June 29, 1973
Page 22296
THE 1970 CLEAN AIR ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, for some months Members of Congress have been overwhelmed with communications regarding the implications of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Most of those communications have dealt with the specific issue of the standards which were established for 1975 and 1976 model automobiles.
More recently interest has been generated by the transportation control strategies proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency for a number of large urban areas to achieve health protective air quality standards by 1975– 77.
The auto industry has conducted a national campaign in the Executive branch, in the Congress and at the local level, to change the requirements of the Clean Air Act. They have claimed that we ask too much – that they cannot deliver. The Clean Air Act has been attacked as the cause of the energy crisis. Questions have been raised as to whether the air quality plans required by that Act will disrupt the social and economic fabric of many urban communities. Other questions have been directed to the nondegradation requirements of the Clean Air Act. Will they prohibit the construction of any new coal-fired powerplants and stop the development of coal gasification facilities or the construction of new oil refineries, or block economic development and growth?
Last year the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution held 12 days of hearings on the implications of that act and this year the subcommittee has already completed 12 days of hearings on auto emission questions. We will hold more hearings exploring such questions as I have described.
Mr. President, the Clean Air Act was an important legislative achievement and it has been a significant success. Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, put it this way:
... let me say a word in defense of the Clean Air Act of 1970. This Act has been much maligned by its early opponents and more lately by some of its supporters. The Act is not perfect – no act is – but it is working.
On January 12, 1971, one month after the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency, standing in this same room and speaking to the Press Club about the 1967 Clean Air Amendments, I pointed out:
"This means that now, in 1971, not one grain of dust, not one liter of gaseous pollution has yet been removed from the atmosphere of this nation as a direct result of the 1967 air legislation."
This is simply not true of the 1970 amendments. As a direct and positive result of the passage of these strengthening amendments, we have achieved dramatic reductions in automobile emissions. When this is coupled with stationary source control the air in the country will continue to improve at a remarkable pace.
We have begun to see positive results from this legislation. While air may not be getting visibly cleaner, patterns of action have been set in motion which will inevitably result in cleaner, more healthful air.
And what of the auto emission question? In 1970, when the Clean Air Act was enacted, the auto industry claimed that there was no way that it could develop the technology to meet the deadline set in that act. And yet, on June 3 of this year, Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Robert Fri, made the following statement in a letter to myself and Senator Buckley of New York–
As regards technology assessment, I think it is now clear that it is technologically feasible to meet the statutory emission standards for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
This is a significant success. Even though the auto industry has gained an extra year in which to perfect the technology to meet the 1975 standards – the Nation is 4 years ahead of the timetable the industry had agreed to in late 1969.
The issue of oxides of nitrogen is still an open question. The auto industry claims that the standards established in the law for that pollutant cannot be met in 1976 or in 1977. But, Mr. President, it made the same claim regarding hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide last year and again this year and yet the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is satisfied that technology exists today. In any event, Mr. President, I am sure that we can achieve today, effectively, efficiently and economically, a much higher degree of control of oxides of nitrogen than we might have been able to achieve without the Clean Air Act.
Nevertheless, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution is not satisfied with the achievements of that law, and the Congress cannot afford to be. The Clean Air Act of 1970 was a novel approach to legislation. Scientific and technical judgments were the basis for enactment of the law. The law – not regulations – set the emission standards and the deadlines. The Congress utilized the best technical and scientific evidence available in order to make a set of judgments regarding clean air designed to protect the public health at the earliest possible date.
The data bearing upon those judgments is, of course, the product of ongoing research and study. As new information is developed the Congress has a responsibility to continue to evaluate the assumptions on which the Clean Air Act was based and to consider modifications reflecting on those assumptions.
In order to fulfill this obligation, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has initiated contact with the National Academy of Sciences to obtain an evaluation of the health standards for auto-related pollutants. Not only will the Academy be asked to determine the validity of the present standards, but also to comment on the degree to which the margin of safety associated with those standards is reasonable and to identify for the subcommittee those portions of the population which will be protected by achievement of those standards. The academy will be asked to identify areas of uncertainty and indicate research goals.
