Taking the conservative state seriously: Statebuilding and restrictive labor practices in postwar America

Labor Studies Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 33-63

  O'Brien, Ruth ^a  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 8344259614     PISSN: 0160449X     EISSN: 15389758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0160449X9702100402     Document Type: Review

References (159)

1. Charles Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977)
2. Underscoring the state theorists' emphasis on liberal reform programs is not to say that they have an uncritical view of the 'privileged position of business.' Rather, their concentration on reform in the United States has led them to focus on the formation of liberal programs. The methodological issue of showing the state's relative autonomy from capital also makes liberal reform programs a natural starting point for state theory. See Margaret Weir, Anna Shola Orloff, and Theda Skocpol, In their introductory essay to The Politics of Social Policy in the U.S., edited by Weir, Orloff and Skocpol, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)
3. Kenneth Finegold and Theda Skocpol in "State, Party, and Industry: From Business Recovery to the Wagner Act in America's New Deal" in Statemaking and Social Movements, edited by Charles Bright and Susan Harding (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984): 159-92
4. and Vivien Hart, Bound by Our Constitution: Women, Workers, and the Minimum Wage (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)
5. See Victoria C. Hattam, Labor Visions and State Power, the Origins of Business Unionism in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) for an exception to this trend
6. John W. Hicks, Republican Ascendancy (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), ix
7. In an excellent study on business, Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf shows how the business community reestablished the principles underlying the capitalist culture that dominated the 1920s. This study concurs that this community created a material culture based on free enterprise, classlessness, individual rights, and abundance. But, it also emphasizes how the business community helped modify the state's regulatory apparatus. The business community was divided about the relationship between the state and business in the 1920s, whereas, it worked together to ensure that the state worked to its advantage in the 1950s. See Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-1960 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994)
8. See Susan Sterett, "Legality in Administration in Britain and the United States, Towards an Institutional Explanation," Comparative Political Studies 25 (1992), 195-228 for an understanding of legalism developed by the APA
9. Cass R. Sunstein, "Factions, Self-interest, and the APA: Four Lessons Since 1946," Virginia Law Review 72 (1986), 273
10. Also see Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)
11. See James R. Gross, Broken Promise: The Subversion of U.S. Labor Relations Policy, 1947-1994 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995). Gross argues that this new public purpose coexisted with the old one articulated by the Wagner Act. Since the Wagner Act promoted collective bargaining, whereas the Taft-Hartley Act did not, Gross maintains that it created an ambiguous national labor policy. This article, by contrast, suggests that the policymakers built the Taft-Hartley Act upon a strain of individual rights present in the Wagner Act. Wagner, however, had not recognized the individual rights of workers as a means of limiting collective bargaining as the policymakers of the Taft-Hartley Act did
12. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
13. Senator Robert F. Wagner, Leon Keyserling, Philip Levy, and the other legislative assistants, with little help from the AFL, formulated the Wagner Act
14. On one level, this policy gave unions the ability to negotiate collective bargaining agreements in which they represented the material interests of their members. By 1938, after the passage of the NLRA, union membership more than doubled. On another level, federal labor policy disengaged workers from unions, since certification and decertification elections forced unions to fight a never-ending battle for their official position as collective bargaining agents. See Ruth O'Brien, "Business Unionism" versus "Responsible Unionism": Common Law Confusion: the American State and the Formation of the Pre-New Deal Labor Policy" Law and Social Inquiry 18 (Spring 1993): 255-296
15. Also see Karl E. Klare, "Judicial Deradicalization of the Wagner Act and the Origins of Modern Legal Consciousness, 1937-1941." Minnesota Law Review 62 (1978): 265-339
16. and Katherine Van Wezel Stone, "The Post-War Paradigm in American Labor Law." Yale Law Journal 90 (1981): 1509-1580 for other explanations of how the Wagner Act controlled organized labor
17. See David Plotke, "The Wagner Act Again: Politics and Labor, 1935-37," Studies in American Political Development 3 (1989), 143
18. and Nelson Lichtenstein, "From Corporatism to Collective Bargaining: Organized Labor and the Eclipse of Social Democracy in the Post-war Era," 122-52 in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930-1980, edited by Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 123
