July 28, 1976
Page 24287
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1976
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume the consideration of S. 3219, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3219) to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1798.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The pending business, as I understand, is the Randolph amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yesterday, there was some discussion of a proposed Moss substitute for the Randolph amendment. Would such an amendment be in order?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment submitted yesterday by the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss) was not in order as a substitute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is any amendment to the Randolph amendment in order?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. A proper substitute would be in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then, Mr. President, the only issue pending before us is the proposed study incorporated in the Randolph amendment. There seemed to be no objection to that study yesterday. I think it was fully explained. I see no reason for consuming any more time in that discussion, and so I have nothing further to say at this point.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah requested that we not take action on the pending amendment until he could arrive, and he had a previously scheduled commitment that he could not avoid until about 9 o'clock. He expected to be here by 9.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I talked with the Senator from Utah yesterday. He was amicable to coming in at 8 o'clock. He said he would be here about 8:15. It places the Senate in a most difficult position, in view of the schedule we have and the time limits attached thereto.
I would hope some word could be gotten to the Senator from Utah to get over here as soon as possible as it was to meet his convenience that the Senate met at 8 o'clock this morning.
Mr. STONE. The Senator from Utah was called as a witness on the House side and did plan to come as quickly as he could. He was their first scheduled witness. We can call over there and urge them to hurry up.
Mr. MANSFIELD. This is more important, I think, than appearing as a witness before a House committee, because he could certainly put a statement in the record there, or he could put a statement in the record here. We discussed this schedule with the distinguished Senator from Utah and came in at 8 o'clock to give him a chance for a freewheeling swing, which would take him 4 or 5 hours, he indicated, to present his amendment.
I suppose we will have to accede to his wishes.
Mr. STONE. The Senator from Utah is willing for the extra 45 minutes it will take him to get here to be deducted from the time he indicated to the leadership that he needed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, he used up that time yesterday, when he took up an hour and a half of the Senate's time on his amendment.
We have a tight schedule; on August 11 we go out until August 23, and then come back for a few more days. But the business of the Senate must always come first.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, on our side there are no further remarks to be made at this time on the pending business. I am entirely sympathetic with the dilemma we are in.
I hesitate to suggest it, but I wonder if we might recess for 15 minutes and see if we cannot get ourselves out of this dilemma.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I first explore the possibility of other amendments?
Let me say I appreciate the right of the Senator from Utah to present his amendment any way he wishes. Frankly, the pending amendment is for a very simple study. I mean it could have been disposed of yesterday very quickly; or we could have disposed of other amendments. There are 22 or more, I think, pending at the desk.
But the Senator from Utah chose that point because of some fears he expressed, because of the order in which the Randolph amendment was being considered, that consideration at that time might prejudice his rights. So he proceeded to debate his amendment, and I understood we would be doing that at 8 o'clock this morning.
We had a hearing in the Public Works Committee last evening on the Clean Water Act that required the presence of several of us until 9:30 last evening.
It was not very easy for me to get home last night and then get up early enough to arrive here at 8 o'clock this morning. Frankly, I can see no reason why we should not vote on the Randolph amendment. It does not prejudice the case of the Senator from Utah in any way whatsoever. His amendment would still be in order.
The threat of a study amendment somehow prejudicing the votes he could get exists whether or not the first vote comes on his amendment or the Randolph amendment. So, it seems to me that over some very ephemeral fears we are being asked to hold up action on the bill.
Without belaboring that point, if there is any way of getting some other amendments up while we are waiting here, I desire to make productive use of this hour. I really did not particularly desire to be present in the Chamber at this hour this morning. Just sitting here waiting in a recess is not the most productive way for any Senator to use his time.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yesterday with that thought in mind I did visit a number of Senators, but the uniform answer was they were waiting to see what happened to the Moss amendment. So the Moss amendment is the key to the whole process, and we do not have all the time in the world.
So, in view of the circumstances, I suggest that Senator Moss be contacted and asked if he can, if possible, be here at 8:30 a.m.
RECESS UNTIL 8:30 A.M.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 8:30 a.m. today.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:21 a.m., recessed until 8:30 a.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. DURKIN)
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro ternpore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Amendment No. 1798, by the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will offer amendment No. 2101, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Florida. (Mr. STONE) and, hopefully, the distinguished Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss). We have had general discussions about the effect of the amendment. It pretty well accomplishes the purposes of the Moss amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that the Senator is talking about amendment No.2101.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The pending business is the Randolph amendment; and on its face, the amendment of the Senator from Alabama is not an amendment to that amendment.