I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD at this point a joint letter from Senators BUCKLEY, RANDOLPH, BAKER, and myself in which we seek a short term National Academy of Sciences review of the air quality data, as well as a longer-term study of the health effects of auto-related pollutants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HELMS). Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
June 27, 1973.
Dr. PHILIP HANDLER,
President, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DR. HANDLER: As you know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 mandated specific emission standards for automobiles which were based on the effect of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides on human health. Other air quality regulations (for stationary sources and other pollutants) were also to be derived from the cause/effect relationships of contaminants in the ambient atmosphere to human health and welfare.
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Public Works Committee (which has jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act in the Senate) recognizes that there is a continuously developing body of evidence on health effects of these pollutants. We would appreciate the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences in obtaining an objective evaluation and review of current data on health effects of those pollutants which are related to emissions from automobiles.
Particularly, the Academy could be of assistance in identifying basic issues regarding health effects information; evaluating available information on these particular pollutants; and synthesizing a coherent systematic presentation of the air quality problem including such questions as:
1. What data base exists for present health-related ambient air quality standards? Is it adequate? What areas would be receiving study and analysis? To what extent are other than human health data a reasonable basis for extrapolating human health effects? Are present health standards supported by existing data – does new data support the existing standards? Please evaluate the relationship of new data to those standards. To what extent do the "margins of safety" built into existing standards represent a reasonable measure of protection against scientific unknowns?
2. Are the existing standards based on the health of normal, healthy adults or on the health of susceptible groups within the population? Which is a reasonable basis? Can population segments which are considered susceptible to the referred-to pollutants be identified within the population of any given area? What proportion of the population in major urban areas are within susceptible group categories?
3. Are the standards based on "threshold levels" plus a margin of safety or are they established at levels which will protect public health with a margin of safety? Are there assumed to be "threshold" effects levels for NOx, CO and oxidants? What is the best information available as to any "threshold" levels of the referred-to pollutants? What is a reasonable margin of safety below those "threshold" levels?
4. What improvement in air quality has actually occurred as a result of auto emission controls to date? Is there conclusive monitoring data to quantify any change in ambient concentrations of these pollutants? What improvement in ambient air quality will result from meeting present and anticipated emission standards? Can we quantify this improvement in advance of application of controls?
5. What groups within the population will still be subjected to health hazards in 1985– 86 (assuming statutory standards are met? Are changed?) How are these groups characterized (socio-economic level, unusual sensitivity to pollutants, old, young, ill, geographical location, seasonal exposure, etc.)? What is the most appropriate means of expressing ambient air quality standards to reflect human health effects (number of exposures, frequency, duration, pollutant concentration)? Can you identify the uncertainties in setting health effect standards for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and oxidants (confidence limits, standard deviation, errors in analyses, margin of safety concept)?
6. What information is available about synergism or antagonism in the set of air pollutants found in cities?
7. What proportion of total health hazard to the city dweller comes from air pollution? From automobile emissions? What is the proportion of total health hazard from urban air pollution which is due to these pollutants in the amounts which they are emitted from automobiles?
8. What are the limitations (to predictive judgments on alternative pollution control strategies) which are dictated by the probabilistic nature of science, the complexity of environmental health relationships, the variability among persons, and the vagaries of human nature?
We realize that these questions are complex and, in some cases, controversial. However, the Subcommittee needs a synthesis of the best information available prior to consideration of any amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Additionally, the Subcommittee would hope to arrange for a long term evaluation of these and other related issues concurrent with this initial review.
We would hope that you could meet with the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on July 10 at 3:00 p.m., to discuss the role of the Academy in this important endeavor.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUsKIE,
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works.
JAMES L. BUCKLEY.
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr.,
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution also is reviewing in detail the information available on the technological ability of the auto industry, foreign and domestic, to meet the standards established in the law. We are in the process of identifying the areas in which more information is needed. An evaluation of the subcommittee's hearings this year, data developed in EPA's hearings and from other sources will be completed late in July.
