September 22, 1970
Page 33073
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I shall propound a unanimous consent request, with the proviso that it be without prejudice to the senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) who is to be recognized under the previous order.
I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of the pending bill, Calendar No. 1214, S. 4358, the Clean Air Act, debate on any amendment be limited to 1 hour, with the time to be equally divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the manager of the bill; that time on any amendments to amendments, and motions, and appeals, except for motions to lay on the table be limited to 30 minutes, the time to be controlled by the mover of the amendment to the amendment and the manager of the bill; that the time on the bill be limited to 4 hours with the time to be equally divided and controlled between the manager of the bill and the minority leader or his designee; that no amendments not gerfnane to the provisions of the bill be in order; and that time under the bill may be allotted by those in control thereof to any Senator on any amendment, motion, or appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am among those who find some aspects of the bill very controversial.
I want to indicate that I was disturbed originally because it was suggested that only 2 hours of debate be granted on the bill. At my request, the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished acting majority leader have extended that period to 4 hours which will provide additional time in the event the 1 hour and the half hour allotted to a particular amendment might not be sufficient in any particular situation.
This is a very, very important piece of legislation. It is going to have a far-reaching impact on the whole economy, to say nothing of the automobile industry. Yet, I realize that there is only so much time that can profitably be devoted in the Senate in terms of having someone listen to those who want to speak.
I feel that this will be satisfactory and that we can move along and deal with the issues that need to be dealt with.
Mr. President, I do not object.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make an inquiry about the unanimous-consent request.
I intend to offer an amendment to the Dole amendment, a perfecting amendment. With regard to the time provision on that amendment, as I understand it under the unanimous-consent request, mine would be an amendment to an amendment. I could offer that at any time after the Dole amendment is offered, and I would have a half hour on that amendment.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, it is a half hour on the amendment.
Mr. GURNEY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I have no objection to the agreement. However, representing the minority side, I would like to ask if the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has been consulted and if the chairman of the committee, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), has been consulted.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, in response to the question of the able Senator from Kentucky, may I say that the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) on yesterday afternoon was agreeable to entering into such an agreement. He thought that we were on the verge of having such an agreement. However, at that time there was some objection from the other side. I am confident that there will be no objection from the Senator from Maine, because on yesterday he had thought we were about to reach such an agreement, and he had worked for it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia was out of the city, I think.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I do not think there would be any objection on his part. I believe I can confidently state that, Mr. President.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, was the consultation of the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD) with the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) about the possible time limitation prior to or after the remarks of the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA) on yesterday?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I think I can answer the Senator. My consultation with the Senator from Maine on yesterday occurred following any remarks by the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, I am thinking now in terms of the fact that we have a policy luncheon and have some matters on the agenda which will require my attention. When will the time begin to run?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I might say that an amendment is pending now, I do not think there will be much difficulty on that amendment, however.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In the meantime, the time will be taken out of the 1 hour allotted to the pending amendment, which will be satisfactory. It would not take away from the time on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The Chair will see to it that nothing is done before the Republican conference and the Democratic Policy Committee have completed their discussions and until some speakers are on the floor. The time will not begin to run until the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has completed his remarks.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, by necessity, the distinguished senior Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) could not be present during the consideration of the Clean Air Act amendments. The Senate will not be without his thoughts and views on this measure, however. Senator MAGNUSON has prepared a statement on this antipollution bill and in it he offers his strong support, and recounts for the Senate some of his own achievements and those of the committee he chairs – the Committee on Commerce – in this most important area. I ask unanimous consent that Senator MAGNUSON's statement be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, Senator MAGNUSON's statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAGNUSON
Mr. President, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and his colleagues on the Public Works Committee are to be congratulated for the firm, responsible legislative steps they have taken in S. 4358 to bring automobile air pollution under control. By legislatively mandatingthe production of low-emission vehicles, Senator Muskie and his colleagues have demonstrated resolve to bring about the production of low-emission vehicles which would significantly reduce air pollution in this country.
Low-emission vehicle development has been a matter of continuing concern to the Senate and the Public Works Committee and Commerce Committee. In 1967 joint hearings were held to explore electric car technology. Those initial hearings were followed in May 1968 by joint hearings to explore steam car technology. On the basis of these hearings and other investigations, the Senate Commerce Committee published a report entitled "The Search for a Low-emission Vehicle" which concluded that the existing legislative approach to vehicular air pollution was inadequate, that other technologies for vehicle propulsion were feasible, and that a new low-emission vehicle had to be produced if we were going to stop the air pollution epidemic.
