August 5, 1976
Page 25843
Mr. MUSKIE.. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes to begin with.
First of all, let me make it clear that I have listened to the statements of my good friends, the Senator from Colorado, the Senator from California, and the Senator from Connecticut, and I could identify no philosophical differences between their position and mine and the committee's position. Indeed, I look forward to using their arguments in the conference with the House because the House version of these two policy matters is much more conservative than that of the Senate bill. So the sponsor of this amendment, Senator HART, and his colleagues are performing a service for the committee in providing with great articulateness the underlying philosophy which defines our joint commitment to clean air and the control of automobile emissions.
So it is not a philosophical distinction that separates the sponsors and supporters of the Hart amendment and the members of this committee.
What is it that is different?
I think it might be demonstrated in part by the very automobile which was the subject of the colloquy between Senator HART and Senator HASKELL, the Volvo.
Let me make two point with respect to that car.
It is one car, with a four-cylinder engine. It is one production line, one model. That means, therefore, that the technology exists and it has been demonstrated in that limited fashion.
But the problem that confronted the committee was whether that technology was sufficiently advanced, the time frame sufficiently flexible, so that that technology could be transferred to all models, all makes of cars, with sufficient safeguards that they would work, because we have to protect the consumer, when the cars are finally put in the salesrooms of the country's automobile dealers.
It is that pragmatic question which troubled the committee.
The second point I would make with respect to the Volvo is that that Volvo car was developed in response to the California standard, which is 1.5 NOx. In other words, under the pressure of the 1.5 standard, compared to the current national 3.1 NOx standard Volvo was able to develop a car that did much better than the standard required.
It is our hope and I think the belief of the committee that a 1.0 standard, as contained in the committee bill, would be as effective in forcing development of new technology as the 1.5 standard embraced in the California current policy.
I think those two points with respect to the Volvo illustrate the committee's thinking which prompted it to adopt the policy which is found in the committee bill.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Reserving the right to object, and of course I shall not object, but I am just wondering when I might offer my amendment.
As the distinguished Senator knows, I have 1 hour reserved. I do not intend to take but a very few minutes. But I do not want it to be pushed aside to the end of the bill. I will be most cooperative and only speak 5 or 6 minutes, something of that nature, of the hour, if I can have a reasonable time to present my amendment.
Otherwise, I will take the whole hour, even if it is just with a quorum call.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator that it is my wholehearted desire to accommodate the Senator.
With respect to the time frame that we have got to operate in, as the Senator knows, under the current order we are scheduled to vote at 1:45 on final passage, provided there have been 15 hoursof debate at that point, and that Senator ALLEN has had the time that was allocated to him under the order.
I do not know whether the expiration of the 15 hours at this point coincides with the 1:45 time or not.
May I ask the Chair?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. ALLEN). By 1:45, more than 15 hours of pendency of the bill before the Senate will have been attained.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation and suggest the absence of a quorum.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, would the Senator withhold that?
I would like to offer a unanimous consent agreement that I believe will accommodate the Senator from Virginia.
I ask unanimous consent that his amendment be scheduled to come up immediately following the vote on the Packwood amendment, I believe that would be around 1 o'clock or earlier.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. That is all right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for a roll call vote on my amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) .
Mr. MUSKIE. I express my appreciation to the Senator from Virginia for his willingness to accommodate the time.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I appreciate the courtesies of the distinguished Senator. I just did not want to be foreclosed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not blame the Senator for taking his rights. We have to do it around here.
I think I had completed asking unanimous consent to have a statement printed in the RECORD.
Mr. President, may I in discussing the second Hart amendment address myself to two charts in the back of the room?
It is not possible to reproduce in the RECORD the pictorial portions of those charts, so we have prepared other charts that make the same points in the graphic form. I ask unanimous consent that those two charts be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the charts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Charts omitted]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Time passes. I will take another 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I call the attention of the Senator from Colorado to two points with respect to this chart?
On this chart, to the right we have carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides depicted.
The lowest curve on both charts indicates the movement of the progress of control over those two automobile related pollutants through 1985 under the committee bill.
In connection with the oxides of nitrogen it shows the improvement that would take place under the committee bill and the Hart amendment.
On the carbon monoxide side, it is clear that the curve shows there will be steady improvement from 1975 to 1985, under the committee bill.
With respect to oxides of nitrogen, there is steady improvement under both the committee bill, which is the second curve from the bottom, and the Hart amendment, which is the bottom curve.
The space between the two reflects the difference in the rate of improvement under the two amendments, if it is possible to achieve both.
