May 14, 1970
Page 15607
SENATOR EDMUND MUSKIE, LEADER AND FIGHTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, Senator EDMUND MUSKIE's record as a sincere, perspicacious, and effective leader in the fight for environmental quality is so well established that it needs no defense, either in Congress or out.
The juvenile, gratuitous, and fulsome flutter of personal criticism launched against the Senator yesterday by a group of self-appointed overseers was mildly amusing to those of us who for years have watched the Senator at close range as he has led the often thankless fight for clean air, pure water, and a wholesome environment.
All recruits are welcome to the cause. It would be helpful, however, if they first learned to recognize who is on what side.
The verbose fulmination against Senator MUSKIE's truly unassailable efforts is about as smart as a football rooky who thinks the way to win games is to tackle his own quarterback.
For years I have participated with Senator MUSKIE in Senate-House conference committees on various environmental bills, particularly bills relating to water quality. Anybody who described ED MUSKIE as a man who "avoids conflict and unfavorable odds" might as well refer to heavyweight champion Joe Frazier as "a 97-pound weakling."
On occasion after occasion, year in and year out – sometimes to my own exasperation – I have watched ED MUSKIE doggedly and determinedly hold the line for what he regarded as a principle when everyone else was ready to compromise for an easier solution.
In matters of environmental quality, Senator MUSKIE has invariably championed the cause of the strongest possible bills with the most stringent penalties against those who would pollute the water or the air of the United States. On occasion, quite frankly, I have felt that he was almost too tough.
Instead of blaming the deficiencies of the Air Quality Act of 1967 on him, the eager detractors might reflect that, except for Senator MUSKIE, there might not even be an Air Quality Act.
No doubt some good can arise from any citizen's analysis of the deficiencies of legislation. But to blame the very people who are doing the most to strengthen our legislative safeguards is utterly stupid, counter-productive, and self-defeating.
On the water pollution amendments passed earlier this year, ED MUSKIE kept the conference committee in session for a matter of months – not weeks, but months – because of his absolute insistence upon the strongest possible penalties for those who pollute the waters by oil.
To characterize Senator MUSKIE, or the Senate Public Works Committee chairman, Senator RANDOLPH, as men devoted to the so-called "corporate viewpoint" is simply to talk through one's hat, obviously without knowledge of or reference to the facts.
Along with our own able and hardworking colleagues, Congressman JOHN BLATNIK and Congressman BOB JONES, Senators MUSKIE and RANDOLPH have been real leaders in the continuing struggle for environmental quality in America. Time and again, these men have seen the need for action long before it was publicly realized and have pioneered in this vital legislative struggle.
Because of such leadership, we now authorize $1.25 billion annually for the water pollution abatement program – 25 times the annual figure at which we launched this program in 1956.
Let us welcome all new recruits to the continuing war against pollution, but let them avoid firing small arms against our own generals who have been directing and winning the battles.
If they actually want to make a positive contribution, their harassment might be better directed at polluters, or at those who have done nothing to help.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas on his very excellent statement and associate myself with his remarks.
I, too, deplore the unjustified charges made against Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, of Maine, in the Nader Task Force Report on Air Pollution.
Senator MUSKIE is a well-respected Member of this Congress. For nearly a decade he has addressed this Congress and this Nation in his inimitable and soft "down East" voice on the perils of water and air pollution. Many of us here in this body have joined with Senator MUSKIE in that fight.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind the country that Senator MUSKIE'S voice has been heard.
Look at the record: the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Air Quality Act of 1967. These laws were produced in the Senate by the subcommittee Senator MUSKIE chairs, the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, established in 1963.
This was pioneer legislation, and the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Senator MUSKIE for his effective, aggressive, and constant fight in environmental pollution control.
On behalf of the people of the Second Congressional District of Massachusetts, which Senator MUSKIE has visited many times as Governor and Senator, I want to take this opportunity to commend him for his valiant and never-ending campaign to write more effective laws for the abatement and complete control of water and air pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the RECORD with my remarks Senator MUSKIE's statement of yesterday, and his fact sheet answering points raised by the Nader Task Force Report on Air Pollution:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE AT A NEWS CONFERENCE,
MAY 13, 1970
Yesterday I made a brief statement on the Nader report.
