January 16, 1973
Page 1233
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE LOS ANGELES BASIN
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the extent of the transportation and land use restrictions proposed for the Los Angeles air quality region by the Environmental Protection Agency should not come as a surprise to anyone who is familiar with the severity of southern California's air pollution problem, its causes, and the provisions of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments.
In fact, we should recall that the Senate Public Works Committee report on the act in 1970 forecast the kinds of changes the new law would require:
As much as seventy-five percent of the traffic may have to be restricted in certain large metropolitan areas if health standards are to be achieved within the time required
by this bill.
The report warned that–
Construction of urban highways and freeways may be required to take second place to rapid and mass transit and other public transportation systems. Central city use of motor vehicles may have to be restricted.
Two years have passed since the committee issued those warnings. And what has transpired since then?
First, the automobile companies, who have been aware of the threat posed by motor vehicle emissions in the Los Angeles area for over 20 years, have continued to refuse to develop or even consider alternatives to the internal combustion engine.
Second, we have learned that even if all cars in the Los Angeles Basin met the 1975-76 emission standards, motor-vehicle-related pollution levels would still exceed the levels necessary to protect public health. Nevertheless, the automobile companies are leading an effort to undermine even those standards – a ploy which, if it succeeds, will only force upon more communities the kind of crisis faced by Los Angeles.
Third, the oil companies spearheaded defeat of an effort to allow the use of gas tax revenues for the broader transportation system Los Angeles so desperately needs.
Finally, some of us in Congress have tried twice to redirect our transportation policies by expanding the uses of money from the highway trust fund to include support for public transportation projects. And twice we have failed.
In 1970, only a few days following Senate passage of the Clean Air Act, I offered an amendment in committee which was rejected. Last year, the Cooper-Muskie amendment was passed by the Senate, but was rejected by House conferees. Tomorrow, I will propose legislation which addresses the issue of autos and air pollution in cities, and I hope that the Congress will recognize the absolute necessity of approving those proposals.
Unfortunately, the EPA proposal does not, in my view, place sufficient emphasis on the need for making available transportation and land use alternatives for the Los Angeles area. I hope that suggested alternatives will be forthcoming, and that EPA and the administration will support the necessary public transportation legislation this year.
I strenuously disagree with those who would suggest that we must choose between protecting public health and providing a viable transportation system. We can – we must – do both. With great ingenuity, productivity, and activity, we have created our current dilemma. I am convinced that by applying equal amounts of ingenuity, productivity, and activity, we can cope with it, but not by retreating from it