce
$3.53 billion
Department of Justice
$6.28 billion
Department of State
$3.09 billion
Judiciary
$1.73 billion
Related Agencies
$2.85 billion.
The Senate amendment in disagreement No. 182 would prohibit U.S.-built satellites from being sent into space on
Soviet- or Chinese-built launch vehicles. The amendment would prohibit the bill's funds from being used for export
license applications to launch U.S.-built satellites on Soviet or Chinese-built launch vehicles unless the President first
reports to Congress that the Chinese government has made progress on a political reform program. The President's
report must show that the Chinese government has: 1) lifted martial law; 2) halted executions and reprisals against
nonviolent protesters; 3) released political prisoners; 4) increased respect for human rights, including the freedom of
expression, the press, assembly and association; and 5) permitted a freer flow of information to and from China.
The Helms amendment, to the Senate amendment in disagreement, would add several provisions. The amendment
would condemn the government of the People's Republic of China for carrying out massive arrests and numerous
executions of students and workers who participated in the prodemocracy movement in China. It would also commend
the President for taking measures against the government of China and would urge additional measures be taken to
discourage future Chinese human rights violations.
(See other side)
YEAS
(53)
NAYS
(45)
NOT VOTING
(2)
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans (1)
Democrats (1)
(14 or 32%)
(39 or 72%)
(30 or 68%)
(15 or 28%)
Bond
Adams
Kerrey
Armstrong
Bradley
Wallop-2AN
Lautenberg-
Chafee
Baucus
Kerry
Boschwitz
Bryan
Cochran
Bentsen
Kohl
Burns
Bumpers
Cohen
Biden
Leahy
Coats
DeConcini
D'Amato
Bingaman
Levin
Danforth
Dixon
EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE:
Dole
Boren
Matsunaga
Domenici
Ford
1-Official Business
Durenberger
Breaux
Metzenbaum
Garn
Glenn
2-Necessarily Absent
Hatfield
Burdick
Mikulski
Gorton
Graham
3-Illness
Heinz
Byrd
Mitchell
Gramm
Harkin
4-Other
Lugar
Conrad
Moynihan
Grassley
Heflin
Rudman
Cranston
Nunn
Hatch
Lieberman
SYMBOLS:
Simpson
Daschle
Pell
Helms
Pryor
AY-Announced Yea
Specter
Dodd
Riegle
Humphrey
Reid
Stevens
Exon
Robb
Jeffords
Shelby
AN-Announced Nay
PY-Paired Yea
Fowler
Rockefeller
Kassebaum
Simon
Gore
Sanford
Kasten
PN-Paired Nay
Hollings
Sarbanes
Lott
Inouye
Sasser
Mack
Johnston
Wirth
McCain
Kennedy
McClure
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Symms
Thurmond
Warner
Wilson
Compiled and written by the staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee
William L. Armstrong, Chairman
VOTE NO. 280
NOVEMBER 1, 1989
The Helms amendment would also express the sense of the Senate that:
The Export-Import Bank of the United States should immediately postpone approval of any application for
financing U.S. exports to China;
The U.S. should oppose the extension of loans or any financial assistance to China;
The President should immediately review the advisability of: 1) continuing to extend most-favored-nation (MFN)
trade treatment to Chinese products; 2) all bilateral trade agreements between the U.S. and China; and 3) the bilateral
commercial agreements governing Chinese-American cooperation on satellite launches and atomic energy;
The President should consult with U.S. allies regarding the feasibility of adopting a collective economic response
to the recent tragic events in China; and
The President should emphasize to the Chinese government the importance of recognizing the Chinese and
Tibetan peoples' legitimate desires for democracy, human rights, and justice.
During floor debate, Senator Hollings moved to table the Helms amendment and asked for the yeas and nays. The
motion to table was not debatable, however some debate preceded the making of the motion. Generally, those
favoring the motion to table opposed the amendment; those opposing the motion favored the amendment.