Mr. ALLEN. I believe it is. If the Senator will check the title, it says that it is to amendment No. 1798. Is that not the Randolph amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sorry. I did not read that. I apologize to the Senator. I just wanted a clarification, and the Senator has given it.
Mr. ALLEN. I believe the distinguished manager of the bill will find that it is a proper amendment, that is, appropriate from a parliamentary standpoint if not in substance, according to the opinion of the distinguished manager of the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator object to a parliamentary inquiry to clarify that point now?
Mr. ALLEN. I have no objection.
Mr. MUSKIE. There has been some dispute as to what was a proper substitute.
Mr. ALLEN. I yield, then, for the purpose of the distinguished Senator from Maine making a parliamentary inquiry as to the question of whether this amendment would be in order. I have no objection to that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do make that inquiry — whether this amendment is in order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. This amendment is a proper perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by Senator RANDOLPH.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Chair.
I say to the Senator that I put the inquiry not for the purpose of obstructing his amendment but simply for making the point clear. I am perfectly happy to proceed.
Mr. ALLEN. I appreciate the Senator making the inquiry. I am glad that the inquiry was made and confirmed the thinking of the Senator from Alabama that the amendment he has prepared is, in fact, in order.
Mr. President, I am somewhat in a quandary as to whether to discuss the amendment itself or to make my general speech with respect to the bill itself. Since I did not have an opportunity to make a general speech with respect to the bill itself and we became confronted with the Randolph amendment prior to the time that I had the opportunity to discuss the bill in general, I shall, at this time, make my general remarks with respect to the bill and then be a little more specific as to the Randolph amendment, the Moss amendment, and this perfecting amendment, which is pretty well a halfway position between the Randolph amendment and the Moss amendment. While this amendment actually was inserted in the closing minutes of the session last evening, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the amendment in detail with the distinguished Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS) , and the distinguished author of the pending amendment (Mr. RANDOLPH). I hope that we can have a general agreement on taking this approach. I hope that there would be general acceptance, even acceptance by the manager of the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield to clarify that point, I assure him he will not have that kind of acceptance from the manager of the bill. I find that the amendment is as objectionable as the Moss amendment for the same reasons, and I am sure that those will emerge in the course of the debate.
Mr. ALLEN. May I then inquire if the manager of the bill does support the Randolph amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, it is a study amendment. This goes one step further — it does two things, as I read it. It suspends the implementation of the nondegradation provisions of the bill until the study is completed by the commission. Beyond that, if I understand the last lines of this Allen amendment, it, in effect, delegates to the commission legislative power in the sense that it says this:
and none of the provisions of subsection (g) of section 110 of the Act—
That being the nondegradation provisions—
in contravention of the recommendations of said Commission as contained in said report shall be enforced or implemented.
So the commission, by that language, is delegated legislative power, to negate by its recommendations, the nondegradation provisions of this bill. So on those two counts, I object, and I am sure I shall expand on my objections as I listen to the Senator's reasons for offering it.
Mr. ALLEN. As I understand the parliamentary procedure, this amendment is, itself, subject to amendment. If the Senator could offer some possible compromise with respect to this amendment, possibly agreement could be reached on that.
I do have another amendment in that does not have the second aspect of amendment No. 2101. It merely says, with respect to section 6 — that is, the subsection with respect to section 110(g) , that those provisions would not be operative until 1 year after the making of the report by the Commission. But it would be in the law — section 6 would still be in the law — and it would merely be stayed for a period of 1 year after the Commission made its report.
What is the logic of that 1-year stay? Under the Randolph amendment, as I understand it, section 6 — that is to say, section 110(g) of the act — becomes effective immediately on the enactment of the bill. In the meantime, the study goes on.Well, the study might show that the provisions of section 6 were inimical to the public interest; yet the provisions would still be part of the law. We have a law saying, do one thing, have certain requirements, and we have the study that says these requirements are not good, they ought to be something else. So what good has the study done if it is made at a time when section 6 is in full force and effect?
