October 1, 1976
Page34375
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS — CONFERENCE REPORT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to vote on the motion to proceed to the conference report on S. 3219, which the clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to S. 3219 to amend the Clean Air Act as amended, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment. Signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed to consider the conference report. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 54, nays 10, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So the motion to proceed to consider the conference report was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me express my gratification that, at long last, we are in a position to discuss the merits of the conference report.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Before I begin, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the Public Works Committee staff be accorded the privilege of the floor during the consideration and any votes on the conference report:
Leon Billings, John Yago, Phil Cummings, Karl Braithwaite, Charlene Sturbitts, Haven Whiteside, Bailey Guard, Rio Herod.
Hal Brayman, Jim Range, Kathy Cudlipp, Richard Grundy, Richard Harris, Lee Rawls, John Freshman, Mark Coven.
Sam Simon, Steve Pearlstein, Kevin Murray, Joe Winkelmann, Steve Gordon, Mary Jane Due, Joe Platt, Dan Wall, Gordon Jones, Ed Tanzeman.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Kevin Murray have the same privilege.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. I ask unanimous consent that Joe Winkelmann of my staff be allowed to be present on the floor during the debate and votes on this conference report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what was that request for? I did not hear what the Senator was proposing.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore The unanimous consent request was that certain aides be permitted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this measure.
Mr. GRAVEL. I have no objection.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we just had a 54 to10 vote to proceed. That overwhelming vote to proceed occurred notwithstanding the threat of a filibuster which has been clearly made; which could tie up the Senate indefinitely, today, tomorrow, and perhaps for the weekend. That vote, I take it, is an expression of the great majority of the Senate as to the critical importance of this legislation and the importance of acting on it. It reflects, of course, the overwhelming sentiment of the Senate in passing the initial legislation by almost 3 to1 margins several months ago.
So a substantial majority of the Senate, Mr. President, wants action on this legislation, wants a vote on this legislation, and all that blocks that objective is the arbitrary position taken by two Senators, supported, we are told, by an ambiguous number of others, to use the squeeze of the closing hours of the session to block any vote.
Lest there be any doubt that that is the intention of those who are filibustering this measure, I shall ask unanimous consent that there be included in the RECORD a newsletter distributed by the distinguished Senator from Utah (Mr. GARN), who says he is prepared to "take all day and all night, and do all I can to prevent a vote on the legislation."
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senator propounding a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall shortly, Mr. President, as soon as I make other references to the newsletter.
Why, Mr. President? Well, let me quote from the newsletter.
He said he has not seen any of the conference report's language, but that from what he has been told, it contains the worst of the Senate and House bills.
Well, Mr. President, I take it that the basic assumption of that statement is that we should not approve any conference reports in the closing days of a session, because they are coming at us in a steady stream. None of us has the kind of access to this steady stream of conference reports which the Senator's newsletter sets as a standard for Senate action. So any conference report that comes along yesterday, today, tomorrow, or Monday should be objected to and opposed, and not be permitted to go to a vote, because it is obvious, in the closing days and hours, that we cannot have that kind of access to conference reports.
But then the second point, Mr. President The distinguished Senator says that from what he has been told — he does not tell us who told him, but he is relying on some kind of speculative rumor around the Hill — that this contains the worst of the Senate and the House bills.
That is about as unenlightened reasoning in order to block a substantial majority of the Senate from even voting on a bill as I have ever heard. I shall shortly undertake to make a straightforward and good faith presentation of what the conference report actually provides but let me say that whatever his source, that description of the bill, based on what he himself refers to as rumor because he does not identify it in any other way, is a libel upon the efforts of the House and Senate conferees. It is, I repeat, a libel on the efforts of the House and Senate conferees.
It may be that the basis of the Senator's disquiet is found in the following language, where he says:
It is interesting to me that the same people who are yielding to radical environmentalist groups and supporting this legislation are the congressional liberals who are crying about high unemployment.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not just now; I want to make this point, and to make it clear:
"Radical environmentalist groups." How would the Senator like to be described as a radical anti-environmentalist for blocking this bill? Would he like that? Is that the language of deliberation and reason that one is entitled to expect with reference to a critical issue like this?
I do not mind the Senator's objecting to the bill, but he is denying the Senate a vote because he implies that the bill is the product of "radical environmentalist groups."
Well, let me read the names of some of those who are in the pocket of the "radical environmentalist groups."
There is myself. Well, I will not try to make a defense of myself. There is the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee, JENNINGS RANDOLPH of West Virginia, a noted tool of the "radical environmentalist groups."
There is Senator MIKE GRAVEL of Alaska, another noted tool of the radical environmentalist group. There is the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, ROBERT MORGAN, another recognized toolof the radical environmentalist group. There is the distinguished Senator from Iowa, JOHN CULVER, another in that noted list. There is the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Senator HART, another one on that pink-red list. There is another one. There is the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Senator BAKER, another one who has an obvious reputation for radicalism in the environmentalist cause. There is the distinguished Senator from New York; Senator JAMES BUCKLEY, another on that notorious list. There is the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator STAFFORD, and there among those wild-eyed environmentalist radicals, there is the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator McCLURE one of the clearest examples of another environmentalist radical.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask the gallery to stay in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MORGAN). May we have order in the gallery?
Mr. MUSKIE. Then there is my good friend from New Mexico, Mr. DOMENICI.
These are the wild-eyed radicals that brought this bill. They are so wild-eyed in their judgment that their judgment is so bad, bringing together the worst of the Senate and House bills, that the Senate should not even be entitled to vote on the results of their judgment.
And all of the signatures of the Senators I have mentioned are on this conference report. They are on this conference report and the wildest of them are: RANDOLPH, GRAVEL, MORGAN, BUCKLEY — not BUCKLEY he was not here much of the time — but McCLURE and DOMENICI. They were working in conference constantly, giving of their effort. I will include all of them.
Mr. RANDOLPH. What about the House?
Mr. MUSKIE. The House is true as well. I will not go through that list of wild-eyed radicals. I assumed HARLEY STAGGERS is known as a wild-eyed radical.
Congressmen ROGERS, PREYER, SYMINGTON, SCHEUER, WAXMAN, FLORIO, CARNEY, MAGUIRE, DEVINE, CARTER, BROYHILL, HEINZ, and MADIGAN.
I mean, how have we allowed ourselves to become infested with these wild-eyed. irresponsible pinkos in the environmental group? I do not understand it.
But in any case, the product of their work is so bad that the Senate should not even be permitted an opportunity to vote on the results.
The Senator said one further thing, with respect to that issue in which he is most personally involved, the nondegradation issue. He said:
Killing this bill will not mean that we will have dirty air. The national public health and welfare primary and secondary standards which are in effect will remain in effect. It will be up to the individual States, most of which already have clean air rules, to pass stricter laws if they desire.
That is not the complete answer, Mr. President. The fact is that the nondegradation issue is being administered under the Environmental Protection Agency and is moving through the courts,and that the States do not make that policy; EPA does, and it is because industry has been restive under EPA's administration of the law that every industry witness before our committee urged us to set a nondegradation policy, and the fact is that if the conference report tilts in any direction with respect to the original Senate bill on the question of nondegradation, it tilts in the direction that the Senator would like. I do not think it is much of a tilt, in all frankness,and yet he says, "Well, this contains the worst of the Senate and the House bills."
You know how easy it is to arrive at those judgments — when your only objective is to block action by the Senate. You use any argument that comes at hand.
In this paper, finally, he expresses concern for the health of the automobile industry and in his letter to Members — and I was on his list. I do not know how I got on his list. The Senator, maintained on his mailing list the names of radicals, apparently, I somehow escaped expulsion from his list of radicals. But in any case, I got his letter, and he expressed concern in words that brought tears to my eyes for the health of the automobile industry.
Mr. President, may I say this to the Senator: It is clear to me from every evidence of the reaction of the automobile industry to this bill, that they are doing their best to kill it. They are doing their best to kill it; notwithstanding the fact that if they kill it they will be manufacturing automobiles illegally before another law is likely to be passed. And I understand the attitude they take is:
Well, Congress would not dare to hold us accountable for failing to meet the law. They wouldn't dare. We, are too important, economically; there are too many jobs involved. We are above the law, and unless we can have the law written the way we want it Congress is not going to get a law, and we will break the present law and dare Congress to do anything about it.
That is the attitude of the automobile industry, and it might as well be brought out into the open.
The industry has dragged its feet for 13 years, every step of the way, and now when they see the chance, in the closing hours of Congress, to block a bill, to break it, and to dare Congress to do anything about it, they are taking it. So it is up to Congress to decide whether this session will expire without calling their bluff.
If they think they can come back in the early months of next year and get a quick fix from the Senate to make them legal, they better take a lot of long, careful thoughts about it. I think maybe the situation has reached the point where the country ought not stand by and watch these great industrial giants deliberately producing car after illegal car in defiance of the law.