NOTE: The conference report to H.R. 2991 was later adopted by voice vote.
Those favoring the motion to table contended:
Although we agreed with the original Mitchell-Dole amendment to the State Department Authorization Bill, S.
1160, we must now oppose the similar Helms amendment. It is late in the year and we cannot afford to send this bill
back to conference.
We voted in favor of this legislation when it was added to the State Department Authorization bill because we
heartily agreed with the need to impose sanctions against the Chinese government for their disgraceful treatment of the
Tiananmen Square protesters. However, we must not add a foreign relations amendment to a Commerce-Justice-State
bill. We must vote to table this amendment today, not because it is a bad piece of legislation, but because the
conference report to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill is not the proper vehicle for it.
Those opposing the motion to table contended:
The language in this amendment, originally sponsored by Senators Mitchell and Dole, was approved by the Senate
when we adopted the State Department Authorization bill. The amendment is a package of sanctions against the
Chinese government for their brutal oppression of the prodemocracy movement. We want to impose these sanctions to
show the Chinese government that the Congress opposes their treatment of the young Tiananmen Square protesters.
The Communist Chinese government in Beijing wants us to believe that the Tiananmen Square massacre was just
an unfortunate tragedy whose ill-effects have all disappeared. We, on the other hand, believe the scars of Tiananmen
Square will remain permanently. They will remain in the hearts of the Chinese people and Americans alike. In fact,
we have just heard that the Chinese Communist police in Beijing are terrorizing the children of U.S. diplomats in
China by pointing their unloaded rifles at them. In addition, there have been several complaints of slashed tires and
other forms of harassment to American-owned vehicles in Beijing.
Almost five months have elapsed since the Tiananmen Square massacre and we have done nothing. The Chinese
government is getting the impression that the U.S. Congress has forgotten about the tragedy. If we do not take action
against the Chinese Communists for their suppression of the prodemocracy movement, we run the risk of being
unfaithful to the democratic principles under which we live every day. We must support this amendment to show the
surviving leaders of the democracy movement in China that we have not forgotten them.
SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS
101st Congress
1st Session
Vote No. 118
July 14, 1989, 1:33 p.m.
Page S-7977 (Temp. Record)
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION/China, Sanctions
SUBJECT:
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 1990
S. 1160. Mitchell-Dole amendment No. 271.
ACTION: AMENDMENT AGREED TO, 81-10
SYNOPSIS:
Pertinent votes on this legislation include Nos. 118-127, 129-136, and 138-139.
As reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, S. 1160 provides a total authorization of $4.67
billion for the State Department, the United States Information Agency, the Board for International Broadcasting, and
other agencies.
The Mitchell-Dole amendment would condemn the government of the People's Republic of China for carrying out
massive arrests and numerous executions of students and workers who participated in the prodemocracy movement in
that country. The amendment would also commend the President for taking measures against the government of China
in response to those arrests and executions, and would urge additional measures be taken to discourage additional
arrests and executions.
The amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that:
The Export-Import Bank of the United States should immediately postpone approval of any application for
financing United States exports to the People's Republic of China;
The President should immediately review the advisability of continuing to extend most-favored-nation (MFN)
trade treatment to Chinese products; and
The President should consult with the allies of the United States at the upcoming Economic Summit regarding
the feasibility of adopting a collecitve economic response to the recent tragic events in China.
Those favoring the amendment contended:
This amendment does three important things. First, it demonstrates our revulsion at the brutal oppression imposed
on those freedom-loving Chinese students whose aspirations--and in many cases whose bodies--were crushed in the
communist crackdown on June 4 of this year.