This is not an assumption on the availability or the effectiveness of the technology; it is simply a depiction of what would be the relative progress under each if it is possible to get the technology and to install it on all automobiles in accordance with the time schedules of either the committee bill or the Hart amendment.
Mr. GARY HART. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. GARY HART. The Senator from Maine will agree that on the chart to the left—
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to get to that later.
Mr. GARY HART. Then on the chart to the right, there is, between the committee proposal and the Hart amendment on the oxides of nitrogen standard, by 1985, about a 40 to 50 percent difference in the total amount of emissions, between 1.4 million tons per year and 0.9 million tons per year?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to make the point, may I say to the Senate, that under the current standard the emissions are 3.6 million tons. Under the committee bill the result in 1985 is roughly one-third of that. Under the Hart amendment the result would be roughly one-fourth of that. It all depends upon what the perspective is.
We were looking at dealing with the current problem — and I will get into the other factors that entered into our consideration — and the Senator is right, that if we focus at the points he indicated, there is that difference. If we focus on where we are, both of them represent substantial progress.
May I say to the Senator, if he focuses on the 1.4 million tons of NOx emitted in 1985 relative to the 3.6 million tons emitted in 1985 with the current 3.1 grams standard the automobile industry will say the improvement from 0.9 to 1.4 is so fractional as compared to the total problem represented by the 3.6 million tons that it should not be required. I do not share that point of view.
Figures, of course, can be used in many ways.
Before I get to the second chart, let me make this point: Nitrogen oxides are emitted by stationary sources as well as mobile sources. There has been very little focus on the stationary source NOx problem and very little done about it. Even with respect to the nondegradation policy which occupied so much of the time of the Senate over recent days, that policy applies only to sulfur oxides and particulates and not to NOx. Yet NOx is a serious stationary source problem.
For example, in Denver, in the Senator's own State, in 1985, given present projections, mobile sources of NOx will be 18 percent of the problem, and stationary will be 64 percent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself another 5 minutes.
If we adopt the Hart amendment and are dealing with the stationary sources of NOx effectively, the Hart amendment would do very little with respect to the total NOx problem.
Mr. GARY HART. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. GARY HART. If the Senator will acknowledge as he did throughout, and as all committee members did, there is overall pollution and peak rush hour drive time pollution. The problem in Denver, which the Senator refers to, is the drive time early morning and late afternoon hours when the NOx levels reach very dangerous proportions. That is true in many other cities. It is not the total amount of pollution and how much is contributed by mobile sources or automobiles; it is the fact that during certain periods of the day when people are in their cars and driving is when the danger occurs. That is when people are driving their automobiles.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, the health problem comes from the moving automobile and from NOx partially from stationary sources.
Mr. GARY HART. Partially.
Mr. MUSKIE. Partially. And, second, under both the committee bill and the Hart amendment substantial progress is going to be made between now and 1985 on that vehicle side NOx problem.
The Senator makes the argument, and I have heard him make it in committee, as though the committee's standard would not deal with automobile generated NOx, whereas, according to this chart, the committee bill clearly will reduce it by two-thirds from the present problem.
There is a legitimate argument between the Senator and the committee on the gap at the bottom, but the Senator ought not to ignore the progress that is represented by the other gap, which is also reflected in the first chart.
The big potential improvement from the base line, which is this year, down to the two bottom lines has to come from stationary sources. The red line is the committee amendment and the bottom line is the Hart amendment. That part of the problem as compared to the other part of the problem is an entirely different order of magnitude. The Senate ought to understand that as we get into the discussion of this amendment.
I repeat, the differences between the Senator and myself and the Senator and members of the committee are not philosophical; they are pragmatic.
Mr. McINTYRE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. McINTYRE. I ask unanimous consent that Edward Dooley, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the pending bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, with that background, may I make the case for the committee amendment?
The primary point to be made is that the committee bill is a preferable way to achieve additional control on automobiles in the foreseeable future. By setting a statutory level of 1.0 grams per mile of NOx, the committee bill has selected a level which will force introduction of new technology but which cannot be stonewalled by the industry in the way the .4 NOx standard has been.
In its study on the good faith efforts of the automobile industry in this connection, EPA concluded that a maximum effort was not made by the automobile industry to meet the 1978 emission standards, including 0.4 NOx. As a result, the industry can now claim that technology is not available to meet that standard.
The points that the Environmental Protection Agency made are these:
First, in 1972, EPA disclosed an error in the Federal reference measure of ambient NOx which formed the basis for the 0.4 grams NOx standard.