In January of this year the Senate Commerce Committee and the Public Works Committee again jointly searched for low-emission vehicles in hearings on S. 3072, the Federal Low-Emission Vehicle Procurement bill – a bill which was unanimously approved by this body on March 26th of this year and which now awaits action in the House. This procurement legislation is an essential first step toward realizing the goal of low-emission vehicles by 1975. By offering a guaranteed government market to both innovative producers and the automobile industry itself, the legislation can stimulate early development and production of smogless cars. The premium paid by the government for these cars can help defray costs resulting from necessary acceleration of present research, development and production programs. The procurement legislation also offers vehicle manufacturers the opportunity to fleet test under controlled conditions their low-emission vehicles to insure satisfactory consumer performance when full production is undertaken.
In addition to the joint efforts of the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Public Works Committee in the area of automobile air pollution control, both Committees have cooperated in developing legislative provisions authorizing the setting of air pollution standards for other transportation modes, including aircraft and vessels. In March the Commerce Committee participated in joint hearings on the legislative proposals from which the reported air pollution bill was derived. I am happy to say that the Public Works Committee accepted several suggestions which our Committee made concerning the proper involvement of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard when setting standards and conducting compliance tests on aircraft and vessels, matters within the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Ordinarily the Senate Commerce Committee would request re-referral of a piece of legislation which so profoundly affects transportation matters. But because of the joint efforts already undertaken, because of the lateness of the session, and because of the compelling need to take positive action on this legislation now, no such request will be made.
I support S. 4358 and urge its swift enactment.
Thank you Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is recognized.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the agreement not begin to run against the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) until such time as he has consumed, if he does so consume, 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, our attention to this legislation is of the utmost importance. I am sure that my able colleague on the committee, the junior Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), would feel it appropriate for me to reemphasize, although perhaps not in his exact words, what he said within the committee at the time we were working on the measure. He indicated on that occasion that the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, could well be the most significant domestic measure that would be presented during the 91st Congress.
I echo that expression. I have stated that the matter is of extreme importance to many segments of American life including, of course, all the people of the United States.
In this legislation it is proposed that we establish a national policy for the protection of the health of the citizens of our Republic. I think it should be very clearly understood that this is not the beginning. As we come today, and as we began yesterday, the consideration of this legistion we were building on the legislative framework of the Clean Air Act of 1965 and the 1967 Air Quality Act amendments.
So I think it is pertinent to say that within the Committee on Public Works, and especially within the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, we have been giving attention to these matters, responsible to our colleagues in the Senate, a Senate that I think is responsive to the American people, although we are not always in agreement on the procedures that are proposed in this measure.
The pending bill would require the establishment within 3 to 5 years of its enactment State implementation plans to achieve national ambient air standards to protect the health of citizens of this country.
I undescore that this objective may be very difficult to achieve in this time bracket. It is my belief that an extension of this proposed schedule will probably be required in certain instances.
However, I feel that if we can achieve the objectives in the hoped-for time period we would control and abate today's air pollution and also prevent in part the occurrence of future air pollution problems, and we would do so reasonably and realistically without doing violence to legitimate and necessary business. In the process, both industry and Government will be hard pressed to provide the required capital and manpower for what I know will be a mammoth, but necessary, undertaking.
This legislation will test the willingness of the citizens of this Nation to control and abate environmental pollution. Ultimately every individual citizen would be called on to pay the increased costs associated with the achievement of an environment that protects and improves the public health within this country.
I think it is necessary also to stress the fact that effective implementation in 3 years would require a major commitment by Government and industry. The pending bill contains authorizations of $1.190 billion. This is the commitment of the Federal Government, a commitment, of course, that must be followed within the appropriation process. I have said on many occasions that often we authorize from the standing committees programs for which we have extreme difficulty in providing the necessary funds with which to do the job. It is going to be necessary, if this task is to be completed, that we have the funds to do the work. That is why I call the attention of my colleagues again not only to the authorization activity which results in the measure before us, but also to the responsibility which this body will have to appropriate the required funds.