19. Harry A. Millis and Emily Clark Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, The Study of National Labor Policy and Labor Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1950), 281-83
20. and Melvyn Dubofsky, The State and Labor in Modern America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 146-47
21. See James T. Patterson, Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal (Louisville: University of Kentucky Press, 1967), 251-58
22. "America's Appraisal of Roosevelt's 'Purge'," Congressional Digest 17 (1938): 257-88
23. David Lawrence, "The New Politics," Saturday Evening Post 211 (October 22, 1938): 23, 91, 93-94
24. Hugh S. Johnson, "Third Term?" Saturday Evening Post 211 (December 17, 1938), 54-55
25. "The Financial Situation," Commercial and Financial Chronicle 148 (1938), 2905
26. Patterson, Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal, 288
27. "The Seventy-Seventh Congress," Commercial and Financial Chronicle 147 (1938), 2141
28. and "Pro and Con: Should Congress Amend the NLRA?" Congressional Digest 18 (1939), 174-75, 192-94
29. Quoted from Patterson, Congressional Conservative and the New Deal, 316
30. The House of Representatives voted 254 to 134 for a resolution approving the special committee. Congressional Record 76th Cong., 1st sess. (1939) pt. 8: 9593
31. "This is Your Government," Commercial and Financial Chronicle 149 (1939): 3770-71
32. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 49
33. and Labor Relations Reporter 4 (1939), 873
34. The AFL gave the Committee help with charges that the NLRB favored the CIO. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 50
35. "What about Labor Unions?," Commercial and Financial Chronicle 148 (1939), 1542
36. Quoted from Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 352
37. Also see Dubofsky, The State and Labor in Modern America, 152
38. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 351-52
39. Ibid
40. In the House, the conservative coalition could command the support of 80 Democrats and 169 Republicans; whereas, the Senate had a Democratic majority of 69 with 20 to 30 Democrats that might join the 23 Republicans in the minority. See Patterson, Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal, 289
41. Millis and Clark, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 350-53
42. and Kenneth Crawford, "Assault on the NLRB," Nation 149 (March 11, 1939), 726-27
43. Representative J. W. Byrnes, Jr. of Tennessee said this during a speech on the House floor on January 11, 1940. Quoted from George Scholefield, "Letter to a Senator: Why Senate should Rise above Administration Opposition and Pass Walter-Logan Bill," Printers' Ink, April 26, 1940, found in Robert A. Taft Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington D.C
44. An article in the New York Times in 1940 entitled "President Opposes Curbs on Agencies under Logan Bill," reported that "the Logan-Walter measure was introduced against the background of charges that the NLRB and other federal quasi-judicial agencies had occasionally exceeded the authority of their organic statutes and had read into the law powers which Congress had not intended the vested in them." The reporter also underscored Roosevelt's opposition to the bill. Clipping found in the Taft Papers
45. Millis and Clark, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 63
46. Quoted from "Senate and President - In the Logan-Walter Bill Spotlight," Columbus Dispatch, 23 April 1940. A clipping found in the Taft Papers
47. See Louis L. Jaffe, "Invective and Investigation in Administrative Law," Harvard Law Review 52 (1939), 1221
48. See "President's Committee on Administrative Management," Report with Special Studies (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937)
49. The Logan bill was introduced on January 24, 1939. On May 17, the Senate Judiciary sent Report No. 442 to the floor
50. H.R. 6324 was introduced on May 15, 1939. The House Judiciary Committee reported the bill out with amendments in House Report no. 1149
51. Congressional Record 76th Congress, 3rd sess., 1940, 86 pt. 12: 13743
52. George Scholefield, "Letter to a Senator: Why Senate should Rise above Administration Opposition and Pass Walter-Logan Bill," Printers' Ink, April 26, 1940, found in the Taft Papers
53. Draft of Robert A. Taft's speech on the Logan-Walter bill. J.R. to Taft, 8 May 1940, Taft Papers
54. Paul W. Walter wrote of a meeting between Sam Ervin from Texas and Robert A. Taft. Memorandum entitled "To Senator Taft," 22 April 1940, Taft Papers
55. Clipping from the Cincinnati Post, 12 April 1940, found in the Taft Papers
56. Clipping in the Taft Papers by Hugh S. Johnson, 22 April 1940
57. Clipping from the Taft Papers
58. Roosevelt also noted that the sponsors of this bill had attempted its passage "without substantial congressional hearings" and that it had been "unanimously condemned by the committee on administrative law" among others. Congressional Record, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939, 85, pt. 1: 1143. James Landis, a law professor from Harvard who had helped construct the New Deal, speculated about the origins and the quiet passage of the bill. "Differences of political faith exist among us as to the principles underlying many of the economic reforms of the last decade. In the main," he argued, "these reforms have relied upon the administrative process for their realization."