The public has gotten a great taste in recent years of corporate irresponsibility, in many respects, and now this is a head on confrontation, a head on confrontation, because they made no secret of their intention to break this bill which is the product of 2 years of work.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the very enlightening newsletter of the distinguished Senator from Utah be printed in the RECORD.
Mr. GARN. I object. I would like the entire news release read in its entirety.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I covered about all of it. If the Senator wants this, he can read it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have given his newsletter enough publicity. He will have to tender the rest of it himself.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for an observation?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me just make one point.
Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me.
Mr. MUSKIE. The only reason, Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent to put the newsletter in the RECORD is so that if I had pulled any of these comments out of context, the evidence as to whether I had or not would be in the RECORD. Apparently, the Senator from Utah does not believe that I have taken it out of context, so putting it in the RECORD would serve no useful purpose, from my point of view.
I yield for a brief observation to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I suppose it is important that speakers be categorized. I hope that will not be done insofar as I am concerned. It will be embarrassing to me to have the people in Wyoming know what kind of person one of the Members of the U.S. Senate from Wyoming is.
Suffice it to say that I did not support Senator GARN nor Senator MOSS, the Senators from Utah, when their amendment was before this body some weeks ago. I voted against that amendment. I did not know what was in the bill. I did not know as much as I wish I had known about that amendment.
I voted against the amendment because I was persuaded at the time that it was important to get some legislation passed; that, absent a bill, the industry would be in a more difficult position and the country would be in a far more difficult position than it is in now. So I voted with my very good friend from Maine, the senior Senator from that State.
I am a farmer, or a rancher, as we call ourselves in Wyoming. Having had no training in the law, it is difficult for me to find, as my good friend from Maine has, the automobile industry already in violation of the law.
We have a saying in Wyoming, that when we get somebody in court we do not like, we will give them a good, fair trial, and then we will hang them. I think that is about what we are going to do to the automobile industry. They are already guilty. They have been found guilty on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Absent the fact that the time has elapsed, they are already guilty.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a correction?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have not said they are now guilty of violating the law, but that if cars that are now in the process of being certified, are manufactured and sold. under the present law, they will be in violation.
I have made no judgment of guilt. That is one of the reasons why we have pushed this legislation, so that they would not be in violation of the present law, and under this bill they would not be.
Mr. HANSEN. I am glad that my friend from Maine is concerned about keeping the automobile industry on a legal basis. I thought perhaps he might have tilted slightly the other way. I know that that will be pleasing to my friends in Detroit, to know that we are all on their side.
Mr. MUSKIE. But I say to the Senator that my point was that it is their decision to move on into an illegal status by blocking this bill. It is their decision. So the Senator from Wyoming's law and order friends in Detroit, by their own action, seek to become violators of the law.
Mr. HANSEN. I must say that I continue to be astounded and amazed by the ability of my friend from Maine not only to forecast the future but also to read the intentions of other people. I find that difficult to do.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Since it is my time.
Mr. HANSEN. It is not only the Senator's time; it is his show.
Mr. MUSKIE. We had our closing sessions in S. 407, up in the roof of the Senate side of the Capitol, and those gentlemen, the representatives of the auto industry, were sprinkled throughout that room all through the conference. They made no secret of their intention.
I am not guessing, I say to the Senator. I have a reputation already for being radical, but I am not guessing about what the automobile companies' posture is on this bill. They are out to kill it, notwithstanding the fact that it provides the relief that will enable them to operate legally next year. It is their decision, not mine; and their words, not mine. So do not throw them at me.
Mr. HANSEN. I did not think I was throwing anything at my good friend from Maine. I am surprised to observe his obvious emotional concern on the point that I make.
Mr. MUSKIE I am not emotional, I say to the Senator.
Mr. HANSEN. I am glad to know that. I misread the Senator. I thought he was emotional.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can be intense in argument, as the Senator can. I heard him yesterday. Am I deprived of the privilege that the Senator indulges in quite frequently on the floor?
Mr. HANSEN. Indeed not.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator was saying — and I will be glad to look at the transcript — "I am surprised that the Senator from Maine would seek to read the minds of the auto industry." It was something to that effect. That is to imply that I am being irresponsible.
Mr. HANSEN. No, I did not say that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I made it very clear that I was not reading minds.
Mr. HANSEN. I will let the record stand, and I will not change a word of what I said; and I am sure the Senator from Maine will not change a word of what he said.
Mr. MUSKIE. My words are always so perfect that I never change them.
Mr. HANSEN. The Senator from Maine is better off than I am, because mine are not.
If the Senator will permit a further observation, let me say this: I observed that I voted not against but with the Senator from Maine. I voted against the two Senators from Utah. I have not read this bill; I have not read it as yet.
However, Mr. President, I was in the Chamber last night during part of the time it was being read, and I talked with a Senator from the other side of the aisle who has good liberal credentials. I will not identify him, but I assure Senators, if they will take my word for it, that he has pretty good liberal credentials. This is what he said to me: "If this bill passes, you will forget about OSHA — you will forget all about OSHA — because this is so far more terribly worse. This is so much worse than was that OSHA legislation that you will forget all about that." I am not quoting him verbatim, but essentially this is what he was implying.
I make that observations now not to irritate my good friend from Maine but to say simply that this is a long bill.
I was one of approximately 80 or 90 persons who voted for OSHA. Three or four voted against it. Who, in his right mind, would oppose a bill that was intended and proclaimed to protect the health and the safety of the American worker? Certainly not CLIFF HANSEN.
Three or four did not vote for it. I suppose all I can say in the way of criticism is that they had taken the time to read that bill, to see what it contained. There is no other bill that causes greater irritation today, that is more irresponsible in the strong, heavy hand of Government that it seeks to put on the shoulders and the actions and the hands of everybody, large or small, than the OSHA bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HANSEN. No, I will not yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Very good. The Senator may have the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator asked me to yield for a brief observation, and now he is launching into a speech.
Mr. HANSEN. I am making one of the brief observations, and I will let the record stand.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will let it stand, and I will give the Senator an opportunity to respond, but do not want him to engage in a speech.
Mr. HANSEN. I will have an opportunity later today, before we vote on this bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Number one, the Senator said that he does not know what is in this bill. The clerk, at the insistence of the opponents of this bill, spent hours last night reading it. I did not see the Senator from Wyoming here listening to it.
Mr. HANSEN. The Senator from Maine was not watching, or he would have. I was here for a lot of the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was here for just about all of it. I did not clock the Senator, but if his attendance on the floor during the reading was sufficient to give him a comprehensive understanding of what the clerk was reading, I am amazed.
At any rate, with respect to this other anonymous charge, it falls in the same category as the anonymous charge of the distinguished Senator from Utah. You know, "Somebody I can't name told me." What kind of accusation is that?
Mr. GARN. If the Senator from Maine will yield, I shall disclose that source if he would like me to.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator will have his opportunity. I want a continuity in my presence here. I shall maintain it. He is free to disclose it and I shall answer it when it is disclosed.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Hathaway of my staff have the privilege of the floor at all stages of proceedings on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection; it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say further, Mr. President, to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming while he is on the floor, and to his anonymous liberal friend, I do not object to either one of them
Mr. HANSEN. I have two.
Mr. MUSKIE. Or how many he has who share the same opinion.
Mr. HANSEN. I am proud to have two.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not object to any of them voting against the bill. I might have more confidence in the bill in those circumstances.
The point is I am trying to protect his right to vote against the bill. I assume, I say to the Senator, if he regards the earlier vote against the bill as a mistake, he would like to correct the record by voting against it now. So I am doing my best to see to it that he gets a chance to vote against the horrendous piece of legislation, which he was so mistaken in judgment as to support earlier on the Senate floor. I find it incredible that the Senator from Wyoming should have voted that casually about the bill earlier. But since he did, since he has confessed that he did, it seems to me that he would want to correct the record by seizing upon the first available opportunity to vote against it. So I shall fight side by side here to give him that opportunity.
Now, Mr. President, if I may go on
Mr. HANSEN. Side by side.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may go on well, we shall see if the Senator does indeed.
Mr. HANSEN. Will the Senator permit one correction of a mistake that he made?
Mr. MUSKIE. How long will it take the Senator?
Mr. HANSEN. He has made quite a few, but I shall not try to point out all of them.
Mr. MUSKIE. He can do it at length on his time, but I do not really—
Mr. HANSEN. Will the Senator give me 2 minutes?
Mr MUSKIE. I shall give him one.
Mr. HANSEN. That is a better offer than I generally get Mr. President. Let me say that I have not, to my knowledge, said that I understand what is in this bill. I did say I was on the floor last night during part of the time it was being read. I think that we got about a third of the way through the reading of the bill last night All I am saying is that I suspect that a lot of Senators probably may not know a great deal more than some of us know about this bill, and I was trying to make the point that unless I know more about it than I now know, I certainly am not prepared to vote for it.
I pointed out that, as far as OSHA is concerned, I voted for that bill because it has a very catchy title, an appealing title. Yet, upon reflection, upon seeing what was contained in that bill, I am persuaded that I should not have voted for it. That is one of the misstatements that the Senator from Maine made.