Equally important will be the commitment of those units of government at the State and local level, and certainly the private sector of our economy. Sometimes we are not as eager as we should be to commend business and industry when, by and large, with exceptions – and this is understandable – business and industry attempt with Congress to move forward in these matters, making their own viewpoints known. Sometimes, very candidly, the differences that exist are, in reality, our strengths. We do not have to be uniform in the presentation of a bill to have a unity on the measure because certainly the detailed provisions must be subject to very close scrutiny. But it is the purpose of this legislation, which I hope the Senate will approve, as well as the actual words of the act as presented.
I earlier mentioned that we have a framework of action. It is a framework which began with the Clean Air Act of 1965 and the Air Quality Control Act of 1967. Frankly, there has been the necessity to change that program and there will be the necessity in the months and years ahead to refine the pending measure.
The National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, I believe, will accelerate the effort to provide clean air through additional policies and procedures for action. It is important that we act and that we do so not just in a desire to act but to do it with knowledge and intelligence. I hope we are doing that in this legislation.
Progress in implementing the policies in this legislation will receive continuous review by the Committee on Public Works over the 3-year authorization period. Where necessary, further congressional action will be provided. During this time all affected parties will have an opportunity to present their views. Under review by the committee will be the commitment of both industry and Government to air quality.
I want to state again with emphasis that I would rather have us feel that this is not a matter of Government as a senior partner and industry as a junior partner. I would like to think of this as a partnership, a full partnership, a partnership of understanding, a partnership of concern, a partnership of action in reference to what we are doing in this legislation.
I call attention to the fact that in the past the Federal staffing and funding have left much room for improvement, as has the commitment of funds and personnel and staff at each level of Government.
In 1967, it was estimated that the staff of the National Air Pollution Control Administration would have to increase to 1,900 in fiscal 1970 if the Air Quality Act of 1967 were to be implemented in its full potential. Yet, as of May 1, 1970, NAPCA had only 971 full time permanent workers on its staff as compared with provision for 1,116 in its 1968 budget. This inadequacy has been the chief deterrent to progress in the NAPCA effort to abate air pollution. If implementation of the act of 1970 is to be achieved, the administration – and I am not critical of the administration when I make this statement – must fund and staff the National Air Pollution Control Administration at the required level.
We must have the development of new and improved emission control systems for both stationary and moving sources. Funds were provided in the Air Quality Act of 1967 to stimulate development of the required technology. This research and development effort has been severely underfunded in the intervening years, a situation that must be remedied.
I call upon the Members of the Senate and the House, I call upon all the people of the country who are concerned with this problem, to see that this situation is remedied in the months ahead.
For example, we placed in the 1967 act authorization for a 5-year research and development program for the control of sulfur oxide emissions from stationary sources. This program called for a Federal expenditure of $394 million, including $215 million for the period from 1968 through 1970. Yet, in this 3-year period the estimated actual expenditure has been only $82 million, or $123 million behind schedule. The estimated expenditure for fiscal 1971 was $94 million, as compared to the currently planned expenditure of $26 million.
I reviewed this research effort in some detail in my Senate remarks on S. 4092 and the current fuels and energy crisis on July 16, 1970, and in testimony on the bill before the Interior Committee on September 2, 1970.
This was in connection with my remarks when I introduced a bill, with the cosponsorship of more than 60 of my colleagues, to establish a Fuels and Energy Commission in this country, keeping in mind environmental factors. That was on September 2, before a subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in which this situation, which certainly is a crisis, was stressed.
The remedies to air pollution, however, must not rely solely on add-on devices. Insufficient attention has been given to such other alternatives as fuel cleaning, more efficient methods for combusting fuels, and the development of synthetic fuels with low potential for environmental impact.
The committee, therefore, has expanded the research and development authority under section 104 of the Air Quality Act. The development of control methods, process changes, and improved operating procedures all offer potential remedies to reduce atmospheric emissions. These alternatives can be funded and developed under that act. The private sector can actively participate as well as support its own development efforts. In concert between the Federal Government and industry there can be accelerated development of new and improved means to reduce atmospheric emissions.
The legislation being debated today reflects an evolutionary developmental effort by providing for the establishment of performance standards for new stationary sources. This provision would require the application of the most effective means of preventing and controlling air pollution for new stationary sources.
The overriding purpose of performance standards for new stationary sources is to prevent the occurrence of new air pollution problems. These standards will insure that when an industry moves into any area with low pollution levels, that this new facility does not appreciably degrade the existing air quality. The first plant in a new area must meet the same standards of performance as subsequent plants, thus spreading the responsibility equally among all facilities for maintaining clean air.