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. MUSKIE. The history of the Clean Air Act is replete with such studies. We asked for a study and the Senate approved a half million dollars for a study of the ambient air standards that were established under the Clean Air Act of 1970, at the request of some of those who were regulated by those standards, for the purpose of reexamining the validity of those standards. This was done in 1973, 3 years after the enactment of the Clean Air Act. That study was commissioned for the purpose of examining the underlying bases of the ambient air quality standards.
We proceeded, and we have proceeded for 3 years, to operate under those standards. That study, which took a year to complete, happened to confirm those standards, but if it had not, the standards could have been changed. Nothing was lost; as a matter of fact, a great deal was gained, even if those standards had been changed, because those standards had never been achieved. We had moved toward them and if a lesser standard became the ultimate standard, we at least would have progressed to the lesser standard. So no ground was gained, no time was gained, nobody was discommoded, no economic penalties occurred because of the fact that a study occurred while we were in the process of implementing the policy which was being studied. So there is ample precedent in the Clean Air Act alone for something like the Randolph amendment. In the 1972 Clean Water Act, we commissioned the establishment of the National Water Quality Commission for the purpose of evaluating the goals and the targets and the deadlines which were set in 1972.
That commission was established, it was formed. It was headed by Nelson Rockefeller, who was not yet Vice President at that time. I was a member of that commission, Senator RANDOLPH was a member of that commission. That study went on for 2 years. We have its report, and that report is valuable to us as we monitor the continued operation of the law that was in effect. It is still in effect.
We are still moving and we are getting insights into it as a result of that report. So there is ample precedent, may I say to the Senator, for this kind of ongoing study.
As a matter of fact, the whole area of environmental pollution is so replete with uncertainties, because ours is a dynamic, ongoing, evolving, industrial society, that we can never have a status quo we can measure in all its dimensions. You have to have ongoing studies. Whenever you finally decide for policy you have got to have ongoing studies in order to constantly enlarge your knowledge.
But what the Senator seems to be arguing is we ought not to have a policy of any kind until we reach a point where all uncertainties have been eliminated, until we have established a stable status quo in our industrial society, that will never change, so that every element of the problem is fixed and unchanging, and then and only then can we have a policy that we implement. But a policy that requires ongoing study, apparently the Senator from Alabama finds objectionable.
As far as I am concerned, the Senator from Maine, I have been studying this field for 13 years, and I expect, as long as I am involved in it, whether it is 5, 10 or 15 years more, we will have to continue to study, to determine whether or not the policies currently being enforced are wise, whether they ought to be changed, whether they ought to be tougher, whether they ought to be more liberal, and that is never going to change, and I hope it does not because we cannot fix our policies in concrete in the way that the Senator's amendment would suggest we ought to.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished Senator for his expression of his views. As I stated, I intended at the outset to make a talk on the general provisions of this bill, S. 3219.
I might state that after I have concluded my remarks there will be ample time for others to discuss the amendment which I plan to offer, and I would rather be allowed to complete my remarks than to have the continuity of my remarks interrupted by a discussion and criticism of my amendment. That opportunity will be presented to any Member of the Senate later.
Mr. President, the air is polluted by charges and countercharges regarding the legislation before us, S.3219, the proposed Clean Air Act amendments. Many Senators, over the past several months, have spoken out about many of the critical matters facing us in the measure. But since the bill was reported to the floor of the Senate with only one dissenting vote, one might be led to believe that the issues dealt with are minor or merely technical, and that the thrust of the legislation is, in fact, uncontested by both the majority and minority members of the legislative committee.
The case is not that simple. When we read the individual or separate views of the members of the committee in report 94-717 — and I am delighted to see the distinguished Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MORGAN) on the Senate floor. I believe he wrote the separate view that is part of the committee report — we find that almost every Member has had, or has, serious reservations or significant questions about the final product of the committee. In the end, the committee decided that the whole Senate should work its will on the complex issues involved.
I certainly do not have any specific insight about the thinking processes that went into reporting a bill almost unanimously — with qualifications — but I submit that the facade of unanimity is fragile and that this "consensus" bill is more than a matter of "compromises" and "accommodations." S. 3219 reflects the inability of the committee to come to grips with the age-old dichotomy of fitting reality to desires. In the end, the committee appears to have opted for another statement of verbal support to cleaning up our environment, but without taking on the hard, realistic task of supporting the dream with facts. The chairman of the committee, after endorsing the concept of the legislation, qualified his position by saying:
Limitations on visible emissions and opacity limitations, where they are not related to ambient air quality standards, should not be imposed to restrict expansion of industrial capacity.
