May 19, 1976
Page 14562
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 — S. 3219
AMENDMENT NO. 1656
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there is apparently some doubt in some quarters as to my views on the pending clean air legislation. I introduced the committee bill. My name appears on the committee report. I support this legislation. I am prepared to take this bill to conference and I am prepared to work for equitable resolution of the differences between the House and the Senate.
As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, I consider this a responsibility and an obligation. As I said in my supplemental views on this legislation, however, there are aspects of this legislation which I opposed in committee and there are provisions which I offered in committee which were not adopted. I continue to hold that view. I would prefer a different bill, broader in some respects and narrow in others.
What apparently has not been understood, however, is that I think the Clean Air Act as it was enacted in 1970 is basically sound law. Throughout 1975 as the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution held hearings, the evidence presented supported that judgment. As those hearings developed, as issues were discussed, as amendments were proposed, I inquired as to whether or not the law really needed amending, whether amendments were being proposed as a means of clarifying the intent of Congress in providing guidance to the Administrator. A number of witnesses supported amendments to the act. A number of people think certain amendments are desirable to improve implementation of the act.
However, this only suggests amendments may be desirable, not essential. In my opinion, with one exception, the judicial and the administrative processes are available to overcome any hurdles which may be presented by the act in its present form. In 1970 and repeatedly since 1970, I have indicated a willingness to review and, if necessary, revise any of the statutory automobile emission standards. I proposed an amendment this year to fulfill that commitment. I suggested in committee that scientific evidence, technical data supported a relaxation of the standard for oxides of nitrogen emissions from automobiles from .4 per mile to 1.0 grams per mile. I am convinced that a modification of the NOx standard is the only necessary change in the Clean Air Act other than the addition of new funding authority.
I think the courts and the Administrator can resolve the nondegradation issue. I think the statutory base and the legislative history of the Clean Air Act adequately support the requirement that there be a national nondegradation policy. I think the courts will uphold the statutory requirement and the legislative history, and I think the Administrator will eventually develop a set of regulations which meet criteria established by the courts.
I think the courts have the capability to monitor changes in current policies relative to achieving primary standards in areas where auto emission standards alone are an inadequate control mechanism and to provide the necessary flexibility so that transportation control requirements are not unduly inflexible and restrictive.
I think that EPA and the courts are capable, through the use of injunctions and criminal penalties, to enforce the deadlines in the Clean Air Act for stationary sources. These things can happen without any amendments this year.
Therefore, in order to underscore my commitment and to indicate again the scope of amendments that I feel are necessary, I am today submitting an amendment to S. 3219, the effect of which would be to strike the committee bill in its entirety, substitute a 1.0 gram per mile NOx standard as the statutory NOx standard and establish authorizations for Clean Air Act programs for fiscal years 1977, 1978 and 1979.
I have not finally concluded as to whether or not I will offer this amendment. But we have an obligation to the auto industry to finalize the question of emission standards.
The committee tried to discharge its responsibility concerning the major policy questions of the Clean Air Act. Should the Senate deem that response inadequate, then I will propose my amendment as a means of resolving the issue.