October 9, 1970
Page 36032
SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE: ADMINISTRATION CHALLENGED TO SUPPORT SENATE-PASSED AIR POLLUTION BILL
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee today.
Yesterday I submitted for the record a prepared statement which I had intended to present to the Committee personally at that session. Rather than read that statement today, I would like to make some more general comments concerning our environmental perspective.
A century ago, the Massachusetts Board of Health – the first of its kind in the country – made the following declaration:
"We believe that all citizens have an inherent right to the enjoyment of pure and uncontaminated air and water and soil; that this right should be regarded as belonging to the whole community; and that no one should be allowed to trespass upon it by his carelessness or his avarice or even by his ignorance."
We are finally beginning to appreciate that point of view – even those of us who have never flown up the East Coast from Washington, looking down through the smog.
The environmental point of view requires more than philosophy ... more than poetry ... more even than speeches.
It requires action – action that is prompt and decisive.
Too many Americans have a sense of drifting uncontrollably from problem to problem . . of being dominated by events beyond their grasp . . . of facing challenges that our institutions – both public and private – seem unable to meet.
Our environmental problems have contributed greatly to that self-doubt and fear of what the future may hold.
For the nation which has sent men into space; unlocked the mysteries of the atom; built the most powerful industrial base in the world has not yet halted the deterioration of its air, its water and its land.
And so the time has come to determine whether we still possess the courage, the ingenuity and the skill to pursue a common cause – not only of survival, but of a better life.
During the last decade, a number of us in the Senate began trying to shape an effective policy for the preservation and improvement of our environment.
We have worked at it – in every session. And over the years, we have had to fight public apathy, overcome Presidential and congressional reluctance to appropriate the necessary funds, and break down industry resistance.
As a result, we have not done nearly enough.
We have not even kept pace with the pollution.
And it is clear to me that we can no longer accept "business as usual."
I do not suggest that we put companies out of business, repeal technology, or return to a primitive state of nature.
But I am convinced we can no longer continue to pay the price of a steady deterioration of the basic elements of life.
We need to change our attitudes; our operations; and our standards of what is sufficient to protect the public health and what is not.
Take, for example, the problem of air pollution.
Each year, over 200 million tons of pollutants are released into the air – soiling our clothes . . . our homes . . and our lungs; destroying plant and animal life; threatening to change forever our atmosphere and our climate.
In hard economic terms, it has been estimated that a 50 percent reduction in air pollution in our major urban areas could save the country well over $2 billion a year in medical costs and lost work days alone.
But think of the human price.
That same 50 percent reduction could reduce deaths from bronchitis by up to 50 percent; deaths from lung cancer by 25 percent; deaths from heart and blood vessel disorders by 20 percent.
And we all know that no single statistic or set of statistics can really explain what it feels like to take a breath of fresh air.
For all the progress we have taken pride in – technological advances; industrial development; material comforts – our fathers and their fathers before them filled their lungs with better air than we now have at our disposal.
Unless we act – and act now – the smog alerts throughout this country will eventually become death watches of the grimmest kind.
And the public outcry which would result would force Congress to enact crisis legislation of the most stringent variety – legislation which might provide for Federal preemption of state and local governmental authority . . for Federal control over industry decision making . . . or for nationalization itself.
These are solutions that none of us wants. But they will be demanded, unless we make the hard choices now that just might save us.
That is why we voted Tuesday – in the Senate – for the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970.
The critics of that Act are right in some of the things they say.
This Act does put industry under pressure. This Act will cost money and time and effort. This Act may ultimately close down the worst offenders.
But this Act is necessary. It is sensible.
It is possibly our last chance.
And so – with respect to stationary sources of pollution – industrial plants of every description – the Act establishes national ambient air quality standards for major contaminants that must be met by national deadlines; provides rigorous national standards of performance for newly constructed sources of pollution; grants authority to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to prohibit completely the emission of hazardous substances.
Why do we need to police the way in which industry affects the air?
Not because our industries are intentional sinners.
But because we can no longer expect them to become intentional saints.
I recognize that the requirements of the Act will be difficult to meet.
But American industry – its technological know-how and its managerial ability – has been challenged in the past.
And it has not fallen short.
In this Act, we have required that a 90 percent cleaner car be developed by 1975. Industry doubts whether this goal can be met.
But it must be – and we shall all breathe easier again.
In 1968, moving sources were responsible for more than 42 percent of the total emissions of the five major air pollutants – including 64% of the carbon monoxide and 50% of the hydrocarbons.
That is no way to run the automotive industry.
The auto manufacturers have told us that Americans cannot live without the automobile.
We are telling them, if that is so, then make an automobile with which Americans can live.
Now we must challenge the Administration to put action behind rhetorical commitments . . to support the Senate-passed National Air Quality Standards Act ... and to ask for the funding to make the Act work. We are all running out of time.
And the public policies on which we are staking our common future must deal with those problems with businesslike precision; with fixed targets; and with tough performance standards.
Remember – this is only a single aspect of the whole environmental challenge facing us at the beginning of the 1970's.