59. See James Landis, "Crucial Issues in Administrative Law," Harvard Law Review, 53 (1940), 1078
60. Landis, himself, was lambasted for speaking out by Hugh S. Johnson in a column entitled the "Logan-Walter Foes," 10 May 1940, Clipping from the Taft Papers. Also see Rhinehart John Swensen, The Administrative Process: A Study of the Growth, Nature and Control of Administrative Action (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1952), 121
61. In a letter to Roosevelt, Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, explained how they managed to sustain Roosevelt's veto only with great effort and cooperation of key Democrats like Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas), Sam Rayburn (Democrat, Texas) and the majority leader John W. McCormack (Democrat, Texas). Harold Ickes to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 19 December 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt Papers, Roosevelt Presidential Library, Hyde Park, New York. Ickes wrote Sam Rayburn, a Democrat from Texas, that wrote, "Courage - just sheer courage - brought that about." Ickes to Sam Rayburn, 23 December 1940, Roosevelt Papers
62. Sumners called for the vote, but with only a majority of 153 to 127, he failed to gain the two-thirds necessary for an override. Congressional Record, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939, 85, pt. 1: 953
63. Joshua Freeman, "Delivering the Goods: Industrial Unionism During World War II," 383-406 in The Labor History Reader, edited by Daniel J. Leab (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 385
64. Memorandum entitled "Suggested Materials for Veto Message on Smith-Connolly Bill," Roosevelt Papers; and Francis Biddle to Harold D. Smith, Director, Bureau of the Budget, 24 June 1943
65. Also see Robert H. Zieger, American Workers, American Unions, 1920-1985 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), 87-92
66. Memorandum entitled "Analysis of Provisions of S. 796," Roosevelt Papers
67. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 298-300
68. Biddle to Smith, 24 June 1943, Roosevelt Papers. Also see Harold Ickes, Secretary of Interior to Harold D. Smith, 17 June 1943, Roosevelt Papers
69. Senator Robert A. Taft underscored the War Labor Disputes Act "privileges." Memorandum entitled, "Compulsory Maintenance of Union Membership," September 1946, Taft Papers
70. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 299
71. Walter P. Reuther, "Labor's Place in the War Pattern," 132-141 in American Labor Since the New Deal edited by Melvyn Dubofsky (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971), 133
72. Lichtenstein, "From Corporatism to Collective Bargaining: Organized Labor and the Eclipse of Social Democracy in the Postwar Era," in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930-1980, 124
73. Freeman, "Delivering the Goods: Industrial Unionism during World War II," in The Labor History Reader, 386
74. Reuther, "Labor's Place in the War Pattern," in American Labor Since the New Deal, 139
75. Zieger, American Workers, American Unions, 100
76. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 301
77. See Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise, 38-43
78. See Congressional Record 79th Cong., 2nd sess., 1946, 92, pt. 2: 2148-67 for the debate and passage of S.7 in the Senate
79. and Congressional Record 79th Cong., 2nd sess., 1946, 92, pt 5: 5647-68 for the debate and passage in the House of H.R. 5988
80. See William T. Mayton, "The Legislative Resolution of the Rulemaking Versus Adjudication Problem in Agency Lawmaking," Duke Law Journal 1980 (1980), 107-08
81. Frederick F. Blachley and Miriam E. Oatman, "Sabotage of the Administrative Process," Public Administration Review 6 (1946), 227
82. See Swensen, Federal Administrative Law, 122
83. See Sunstein, "Factions, Self-interest, and the APA: Four Lessons since 1946," Virginia Law Review, 271-96
84. Hearings Before the Sub-Committee Number 4 of the Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 6324, 76th Congress, 1st sess, "Administrative Procedure." See Congressional Record 79th Congress, 2nd sess., 1946, 92, pt. 5: 5645-68
85. Congressional Record 79th Congress, 2nd sess., 1946, 92, pt. 2: 2149-69
86. Blachley and Oatman, "Sabotage of the Administrative Process," Public Administration Review, 214
87. See Martin Shapiro, "APA: Past, Present, Future," Virginia Law Review 72 (1981): 447-92
88. John P. Callahan, "Industries Hail Curb on Agencies," New York Times, July 21, 1946
89. Philip Murray, Proceedings of the Ninth Constitutional Convention (Boston: 1947), 13-17, 22, 186, 189
90. See George J. Bott, "The Taft-Hartley Act - Its Operation and Development," Arkansas Law Review 8 (1954), 360
91. "Statement of National Labor Relations Board on Revised Text of S. 7," Judiciary Committee Papers, Record Group 46, National Archives, Washington D.C