Mr. MUSKIE Will the Senator repeat it? I shall give him additional time.
Mr. HANSEN. No; that was—
Mr. MUSKIE. What was the statement I made?
Mr. HANSEN. I would prefer to have the reporter read it back to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall let it go.
If I made a mistake, I apologize to the Senator. That was not my intention. Since I did not catch what the alleged mistake was, I cannot be more specific at this point.
Let me continue, Mr President. There as an implication raised by the newsletter of the distinguished Senator from Idaho and by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming that somehow, we are engaged in a hasty bit of legislative action. If, by that, they mean that in the. closing hours of this session, we are confronted with conference reports which do not come to us on time, that we do not have the usual time to read and understand, that is a reason to vote against every conference report. I do not like this end of the session feverishness any more than the Senator from Wyoming does. But to say that this is the only bill that is subject to that vulnerability is to be unrealistic in the extreme.
Mr. President, what does this bill represent? This bill represents something more than the efforts of the conference committee over the last few days. It represents 2 years of the most thorough comprehensive, intelligent, hard work on the part of virtually 100 percent of the members of the Senate Committee on Public Works that it has ever been my experience to be part of or to witness. Those Senators include some thoughtful, penetrating Senators. Senator McCLURE, as anybody in the Senate who has observed him at all knows, has a keen mind, a capacity for asking hard, tough questions, following through, and insisting on having the time to have his positions explored. And there is no Senator on this floor whois his superior in that respect. He signed this conference report. And he has supported the committee bill from the moment that it was reported out of committee.
Senator DOMENICI is the same kind of penetrating, thoughtful, intelligent Senator. Do the Senators think those two men are going to bring a hasty, OSHA-like bill, if that is the horror term that they would like to apply to this piece of legislation, to this floor and urge it upon their colleagues on this side of the aisle?You know they will not.
Mr. HANSEN. Will the Senator yield for one observation?
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to finish. I have tried to start this particular thought several times. I. should like to finish it.
What I am trying to emphasize here is that the bill which came to the Senate door was the product of that kind of work.
I know that this is a big bill, because we were asked to consider a lot of problems. We did not seek the nondegradation issue. It sought us. If the Senators think it is a simple kind of problem that can be solved by a snap of the fingers, it is an extremely complex thing. It has enormous implications for all of the relatively clean air areas of this country. We have no choice but to consider whether growth in those areas should be permitted to escalate without any regulation whatsoever in the historic patterns of our national industrial development, producing new New Yorks, new Chicagos, new Los Angeles — with all of the horrendous air pollution problems of those cities — or whether we should try to put together a policy of reasonable regulation that would avoid those consequences.
That is the problem that was tossed in our laps — by whom? By the environmentalists, who were not satisfied with the present law, and by industry, which was not satisfied with the present law.
Witnesses on both sides came to us and pleaded, "Take this out of EPA's hands; take this out of the courts. Give us a clear policy so we shall know where we are going."
And we did. As far as I was concerned, it would have been easier and I would have had much more time for other things if we had just left the present law and left it to the courts. I cannot tell how many hundreds of hours of labor I had to put in, and this is true of other members of the committee, to produce a policy. Now we are told — you insult us, gentlemen — that what we have done is a hasty piece of irresponsible work, radical in its implications and overtones.
How do the Senators expect us to react to that kind of accusation? I can imagine the reaction of the Senator from Wyoming if we did that to him with respect to the legislative product of his committee.That is the kind of work we did.
How much time did it consume on the record.? We have held a total of 56 days of hearings on the Clean Air Act over the past 4 years — 56. May I say to the Senator, hearings in the Public Works Committee are thorough. The subcommittee held 24 markup sessions on amendments to the Clean Air Act from June of 1975 to November of 1975. The full committee held 24 markup sessions on clean air amendments, from November of 1975 to February of 1976.
The bill was reported out in the early spring of 1976, and it was on the calendar, I say to the Senator; it was on the calendar from early spring until the Senate considered it in August of this year.
There was reason after reason advanced for delaying consideration. I was willing to go along.
Those requests came from all segments of the Senate. I was happy to go along. But surely that was enough time for those who had serious questions about the legislation to study the Senate bill exhaustively — I do not care how long it was, exhaustively.
So that not only did the committee give it exhaustive attention but the Senate had opportunity to. That was not brought out of the committee 1 day and called up for action in 3 days; it was 5 months until the time it was brought to the floor. It was clear it was going to be brought to the floor. We made it clear in every way we could that it was going to be brought to the floor.
Those who were opposed to the bill, and have been from the beginning, declared public war against it during that period, so there was every motivation for Senators to use those months to study this bill carefully and exhaustively. I am not going to criticize any Senator who did not study this bill carefully and exhaustively, but we have to make our own priority choices as to how we use our time. The fact is that the opportunity was there.
Now, if I may continue—
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to finish the presentation of the consideration given to this bill. It will not take more than a couple of minutes, and it will give me continuity. Then I will yield.
Six conferences were held on these amendments totaling approximately 30 hours — 30 hours in these days when we are all pressured about these multiple responsibilities, which is a considerable amount of time.
In addition, the Senate conferees met separately in caucus nine times for approximately 18 hours. So that is a total of 48 hours since the middle of last week that Senate conferees met, with minds like those of Senator McCLURE, Senator DOMENICI, Senator RANDOLPH, and other Members, applying themselves to the task.
In addition to that, there were around-the-clock sessions at the staff level.
Now, what is the basic character of this conference report? To reduce controversy and the need for new legislative language, we worked from the Senate bill. So the Senate bill was the basic instrument. This bill, that had all of the attention I described was the basic foundation of the conference report.
We added from the House bill, and we dropped a lot of the House bill because the House had included many, many more items than the Senate bill had, and we produced original text in the conference in only a few complex areas where both Houses had acted. We even tried to use as much language from both bills on nondegradation to make understanding more simple.
So there has been every effort to bring to the floor a conference report that related as closely as possible to the House bill and the Senate bill so that Members would have a minimum job in understanding the changes, so that the legislative history written on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House would be as relevant as possible to the conference report.
Now, that is just a brief characterization of the effort that has been put into this bill. It is typical, may I say, of this committee. For all the years I have been a member we have done this kind of work and with this kind of thoroughness.
Let me say one other thing about the composition of this bill. The committee maintains a united front in support of this bill. That is not to say we were all of one mind as to what should be in the bill as it moved through the markup process. We had tough debates, hard hitting debates. There was sharp disagreement. We took over 60 roll call votes. But the result of all that was when we were through we were able to achieve accommodations even as to issues we vigorously and even emotionally debated, and produced a product the committee was able to support 100 percent.
When you get a group of Senators as diverse as McCLURE and DOMENICI on the Republican side, GARY HART, CULVER, and MUSKIE on the Democratic side to agree and support a bill of this kind, surely you must believe it was given intense examination, and surely you must believe that hard balancing judgments were made from both ends before that kind of agreement was achieved.
No, Mr. President, this is not a careless piece of work; it is not a hasty piece of work; it is not an irresponsible piece of work; it is not a radical piece of work. It is, I think, one of the best examples of committee action at its best that I have seen in the Senate in my lifetime.
I am not asking the Senate to accept my judgment on that point. I am simply asking the whole Senate to make that judgment, and I think it would be an abortion of the legislative process to permit a group of Senators who, on the record of the record votes, are a distinct minority in the Senate on this issue to block the majority from working its will.
I think it is a disservice to the committee process to force the Committee on Public Works to just drop the results of this kind of 2 years work as though it had never happened, because of somebody's arbitrary whim.
Now I would be glad to yield to the Senator for an observation, and I will not niggle about time.
But I do have, may I say to the Senator, a presentation of the bill in terms of its details that will follow. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I will try not to take more than a minute or two.
I wanted to say simply that I think the Senator may have misunderstood what Isaid when he concluded, as I think he did, that I was likening this bill to the OSHA bill.
I said simply, or what I intended to say was, that when I voted on the OSHA bill I had not read it. I was persuaded it would be clearly in the public interest and, on that basis, I supported it.
Certainly I support clean air as I am sure everyone does. But having gone through the experience of seeing the OSHA laws enforced and regulations promulgated as they have been, I am not unaware of the caprice and the extension of legislative intent that may be interpreted by bureaucrats.
I would also suspect, in fairness to those bureaucrats, and it ought to be observed, if we had read the law, the OSHA law, or the bill rather before it became law, we might have been put on guard in a better understanding of what could have happened.
Now, second, I have not said — and I want my friend from Maine to understand this point — that by any stretch of the imagination I presume to know what is in this bill. I did say that one of my good friends with good liberal credentials — and I will not identify him, but I can assure the Senator he is a good friend of mine — said it was a revelation to him, or these are essentially his words, to listen, as a number of us were listening when this bill was being read, to understand and to have impressed upon him, as was impressed upon him, how far reaching the bill was.