Finally, Mr. President, the subcommittee has instructed the staff to investigate – in detail – the proposed urban transportation control strategies to implement health level air standards, to determine the extent to which legislation may be needed to achieve the goals set in the Clean Air Act with minimal, social, and economic disruption.
These studies are essential to a thorough evaluation of the implications of the Clean Air Act.
And, during this period, the Clean Air Act has safety valves to provide assurance against any immediate disruption during this period of study and analysis. Most of the requirements of the act are not applicable until June 1, 1975. Controversial or potentially disruptive control requirements need not apply prior to June 1, 1977. Transportation controls, while proposed, will not be promulgated until mid-August and need not be fully implemented until 1975 or 1977.
The auto industry has already indicated its intention. to meet the interim standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency for 1975 models. Therefore, there does not appear to be an immediate crisis facing that industry. And, the Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that the technology is available to meet the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standard which now are required for 1976 models.
As to the oxides of nitrogen question, the law provides an administrative mechanism for immediate relief. The auto industry has applied for an extension deadline as the law permits, and hearings on the application began this week. A decision on the extension request for NOx must be reached by the Administrator by the end of July.
If the technology is found not to be available as the industry contends, that grace period will provide more opportunity for research and development and also more opportunity for Congress to review the bases of the law.
Also, Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a review of the ambient air quality basis for the statutory auto emission standards for oxides of nitrogen. That review, together with public comment and analysis will be submitted to the Congress around the first of September.
The National Academy of Sciences health effects review should be available to the Congress at the end of September..
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution will hold extensive Washington field hearings on transportation controls in September and hearings will be held, as possible, on the question of nondegradation.
We should, Mr. President, be prepared to report details on our investigations to the Senate by mid-October, including an identification of any needed amendments to the law.
Mr. President, when the Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1970, Senator John Sherman Cooper described it as "the most significant domestic legislation of the decade."
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, just a few moments ago I reported from the committee a resolution, accompanied by a report, which would provide funds for a vital study of health effects under the air pollution control legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that resolution be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. RES. 135
Resolution authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on Public Works for Inquiries and investigations.
Resolved, That section 2 of Senate Resolution.21, 93d Congress, agreed to February 22, 1973, is amended by striking out "$625,000" and "$9,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$940,000" and "309,000", respectively.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the report which accompanied the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS STUDY – AUTHORIZATION
(Report to accompany S. RES. 135)
The Committee on Public Works reports an original resolution (S. RES. _) authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on Public Works for inquiries and investigations, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the joint resolution do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the supplemental request reported from the Committee on Public Works is to provide funds for a contract with the National Academy of Sciences-National. Research Council, to provide the Senate and the Congress with an objective analysis and evaluation of health- related ambient air quality standards for those pollutants associated with auto emissions. The Academy would be asked to provide the Committee on Public Works with both a short term 90-day evaluation of existing data and a long term 12 to 15 months study and analysis of health effects data. These two reports would establish key issues relative to ambient air quality standards, present the latest and most authoritative information on health effects, and provide the Congress with a coherent systematic analysis of existing air quality standards. The Committee is particularly concerned that the Congress receives answers to the following kinds of questions:
1. What data base exists for present health-related ambient air quality standards? Is it adequate? To what extent are data on effects other than on human health a reasonable basis for extrapolating human health effects? Are present health standards supported by existing data and does new data support the existing standards? To what extent do the "margins of safety" built into existing standards represent a reasonable measure of protection against scientific unknowns?
2. Are the existing standards based on the health of normal, healthy adults or on the health of susceptible groups within the population and which is a more reasonable basis? Can population segments which are considered susceptible to such pollutants be identified within the population of any given area? What proportion of the population in major urban areas are within susceptible group categories?
3. Are the standards based on "threshold levels" plus a margin of safety or are they established at levels which will protect public health with a margin of safety? Are there assumed to be "threshold" effects levels for NOx, CO and oxidants? What is the best information available as to any "threshold" levels of the referred-to pollutants? What is a reasonable margin of safety below those "threshold" levels?