This legislation also provides for emission standards for hazardous materials. Concern is for material which in trace quantities in the ambient air contribute to a high risk of serious, irreversible, or incapacitating effects on health. It is anticipated that this provision will be employed to control only those materials which are extremely hazardous or toxic to people. It is anticipated that a limited number of pollutants come within this category.
It may be desirable to provide a total prohibition of emissions for these contaminants, but it is recognized that emissions may be possible without endangering public health. The committee intended that the burden of proving that emissions are possible without endangering the health of persons should rest with the emitter.
An administrative procedure, Mr. President, as I conclude my remarks, is provided for those industries that discharge hazardous materials to present scientific and medical evidence that the public health is not in danger when low level discharge of these materials is permitted. It is intended that the Secretary, in establishing the emission standards for these materials, would give recognition to the fact that trace materials may occur as impurities in many types of combustion.
In this regard, section 115 would apply to primary producers of hazardous materials rather than to general combustion processes in which these materials appear as pervasive but in almost immeasurably small quantities.
Mr. President, as I indicated in my first few words, this is a significant approach to a very pressing problem. I think that in the 91st Congress, we cannot overstate the gravity of the situation, and the compelling need to enact such legislation. I think it is without question one of the most far-reaching environmental protection measures to be considered, perhaps not only in this Congress, but over a considerable period of years. It is also one which will have broad economic impact. I recognize this, and I am concerned to a great degree, as I have stated within the subcommittee, within the committee, and again on the Senate floor. I must remind Americans that there will be price tags on the costs which they will pay for goods and services.
And so, as we desire, and properly so, to enhance the quality of our environment, to provide cleaner air, that Americans may live in greater health, we know that what we are doing will be felt, not so much today or tomorrow, but it will be felt by those generations that will be active in the United States of America 10, 15, or 20 years from now.
For the reasons that I have stated, Mr. President – and, of course, there are other reasons which members of our committee, and especially our subcommittee, have presented and will present – I urge the enactment of S. 4358.
If this bill is passed, and if this bill or a revised measure goes to the President of the United States and is signed into law, I feel that we can proceed with an accelerated effort to improve the air which is breathed by the increasing population of men, women, and children of this country-some 209 million persons living in this Nation today. What the figures will be in a few years we do not know, except that we have every indication that our population will increase, and the people in this country will desire, in large numbers, to continue to live in the urban and the closely clustered suburban areas of our country. So this is a real problem, a problem that concerns all of us, not just industry and business and Government, but the people of the United States as a whole; and I hope that we here today, and subsequently on the amendments that shall be voted, will make a further commitment to do this job and to do it, Mr. President, while we still have time.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I support S. 4358, the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, which was reported by our Committee on Public Works on September 19, 1970, by a unanimous vote of its members.
I have been privileged to serve on the Committee on Public Works and I wish to take this occasion to pay particular tribute to the leadership of our chairman, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), and to the leadership of the ranking minority member, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and also that of chairman of the Subcommittee on Pollution, the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the ranking member on that subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS).
They all are to be commended upon their work on this bill.
Mr. President, the need for improving the quality of the air nationwide has been apparent for some time, but I think it was brought home to us all at the end of last July and in the first week of August when almost the entire east coast of the United States was smothered in a choking smog.
As we looked at our great cities through watery eyes the realization came, I think, with great urgency that the Congress must act decisively about this incredible state of affairs. The quest for solutions to our national problems of air pollution which a decade ago had been the regard of merely a handful of scientists and forward-looking conservationists has become an issue of a national overwhelming concern.
As President Nixon said in his February message on the environment:
The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future.
Autos and trucks, generally agreed to be the biggest single source of pollutants in the air, came in for a great deal of criticism last August. Fifteen States filed suits in the Supreme Court in an attempt to force automakers to produce pollution-free cars at the earliest possible date.
We have had our share of the prophets of doom and gloom who have told us again and yet again that the battle has been lost before it has been joined and that our planet is inexorably succumbing to the poison of its own chemical and natural waste products.