(See other side)
YEAS
(81)
NAYS
(10)
NOT VOTING (9)
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans (4)
Democrats (5)
(33 or 80%)
(48 or 96%)
(8 or 20%)
(2 or 4%)
Boschwitz
Kasten
Adams
Johnston
Bond
Boren
Armstrong
Bumpers²
Burns
Lott
Baucus
Kerrey
Chafee
Conrad
Danforth-2
Burdick-2
Coats
Mack
Bentsen
Kerry
Cochran
Jeffords-2
Kennedy-2
Cohen
McCain
Biden
Kohl
Durenberger
Simpson²
Matsunaga-3
D'Amato
McClure
Bingaman
Lautenberg
Lugar
Mikulski-4AY
Dole
McConnell
Bradley
Leany
Rudman
Domenici
Murkowski
Breaux
Levin
Specter
Garn
Nickles
Bryan
Lieberman
Stevens
Gorton
Packwood
Byrd
Metzenbaum
EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE:
Gramm
Pressler
Cranston
Mitchell
1-Official Business
Grassley
Roth
Daschle
Moynihan
2-Necessarily Absent
Hatch
Symms
DeConcini
Nunn
3-Illness
Hatfield
Thurmond
Dixon
Pell
4-Other
Heinz
Wallop
Dodd
Pryor
Helms
Warner
Exon
Reid
SYMBOLS:
Humphrey
Wilson
Ford
Riegle
AY-Announced Yea
Kassebaum
Fowler
Robb
Glenn
Rockefeller
AN-Announced Nay
PY-Paired Yea
Gore
Sanford
PN-Paired Nay
Graham
Sarbanes
Harkin
Sasser
Heflin
Shelby
Hollings
Simon
Inouye
Wirth
Compiled and written by the staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee
William L. Armstrong. Chairman
VOTE NO. 118
JULY 14, 1989
Second, it fulfills our obligation to those who yearn for liberty in China, and other countries suffering under the
tyranny of communism. If we do nothing, we will be aiding the enemies of freedom and democracy--the unrepentant
Stalinists in Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Eastern Europe who are willing to endure a short period of censurship
from the West, and then get back down to business-as-usual.
Third, it sends'a message of encouragement to the suriving leaders of democracy still carrying on the fight in China.
We have recently received a copy of an open letter addressed to 30 heads of state delivered in Paris on July 12. The
letter, from the top leadership of the Chinese democratic movement, calls for the Free World to impose economic
sanctions on China. This amendment is a direct answer to their call.
No arguments were expressed in opposition to the amendment.
SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS
101st Congress
1st Session
Vote No. 104.
July 11, 1989, 5:03 p.m.
Page S-7638 (Temp. Record)
IMMIGRATION BILL/Chinese Students
SUBJECT:
Immigration Act of 1989
S. 358. Mitchell/Dole et al. amendment No. 239.
ACTION: AMENDMENT AGREED TO, 97-0
SYNOPSIS:
A pertinent vote on this legislation includes No. 104 & 106-117.
As reported, S. 358 places a cap of 600,000 for all new permanent immigrants (except refugees and
asylees and certain others) for each of three years following enactment of the bill. Approximately 480,000 of these slots
are reserved for immigrants with family connection visas and 120,000 for a new category of "independent immigrants."
Through the new independent category, the bill makes visas available to persons whose skills are in short supply in the
U.S. and people from countries unable to use current system because they do not have family in the United States.
The bill also transfers the naturalization proceedings from judges to administrative officers and requires the
Administration to report annually to Congress on the impact of immigration and every three years regarding changes
in numerical levels of immigration.
The Mitchell et al. amendment would allow Chinese students to remain in the United States pending the resolution
of the civil conflict In China. The amendment would allow the students to remain in the U.S. at least through June 5,
1990 and possibly through June 5, 1992, depending on when or if the President determines that it is safe for them to
return to their homeland. The amendment would also grant authorization for any national of the People's Republic of
China who applies for adjustment of status or change of nonimmigration status to engage in employment in the
United States.