4. What improvement in air quality has actually occurred as a result of auto emission controls to date? Is there conclusive monitoring data to quantify any change in ambient concentrations of these pollutants? What improvement in ambient air quality will result from meeting present and anticipated emission standards? Can we quantify this improvement in advance of application of controls?
5. What groups within the population will still be subjected to health hazards in 1985– 86 (assuming either that statutory standards are met or are changed?) How are these groups characterized (socio-economic level, unusual sensitivity to pollutants, age, illness, geographical location, seasonal exposure, etc)? What is the most appropriate means of expressing ambient air quality standards to reflect human health effects (number of exposures, frequency, duration, pollutant concentration)? Can the uncertainties in setting health effect standards for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and oxidants be identified?
6. What information is available about synergism or antagonism in the automotive-related air pollutants found in cities?
7. What proportion of total health hazard to the city dweller comes from air pollution? From automobile emissions? What is the proportion of total health hazard from urban air pollution which is due to these pollutants in the amounts which they are emitted from automobiles?
8. What are the limitations (to predictive judgments on alternative pollution control strategies) which are dictated by the probabilistic nature of science, the complexity of environmental health relationships, the variability among persons, and the vagaries of human nature?
EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE REQUEST
On April 18, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency announced his decision regarding the auto industry's request for a one year extension to meet the standards established in the Clean Air Act for emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from automobiles. That decision and the controversy surrounding it led to an in-depth examination of the implications of
auto emission requirements by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works.
In testimony before the Subcommittee, then Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus, called into question ambient air quality standards measurement techniques and automobile emission standards related to oxides of nitrogen. Significant public controversy has also been generated regarding the validity of ambient standards related to other auto-related pollutants. These issues and the associated controversy rose subsequent to the initial Committee request for funding under Senate Resolution 21. The Committee could not at that time anticipate the need for an independent analysis because the questions which must be answered have arisen subsequently. The Committee on Public Works has initiated a full scale evaluation of the implications of the Clean Air Act in which the study which would be funded under this resolution is an essential element. The reports of the National Academy of Sciences investigation due in October of this year and late next year should provide the Congress with a useful basis for any necessary modifications in the Clean Air Act.
This supplemental funding resolution includes $300,000 for contracting this study with the National Academy of Sciences, in addition to $15,000 in supplemental investigations funding for the Committee for travel and agency personnel reimbursement in connection with this study.
The Committee recommends that the Committee on Rules and Administration give favorable consideration to this resolution as early as possible, so that it may be reported to the Senate for early action.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, this examination, I am sure the able chairman of our Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution would agree, is essential so that the committee can judge whether any modifications of the 1970 act may be necessary.
The resolution arises from a discussion within the committee and is subscribed to by all of its members.
It has the cosponsorship of Senators MUSKIE, BENTSEN, BAKER, BUCKLEY, STAFFORD, and DOMENICI, as well as myself.
Mr. President, I have listened with intense interest to the comments of the able chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE). I have served with him on the Public Works Committee for over 14 years.
During that time we have participated in the development, under his leadership, of all of the control legislation for air, water, solid waste, and noise pollution which has been presented before the Senate and the Congress.
We have agreed, as the Senator knows, more than we have disagreed. But there have been times when disagreement has taken place.
On the subject of discussion today – and it is a very important discussion – the 1970 Clean Air Act and what it has done and can continue to do, we have some differences of opinion which I think should be raised. Then the colloquy here today would indicate some of the matters that are of concern, from different viewpoints.
I most heartily and actively seek the reevaluation of the technological and scientific base on which we legislated in 1970. I believe such a review is absolutely essential to our ability to recommend responsive legislation to the Senate. I also believe that we have made rather remarkable, well reasoned strides with the Clean Air Act of 1970.