In other words, he appears to be saying that we must do something to clean up the environment and particularly the air, but whatever is done cannot be done at the expense of keeping our economy viable and growing.
The distinguished author and floor manager of the bill, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) took a different tack from the above and said:
an economic growth policy which abandons environmental objectives would be a foolish course. The Nation must have clean growth.
And certainly with that I would agree in principle.
If the price of that clean growth is to restrain the size of particular activities pending the development of new pollution control technologies or new production procedures, then new technologies and processes can and will be developed in order to take advantage of the economies of scale.
What the distinguished Senator did not mention in his individual views is that the legislation does not create the "new technologies," the "new processes,"only that they "can and will be developed." I am reminded of many legislative proposals brought before this body which assume, from thin air, that the passing of a law will create something from nothing just because it is right and proper that that thing or concept should be invented, designed, built, or implemented in some way. The question "how" is rarely spelled out. Unfortunately, there is an assumption on the part of many legislators — at all levels of government — that "somehow" the free enterprise system will come up with an answer to whatever problem is at hand. I take no back seat to anyone in my belief in the imagination, inventiveness, ingenuity, and productivity of the free enterprise system, but it is difficult to tell the American businessman to create, or invent, or implement, and then tie his hands with regulations, decisions, laws, and red tape so that he cannot do his job. There is an element of such an attitude in the provisions of S. 3219 and that attitude must be expunged if, in fact, we expect the free enterprise system to be a willing partner in our national quest for a cleaner environment.
Further on in his individual views on this legislation, Chairman MUSKIE makes the point that—
The burden of environmental protection should rest with those who use environmental resources.
In theory, I believe we can all agree with such a statement as long as we understand that we are all the "users" of the products of "those who use environmental resources." The chairman appears to be trying to separate types of users of our national and natural resources; it cannot be done — we is them, they is us.
It cannot be done.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator explain that? I do not recognize in that statement any philosophy that I had.
Mr. ALLEN. The point is, I will say to the distinguished Senator, when we talk about the users of the environment, that is not just the immediate first user of the environmental resources.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand.
Mr. ALLEN. That will go down and include every consumer.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand.
Mr. ALLEN. It is not limited just to the initial user. When the Senator says that those who use our environmental resources are the ones who should pay, it goes far beyond that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that fully.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator, I am not a first grade student of economics, after all, but when a paper company, for example — and I use an industry in my own State as an example — uses the resources, whether they are forests of Maine, or the waters of Maine, only they are in a position to exercise whatever responsibility is to be exercised with respect to the conservation of those resources.
The individual consumer of toilet paper is not going to be able to go up into Maine and influence the policies that would determine the conservation of those resources.
He will have to pay for the cost of doing so, but he is hardly in a position to implement the conservation policy, whether it is an industry generated policy or a Government-generated policy.
But obviously, the whole society pays the costs, whether the costs are in the form of a defiled environment or higher prices. I understand that lesson. It is elementary.
Mr. ALLEN. I understand that. But the Senator is saying that what I was saying had no connection with what he had been saying.
Mr. MUSKIE. No. The Senator said that I, apparently, was trying to separate users into two classes.
I did not recognize in that single statement any philosophy that I entertain.
Mr. ALLEN. The Senator will see the connection about using it.
Mr. MUSKIE. As long as the colloquy has fleshed out my position, then I have helped the Senator use up some time and also improve the record.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator for his concession that the Senator from Alabama is not putting the remarks of the Senator from Maine in an improper light.
My heating bill, his electric bill, my automobile, his automobile, my partially synthetic fabric suit, and his equally processed fabric clothing, are examples of the products we gain as a result of the productive genius and capacity of our free enterprise system. We are both "users" and, to whatever degree we enjoy the fruits of our free enterprise system, we are part of the national problem resulting from fulfilling our basic needs and even our frivolities.
So I say to the distinguished Senator, the cost he talks of as being necessary to bear is one that all of us shall bear. We could bear the cost of zero pollution by accepting higher prices for the goods and services we now enjoy, or paying for the same things through Government ownership and high taxation, or, if manufacturing is curtailed by Government edict and shortsightedness, then the cost we shall bear shall be in the form of shortages and reductions in our standards of living.