I do not share, nor can I ever share, such pessimism. It seems to me that the genius of the American spirit which produced so much for so many can, if properly channeled and directed, be turned to the problem of successfully cleaning up our environment. It is axiomatic that this battle will be a costly one and I think it deserves the highest priority in our national councils. If the fight against polluted air, filthy water, and solid waste is to be won, we must have a united attack upon it by all levels of Government: Federal, local, and State, by industry, and by individuals throughout the Nation. I think the prospects of mounting such a victorious offensive are real and substantial. I think we are on the way. I think that this bill, S. 4358, the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, which has been presented to the Senate by the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee, is a significant contribution to that fight.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration tells us that five chemical contaminants are the most offensive and dangerous factors in air pollution today. The most pervasive of these is carbon monoxide, of which we have 100 million tons per year coming largely from autos, trucks, and buses. It has been stated by the National Institutes of Health that even in small amounts, carbon monoxide diminishes the reflexes of individuals and impairs their judgment.
Sulfur dioxide, of which 33 million tons are dumped into the air annually, is an irritating gas which comes mostly from burning of oil and coal and it adversely affects the individual's lungs and his throat. If he has any respiratory difficulty at all, be it minor such as a cold, or major such as emphysema, sulfur oxide aggravates that ailment.
Particulates, of which 28 million tons find their way into the air in the United States annually, are tiny bits of solid matter, some of which are extremely dangerous to the respiratory system. Again, they come mainly from the burning of coal and from smokestacks which are not properly filtered.
Hydrocarbons, of which half of the 32-million-ton total is each year discharged from trucks and autos, are reputed to be a key ingredient in the smog that surrounds so many of our cities these days.
Nitrogen oxides, of which 20 million tons yearly find their way into our air stream, is another smog-inducing element, which daily pours out of motor vehicle tailpipes and also from combustion of fuel, coal, oil, and so forth, at stationary sources.
Tallied up, the public health officials estimate that 91 million tons of toxic material annually go into our atmosphere as a result of the internal combustion engines in automobiles, trucks, and buses. Our bill is aimed specifically at reduction of the toxic substances poured into the air by automobiles and by stationary users of fuels in our hope that we can significantly lower the level of air contamination in future years. We cannot, obviously, outlaw the internal combustion engine; we cannot forbid the burning of coal or oil. The problem, as I see it, is one of balancing:
How we can develop standards and procedures and controls which will reduce significantly the present level of air contamination, while at the same time not causing a severe economic dislocation: It is not sufficient at this time to point an accusatory finger at industry, or at the consuming public, or at the utilities, or at the car manufacturers, or at any group within our society and try to make them the villain of this tableau. There is no villain. There is only a problem which needs to be remedied. Our bill in my judgment is a rational and viable approach to this problem.
In many ways the bill presently under consideration is a trail-blazer on the part of Congress. We have spelled out and specifically written into this act the emission standards to be imposed on sources of pollution, and when we did that, we did it with the realization that we were entering unknown and unexplored territory. I think the situation in our country demands this kind of action. But, like a surgeon's most powerful drug, such a drug is fraught with danger unless expertly administered and unless the patient is safeguarded against its deleterious side-effects.
And so, while I support wholeheartedly the intent of our committee in this piece of legislation, I would offer several caveats which I think must be recognized from the outset.
I am troubled by two portions of the bill: First, the establishment within the bill of emission standards for motor vehicles to be established and made operational by January 1, 1975, and second, by the provision which relates to judicial review of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare's determination in this regard. On the question of setting standards by 1975, our committee has been informed by the entire automobile industry that the technology to effect the desired result will not be available for wholesale use on millions of motor vehicles by 1975. I do not know if this contention on the part of the automobile industry is, in fact, correct, and as I pointed out in my individual views which were submitted with the report, no one knows whether this contention is correct, since hearings were not held on this specific subject. As I stated in my individual views, I think that mandating standards set out in this bill for a January 1, 1975, achievement is open to the criticism that it is arbitrary. Nevertheless, I think that the January 1971, deadline can be left in the bill provided we also include some sensible way to prevent economic dislocation should the technology not be available on that date. The inclusion of the deadline is a goal for automakers to speed such technological development. Hopefully they will achieve it. If they do not, I would suggest that the manufacturer or manufacturers be allowed to apply for two extensions of 1 year each in order to make such performance and emission standards a reality. The bill as it now stands provides for a 1-year extension subject to judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. My suggestion would be that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare should be empowered to make such an extension or extensions on the facts presented to him, and that a determination on his part either to grant or withhold such a suspension should not be subject to judicial review.