But, Mr. President, I do not believe that it has proven an unqualified success. I doubt if that could be said for any piece of legislation that has been enacted. While there is no question in my mind, and I think very frankly no question in the mind of any person who has studied the problem, the technology, exists to control hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to the requirements of the statute, I am not satisfied that the catalytic converter technology likely to be used is the kind that we should force into use without further consideration on the part of our committee members and on the part of the Senate.
The accomplishments of the 1970 act in accelerating the development of pollution control technology for automobiles is important, and very, very important. I am not sure that this technology is the most effective, efficient, and economical means by which we can achieve this result. The automobile companies – and they have been mentioned today by our subcommittee chairman – have raised questions as to whether we should require the installation of catalysts within the time specified by the 1970 act.
The act was based on an evaluation, Mr. President, of the scientific and technological information available to us at that time, but it is obvious that we need an impartial and professional evaluation of that information for more recent developments which have come with progress that is being made.
I think such an evaluation, Mr. President, is essential to a determination of whether the act as it presently exists should go forward. During this period we must consider whether we can accomplish the objectives in the legislation over a somewhat longer time frame, but accomplish them more effectively in the end, protecting the public health and conserving – of course a major item today – essential energy supplies.
The membership of the Committee on Public Works, Mr. President, has changed significantly since 1970. Of the 14 members of the committee, eight either were not in Congress or not in the Senate, and only five were members of the committee – five only, of the 14 now on the committee – when the legislation was developed.
One Senator was then serving on another committee.
An evaluation of the act must also take place through these new eyes, these new minds, these new approaches of those who are now active members of the committee.
I hope we will move expeditiously with our commitment and that the results of our evaluation will be to the benefit of the people of the United States.
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), and all the members of our committee are joined in that wish.
We need now to look at the problems of public health. I think we should also look at the problems of a strong economy, as strong as we can make it.
In all other respects, I subscribe – I underscore this – to the whole spirit of the statement of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE). I think it is important for us to recognize, once again, as I am happy to do today, the leadership and the dedication which he has given to this subject matter. I think it is important, also, to use this further opportunity, which I now do, to express to him appreciation for the leadership that I know he is going to demonstrate in the tomorrows as we undertake this program.
We are going to have the very active cooperation of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), the ranking minority member of the committee; and the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee who is in the Chamber today.
These Senators have already provided valuable contributions as we considered matters of the protection of the public health.
I add to the list I have mentioned the services also of Senators JOSEPH MONTOYA, MIKE GRAVEL, LLOYD BENTSEN, QUENTIN BURDICK, DICK CLARK, JOSEPH BIDEN, ROBERT STAFFORD, WILLIAM SCOTT, and JAMES A. MCCLURE, and also Senator PETE DOMENICI, who is in the Chamber at this time. They are the persons who undertook this job, hopefully under the adoption of the resolution and its probable approval by the Committee on Rules and Administration.
I think it is important for me to say, in closing, that the people of the United States will look to the Congress for a well-reasoned evaluation, in the year 1973, of the act passed in 1970.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each of the two Senators may nave an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished majority whip.
I again express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration for the consideration and leadership which he has given on the Committee on Public Works in this and in other areas of responsibility that are his. I think that the committee has developed, under his leadership, distinct progress in the creative approaches to this and other problems, and has developed a consensus across party lines. I take this opportunity to compliment him.
Mr. President, at this point I observe that my distinguished counterpart on the subcommittee, the ranking minority member, the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) is in the Chamber. I now yield to him.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, it was not very good fortune to be a Member of this body at the time the Clean Air Act was enacted. I would like to have been involved with it from its inception; and I want to take this occasion to express my profound admiration for the leadership of my friend from Maine, Mr. MUSKIE, in promulgating this really important legislation.
The distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has outlined the very ambitious program adopted earlier today for review of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. It reflects the commitment by every member of the subcommittee to undertake at once an orderly reexamination of the basic data on which the legislation was structured in the light of the new knowledge that has been developed over the course of the 21/2 years; and to assess its future impact in the light of the experience we have gained in its implementation.