It should be obvious to us by now that the problems of the environment require more from us than a determination to clean up the mess we have created, although that is important.
We must also – at this point in time – start changing the very habits that permitted us to abuse our environment in the first place.
After all, all Americans breathe dirty air, vacation beside dying lakes, and travel on crowded roads.
All of us feel the side effects of uncontrolled technology – and yet we are certainly not prepared to give up the comforts of contemporary life.
So we must work together to develop national and orderly methods of planning for the future; to adopt meaningful and enforceable criteria; to achieve economic progress and environmental improvement.
And to avoid the apocalypse which James Thurber once warned us about:
"Man is flying too fast for a world that is round. Soon he will catch up with himself, in a great rear-end collision, and man will never know what hit man from behind was man." Thank you.
SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE: NEW DIRECTIONS AND NEW PHILOSOPHIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
One of the most troubling aspects of our national mood is the crisis in confidence which afflicts too many Americans in all walks of life. It is a crisis marked by self-doubt, by a fear that our problems may be greater than our capacity to solve them, that our public and private institutions may be inadequate at a time when we need them most.
Our environmental problems have contributed heavily to that self-doubt and fear. A nation which has been able to conquer the far reaches of space, which has unlocked the mysteries of the atom, and which has an enormous reserve of economic power, technological genius, and managerial skills seems incapable of halting the steady deterioration of our air, water and land.
Our response to this environmental challenge will reflect the depth of our commitment and our faith: in our institutions, in our capacity to find answers to difficult economic and technological problems, and in our willingness to make difficult choices.
In the final analysis, our success in repairing the environment will depend less on our technological skills and imagination and more on our readiness to make new choices.
First, we should all recognize that a clean, healthy environment will not come cheap. The air pollution bill that was passed by the Senate two days ago will cost four times more to operate in fiscal 1973 than the President requested for the program for this fiscal year.
That may seem like a lot, but this year the President asked for almost three times as much money for the SST as he asked for air pollution control.
What did he request for water pollution control? This year the President asked for $800 million.
The Congress said that was not enough, and appropriated $1 billion. Again, this may seem like a lot, but not in light of the President's other requests – $3.4 billion for the space program or $7.3 billion for arms research and development.
Billions for arms, space and the SST – small change for our water and air. That is big spending ... and bad spending. Here we must make new choices ... we must show a new commitment.
Spending the money to clean up the past mess is only the first of the new commitments we must make. At the same time, we must start changing our attitudes that permitted this environmental abuse in the first place.
For example, electric utilities have been regulated – inadequately in many cases – by State commissions and the Federal Power Commission with respect to rates.
But few commissions have told the utility companies where they can or cannot build their plants, where they can or cannot run their transmission lines, how large their reserves must be, or how they should interconnect.
We have taken electric power for granted. We use it to improve the quality of our lives.
We have assumed it will be there when we need it. We have assumed that it is clean. We have assumed that those who supply it will respond to our needs. And we have assumed that someone in government somewhere is looking after our electric power interests.
Now we know ... that it is not always there when we need it ... that it is not very clean ... that the companies do not respond to our needs ... and that no one in government anywhere is effectively looking after our interests.
What does all of this mean for the human environment?
It means that we are in danger of massive power shortages and failures, not just brownouts.
It means that we are losing the race between the capacity of people to use electricity and the capacity of our nation to supply it.
It means that electric power is responsible for about 14 percent of our air pollution. It means that the people have become environmentally conscious and will not permit electric power plants in their backyards. And it means that our planning and protection in this area is a national disgrace.
We are at the state of the first incandescent lightbulb.
All levels of government have failed to fashion the tools to deal with this crisis. Local and State governments have failed to work out regional plans. The Federal Power Commission has not faced up to the need for a national power network. And the Nixon Administration still has not delivered on its promise of a national power policy, nor has it offered any leadership.
This crisis could stop America in its tracks. Only a public demand for national policy to cope with it can head us in the right direction.
The electric power industry is only one of many American industries with a double edge. On the one hand, they improve the quality of our lives . . and on the other hand, they degrade the quality of our environment. This double edge is not unavoidable ... and we can no longer afford it.
The new choices we must make to protect our environment involve new directions and new philosophies.
In the past, the double edge of America industry has forced us to make a choice between a clean environment and economic growth.
It is time we demanded the advantages of both ... it is time to discard the double edge, and to follow the lead of the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970 just passed by the Senate. That Act tells American industry that nothing is more important to the American people than our health and the quality of our environment; that business as usual is no longer acceptable; and that we refuse to pay the price of a continued deterioration in the quality of our lives.
Why do we need to police the way in which industry affects our health and our environment? Not because our industries are intentional sinners, but because we can no longer expect them to become intentional saints.
Earlier in my statement I spoke of commitment and faith ... and of a willingness to make difficult choices.
The only way to conquer our doubts and fears . . . to halt the deterioration in the quality of our environment . . is to talk sense about what is important to the American people ... to spend our dollars wisely . . . and to stand up to those who would continue to degrade the environment and tell them it is time to stop.
These are the new choices, the new directions and the new commitments the Democratic Party can offer.