Second, EPA suggested to Congress in the letter to Senator Randolph, dated November 11, 1973, that the timetable for reaching statutory NOx be stretched, with 2.0 NOx standard in 1977, 1.0 in 1982, and 0.4 not required until 1990.
Third, Congress has been discussing the ultimate NOx standard for a long time and has delayed the implementation of the 0.4 gram per mile standard by 1 year, but has not yet made a conclusive determination whether the 0.4 NOx standard is required to protect human health.
Thus, the 0.4 NOx is mainly a shibboleth at this point, used by the automobile manufacturers as an arguing point to debate and delay every standard they must deal with.
The committee bill takes away that argument from them by establishing a clearly legitimate standard of 1.0 gram per mile in the near future — 1979-80. Implementation of that standard will set the stage for further tightening if that should be indicated by additional information that will be available at that time.
How do we know that information will be available? The Air Quality Commission is required to study and make a report and recommendation on the auto emission standard for NOx by March 1977. That will be sufficient time for the Congress to enact a different standard for 1982. And the committee bill establishes a research objective to build cars that can meet a 0.4 gram per mile NOx standard so the necessary technical information will be generated.
May I add here, Mr. President, that I would not be surprised, given the experience with Volvo, under the 1.5 California standard, that the 1.0 national standard will force technology that will produce a better result than 1.0 NOx and conceivably 0.4 NOx, so that we will be in a learning process both in the efforts of the industry to meet this legitimate standard, under the study provisions of the act, and the mandate of a research objective to move toward the 0.4 NOx standard if evolving information and understanding demonstrates that that is essential to the public interests.
I offered the 1.0 gram/mile NOx standard in the subcommittee and the full committee and opposed 0.4 gram/mile for these reasons:
First. The health effects basis for 0.4 gram/mile is uncertain. The NAS stated:
It appears that the Federal emission standard of .4 grams per mile for NOx may be somewhat more stringent than is needed to achieve the ambient air quality standards for NOx by itself. However, this finding too much be carefully qualified since the existing analyses relating NOx emissions to subsequent oxidant formation are considered inadequate.
So the state of our information is incomplete, it is inadequate, and it is the intention of the committee bill to force the development of more information and more understanding as we operate under the 1.0 standard which has a 1980 deadline.
Second. Choice of 1.0 grams per mile NOx standard will make it easier to improve fuel economy with catalyst technology and conventional engines.
Third. The 1.0 grams per mile NOx standard is technically achievable for the dual catalyst, three-way catalyst and alternative engines such as stratified charge, and the diesel; while with respect to the 0.4 NOx, the final judgment as to diesels is not yet clear, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
So, Mr. President, to summarize, the reason we adopted 1.0 is to insure that we move in a steady line of improvement on NOx, which all information indicates will be the case.
Second, 1.0 will reduce the present load of nitrogen oxide emissions by two-thirds by 1985.
Third, in the process, the automobile industry will be forced to develop new technology which conceivably could achieve an even better performance than 1.0 NOx, and by that time we will also know whether something better is necessary for the public health.
Finally, Mr. President, going to 1.0 will eliminate this argument that the automobile industry has used for years to slow down their efforts to develop technology not only with respect to NOx but also with respect to these other pollutants as well. They have constantly argued that technological options for dealing with hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides are limited because they have to point toward a 0.4 NOx standard. That argument has been, I think, over made but nevertheless they have used it and as a result have dragged their feet not only with respect to NOx but also with respect to these other two pollutants which may be the more lethal really in terms of present knowledge of the three automobile pollutants.
Mr. President, I am prepared to reserve the remainder of my time.
(Mr. McINTYRE assumed the chair.)
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute to make a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Scott amendment I be recognized for 15 minutes to carry on what I feel is important colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will this time come out of the Senator's time?
Mr. ALLEN. It will come out of the time allotted to me, yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. At what time will that occur?
Mr. ALLEN. Following disposition ofthe Scott amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER On whose time?
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Thirteen minutes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I shall use very few of those minutes. I thank my friend from Maine. I believe he has covered the ground, as he always does, completely and effectively. But I shall have to take exception with one statement of his: That was the one when he said that the House bill was more "conservative" than ours.