92. Also see Millis and Clark, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 63-66
93. Millis also reported that the regional offices gained more autonomy under the APA. See Millis and Clark, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 66
94. See Merton C. Bernstein, "The NLRB's Adjudication-Rule Making Dilemma under the Administrative Procedure Act," Yale Law Journal 79 (1970): 572-622
95. James R. Richardson, "The Taft-Hartley Act - Punishment or Progress," Kentucky Law Journal 42 (1953), 34
96. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 272
97. In a meeting at the White House in 1946, Democratic members of Congress and the Truman administration discussed how "[c]ongressional adoption of anti-labor legislation is virtually certain." They conferred about how the Administration could "recover the offensive" with legislation that called for "all unions to register and file their constitutions with the National Labor Relations Board and require certification by the Board before a union can claim the privileges and protections of the Wagner Act." This type of internal control, it was suggested, "would help to break up undemocratic practices and concentrated of power in the hand of individual labor 'dictators.'" Clarence J. Brown to Robert A. Taft, 28 May 1946, Taft Papers. Also see "Congress Considers President's 21 Points," Congressional Digest 25 (1946): 3-9
98. "The President's Proposals for Labor," Nation 164 (January 18, 1947): 57
99. and James A. Gross, The Reshaping of the National Labor Relations Act (Albany: State University New York Press, 1981), 259
100. Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman and the Modern American Presidency (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1983), 100
101. Ida Klaus, "The Taft-Hartley Experiment in Separation of NLRB Functions," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 376
102. and "New Republican Congress Settles Down to Heavy Legislative Program," Congressional Digest 26 (1947): 33-34
103. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, 100
104. and William S. White, The Taft Story (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1954), 66-75
105. Millis and Brown, From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley, 402-03
106. See Congressional Record, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., 1946, 92, pt. 2: 2149
107. "The Eightieth Congress," Nation 164 (January 4, 1947): 3-4
108. B aldinger, "What's Ahead for Labor," Nation, 6
109. William Shelton, "Unions and Politics," New Republic 116 (March 3, 1947): 31-32
110. "Memorandum on Labor Legislation," September 1946, Taft Papers
111. See Christopher L. Tomlins, The State and the Unions: Labor Relations, Law, and the Organized Labor Movement in America, 1880-1960 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 276-80
112. Benjamin Aaron, "Amending the Taft-Hartley Act: A Decade of Frustration," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 11 (1958), 327
113. The conference committee included: Republican Senators Taft (Ohio), Joseph H. Ball (Minnesota), Irving M. Ives (New York), and Democrats Allen J. Eilender (Louisiana), Alben W. Barkley (Kentucky), and James E. Murray (Montana) from the Senate. Republicans Fred Hartley and Gerald W. Landis (Indiana), Democrats Graham A. Barden (North Carolina), Walter F. George (Georgia), Robert L. Doughton (North Carolina), John Lesinski (Michigan), Clare E. Hoffman (Michigan), Jere Cooper (Tennessee) represented the House. Only Murray, Lesinski, and Hoffman opposed the Taft and Hartley bills. See New York Times, May 30, 1947
114. Quoted from Thomas Robert Mulroy, "The Taft-Hartley Act in Action," University of Chicago Law Review 15 (1948), 595
115. "Should Congress Take Steps to 'Equalize' the Wagner Act?" Congressional Digest 26 (1947), 55
116. "The Eightieth Congress," Nation, 3-4
117. Baldinger, "What's Ahead for Labor," Nation 164 (January 4, 1947): 4-7
118. and Shelton, "Unions and Politics," New Republic, 31-32
119. Robert H. Taft, "Not an Anti-Labor Bill," Commercial and Financial Chronicle 165 (1947), 2603
120. Sumner Slichter, The Challenge of Industrial Relations (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1947), 99-102
121. R. W. Fleming, "Taft-Hartley Law to Date," Wisconsin Law Review (1949), 62
122. Dale E. Good, "Some Effects of The Taft-Hartley Act," Labor Law Journal 1 (1949), 112
123. Francis Downing, "The Taft-Hartley Act as Viewed by Labor," Illinois Law Review 43 (1948), 363
124. Willett H. Parr, Jr. "The Taft-Hartley Law," Indiana Law Review 23 (1947), 27
125. and B. J. George, Jr. "Labor Law - Taft-Hartley Act - Right of Board to Dismiss Unfair Labor Practice Complaints for Policy Reasons," Michigan Law Review 48 (1950), 1151-53