I thank my good friend from Maine for his courtesy. Despite my sometimes disagreeing with him, I want him to know that I greatly admire and respect him. I am always pleased when he stands shoulder to shoulder with me to fight. I come out a heck of a lot better than I would absent his support.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say this to the Senator: I have always regarded myself as one of the Senator's good liberal friends.
Mr. HANSEN. I mentioned I had two.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have always regarded him as one of my good conservative friends. Might I suggest, as one of his good liberal friends who is willing to put his name on the record, that maybe my judgment on this bill might be worth weighing against the judgment of his anonymous liberal friend.
Mr. HANSEN. That is a good point.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, finally, on the question of the attention this bill has received, may I point out that on the House side the consideration of the House bill was just as thorough as here.
The House actually had 66 markup sessions in full committee and 22 in subcommittee, for a total of 88 markup sessions in the development of their legislation.
May I say, as a compliment to the House, that although their bill in many respects took a different approach to arrive at the same goals, it was a workmanlike piece of legislation and one of the best that I have had the pleasure of working with in conference with the House in trying to work out our differences.
The differences in approach did create some problems in marrying the two bills. expecially in the nondegradation area. In the Senate we spent 6 hours in conference the day before yesterday in a meticulous, line-by-line examination of the two bills on the nondegradation issue. When we finished we were satisfied that we had succeeded in bringing the two bills together in a constructive and manageable way.
Now with respect to the threat of bureaucracy that has been mentioned by the Senator from Wyoming; I confess that I have as much frustration about what bureaucracy does to well-intentioned legislation as the Senator from Wyoming. I will join him in the struggle to limit the undesirable features of bureaucracy in any way I can. This bill, especially on the nondegradation issue, minimizes bureaucracy, at least at the Federal level, by delegating most of the key authority to the States, and even in some respects to local governments.
So if the fear of bureaucracy at those levels is not as great as it is at the Federal level, then the nondegradation issue should be more satisfactory in the conference bill than it was in the Senate bill because there was a bigger Federal role in the Senate bill. I do not think it was a burdensome one, but for those who are concerned about that there was a bigger Federal role in the Senate version on nondegradation than there is in the conferenc report on this bill.
So even on nondegradation there should be some assurance to the Senators.
This is a complex subject; and for me to suggest that it can be dealt with in a simple kind of bill or regulatory structure would be misleading indeed. We could approve a simple bill if we simply and arbitrarily adopted a national standard that did not vary with local standards. In other words, if we just set a national standard across the board, such as there shall be no additional economic activity that goes below secondary levels. I think my good friends would find circumstances in which even that extent would be unacceptable to the people who have to live under it.
What we have tried to do is to create a regulatory scheme which would take into account local circumstances, and, in order to do that, obviously we must have a more complicated regulatory structure, in terms of both policy and personnel. But we have to make a decision about that.
Mr. President, if I may, I will proceed to the presentation of the bill itself.
Mr. President, after nearly 2 years of effort a final version of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 is before the Senate. It is a bill which in many respects reflects the unique approach to air pollution control of each individual House. It is a bill that is broader in scope than that which passed the Senate. It is a bill which could well have come from the Senate committee this year had we acted on the urging of so many of the witnesses at so many of our hearings. There is little in this bill that has not been discussed either in hearings, written testimony or during our markup sessions.
In fact, Mr. President, a number of these conference bill provisions are remarkably similar to legislative proposals considered but not adopted by the Senate Committee on Public Works because we determined for a variety of reasons to have an austere bill. We have tried with respect to those provisions which were not considered by the Senate to accommodate the Senate's interest. The House has been cooperative. They have agreed to accept amendments to House provisions which while inconsistent with the stated objectives of the House bill and report were necessary in order to meet the requirements of Senate Members and Senate conferees. But Mr. President, the House has been accommodating and cooperative. In the past, major environmental initiatives have been generated in the Senate. On many occasions the House was asked to take, on faith, major new clean air initiatives on which they had had little discussion, few hearings and limited information. They have accommodated us in the past.
This time, Congressman PAUL ROGERS has asked the Senate to take on faith certain provisions of the House bill. He has guided this massive effort through months of committee hearings and markups and weeks of floor debate. This is PAUL ROGERS's bill. He deserves praise for it. I would hope that my Senate colleagues who know what kind of legislator PAUL ROGERS is, who know the depth ofhis commitment to the public interest and the reasoned approach he takes to law making will take my word that the new provisions of the conference bill are, indeed, a positive step toward a balanced public interest national clean air program.
Mr. President, when I spoke to the Senate on this legislation months ago I said that this bill was a compromise and I described that compromise in this way:
Congress asserted in 1967 a Federal interest in protecting the public's health from the adverse impact of air pollution and a national policy to protect air quality in clean air areas. Congress recognized that a national regulatory framework with basic minimum standards and an aggressive Federal agency would be necessary.
We must not disband that effort. I support much of this bill. There are improvements. There are causes of concern. There are provisions which, if enlarged in later actions, will lead to delay, reductions of efforts, and the inevitable conclusion that environmental goals and public health protection will not be accomplished. That possibility we must not forget.
This conference report is also a compromise but it too is a compromise that meets the public interest test: Most important of its provisions are, in my opinion, Senate requirements applicable to stationary sources. These provisions seek to put an end to the first round of efforts to circumvent emission control requirements by establishing new deadlines for existing industrial sources and penalties for failure to meet those new deadlines. The House has left untouched these important provisions of the Senate bill. In return the Senate has left virtually untouched some provisions of the House bill, the effect of which will be to enhance the Nation's capability to achieve clean air goals at an early date.
Mr. President, there are clear messages in this bill. The first message is to the Nation's major industries. It can be taken from the amendment to which I just referred. That message is that the time for talk is over — the time for compliance is here. The health of the people can wait no longer. And the conferees have a similar message for the Nation's auto companies. We do not want to know what cannot be done; we want to see what can be done. We are tired of their foot dragging. We are tired of their constant effort to solve problems by lobbying Congress instead of developing technology. I think my colleagues can appreciate the sense of frustration which comes from over 10 years of these confrontations.
I sense no stronger feeling from the collective Senate conferees than a desire to resolve the final auto emissions requirement. We know that the technology exists to produce cars meeting standards which will provide a significant degree of health protection. It is out there. It has been tested. It is being used and it is being used without unacceptable cost or fuel economy penalty. I say to Detroit that the time has come to show us that the job can be done by American manufacturers on American cars. Get off the dime, get on the job, and let us get this job done and done well.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. ALLEN. I was very much interested in what the Senator was saying about the fact that the conference report would seem to give more participation by State and local governments even than the Senate bill. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Could I give an example?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I would like to have an example. As the Senator knows, that is one of the main features of the bill that interested the Senator from Alabama. We did have what I felt was a constructive colloquy when the Senate bill was before us in this connection. I would like to know just how the conference report treats this area of giving to the local government more control over the EPA regulations.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me give the Senator a couple of examples.
As the Senator knows, both bills establish the class1 area. After a discussion of that, we limited that class 1 area very sharply. I believe both the House and Senate bills were pretty close in that respect.
Then we established in the Senate bill a class 2 area with the possibility of moving public lands, Federal lands, from class 2 to class 1. We gave the Federal land manager a role in that decision as well as the States. There had to be concurrence between the Federal land manager and the State.
Under the conference report, the State alone makes the decision as to whether to raise public lands from class 2 to class1, which is more restrictive.
Second, the House creates a class 3 area. Classes 2 and 3 in the House bill cover the same land area as class 2 in the Senate bill.
To understand the concept clearly, one must understand we are talking about the same land area in either case. By dividing it up into two classes, there may be a difference in the pattern of development than if we had one. In any case, land can be moved from class 2 to class 3. The objective of that movement would be, of course, to enhance economic developments. That is the purpose. The State makes that decision, not a Federal bureaucrat. So there, too, there is more local control. Even the local governments have an input into that decision.
Mr. ALLEN. The EPA would have a means of influencing the local decision by setting up guidelines that they would have to follow.
Mr. MUSKIE. Only with respect to following the procedures for making a decision, but not on the substance.
Mr. ALLEN. So the ultimate decision would be left with the local government without any minimum standards set by the Federal Government; is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ALLEN. I appreciate this information.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are increments that would apply, of course, to class 1, class 2, and class 3.
But the increments, on the whole are more relaxed in class 3 than the second class.
Mr. ALLEN. As the Senator knows, this is one of the chief concerns that the Senator from Alabama has in this area, and I do appreciate this further explanation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I do not know how exhaustively I should present the details of the bill. I must say that, because of the situation that Senators have not had an opportunity to read the conference report, I am impelled or tempted to read all of my presentation, because I want to make sure that Senators understand the bill as thoroughly as possible.
Let me begin, and if it develops that completion of these prepared remarks does not seem to serve a useful purpose, I will discontinue it, but I would like to present them. From an editorial point of view, I think perhaps that would be more useful in presenting the bill than the reading of the conference report which occurred last night.
I concede at the outset, Mr. President, that the legislative history on this legislation will be admittedly slim because of the technical problems of reproducing and making available legislative language in a conference report to the Senate and the House. I would like, however, to discuss each of the provisions of the bill to the extent that either the Senate provision has been confirmed or we have adopted a House provision or achieved a compromised middle ground.