I say this not because of any resentment or dislike for the process of judicial review. On the contrary, I think judicial review is eminently suitable in most instances. I think, however, that this is an extraordinary case and that the process of judicial review would not serve the best interests of the general public. I think that it would be potentially time consuming and might very well delay, instead of hasten, the implementation date of emission standards which we all want to see. We have reposed great authority and responsibility in our bill in the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. It is he who is responsible for the promulgation of air quality standards and their supervision and enforcement.
In the final analysis, in my judgment, it should be the Secretary who should have the authority to make the determination about whether a suspension of the January 1, 1975, deadline is desirable and/or necessary. The Secretary has experts at his disposal within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; he has developed a wealth of technical knowledge within the Department on this subject. His engineers have been working closely with the auto industry for some time now on solving the air pollution problem. There is no one in or out of Government better able to make a sound judgment on whether or not the auto manufacturers can meet the January 1, 1975, deadline. If evidence presented to the Secretary shows that the automakers have made good faith attempts to lick this technological problem and have failed to meet standards set in the bill by January 1, 1975, he can, and should, grant suspension.
I think we can rely on the good faith and the bona fides of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. I do not think that he would use the suspension power which we have granted him in this bill lightly or casually. It is my understanding that he would only grant such a suspension after a long and exhaustive administrative proceeding at which all points of view, including the point of view of the environmentalist and conservationist groups, had been heard, considered, and digested. To subject his final determination in this regard to judicial review would seem to me to be unwise and unwarranted. As I have said, it might well delay the implementation process of this bill.
While there are other more technical corrections which I think we can make in the bill, they are for the most part perfecting amendments as distinguished from substantive changes. I think, on the whole, that the Congress should feel a sense of accomplishment with this bill. I think we have met the problem of air pollution head on. There is no shirking or avoiding in this bill; it is a sweeping public statement by Congress that it is a national goal and a high national priority to diminish the level of air pollution which we currently have in the Nation and a full-fledged confrontation with this great national problem.
Many, many long hours of thought and work have gone into this bill. It is a comprehensive and, to a certain extent, complex piece of legislation, but we are dealing with a far-reaching and a very complex subject that needs and demands the frontal attack which we in the Committee of Public Works have mounted by this bill. It is probably not a perfect piece of legislation. After all, we are none of us experts on chemistry or in chemical contaminants, but we have availed ourselves of the expertise which we could find extant in the executive branch, and we have heard from industry and numerous environmental experts in the private sector. It is my hope that Congress will pass this bill and send it to the President. I have every confidence that the President will sign it into law and that we will be on our way to finding a national solution for the staggering health problem of air pollution.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPONG). The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roil.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CASE). The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. Is the pending amendment my amendment No. 926?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator please restate his parliamentary inquiry in loud and ringing tones. The Chair did not hear the Senator.
Mr. BAKER. The Senator from Tennessee apologizes to the Chair. His parliamentary inquiry was whether the pending business is his amendment No. 926.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CASE). The Senator is correct.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I spoke on this amendment yesterday and pointed out that its purpose and intent is to exempt from the provisions of the warranty section of the bill a cost obligation running against the dealer or distributor.
It is clear from the bill, and I think it is clear from the language of the report, that no such result was intended and that the warranty provisions would run entirely against the manufacturer who, after all, is responsible for designing and manufacturing the automobile, which is the subject of this title.
But to make it abudantly clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding, the Senator from Tennessee felt it would be appropriate to provide that specific exemption in the body of the bill itself.
That is the purpose of this amendment. It was my understanding yesterday that the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUsKIE), was agreeable to accepting it. Since yesterday there has been the opportunity to have the amendment printed. It is on the desk of every Senator now. I have had occasion to discuss it with a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.
I am prepared at this time to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I take just a moment to reaffirm my support for this amendment, which I expressed on yesterday.
It does reflect the intent of the legislation and of the committee and clarifies that intent.
For that reason I support it.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move that we reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill insert a new section as follows:
"SEC. 14. If Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 becomes effective prior to the date of enactment of this Act, wherever in any amendment made by this Act the term (1) "Secretary" or "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" is used it means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or (2) "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare" is used it means the Environmental Protection Agency."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will not take 5 minutes to explain the amendment. This is a technical amendment. It is intended to make clear that if the President's proposed Environmental Protection Agency becomes law under the reorganization plan which he submitted to Congress, all references in the bill to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will relate to the new agency.
The amendment is necessary in the event that Agency becomes the administering Agency of this program.
Mr. President, I do not think there is any question about the amendment. If there is none, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.