Those favoring the amendment contended:
Since the massacre of Chinese students in Tiananmen Square last month, we have been made aware of the plight of
the 40,000 Chinese students studying here in the United States. These students, many of whom have voiced their
support for the protesting students in China during the civil crisis, are faced with the prospect of returning to their
homeland as outlaws, subject to arrest and perhaps even execution as traitors to their totalitarian government.
(See other side)
YEAS
(97)
NAYS
(0)
NOT VOTING
(3)
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans (2)
Democrats (1)
(43 or 100%)
(54 or 100%)
(0 or 0%)
(0 or 0%)
Armstrong
Kasten
Adams
Inouye
Boschwitz
Matsunaga-²
Bond
Lott
Baucus
Johnston
Hatch⁻²
Burns
Lugar
Bentsen
Kennedy
Chafee
Mack
Biden
Kerrey
Coats
McCain
Bingaman
Kerry
Cochran
McClure
Boren
Kahl
EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE:
Cohen
McConnell
Bradley
Lautenberg
D'Amato
Murkowski
1-Official Business
Breaux
Leahy
Danforth
Nickles
Bryan
Levin
2-Necessarily Absent
Dole
Packwood
3-Illness
Bumpers
Lieberman
Domenici
Pressler
4-Other
Burdick
Metzenbaum
Durenberger
Roth
Byrd
Mikulski
SYMBOLS:
Garn
Rudman
Conrad
Mitchell
Gorton
Simpson
Cranston
Moynihan
AY-Announced Yea
Gramm
Specter
Daschle
Nunn
AN-Announced Nay
Grassley
Stevens
DeConcini
Pell
PY-Paired Yea
Hatfield
Symms
Dixon
Pryor
PN-Paired Nay
Heinz
Thurmond
Dodd
Reid
Helms
Wallop
Exon
Riegle
Humphrey
Warner
Ford
Robb
Jeffords
Wilson
Fowler
Rockefeller
Kassebaum
Glenn
Sanford
Gore
Sarbanes
Graham
Sasser
Harkin
Shelby
Heflin
Simon
Hollings
Wirth
Compiled and written by the staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee
William L. Armstrong, Chairman
VOTE NO. 104
JULY 11, 1989
In response to their dilemma, the Administration instituted a delayed departure program, whicheallows the students
to remain in the U.S. an additional year after their visas expire. Unfortunately for the students, this partial solution has
two shortcomings. First, it only delays by one year a student's eventual return to China. Second, it requires those
students taking advantage of the deferral to go on record saying they do not wish to return to their homeland, an act
which will be interpreted unfavorably by the Chinese government.
We hope to solve those two problems with the pending amendment. Our amendment would allow Chinese students
to remain in the U.S. at least until June 5, 1990, and possibly until June 5, 1992, depending on when the President
determines that it is safe for them to return to China. We believe this solution will be the most flexible, permitting
students to remain in the United States until the conflict in China has subsided without requiring them to declare
openly their wish to stay out of China.
Considering the Chinese government's widespread persecution of prodemocracy student demonstrators, this
legislation is necessary to ensure the safety of those Chinese students studying in the United States. It is in keeping
with our ideals of freedom and self-determination and should be supported by the entire Senate.
No arguments were expressed in opposition to the amendment.
SENT BY The TICKET CENTER
; 1-10-90 ; 6:53PM ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
92244819;# 3
cary to Andy R64
COMPARISON OF THE EMERGENCY CHINESE IMMIGRATION RELIEF ACT
WITH THE RELIEF PROVIDED ADMINISTRATIVELY TO CHINESE ALIENS
The following comparison of the provisions of the Emergency
Chinese Immigration Relief Act of 1989 (the "bill") with the
analogous actions taken by the Administration demonstrates that,
in each instance, the Administration has afforded relief to
students and other Chinese aliens equivalent to, or greater than,
the relief provided by the bill.