Since then my staff has made available to me a more complete analysis of that report.
Inasmuch as the report focusses on the Air Quality Act of 1967, it may be useful to briefly review the history of that legislation and then invite your questions.
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution was established in 1963. Our initial activity involved the Clean Air Act of 1963, and the Water Quality Act, which passed the Senate that year.
In the seven years that have passed, we have been constantly and continually involved in the hard, and often frustrating work of producing ever tougher and, hopefully, more effective public policy to deal with environmental pollution.
We have produced staff reports which have been widely hailed for their quality. We have held public hearings in all corners of the country, to call attention to the problem, to invite wide discussion of legislative proposals, and to stimulate public interest and concern.
We have had to fight public apathy, industry resistance, and Presidential and Congressional reluctance to appropriate the necessary funds.
Our method has been to press ahead with legislation as rapidly as we could develop viable legislative approaches which could command the necessary public and legislative support. We have made progress.
We need to make more progress. The current surge of public interest has encouraged us to introduce a wide range of proposals to strengthen our laws – those dealing with air, water, and solid waste.
It may be useful to include at this point a chronological catalog of the Subcommittee's efforts over the past seven years: See accompanying chronology.
These efforts have had the consistent support of conservation groups as well as conservation minded public and civic leaders across the country. Our hearing records are replete with their testimony and expressions of approval.
It would be well to point out that much of this legislation was pioneering legislation. Ideas were constantly solicited and offered for new legislative techniques, new kinds of planning and control mechanisms and institutions, to enable us to come to grips with the problems effectively. Many of these ideas were necessarily experimental and untried. The objective, however, was always clear – to do a better and more effective job.
The Air Quality Act of 1967 involved many such ideas.
The central issue with which we grappled in writing that law had to do with two different approaches to the achievement of air quality: National emissions standards, or national ambient air quality standards tied to national criteria defining the health and welfare effects of specific pollutants.
The issue is complex and technical. There is, to this day, disagreement between knowledgeable people who agree on the objective of clean air, as to which would be the most effective approach.
The committee chose the second approach – not for the dark, secret, conspiratorial reasons suggested by the Nader report – but for the following reasons:
1. National emissions standards were described as minimal standards, which we feared might tend to find acceptance as maximum controls, and result in inadequate standards.
2. Such standards would apply only to industries which could be regarded as "national" polluters. They would not apply to other sources which contribute to degradation of the air in our real problem areas.
3. Certain control techniques are not available on a nationwide scale. For example, low-sulfur fuels are not available in sufficient supply for use everywhere in the country. As we press forward with research to deal with sulfur oxides, the low-sulfur fuels ought to be made available to the severe problem areas.
4. The national emissions standards approach would take as much time to implement as the second approach.
There was long discussion of these approaches in committee and with representatives of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
When the decision was finally taken, there was not universal agreement. Implementation of the Air Quality Act has not proceeded as rapidly as possible. Designation of control areas has been slow. The agency has been understaffed and under-funded for this purpose. These conditions would have impeded the other approach as well.
We intend to strengthen the law this year. Hearings have been held and completed. We are in the process of marking up the bills. We welcome constructive suggestions from any source, including the Nader report.
We have learned a great deal about this problem and about the ways to deal with it over the last seven years.
Experience has disclosed shortcomings in the legislation we have enacted.
An aroused public finally gives us the support to move even more rapidly and effectively.
And so we are in a better position to write better laws. We will do so, and we welcome Mr. Nader's interest.
SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION ON AIR POLLUTION LEGISLATION SINCE 1963
The following lists the activities of the Subcommittee on air pollution legislation from 1963 to the present:
1963: The Subcommittee considered 7 air pollution bills, held 9 days of hearings, 3 Executive Sessions and published one Committee report (S. Rept. 638). In this year the Clean Air Act was passed.
1964: The Subcommittee heard 125 witnesses during 11 days of hearings. In October 1964 "Steps Toward Clean Air" was published.