Mr. President, one could go on at some length about the "qualifications" built into the legislation that has been presented to us; but I believe if each Member will carefully read the individual views of the members of the committee in the report before them, he will see a pattern of doubt and uncertainty about how to achieve, on the one hand, the national goal of cleaning up our air quality and at the same time, not create a significant deterioration of our standard of living.
While the chairman of the committee has attempted to separate as a "class" those who are "users of environmental resources" and thus falsely lay the burden on "them" for the cleaning up of the environment, there are other Members of the Senate who have favored a "no growth" or "slow growth" policy in order to improve the quality of our physical environment. I have no response to those Senators, because what they advocate is the very opposite of what this country is proud of — individual initiative, progress, and increasing opportunities for all citizens to partake of the life provided by a system of free enterprise.
THE PRICE OF CLEAN AIR
Mr. President, it seems obvious to me that we cannot promote the general welfare without cost.
The committee leads us to believe that, simply by "cracking down" on the "users of environmental resources," we can achieve clean air but very little is mentioned about the cost of such a crackdown. Who pays for clean air? Of course the users do, but I hope I have already demonstrated that we all are the users. The environmentalists and preservationists tell us that we cannot, as a society, go on doing damage to the environment indefinitely without paying a price for this damage. What is equally true, however, is that if we decide to reduce the adverse effects which economic activity has on the environment or to alleviate the damage which has been caused by past activities, we must also pay a price for this. There are a wide range of environmental objectives which the society may choose to pursue, but each of these is associated with some real resource costs. Society must decide which environmental controls are worth the expenditures they require and which are not. For most commodities, we rely on the free operation of the marketplace to make decisions as to how much is enough. We cannot do so with regard to environmental impacts because the commodities which are damaged — water and air for example — are not normally exchanged in the marketplace. Consequently, to achieve optimal environmental controls we must rely upon a process of social decision making occurring through legislation, administrative regulations, and the Courts. Over the past few years, there has been a substantial effort to do just that — to legislate a cleaner environment.
This effort is reflected in the National Environmental Policy Act — NEPA — in the Clean Air Act of 1970, and in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and clearly it is an effort which has not ended with this legislation but one which has merely begun.
Over the past 2 or 3 years, there have been numerous attempts to assess the cost impact of Federal pollution control legislation, primarily with respect to air and water. The most comprehensive assessment of cost is that made by the Council on Environmental Quality, which in its 1975 report suggested that the 1974 to 1983 capital expenditures on pollution control legislation will be $115.2 billion and that annual expenditures in 1983 will be about $34.5 billion, or about 1.5 percent of the gross national product in that year. The CEQ estimates are not, however the final word on the subject of costs. The National Commission on Water Quality estimated the capital requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act at costs ranging from $95 to $182 billion over this period as compared with the CEQ estimate of $48.8 billion.
As I am sure everyone here realizes, every industry is involved in the "estimating the cost of pollution control game" and to name one such industry — the electric utilities — they too have come up with staggering figures for the cost of meeting the goals of a cleaner environment. The vice president of National Economic Research Associates of New York, in a report done for the utilities, stated that NERA's estimates of the costs of air pollution control for the industry, combined with the CEQ estimates for other pollution control costs, totaled out to a capital investment between 1974 and 1983 of between $175 and $263 billion and annual costs in 1983 of $55 to $66 billion. Whether one uses private or Government figures for the basis upon which to make social and legislative decisions, there is no questioning the fact that the sums are staggering. One estimate has the average household paying between $679 and $815 annually for pollution control and/or abatement by 1983. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the industry estimators broke down their figures as to cost to the ultimate consumer, the household. From the standpoint of good public relations, this must have been an oversight for everyone knows that it is the "users of environmental resources" who should bear the costs of pollution control, not me, the consumer.
The sancty [sic] estimates I mentioned ignore the costs of compliance by the electric utility industry with State legislation where these are in excess of what is necessary to comply with Federal legislation and, moreover, they ignore that component of expenditure on nuclear powerplants which is solely or largely satisfying the need for environmental protection. The Council on Environmental Quality estimates expenditures for environmental controls on nuclear plants at only $100 million over this 10-year period when most observers agree that a very large part of the expenditures on such plants would not have occurred in the absence of environmental pressures.
The magnitude of these expenditures does not necessarily suggest that they are unwarranted. Environmental degradation is a serious problem which requires serious responses. The estimates do suggest that environmental legislation such as that before us, represents a significant reordering of our national priorities which will only come about at the expense of other national objectives.