The Clean Air Act has proven its effectiveness. Its enactment just two and a half years ago has already resulted in substantial progress toward clean air. We have witnessed improvements in our institutional capacities, an expansion of our analytical and technical expertise, and to a significant degree, a revolution in public attitude.
But as is always the case with pioneering legislation on the ambitious scale of the Clean Air Act, it is impossible at the outset to anticipate with any precision exactly what its total impact will be.
This has been particularly true of this legislation because too little scientific data on the impact. on human health of various air pollutants was available at the time of its enactment. Nor was it possible to predict the nature, or effectiveness, or the direct and indirect costs of the technology that would have to be developed in order to meet statutory air quality goals.
These problems were anticipated at the time the Clean Air Act was enacted. It was understood that as new information was developed, and as the impact of the act could be more clearly determined, a review of its provisions would be in order. This is what we now propose to do with all responsible speed.
I emphasize these points because some might try to read into the reexamination that is now being launched a retreat from the overall objectives of the Clean Air Act. This is emphatically not the case. The members of the subcommittee are simply discharging their continuing oversight responsibilities with full knowledge of the extraordinary importance of this legislation as it effects not only the quality of the air and the health of our people, but also as it impacts on the use of scarce energy resources and on the costs to be absorbed by the American economy in achieving our goals.
One of the things that struck me about much of the testimony presented during the course of our extensive hearings was its essentially adversary nature. This, of course, is inevitable in the light of the pervasive impact of the Clean Air Act and of the conflicting interests involved. It is also understandable because of the inherent value judgments that are necessarily focused on any appraisal of the standards that have been adopted.
One unfortunate aspect, however, is that it gives rise to a danger that any recommendations for modifications which the subcommittee may ultimately make might be attacked on the one hand as environmentalist intransigence or, on the other, as a knuckling under to pressures exerted by the automobile or petroleum industries.
It is for this reason that I believe the independent, objective assessment of pertinent scientific data we will be receiving from the National Academy of Sciences is so very important. The Academy's announcement will not only enable members of the subcommittee and of the Congress to thread their way through often conflicting claims as to the exact health effects of various pollutants and as to the direct and indirect costs of their control; but most importantly, the judgment and recommendations of the Academy should go a long way toward satisfying the public at large that prudent judgment will in fact have been exercised by the Congress in its review of existing legislation affecting air quality. The American public is just now beginning to perceive that the achievement of long term goals of environmental quality inevitably involve substantial costs. It is vitally important that they be satisfied that those costs are fully justified.
As a result of the extensive information that the subcommittee has been accumulating in recent months, we are beginning to have a far better grasp of the possible extent of these costs; direct costs to the consumer that will be reflected in higher prices for new automobiles, and the costs to be incurred in implementing transportation control strategies. We are also very conscious of the actual and potential impact of the technology that has been developed to meet the goals as implemented by this act on our energy problems.
Mr. President, I want to assure Members of the Senate that these highly important aspects of the clean air legislation are clearly understood by members of the subcommittee. We fully understand the need to take into the most careful consideration the total effects of existing statutes and regulations on every aspect of American life, economic as well as environmental.
It is precisely because of our urgent concern for all these factors that we are undertaking so strenuous a schedule of hearings on transportation control strategies for urban areas and on the implications of the "nondegradation" decision recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in addition to requesting the National Academy of Sciences to review and analyze existing information supporting the present standards and identifying areas of possible weakness. This is why we have directed the staff to synthesize the considerable hearing record compiled to date on the technological feasibility of achieving statutory auto emission deadlines, and to indicate policy options reflecting possible adjustments in those standards and deadlines.
Most importantly, we have set a deadline for ourselves of mid-October at which time the subcommittee should be able to present to the Congress thoughtful recommendations for whatever statutory modifications may be indicated as necessary to further the objectives of the Clean Air Act in a manner consistent with the overall interests of our society.