The following major Senate provisions were retained: delayed compliance orders, delayed compliance penalties, civil penalties, coal conversion, continuous control, transportation controls, nonattainment, production line testing, hazardous emission design standards, employee protection, and citizen suits.
The following major House provisions were adopted with slight modifications: unregulated pollutants, basis for administrative standards, tall stacks, review of ambient standards, new source performance standards, variances for technology innovation, indirect sources, vehicle inspection and maintenance, vapor recovery, attorneys fees and loss of pay.
The conferees agreed to conference substitutes for the following provisions: smelters, prevention of significant deterioration, auto emission standards, aftermarket protection, and heavy duty vehicles.
The Senate bill was the working document for the conference and that approach allowed the Senate to resist a number of provisions in the House bill that appeared to me and a number of Senate conferees to be rather questionable. A brief list of some of these might be helpful:
First. The House attempted a penalty scheme for stationary source emitters who were delinquent in meeting clean up schedules. While that idea was a good start, the Senate approach was much preferable in that it provided an economic equalizer between sources who paid to clean up and those who did not.
Second. The transportation control provision of the House bill contained rather explicit exemption of some categories of sources that ought to be regulated, but which were virtually exempted.While it was not possible to resist such special treatment in all cases, numerous such provisions were rejected by the Senate.
Third. With regard to heavy duty vehicles, the Senate maintained an important policy of requiring heavy duty vehicles to attain approximately equivalent reduction in pollution from uncontrolled vehicles — an important principle of equity.
Fourth. The Senate rejected a provision which would have obstructed EPA in its attempt to regulate aircraft emissions — a provision giving the Secretary of Transportation a veto over EPA emission regulations.
Fifth. A number of small amendments which would have unnecessarily added complicated regulations to an auto industry were dropped. Those included the power for EPA to regulate the gas tank fill pipe location, design, and exterior area of the car where such fill pipe attaches.
Authority to regulate on board hydrocarbon technology was also dropped.
So, contrary to the impression of some that we are never sensitive to the problems of the auto industry, the conference did drop these more restrictive provisions.
Sixth. An amendment designed to allow automobile high altitude adjustments was modified by Senate language which severely limits tampering with emission controls.
Seventh. A proposal to begin redesignation of air quality control regions and thereby disrupt ongoing programs was also deleted in the conference.
Eighth. But perhaps the most onerous and potentially damaging amendment of all was the administrative procedures section of the House bill which was dropped from the conference agreement. This language was a clear attempt to mute EPA's aggressive regulatory voice and intimidate its personnel through extensive cross-examination and complicated rule making proceedings — a reversal of procedures applicable to other agencies — both administrative and judicial — in order to place EPA on the defensive. At a time when aggressive environmental enforcement is difficult to find even when backed by a strong legislative mandate, the country could ill afford any measure that would reduce our efforts to control the unhealthy emissions of pollutants into our atmosphere.
One issue that occupied the attention of the Senate conferees for quite some time was the issue of requiring EPA to revise the new source performance standards — the kinds of control that require new sources to really be clean and reduce the overall emissions that enter the atmosphere as the economy expands. The House had a provision which required that technological systems of control must also be used in meeting such standards. While the intent of this amendment was good in that it attempted to reduce emissions that badly need to be reduced, an important clarification was needed and was successfully offered by the Senate.
The conference agreement contains a modification which clarified that technological means to clean up fuels are valid and useful approaches to minimizing emissions. In many cases, the addition of stack gas cleaning, or other kinds of after-treatment is by far the most effective technique and should be required. But in some other cases, such as the desulfurization of oil, and in some cases the washing and chemical cleaning of coal will be the most environmentally and economically acceptable.
No conference allows one body to win on all the issues. We had to accept a number of measures that I would have preferred not to accept. I have little taste for the kind of exemption the House voted to give to so-called indirect sources. All sources ought to carry a fair share of the responsibility of cleaning up our Nation's cities. The limitation provided on the ability to control indirect sources is not an environmental step forward. While I believe the automobile proposal adopted is a good one, I have little taste for offering further delays to an industry that has already shown its inclination to seek further delay rather than protect the public by concentrating on cleaning up the automobile.
It is also unfortunate that the aftermarket issue became so volatile that the conferees felt it was necessary to reduce the warranty coverage provided in the performance warranty under the Clean Air Act. While I am confident that the Federal Trade Commission will give a fair evaluation of this issue, the delay in implementing this warranty, should it become operative, will not be beneficial.
ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
The Senate provisions which have been adopted by the conference committee provide for delayed compliance orders and delayed compliance penalties as a new strategy to enforce applicable emission limitations and to address the problem of those existing sources which are out of compliance. This provision allows a State or EPA to issue enforcement orders to sources not in compliance with applicable emission limitations. Such orders will require compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than January 1, 1979.
Sources which are presently on schedules extending beyond that date are operating under unauthorized extensions and are to have their schedules revised to meet that date. In order to enforce this provision, an automatic delayed compliance penalty is provided for sources which are not in compliance by January 1, 1979. The level of this penalty is intended to assure that no. economic benefit will accrue to a facility that does not comply.
The penalty will require monthly payments equal to the cost of compliance computed over a 10-year amortization period.
These provisions were adopted in face of the reality that for a variety of reasons a number of stationary sources would not meet the compliance schedules established to make possible the achievement of the primary secondary ambient air quality standards by the statutory deadline of 1977 at the latest.
A substantial number of major emitting facilities remain out of compliance with emission limitations. Some States have not even adopted full State implementation plans. While substantial progress has been made in bringing many sources into final compliance, an improved mechanism had to be established to handle sources presently not in compliance.
The committee recognizes that some of the facilities are in compliance and that other facilities are on compliance schedules. These sources deserve praise. They have made or committed investments. They have cleaned up their emissions or are in the process of cleaning up their emissions.
Such sources are faced with a competitive disadvantage associated with increased costs for pollution controls — costs not incurred by sources either not on a schedule or not in compliance with a schedule. Those sources which have chosen to delay, avoid or litigate have, in fact, achieved economic advantage. Thus, the competitive health, as well as the public health, has been placed in danger. The committee bill attempts to correct this imbalance.
The delayed compliance penalty is an extremely important provision of these 1976 amendments. It will be an extremely useful enforcement device for it builds in an incentive for sources to comply because of the economic incentive to avoid penalties and to see funds go to investment in pollution control rather than to the U.S. Treasury in the form of a penalty.
CIVIL PENALTIES
The Senate provision which was adopted by the conference committee also requires the Administrator to seek civil penalties for violation of emission limitations or schedules and timetables of compliance. This authority is independent of the deadline extension and the delayed compliance penalty. If a State has not issued a delayed compliance order with a new time schedule, the Administrator is required to seek an injunction against the noncomplying source and is authorized to seek civil penalties for noncompliance. In addition, the Administrator is authorized to seek additional penalties against sources which are subject to the delayed compliance penalty.
The principal purpose of the Clean Air Act is to protect the public health. The mere payment of an economic penalty required by the delayed compliance penalty provision should not be insulation against achieving requirements related to protection of public health. The purpose of the delayed compliance penalty is to create an adequate economic disincentive to achieve compliance at the earliest possible date. It is not intended to provide an opportunity for continued noncompliance. As an enforcement mechanism, the delayed compliance penalty should remove some of the burden on the Administrator to commit enforcement resources; but it should not reduce the responsibility for the Administrator to seek injunctive relief and penalties against noncomplying sources.
Finally, the delayed compliance penalty will give the courts an option which has not heretofore been available. When the courts determine the public health and welfare costs of plant closure are greater than the public health benefits to be achieved from strict adherence to compliance with emission limitations by the deadlines in the statute, the court may rely on a combination of delayed compliance penalty and civil penalties to equalize economic differences while maintaining momentum for compliance with the law.
COAL CONVERSION
The Senate provision on coal conversion which was adopted by the conference committee repeals section 119 of existing law added in the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974.
In order to facilitate the conversion to coal by electric utilities and other industrial facilities, the bill subjects sources ordered to convert to the compliance date extension procedure established for all stationary sources under the Senate delayed compliance order provision adopted by the conference. The final deadline for a source ordered to convert under ESECA or which converts to coal because of actual curtailment of natural gas can receive an extension until January 1, 1979 or 3 years after the conversion order is issued. In no event may the compliance date extend beyond July 1, 1980.
The authority for certifications and notifications to FEA is removed from EPA and transferred to the States.
Sources converting to coal due to an FEA order on natural gas curtailments are exempted from new source performance standards.
The one modification made in the Senate provision by the conferees is the restoration of the "regional limitation" requirements as a rebuttable presumption. This condition was contained in the House provision on coal conversion.
EXPANSION IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS
The Senate provision on expansion of industrial facilities in areas where ambient standards have not been attained was adopted by the conference committee.
Under this amendment, some new flexibility is provided, but it is carefully contained and strictly limited.