1965: The Subcommittee considered 2 bills, heard 37 witnesses during 7 days of hearings, held 2 Executive Sessions and published 2 Committee reports (S. Reports 128, 192). During this year the first amendments to the Clean Air Act were passed.
1966: The Subcommittee considered 3 air pollution bills, heard 16 witnesses during 5 days of hearings, held 2 Executive Sessions and published one report (S. Rept. 1361). The Clean Air Act was further amended.
1967: 3 bills were considered. The Subcommittee heard from 113 witnesses during a total of 23 days of hearings – 5 days of these were held jointly with the Commerce Committee. 2 Executive Sessions were held and one report (S. Rept. 403) was published. The Air Quality Act was passed.
1968: The Subcommittee considered one bill (S. 3031) and held 2 days of joint hearings on external combustion engines with the Commerce Committee with 12 witnesses testifying.
1969: This year was spent on oil pollution legislation. No hearings or Executive Sessions. Section 104 of the Clean Air Act was extended and S. 3229 proposed.
1970: This year the Subcommittee has heard from a total of 51 witnesses during 12 days of hearings – 3 of which were joint hearings with the Commerce Committee.
FACT SHEET ON THE NADER TASK FORCE REPORT ON AIR POLLUTION
MAY 13, 1970
Report: "Point by point the Air Quality Act of 1967 follows the path spelled out by the MCA pamphlet. Three techniques, each designed to buy precious time cheaply, merit special dicussion. They explain why the Air Quality Act sits well with business ... " (X-2)
Fact: Neither Senator Muskie nor any member of his staff recalls the "MCA pamphlet." Industry witnesses in 1970 have objected to the regional approach and have called for national ambient air quality standards.
Report: "Congress in 1967 ... shifted the heavy burden of proof to the breathing public ... Congress made operation of the federal law contingent upon the issuance of air quality criteria” (X-6)
Fact: The criteria are scientific descriptions for the purpose of informing the public. They have nothing to do with any "burden of proof."
Report: "Senator Muskie's speech must have heartened industry, despite lip service which indicated a great impatience ...”(X-21)
Fact: From that speech: "We need to set a national clean air goal which says that, as far as it is within our control, no emissions will be permitted which cause the quality of air to deteriorate below acceptable health standards. What this suggests is that we no longer limit our efforts by trying simply to set emissions standards on a plant-by-plant basis, hoping that the net result will be reduced air pollution ... (We) need to include considerations of subtle, long-term effects of pollutants on our health and well-being."
Report: "Johnson, Middleton and others from NAPCA and CPEHS were summoned to a meeting with Senator Muskie and his aides." (X-42)
Fact: Senator Muskie was not present at that meeting, nor were they "summoned."
Report: "In April . . . the 'private hearings' were held. A series of informal meetings to scrutinize the bill with industry representatives was arranged by the staff ... The debates in these private conferences, therefore, thrashed out details of the issues raised in Muskie's speech..." (X-25)
Fact: Meetings were held before, during and after the hearings on S. 780 – with representatives of industry, conservation groups, other public interest groups and Federal, State and local government agencies. No decisions were made in these meetings, and no deals were consummated. Questions raised in the hearings were explored in greater depth. Technical information not provided in the hearing was discussed. A frank exchange of views between members of the majority and minority staff and representatives of interested organizations took place.
Report: "The sense of urgency and definitiveness for which Johnson had been striving was drained from the reports (the criteria document). Middleton, with a tremendous boost from Senator Muskie, succeeded in toning down the report." (X-44)
Fact: The focus on a single number (80 ug/m3 for particulates,) in the documents as producing adverse health effects would have, in fact, become a floor below which industry could prevent standards from being set. It would have effectively created a uniform national standard. Because there is no single number focus, regions have submitted proposed standards as low as 65 ug/m3.