Mr. President, the task that we have set for ourselves is as important as it is complex. We are confronted with competing interests as to which prudential judgments must be made. We must seek the best possible synthesis between the claims of man, the biological animal, whose physical health depends on the quality of his environment, and man, the economic animal, whose material well-being depends on his manufacturing activities and his utilization of natural resources. To this end, Mr. President, I believe the subcommittee must examine all the data already accrued and to be developed with an absolutely open mind. We must not only seek the most accurate scientific evaluation of the open emission and ambient air standards that have been set, but we need also to freely reexamine the rates at which we move toward our ultimate objectives. We must also determine whether we are now at a stage where we must consider providing greater flexibility in coming to grips with unique conditions such as those that exist in the Los Angeles Basin.
There are conflicting interests and conflicting claims of major importance, Mr. President, that must be reconciled. I am confident that they can and will be reconciled without turning back the clock either on our new understanding of environmental imperatives or on the economic progress required to meet the needs of our people.
Mr. President, I take pride in working with the distinguished Senator from Maine, and with other members of the subcommittee, on this most important matter.
Mr. President, it is incumbent on all of us to keep an open mind and seek that reconciliation among our health, environmental, and economic needs which will assure that we will continue to approach or even achieve our goal in a manner in which the American people will remain confident of the prudence with which Congress has acted.
Mr. President, at this time I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI).
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am one of the new members of the very important committee referred to by its distinguished chairman from West Virginia. As such, I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), and the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY). As a new member, let me make one or two points, if I may.
First, it is obvious to me that for years past, some competent, qualified, and concerned legislators put a very good law on the statute books of the United States to try to clean the air of this land, and to try to attack that aspect of the components of the automobile. I do agree that much has been done to take from the environment that which the automobile in its form of 10 or 15 years ago was contributing and was about to engulf us all and ruin this great land.
However, as I listened to the various witnesses tell us about the standards we now have and the time we imposed for them, one thing stuck in my mind.
It was this: What if we are wrong?
From what I have heard, there is sufficient conflict both as to the adequacy of the standards and the time that we have imposed for those to comply with. By adequacy, I mean whether we are imposing too much on the technology of America for that which we will get out of it.
I do not know the answer, but I want to say to those in the Senate and those in the country who are concerned, that I at least know that we must reevaluate, both the standards and the time for our great American technology to meet the standards. And, we must do so quickly.
For now, if we are wrong, it is the American people who will suffer in another way, not from the dirty air, because we are cleaning it up, but from the arbitrary imposition of time, which will result in tremendous costs, from the arbitrary imposition on America of the tremendous use of its energy, and from the arbitrary imposition of our technology to lock itself in to catalytic kinds of mechanisms.
I believe there is a chance that we will thwart further advancement of alternative sources of energy for the automobile unless the standards are realistic and we reevaluate them quickly.
So it is with enthusiasm that I support the position of the committee today, that it will seek the assistance and guidance of that very distinguished body of scientists, the National Academy of Sciences.
We will ask them to help us reevaluate quickly and objectively, and we will get back to the Senate and the people of this country with some findings that should permit us to determine the answer to the question: Are we wrong, or are we right?
I do not think we should hold any pride of authorship, and I do not think that anyone will. Clean air, the pocketbooks of the American people, its economy and energy needs, are all bundled into this. All of us are committed to doing what is best and what is right without conflicting with the needs of this great country.
As the testimony proceeded in the hearings, without question the National Academy of Sciences was said to be by all who testified the appropriate entity in this great land to look into this matter for us. Because of that, I was pleased to inquire the other day, at one of the meetings we had with them, whether they would be able to do it justice or not. I am pleased to say that they will undertake this short-term study and give us some answers – not positive, but answers from which we may begin, in order to answer the question: What if we are wrong?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I think the comments of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) and myself are but the expression of the 14 members of the Committee on Public Works reflecting, I think, the commitment of all the Senators in this body.
We shall not approach this reevaluation in any cavalier manner. We shall commit ourselves to one of the most important reevaluations of a statute that has ever been placed on the books, a statute that has been stimulating in its effect but now, at this point, with the problems affecting America, we need to look more carefully into what has been done and to see if there need to be any changes in connection with the problems which have arisen. We do not look backward. We look to the immediate future with the job at hand.