Under present law, facilities that want to expand at their present location face a very stringent review test if they are located in areas where ambient standards are presently exceeded. In many cases, this means that under the law, expansion at that site is precluded until the ambient standard is attained. The new amendment would allow expansion at an existing site if a new facility uses the best available control technology, if existing sources meet all applicable emission limitations, and if total cumulative emissions will be sufficiently less to represent reasonable progress toward attainment of the standards. Sources resisting compliance will now have an incentive to end that resistance, since the desire to expand at existing facilities is based upon the economics of industrial expansion.
It is, therefore, important to assure that all applicable emission limitations are met. The statutory language is quite clear. The amendment requires that all of the State requirements be met. Those include limitations on visible emissions and opacity levels as well as all types of emission limitations contained in the State requirements. The bill language makes no distinction between emission limitations which relate to the primary standard and other emission limitations. Such a distinction is not authorized.
State implementation plans usually contain a unified set of requirements and frequently do not make distinctions between the controls needed to achieve one kind of ambient standard or another. To try to separate such emission limitations and make judgments as to which are necessary to achieving national ambient air quality standards assumes a greater technical capability in relating emissions to ambient air quality than actually exists.
A Federal effort to inject a judgment of this kind would be an unreasonable intrusion into protected State authority. EPA's role is to determine whether or not a State's limitations are adequate and that State implementation plans are consistent with the statute. Even if a State adopts limits which may be stricter than EPA would require, EPA cannot second guess the State judgment and must enforce the approved State emission limit.
In fact, in many areas where this provision will be used, such as steel facilities, it is highly possible that even when all applicable emission limitations contained in the State implementation plan have been met, the ambient standard may still be exceeded. This is particularly true where both opacity limitations and limitations on visible emissions are used as a means of enforcing emissions reductions to attain ambient standards. Any attempt to make a distinction between emission limitations on this basis would, in all likelihood, have the effect of undermining pollution control efforts at such facilities. That is one reason the statutory language makes no such distinction.
A key aspect of the amendment allowing such expansion is the requirement that reasonable further progress toward attainment of the standard must result from the new scheme. The committee report says that—
where ... there is nothing further which can be done to move toward the ambient air quality standards, the State may take into account progress already made in determining reasonable further progress.
The test of "nothing further" is to be interpreted strictly. This means that further control of existing facilities, development of further production process controls, and new innovative control techniques must be applied on all sources, including all "fugitive" emissions, before the condition of "nothing further" is met. It is also the intent that "reasonable further progress" means pollution control will reduce emissions at a rate that will lead to attainment of the ambient standards in the near future.
TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS
The Senate provision which addresses the issue of the extent to which urban areas with air pollution problems must adopt transportation controls was adopted by the conference committee after modification of the sanction requirement.
Mr. President, this represents a major victory for the Senate. The members of the Senate Public Works Committee struggled long and hard to resolve the bitterly debated controversies surrounding transportation and land use controls authorized under the Clean Air Act of 1970.
These control mechanisms could have been positive tools if carried out properly. They were not.
In order to adjust the transportation control requirements to the difficulties of implementing such policies, the committee has adopted an amendment which provides more flexibility, more local involvement, more time, and more State discretion in fashioning these strategies. The bill requires the adoption as rapidly as practicable of all reasonable transportation control measures in areas where such measures are necessary.
Under the 1976 amendments, the States will establish and the Administrator will approve designation of areas which fall under four different classifications. The first classification will be areas where transportation control plans will be required. The second and third categories are covered by section 110(e) of existing law and the last category will be nondegradation areas.
If an area is implementing transportation control measures and all requirements for stationary sources that emit mobile source-related pollutants, but still cannot meet the deadline, it may receive a 5-year extension to achieve primary standards for the applicable mobile source-related pollutant, A second 5-year extension is available for the few most difficult problem areas. This means that deadlines could extend to May 31, 1987.
States are required to involve local communities in the selection of strategies contained in transportation control plans.
The key tests are that all reasonable requirements are contained in the plan and are implemented as expeditiously as practicable. If the State plan does not meet these tests, the Administrator shall promulgate an implementation plan for the area after consultation with State and local elected officials.
A new provision would allow the States to apply to the courts for a stay of any provision of such an EPA promulgated plan, pending review of that plan in the courts. Grants of 100 percent funding are available to local planning organizations to help implement this provision. Federal agencies must assure that the funds provided for federally approved projects are expended so as to conform with approved transportation control plan requirements.
Adjusting the Clean Air Act to provide a more acceptable plan of implementing transportation controls was frustrating. The committee recognized that relaxation of deadlines would cause millions of people to be exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution. Yet, to continue with the present deadlines could create equally unacceptable adverse public health and welfare implications.
The committee action is a compromise assuring that reasonableness will guide transportation control strategies., Further relaxation would not provide adequate public health protection at an early enough date. Any further compromise of transportation control requirements would allow unhealthy levels of pollution in cities for far too long.
The selection of measures to be used is to be made initially by State and local governments. The bill does not specify the "reasonable measures" to be adopted. However, the Administrator cannot reject any measure selected at the State or local level because he considers it to be unreasonable. If it is adopted by the State or regional agency, then it is reasonable.
Conversely, the Administrator may determine that all reasonable measures have not been adopted. In this case, the Administrator is required to promulgate additional reasonable measures. The court will ultimately rule on any disagreement between the affected State or local agency and the Administrator as to the reasonableness of an EPA proposal.
The definition of what is a reasonable measure will relate to the adverse social and economic impact that would occur through its use.
While it is not possible to completely define this concept, it is possible to provide some boundaries. The adverse impact must be widespread and general. It must also be of sufficient duration to cause substantial difficulties. Some dislocation and disruption frequently occurs during the beginning stages of any control program or any change in transportation patterns. This interim impact is not justification for ruling that a measure is unreasonable. The adverse impact must be of a continuing nature. The difficulties that initially occur during the transition period during implementation of strategies are not sufficient to meet this test.
The committee bill injects additional flexibility into the initial planning process by requiring local involvement in the development of transportation control plans at the outset, with a more limited EPA role throughout. We have shifted much of the burden to the States and localities in an effort to overcome past failures.
Many of the transportation control plans now in existence for communities have been tested in the courts. It is not the intent of these new amendments to interfere with or void any requirements which have been upheld by the courts.
The Administrator will be receiving applications for extensions which will call for his action prior to the publication of the information documents required by these new amendments. In such cases, the Administrator is not required to wait for the publication of the information documents. Information has been gathered over the last 4 years on transportation control measures. That information will serve as the basis for the Administrator's decision until it is replaced by the new information documents.
The plans submitted by States must be reviewed by the Administrator under section 110(a) of existing law. This means that the Administrator must review and approve or disapprove transportation control plans within 4 months after submittal. In addition, the June 1978 date for submission of new plans is an outside date. The Administrator may seek earlier submission where it is appropriate. This authority is to be exercised only where processes are already under way which would make an earlier submission more appropriate.
For example, the January 1976 letter received by the committee from the Environmental Protection Agency during consideration of these amendments, indicated that transportation control plans were under development in nine cities where such plans were not previously required. All of these cities received notice of the need for action in 1973. The data which has been developed to justify the provisions contained in such plans would be obsolete and would have to be gathered again if submission of control plans is not required prior to 1978.
Another of the positive provisions of these amendments is the requirement in transportation control areas for the Federal Government to coordinate its programs and its extensive grants with efforts to clean up the air. A good example of the kind of policy that will no longer be allowed is the recent policy on major urban mass transit announced by the Urban Mass Transit Authority on Wednesday, September 22. That policy statement will need to be revised in light of the requirements contained in the legislation before us. Such revisions will be positive steps toward seeing that Federal programs make their contribution toward cleaning up American cities.
I turn now, if I may, to the issue of nondegradation, which I take it is the principal concern of the distinguished Senators from Utah in their opposition to this bill.
NONDEGRADATION
Nondegradation was the issue which required the greatest attention of the Senate conferees. The conferees strongly supported a policy of nondegradation. That was never in question.
The House bill presented a number of important issues. It took time and understanding to merge the concepts of the House bill with the approach of the Senate bill.
The conference agreement adds these new dimensions to the Senate nondegradation policy contained in the Senate bill:
First. The conference agreement now includes the House class III category for areas of intensive industrial development.
Second. Designation of areas as class III areas occurs through a carefully prescribed process so that the serious decision of designating an area class III occurs only after analysis and opportunity for comments from all interested parties.
Third. The conference agreement provides a mechanism whereby all of the pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards have been issued will be regulated under nondegradation policy, rather than just the two specific pollutants covered in the bill which passed the Senate.
The Senate conferees are particularly pleased that we were able to maintain a key concept of the Senate bill in the conference agreement: The bill protects the most valuable Federal lands with a special class I category — parks and wilderness areas. In addition, the test used to protect such areas remains the test of the Senate bill: If a source would adversely affect the air quality related values of the land area, the class I numerical test is not binding upon the source. That was a very important principal in the Senate bill which provided flexibility and eliminated criticism of "buffer zones" that was made against much earlier approaches to this question.