126. Archibald Cox, "Developments in the Law the Taft-Hartley Act," Harvard Law Review 64 (1951), 790-91
127. Congressional Record 80th Congress, 1st sess., 1947, 93, pt. 3: 4022
128. NLRB v. Federbush, 121 F. 2d 954 (2d Cir. 1941)
129. "Notes, the Taft-Hartley Act and Coercive Speech," St. John's Law Review 27 (1953), 297-98
130. and NLRB v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469 (1941)
131. Good, "Some Effects of The Taft-Hartley Act," Labor Law Journal, 112
132. Fleming, "Taft-Hartley Law to Date," Wisconsin Law Review (1949). Clark Bros. Co., Inc., 3-C-775, 70 NLRB 802, 18 LLRM 1036 (1946)
133. Mulroy, "The Taft-Hartley In Action," University of Chicago Law Review, 612. This followed U.S. v. Schenck, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
134. Cox, "Developments in the Law the Taft-Hartley Act," Harvard Law Review, 793-94
135. Robert Abelow, "Management Experience under the Taft-Hartley Act," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 2 (1948), 367
136. Sar A. Levitan and J. Joseph Loewenberg, "The Politics and Provisions of the Landrum-Griffin Act," 28, in Regulating Union Government edited by Martin S. Estey, Philip Taft, and Martin Wagner (New York: Harper & Row, 1964)
137. "Summary of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947," Monthly Labor Review 65 (1947): 57-61
138. For a comprehensive explanation of this legislation's provisions also see Tomlins, The State and the Unions, 285-300
139. William E. Pemberton, Harry S. Truman, Fair Dealer and Cold Warrior (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989), 111
140. R. Alton Lee, Truman and the Taft-Hartley Act: A Question of Mandate (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1966), 75-77
141. Downing, "The Taft-Hartley Act as Viewed by Labor," Illinois Law Review, 365
142. and Jerome H. Kern, "The Taft-Hartley Welfare and Pension - an Emerging Legal Entity," New York University Law Review 35 (1960): 1181-89
143. Philip Taft, "Internal Affairs of Unions and the Taft-Hartley Act," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 2 (1948), 352
144. Parr, "The Taft-Hartley Law," Indiana Law Review, 25
145. Congressional Record 80th Cong., 1st sess., 1947, 93, pt. 3: 4036
146. Taft, "Internal Affairs of Unions and the Taft-Hartley Act," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 364
147. Taft, "Not an Anti-Labor Bill," Commercial and Financial Chronicle 165 (1947), 2603
148. Lichtenstein also said "[i]f Taft-Hartley did not destroy the union movement, it did impose upon it a legal/administrative straitjacket that encouraged contractual parochialism and penalized any serious attempt to project a classwide political-economic strategy." Lichtenstein, "From Corporatism to Collective Bargaining," 134
149. Rogers, "Divide and Conquer: Further Reflections on the Distinctive Character of American Labor Laws," Wisconsin Law Review (1990), 119-24
150. Sterett, "Legality in Administration in Britain and the United States, Towards an Institutional Explanation," Comparative Political Studies, 210
151. See David Vogel, "The 'New' Social Regulation," 155-186 in Regulation in Perspective edited by Thomas K. McGraw (Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 1981)
152. and R. Shep Melnick, Regulation and the Courts: the Case of the Clean Air Act (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1983), 3-7
153. Well aware of the dangers the redistributive and distributive aspects of social regulatory legislation, the liberal Democrats behind this regulation tried lessening its impact upon union employees by demanding, for instance, public hearings when an industry threatened to close a plant rather than comply with the EPA's standards. See "Autoworkers, Manufacturers, and Dealers United," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 33 (1977): 636-637
154. "Labor, Business Press Administration to Change Safety and Health Program," National Journal 4 (1972): 1093-1102
155. U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Hearing on Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency, 96th Cong., March 14, 1979
156. U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Governmental Regulation, Hearings on Social, Economic, and Physiological Problems Caused by Industrial Noise 94th Cong., July 23-25, 1975
157. and "Partisan Battle Faces Job Safety Bills in Congress," Congressional Quarterly 28 (1970), 2790
158. See for example U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Mining and National Resources, Hearings on Potential Impacts on Coal Production and Marketing under Proposed Acid Rain Controls, 101st Cong., March 14, 1989
159. and U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Environmental Protection, Hearings on Clean Air Act Amendments, 101st Cong., October 3, 1989