Report: "Legislation must be founded on the principle of reducing atmospheric contamination to the greatest extent technologically possible." (XI-13)
Fact: This is the basic philosophical difference between the Nader Task Force and Senator Muskie. Senator Muskie believes that public health, not what is technological feasibility, should determine what people must breathe. Even if a maximum application of technology is achieved, not all sources will be controlled to a point where the public health and welfare is adequately protected. The Air Quality Act is based on the conviction that the important goals are the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the air and a guarantee that the ambient air quality will protect the public. This will mean more than emission controls that are technologically feasible. It will mean plant shutdowns, fuel substitution, land-use planning and careful site location in addition to emission controls. But it will mean that the quality of the air is safe.
Report: "The new legislative scheme, sired originally by the Manufacturing Chemists Association and later adopted by Senators Muskie (D-Maine) and Randolph (D.W. Va.) breathed a fresh breath of stale air into a declaration of purpose repeated in almost every piece of federal pollution legislation passed in the last decade: that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of the States and local governments ... " (VI-49).
Fact: This language, which the Task Force Report indicates came from a booklet published by the Manufacturing Chemists in 1952, first appeared in Federal pollution law in 1948 when the Congress first acted on water pollution. Similar language appeared in 1955 air pollution legislation. Also, the above language is in the statement of findings of the Clean Air Act, the purpose of which is "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air . . ."
Report: "The (air) carriers were told that unless agreement was reached with the state to develop a retrofitting schedule by February 9, 1970, the case would proceed to trial. Despite the assist from the FAA, the airlines suffered a substantial setback . . Then Senator Muskie, in a speech on the Senate floor, denounced the efforts of the FAA to protect the airlines from state law."
Fact: Senator Muskie's Senate floor speech was on December 10, 1969, at which time he introduced legislation to require control of jet aircraft emissions.
Report: "Such pressures would tend inevitably to drive an entire industry in the direction of its most responsible member, and could lead to uniform pollution control standards, the bete noire of American industry. (IV-23).
Fact: On Wednesday, March 18, 1970 Mr. Fred Tucker – testifying on behalf of a majority of the steel industry – told the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution: "We support in principle the provisions of Senate bill 3466, section 107, for the establishment of National Air Quality Standards."
On Friday, March 20, 1970 Mr. Samuel Lenher – testifying for Du Pont – stated: "...we endorse the concept of national ambient air quality standards proposed in Section 107 of S. 3466."
Report: "The national ethic against air pollution must be translated into a policy of 'maximum use of technology down to zero profits.'" (p.4-5).
Fact: Past experience has shown that pollution control costs, as well as costs of business, have been passed directly to the consumer.
Report: "The Philadelphia Zoo is bounded on one side by the Schuykill Expressway and on the other by busy Girard Avenue. In 1964 Senator Edward S. Muskie's Subcommittee was told of ... deaths at the zoo." (p. I-21)
Fact: This evidence and other information provided the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution during hearings in 1964 were the basis for the motor vehicle emission control legislation introduced by Senator Muskie in 1965 and enacted that year.
Report: "Suffice to say at this point, however, that the problem has not been solved. Despite a large, though still inadequate, increase in funding for air pollution activities from a few million dollars in the 1950's to a projected $112 million dollars in 1970, the Federal presence and the federal leadership have been minimal" (I-36)
Fact: It is correct that the problem of air pollution has not been solved – nor did the Subcommittee expect that it would be in 2 and one-half years. Inadequate manpower (NAPCA has fewer people today than in 1968) and inadequate funding have limited effective implementation of the program. Appropriations have lagged behind authorizations by nearly $350 million over three years, including this year's budget request.
Report: "Federal (auto emission) standards are consequently at least two years behind those of California." (II-28)
Fact: The 1970 Federal standards for motor vehicles are identical to California's standards for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions. California is one year ahead of the Federal government in the control of evaporative emissions and three years ahead in the control of oxides of nitrogen.
Report: "Certification (of compliance with auto emission standards) is not mandatory under Federal law, but it has obvious advantages for the manufacturer and that is why it is in the law." (III-8)
Fact: The "obvious advantage" to the manufacturer is simply that no car can be sold without certification.
Report: "But NAPCA has no authority to inspect production line vehicles ...” (III-9)
Fact: Sec. 206 of the Clean Air Act provides that the "Secretary shall test, or require to be tested, in such manner as he deems appropriate any new motor vehicle . . ." (Emphasis added.)