The main points in the approach of the Senate bill are maintained in the conference agreement:
First. Permits are issued by the States. Only permits for class III areas where very large pollution sources may locate does the EPA role increase, and only to a limited extent. It is important that a source not be allowed to avoid the use of pollution control technology by attempting to exploit a larger air quality increment. EPA has been assigned an overview of the State decision regarding the requirements for the best available technology to be applied to sources in class III areas. This role can be minimal as long as States do not attempt to play favorites with sources within their State, and reduce requirements for clean up. It is only in cases of abuse that EPA would act to disapprove a permit. And only in class III areas, a class not in the Senate bill. EPA will not be allowed to issue a permit once a State plan has been approved.
The conference agreed on a mechanism to insure that all major pollutants are controlled to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. For the four main pollutants not covered by EPA's regulations, the conference bill would require EPA to conduct a 2-year study and promulgate regulations to deal with these pollutants. The Congress and public will then have 1 year to examine those regulations before States begin to revise their implementation plans.
The problems of nitrogen oxide, oxidant, and hydrocarbon emissions are national problems that are going to increase over the next few decades. The approach of pressing the Agency to begin to control these pollutants under a nondegradation policy will be a useful means of providing improved ways to reduce such pollution.
Also, Congress will have a full year to consider those regulations before they become effective.
For nondegradation the conference agreement continues to place EPA in a role that is much more restricted than in other portions of the Clean Air Act. EPA may not promulgate State plans. In all but class III areas, EPA has no approval over permits. Even for class III areas EPA's power is limited.
The States are given the flexibility to make the basic determinations regarding lands that are to be classified as class I or as class III. EPA has no concurrent power for these designations. For the designation of class III areas, EPA does have a role insuring that the procedures — principally hearings and involvement of local governments — are carried out. But, there is no requirement that the Federal land manager concur in redesignation of any Federal lands.
I believe the Senate conferees struck a workable balance. We spent many hours merging the provisions of the House and Senate into a coherent package that will do much to protect clean air areas from the kinds of problems that plague our urban areas.
If Congress passes this legislation, the Congress will have taken an important step toward insuring that the values of our parks and wilderness areas will be preserved for the enjoyment of millions of Americans. We will have reduced the total emissions that are likely to damage our health and our welfare in the years ahead. And we will have done this within a framework that allows intelligent rational and flexible economic development of the Nation's resources while protecting its environmental values.
The Senate has accepted a number of House provisions which strengthen the existing law. These include: a provision on unregulated pollutants mandating the promulgation of a short term NOx standard within 1 year and the issuance of criteria for arsenic, cadmium, vinyl chloride and polycyclic organic material; a provision for uniform basis for administrative standards to further insure protection of health and welfare; a periodic review of the ambient air quality standards to insure their adequacy to protect public health and welfare.
TALL STACKS
The philosophy of the Clean Air Act for many years has been one of cleaning up emissions by direct controls rather than dispersing them widely in the environment. Court cases, and the recent Supreme Court decision, have all denied the use of tall stacks as a means of meeting emission limitations under State implementation plans.
The Senate conferees accepted the House amendment, which simply restated and confirmed the policy of the 1970 act. The House provision places limits on the extent to which stack heights may be used as a credit against emission reduction requirements. Good engineering practice is defined in the House bill as being 2½ times the height of the surrounding structure. This is necessary in order to allow good plume rise without down-washing the plume onto the local area.
To use stacks higher than this is an attempt to use dispersion rather than clean up Since the policy of the 1970 act has been upheld in the courts, the House amendment would not allow credit for sources who have constructed extensively tall stacks since 1970.
Mr. President, on the whole this is a carefully balanced bill based on 2 years of hard work on the House side and 2 immediate years plus many more before on the Senate side. It will continue momentum for progress in cleaning up the air, but at a rate that recognizes a number of economic, energy, and political constraints. Its policies are needed and defensible and I urge the Senate to adopt the conference report on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a table dealing with the auto emission standards and what was done on this in conference as compared to the House bill.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I make these comments about the table.
This, of course, was one of the most difficult issues between the House and the Senate. The two versions represented, I think, the widest gap between the House and the Senate, and there were negotiations in both directions over a considerable time. The conference finally adopted the standards for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and NOx which are indicated in the table I have inserted in the RECORD.
The conference bill is far preferable to the House bill because:
First. The conference substitute requires progress in 1979. The House bill would show no further progress at all until 1980, 3 model years from now, and then only at levels now being met in California. Experience has shown us that the industry will use that time to lobby the Congress for further delays rather than optimizing technology to meet those standards.
It should be noted that the conference substitute, as well as both the House and Senate bills, includes yet another freeze of HC and CO standards through model year 1978. The conference substitute also contains a 4-year freeze of the NOx standard through 1980. This is a generous response to the pleas of the auto industry for lead time. It is also logical because it gives more time for the pollutant which is hardest to control, NOx, than it does for the easier ones.
Second. The conference substitute requires final compliance reasonably soon. The industry would have to reach final compliance in 1981. The technology is available today to meet those final standards, and it could be included on all cars by 1980. The Senate conferees accepted the delay until 1981 simply in the spirit of compromise with the other body. Delay until at least 1982, and perhaps indefinitely as in the House bill, would be a political gift to the auto industry with no technical justification whatsoever.
Third. The conference substitute provides a reasonable level of NOx control. The tightest NOx standard required by the House bill is the current requirement of 2.0 grams/mile, which represents only 43 percent control compared to the 3.5 grams/mile emitted by uncontrolled autos in 1968. NOx control has clearly lagged behind that for HC and CO, where 83 percent control has already been achieved. The conference bill would require 71 percent control of NOx compared to uncontrolled vehicles, a level that will reduce national NOx emissions in 1990 by 4 million tons.
Fourth. The conference substitute provides certainty, to the extent that the law can do so, with a fixed statutory NOx standard, to be reached in 1981. The House bill would have left the ultimate NOx standard for future administrative determination.
The auto industry has argued above all else for the need for certainty in order to avoid disruption of their production schedules. They also have frequently expressed the need for certainty in the emission standards to allow them to optimize the conventional engine and to justify expenditures on development of alternate engines.
Fifth. The conference bill forces new fuel efficient technology by eliminating the intermediate step on HC and CO which was in the House bill and by going to 1.0 g/mi NOx standard. This is a critical point. EPA has just reported that 1977 cars have an average fuel economy of 18.6 miles per gallon, up from 13.9 mpg in 1974, a gain of 34 percent in fuel economy, while emission standards were tightened from 3.0/28/3.1 to 1.5/15/2.0.
Interestingly, there is a gain of 1 mpg in 1977 over 1976 despite the tightening of the NOx standard from 3.1 mpg to 2.0 mpg. This contradicts the manufacturers claim that NOx control inevitably brings a "fuel penalty."
The DOT/EPA/FEA report used in support of the House bill makes it clear (table E1) that the method of choice for meeting the standards in the House bill would be simply stretching present technology. Even the interim standards in the Conference bill would not necessarily require new technology. Only by going to the 1.0 gm/mi NOx standard in the conference substitute can we have any realistic hope that the next level of technology will be used, and the benefits reaped in terms of fuel economy, cost to the consumer and reliability of emission control. Only when this happens will we get a NOx standard based on the needs of the public rather than the needs of the industry.
Sixth. The conference substitute provides enough lead time to meet tighter standards in 1979, despite industry arguments to the contrary. Data supplied by the manufacturers themselves show that they are just beginning to enter the first phase of their emissions development program for that model year. This "production development" phase normally would last about 6 months, leading to basic system selection next April or May, so the lead time is clearly adequate.
Furthermore, present law requires compliance with even tougher standards in 1978, so we must assume that they have already done much of the production development to meet 1978 standards, or have simply completely ignored the requirements of present law. Finally, all manufacturers have already certified their 1977 cars to the California standards of 0.41/9/1.5, which are more stringent overall than those in the conference bill.
Seventh. The conference bill is responsive to the present problem of air pollution in our cities. The House bill was not. Control of hydrocarbon is the key to control of oxidant, the irritant factor in photochemical smog. In a year when Washington, D.C., reported more smog alerts than ever before, and just 1 year after a rural State like Iowa suffered its first statewide air pollution alert ever, it is absurd to even consider a delay in statutory HC control until model year 1982, 5 years from now. The conference bill requires this important step to be taken just about as soon as it is technically feasible, with due regard for lead time, in model year 1979.
Eighth. The conference substitute supports the efforts of California to solve their own air pollution problem. New 1977 California cars are being certified to stringent standards of 0.41/9/1.5, but there can be little doubt that if the Congress adopted the extended delays in the House bill, the pressure for California to relax to their 1975 levels of 0.9/9/2 would be almost irresistible. On the other hand, if the Congress adopts the conference substitute with its requirement. for more immediate action, California can hope to continue the proving ground for technology to be applied in the other States a year or two later. The very inclusion of the 0.9/9/2 standard in the House bill is proof of this concept. The auto industry now finds those numbers acceptable because of 2 years experience in California.