1. Waiver of Foreign Residence Requirement of Section 1182(e)
The bill would have provided for the waiver of the foreign
residence requirement of 8 U.S.C. $1182 (e) for Chinese students
present in the United States on the date of enactment who filed
nonfrivolous applications for adjustment or any change of
nonimmigrant status within four years (i.e., through November 30,
1993, had the President signed the bill).
The Attorney General has waived this requirement for all Chinese
aliens present in the United States as of December 1, 1989. This
waiver is irrevocable. Any such alien who makes a nonfrivolous
application for adjustment or any change of status may avail
himself of the waiver until January 1, 1994. Thus, the
Administration has provided adjustment relief superior to that
provided by the bill.
2. Presumption of Continuous Residence
The bill would have provided that, for the purposes of any
adjustment or change of nonimmigrant status, a Chinese alien
present in the United States in the lawful status of a
nonimmigrant as of June 5, 1989, be considered to have
continuously maintained lawful status for the period during which
the Attorney General has in effect a deferral of enforced
departure for Chinese nationals.
The Attorney General has directed that Chinese aliens who were in
lawful status as of June 5, 1989, be considered to have
maintained lawful status for the purposes of adjustment or change
of nonimmigrant status. Thus, the Administration has provided
relief equivalent to that provided by the bill.
3. Employment Authorization
The bill would have provided that certain Chinese aliens present
in the United States in the lawful status of nonimmigrants on
June 5, 1989, be granted authorization to engage in employment in
the United States for the period during which the Attorney
General has in effect a deferral of enforced departure for
Chinese nationals.
The Attorney General has directed that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service ("INS") grant all Chinese aliens who were
present in the United States as of June 5, 1989, the necessary
NT bY:The TICKET CENTER
: 1-10-90 : 6:54PM : LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
92244819:# 4
2
authorization to engage in employment. Thus, the Administration
the bill.
has provided employment opportunities beyond those afforded by
4. Notification
The bill would have directed the Attorney General to provide
notice of expiration of nonimmigrant status to Chinese aliens
whose authorized period of stay had expired and who were eligible
for deferral of enforced departure. Such notice was to be
nonadversarial available. in nature and was to explain the options
The Attorney General has directed that any Chinese aliens who are
eligible for deferral of enforced departure and whose authorized
period of stay has expired be given notice of expiration of
nonimmigrant status. This notice will be nonadversarial in
nature and will explain the options available. Thus, the
Administration has provided for notification equivalent to that
required by the bill.
5. Asylum, Withholding of Deportation, and Refugee Status
The bill would have required that, with respect to applications
from Chinese nationals for asylum, withholding of deportation,
and refugee status, careful consideration be given to applicants
expressing a fear of persecution based on China's "one couple,
one child" family planning program. Under the bill, an applicant
would have been considered to have established a well-founded
fear of persecution if the applicant could establish that he or
she had refused to abort or to be sterilized in accordance with
the Chinese program. The bill would have provided that all other
factors (such as overt political activities, membership in an
ethnic or religious minority, and family background and history)
that might contribute to a determination of eligibility for
asylum, withholding of deportation, and refugee status, be given
additional weight in such determinations, and would have directed
the Attorney General to promulgate implementing regulations.
The Attorney General has directed that, with respect to all
applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and refugee
status, careful consideration be given to applicants expressing
fear of persecution related to family planning policies of forced
abortion or sterilization. If an applicant establishes that the
applicant has refused to abort or to be sterilized, he or she
will be considered to have established a well-founded fear of
persecution. All other factors that may contribute to a
determination of eligibility for asylum, withholding of
deportation, and refugee status, are also to be given additional
weight in such determinations. The Attorney General has ordered
INS to promulgate any necessary implementing regulations. Thus,
the Administration has provided broader relief than the bill to
persons fearing coercive family planning policies, as its
directive extends to all applicants, not just Chinese aliens.
Lugar!