(At this point, Senator METCALF assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Ninth. The conference substitute will not have adverse effects on automobile production and employment as claimed by supporters of the House bill. There has never been any documented unemployment or loss in production due to emission controls despite the fact that they have been required since 1968.
This claim is based on a four-page "study" by Chase Econometrics. This study was a computer run from their macroeconomic model, which is not really designed to analyze effects on a single industry due to small changes in price, less than 5 percent. It made undocumented assumptions about the effect of emission controls on consumer acceptance of automobiles. Furthermore, the analysis is apparently based on incorrect data. Even a prestigious economic model cannot produce valid conclusions from false data. Computer users have a phrase that applies: GIGO — garbage in, garbage out.
For example, table 2 on the comparable fuel economy under Senate and House bills is claimed to be based on the DOT/FEA/EPA report of April 8. However, the numbers used by Chase do not agree.
Similarly, the cost data on which the computer analysis was based is apparently incorrect. Table E1 of the DOT/ FEA/EPA report shows a sticker price increment of $25 to $70 at the Dingell 1982 standards — assuming 2.0 NOx — compared to $120 at the Senate standards. The differences is only $50 to $95 at most. And the 1979 California Volvo has certified to even tighter standards at an added cost of only $25 to $50 per car. These cost estimates are more accurate than the $150 assumed by Chase. Again, Chase used incorrect assumptions.
Tenth. The conference substitute will not prevent attainment of mandatory fuel economy standards, and may even help meet them because it will force better emissions control technology than the House bill.
The fuel economy standards established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 of 20 miles per gallon in 1980 and 27.5 miles per gallon in 1985 can be met concurrently with the emission standards established by the conference substitute, even assuming no shift in model mix and poor to average technology.
Under the most likely scenario, in which the conference substitute standards force the use of best technology, but the House bill standards do not, close examination of the DOT/FEA/EPA report itself shows that it is the conference substitute which would result in savings of billion of gallons of gasoline.
The ranges of fuel economy from table IA of the DOT/FEA/EPA report are reproduced below along with the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
[Table omitted]
The conference bill is similar to option B and the House bill to option DT in the DOT/FEA/EPA report.
Eleventh. No manufacturers will be driven to the wall by the 1979 emission and fuel economy standards.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, EPCA, was specifically drafted to avoid this problem by providing (Sec. 502(d)) that any manufacturer may apply for a modification of the fuel economy standard for 1978, 1979, or 1980 if emission standards cause a fuel economy reduction.
As for light duty trucks, I emphasize the intent of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and quote from the Senate report on 3219 this year:
At the time of passage of the 1970 Amendments, light duty trucks and recreational and utility vehicles under 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight were included with automobiles as light duty vehicles. As a result of a court decision in 1973, EPA was required to establish a separate class for them, and did so. These vehicles should not be regulated any less stringently than automobiles. As automobiles are required to achieve greater degrees of emission control in the future, light duty truck emission standards must be tightened accordingly.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a staff analysis of the House bill with the Dingell amendment, compared to the original Senate bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ADEQUACIES IN THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE HOUSE BILL IN AUTOS
(Reference: Report by Federal Task Force on Motor Vehicle Goals Beyond 1980, DOT/FEA/EPA. Report of April 8, 1976; Record statement of Senator Edmund S. Muskie, June 4, 1976, President Ford Chooses Dirty Air".)
1. General Comments: Supporters of the House version used the worst case analysis of the FEA/DOT/EPA report to justify their position. EPA, in responding to an inquiry with respect to the claim of a 20% fuel penalty, said:
"We are unable to reconcile the April 8 report with the estimate of 20% fuel economic loss ... in the House Committee bill vs. the Dingell amendment. The cases as estimated in the report show a maximum fuel economy loss of 5% ... for the low range estimate and no loss for the high range estimate for these model years."
One misleading part of the comparisons of cost and fuel economy is that DOT/FEA/IPA assumed the House standards would result in a freeze of NOx at 2.0 grams per mile in 1982 and thereafter. The House bill provides for EPA to promulgate another standard. If that other standard were as stringent as 1.0 NOx it would wipe out any cost and fuel economy differences between the House bill and the Conference substitute except in 1979, 1980 and 1981, the transitional years.
Some of the discussions in the House centered around the relative merits of a standard of .4 NOx as in the Committee bill or 2.0 NOx, followed by administrative determination as in the Dingell amendment. The conference substitute with 1.0 NOx, as a standard and a research requirement toward 0.4 NOx offers an excellent compromise between these points of view.
2. Supporters of the House bill incorrectly claim insufficient study of energy use and environmental benefits: EPA publishes annual reports on auto technology. The National Academy of Sciences did a 4 volume study for the Senate Public Works Committee in 1974 and updated it, in part in 1975. DOT and EPA did a study on automobile fuel economy in 1975. The Report of DOT/FEA/EPA was available in the spring of 1976, as was the panel report of the Federal Task Force on Motor Vehicle Goals Beyond, 1980.
3. Air Quality: Supporters of the House bill incorrectly claim no significant difference in air quality (regardless of which standards are adopted): As Senator Muskie pointed out in the Record statement of June 4, 1976 the Dingell interim standard would add 11,000 "person hours" of disability related to carbon monoxide, 1,000 aggravations of heart and lung disease in elderly persons, 20,000 excess cases of cough and 40,000 excess headaches due to oxidant in 1980.
Even in areas where the air quality standards will be achieved by 1990, the belated attainment which the House bill delay would cause will expose 83 million people to harmful air pollution levels.
4. Air Quality supporters of the House bill state that 31 air quality regions will be out of conformity in 1990 under any of the three sets of standards: This is misleading. The question is not just whether the regions are in or out of conformity, but also how far out of conformity. With tighter standards for automobiles, they will be brought nearer to the air quality standard, with consequent health benefits.
5. Supporters of the House bill claim that with the same expenditure of money we can get four times as much clean up on NOx by attacking stationary sources. That may be true as far as it goes; however, the conference bill also emphasizes the need for stationary source control, and the recent motor vehicle goals study shows the strategies which are "more cost effective"than the light duty vehicle standards only can remove 29% of the baseline NOx emissions, still insufficient to solve our NOx problems, especially in view of the rapid growth in NOx emissions.
6. Consumer Cost: Supporters of the House bill claim that the original House Committee bill, between 1977 and 1985, would cost the consumer an additional $22.3 billion. This claim is not supported by the DOT/FEA/EPA report used by Congressman Dingell. Table 3C of this report shows an added cost of only $4.6 billion to $13.8 billion at most. Furthermore, this is the total cost over the lifetime of the new car fleets. For the average vehicle produced in model years 1978-1985, the added lifetime cost would be $65 to $173or approximately $6 to $17 per year. This is small compared to the lifetime cost of a 1976 car which that same report calculates as $16,700. Similarly, the added cost of the conference substitute compared to the House bill would be small.
7. Fuel Consumption: Supporters of the House bill claim that the House Committee bill (and presumably the conference substitute) would have caused the consumption of 9.27 billion gallons of gasoline more than their provision. Table 1C of the DOT/FBA/EPA report shows fuel consumption differences between 4.16 and 6.30 billion gallons, over a ten year period. Thus, they 'do not' verify the claim.
Even supporters of the House bill only claim a saving of 67,000 barrels of oil per day compared to 6 million barrels of oil per day consumed by American automobiles. This is hardly a major fuel saving.
In fact, the assumption of Table 1C are questionable and there is good reason to believe that the application of the tighter standards in the conference substitute in 1979, 1980 and 1981 will stimulate the good technology which will result in the saving of 3 billion gallons of gasoline compared to the standards in the House bill. As repeatedly pointed out, the actual fuel economy depends on the choice of technology and the vehicle weight, not on the choice of emission standards.
The fuel economy standards established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 of 20 miles per gallon in 1980 and 27.5 miles per gallon in 1985 can be met concurrently with the emission standards established by the conference substitute, even assuming no shift in model mix and poor to average technology, according to that DOT/FEA/EPA report.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that their model includes any of the economic costs of air pollution, let alone the health effects.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I regret I have taken this much time on a day when the Senate has much to do. But it has been clear we will be forced into extensive discussion of this bill, and I thought at least at the beginning of that extensive discussion it would be better to use the time for a meaningful evaluation of the contents of the conference report rather than in quorum calls and other dilatory actions designed to stretch out the time. So I knew we were going to have to take this time anyway.
I have used it in order, among other things, to meet a principal criticism of the opponents of the bill that we have not given the Senate a fair chance to know what the bill is about or what the conference report contains.
I would hope that all those opponents — and I see only one in the Chamber today — have listened to this description of what the conference report is all about so that they can no longer make the claim they have been given no opportunity to understand what is in the conference report or to know what is in it.
We have spent about 2 hours explaining, and I see only one Member of the opposition present to be enlightened.
I yield to my good friend, a strong supporter, the distinguished ranking Republican on the Environmental Subcommittee, Senator BAKER.