Staff short on Came. i-meed NSC backup
Protocol-
headership meetings
Extend the Onion Lager
a get wrsdout
when Collapal-
Englbburger -
shaffle and
good meeting Dole etc -
Ueed an idea of Defense Policy
MARY ELLEN JOYCE
1/16
Governor:
Attached is the information you
requested at last week's
meeting.
Look forward to seeing you at
Waterville!
me
CLEAN AIR: MOBILE SOURCES
The auto and oil industries are working together on a number of
mobile source provisions. Both believe the House bill to be less
extreme and are actively working to prevent it from deteriorating.
O Alternative Fuels
In the House subcommittee, both sought to refine the Admini-
stration's program to establish a level playing field. Both
supported Hall-Fields; this approach results in the same emission
reductions as the President's program.
Since the Senate bill has no alternative fuels program, the
auto industry has concentrated on opposing the second phase tailpipe
standards and the oil industry on opposing the 3.1% minimum oxygen
content.
Rep. Dingell supported Hall-Fields to ensure their votes on the
rest of the Administration's bill. A narrow margin is anticipated
in full committee.
O Second Phase Tailpipe Reductions
The auto industry strongly opposes the tighter second phase
tailpipe standard in the Senate because it is mandatory. The oil
industry's position is compatible in advocating an advance planning
process to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of various control
measures. In this process, the impact of the first phase reduction
could be assessed before a tighter second phase standard was
adopted. However, to the extent that the auto industry may come to
view a mandatory alternative fuels program as a substitute for the
second phase standard, disagreement between the two industries is
likely. Some members of the Senate are interested in such a trade,
but the auto industry has not indicated a willingness to accept it.
Most companies in the oil industry oppose the addition of an
alternative fuels amendment in the Senate, but will have to evaluate
the votes to determine whether support of a provision similar to
Hall-Fields would be the best way to deal with this issue on the
Senate floor. Some companies currently believe this would be a wise
approach.
O CO₂ Emissions Fee
Because of the close relationship between CO, emissions and
vehicle mileage, this type of standard is equivalênt to tightening
the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for vehicles.
Therefore, the oil and auto industries will coordinate on a major
effort to oppose this provision and to seek a floor amendment in the
Senate to delete it. The principal sponsor is not yet identified.
- 2 -
O Onboard Refueling Canister
This is one area where the auto and oil industries have
different views. The auto industry prefers Stage II controls and
the oil industry continues to believe that onboard controls are more
cost-effective. The oil industry, however, is not lobbying this
issue intensively. It is important to recognize that canisters and
Stage II are redundant control measures; only one such measure --
the most cost-effective -- should be required.
Conclusion
Until the acid rain (cost sharing) issue is resolved, Rep. Sharp and
others will hold up all action. Even once it is resolved, it is
still possible the Sharp subcommittee on Energy and Power will mark
up the bill before full committee consideration. The full
committee, however, is expected to retain most of the mobile source
provisions as passed by the Waxman subcommittee. There are major
concerns about amendments on the House floor, but there is no good
intelligence regarding potential initiatives at this time.
On the Senate side, only minor improvements in the committee bill
are possible. Our priorities include:
- deletion of the fuel quality specification provisions
(Section 217);
- deletion of the CO₂ emissions fee (Section 206);
- maintaining either no alternative fuels program or as
limited a program as possible since other provisions of this bill
will achieve attainment without a costly alternative fuels program;
and
- lowering the 3.1% minimum oxygen requirement (Section 218)
and limiting the number of areas covered (the bill currently
requires this fuel in all 44 carbon monoxide nonattainment areas).
Of course, there are serious concerns about provisions of the bills
that deal with issues other than mobile sources.
In the final analysis, the Senate bill is expected to be extreme and
to impose high costs without commensurate benefits. Most issues of
concern to the two industries will not be resolved until the
House-Senate conference. The industries plan to continue to work
closely with Reps. Dingell and Lent who will lead the House
conferees.
1/16/90