I wish to think that I am a conservative whose credentials are not questioned. It has long been my position and belief that a truly conservative position, based on an understanding of our environment, would indicate that conservatives ought to be very cautious about doing anything that interferes with systems that have served us. That is true whether we are talking about political systems, social systems, or environmental systems.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I confess I was mentally searching for a better word and could not come up with one so I ended up with"conservative." I do not object to the Senator's conservatism.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I have been trying to preach the gospel among our colleagues for some time, to point out that those institutions that are hesitant about radical change ought to be applied to the radical changes that modem technology has imposed upon our ecosystems, the ability of our air and water to absorb pollution.
Turning directly to this amendment, Mr. President, I must express my opposition to the Hart amendment. I compliment him for focusing on the issues that are important, issues that were thrashed out to a very great extent in committee among people who are searching for the same objectives.
But I believe that the decision we have reached in committee on the program of auto standards is a reasonable one and I therefore intend to stick by it.
In part, it is reasonable because it provides us with assurance of permanent controls, without forcing the industry into a single control technology. This amendment to restore the permanent 0.4 NOx standard would appear to lock out forever options such as the diesel engine, the stratified charge engine, and the lean burn system.
By setting the standard at 1.0 NOx there is every indication that we have created flexibility where it does not now exist, a flexibility that in the longer run will serve our environmental as well as our energy and economic needs.
We have heard a great deal of discussion of the need for increased automotive NOx controls. While not seeking to minimize the needs for such controls obviously, the increment of pollution is an important matter of concern. I must point out the need, as has the Senator from Maine, for increased attention to the control of NOx from stationary sources.
To clarify and illustrate this point, I ask unanimous consent that a chart prepared by the National Academy of Sciences showing projected NOx levels, together with their sources, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Chart omitted]
Mr. BUCKLEY. It is my belief, Mr. President, that we must do far more to control stationary sources of NOx, rather than attempt to achieve the total national improvement from mobile sources. Many types of stationary sources are now free of NOx controls. It was with that thought in mind that I sponsored a provision in this bill that directs the EPA to study and recommend a system of penalties on the emission of NOx from stationary sources to provide economic incentives for the development of technology for their control.
I must also point out that the committee bill retains the 0.4 NOx level as a research objective, so that we can move to it at a later date if this proves wise and necessary in the interests of public health.
The Baker Commission that is established in this bill to review the entire area of air pollution control is also directed to examine this specific issue during the initial period of its existence.
Therefore, there will be ample time and opportunity for the committee to make such adjustments as this study indicates desirable, and long before we reach the 1980's.
In summary, Mr. President, I believe that it would be unwise to adopt the Hart amendment, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2½ minutes each to the Senator from Iowa (Mr. McCLURE) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI).
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for yielding this time.
Mr. President, in the very brief time I have, it is difficult to discuss the total issue, but I cannot help making two observations.
One, the Senator from Connecticut made some comments a moment ago about whether or not we had enough steel in our spine. I am much more concerned about whether we have too much bone between our ears.
The question is whether or not we have the ability to look at the facts and analyze them and then act intelligently, with regard to those facts.
The second point is whether or not, as has been suggested, we are moving too slowly, that we have made so little progress. We have had national standards in this field for only 8 years, and we have made tremendous progress in the 8 years.
I share with the Senator from Colorado the desire to look at that 0.4 NOx, the desire to use that as the ultimate attainment goal. But how fast can we move?
If we have not achieved everything that we hope to achieve in this short period of 8 or 10 years, in which we have been struggling with specific standards, either on a State or a national basis, and we have not achieved nirvana as yet, I remind Senators that it was 4,000 years ago that Moses came off the mountain with the tablets of stone, and we have not yet achieved those standards, either.
Perhaps there are human frailties involved in moving as rapidly as people would like. But we have made significant and real progress in the last 8 or 10 years. We are continuing to make progress. Under the committee bill, we will continue to make progress.
I hope the Senate will support the committee on both amendments 1608 and1609, and reject each of them.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just wish to make a couple of general comments about the committee's schedule and its arrival at a 1.0 NOx standard.
I repeat what I said earlier this morning: We are not here, as I see it, talking about a committee that is going to make it easy for the automobile companies. We are not here talking about a committee recommendation, either in the schedule or in the 1.0 NOx, that has succumbed to industry pressure. Quite to the contrary, we have come forth here with a set of standards that is far stricter than that which Mr. Russell Train recommends.
I am reminded that the Senator from Colorado, in urging that we move ahead as rapidly as possible because there is new technology either in place or on the horizon, quoted the distinguished Mr. Train in support of his case. I remind theSenator that that is so; that was a correct quotation from Mr. Train. But when we get down to the practical application, what did he recommend?
I remind the Senate that in our schedule for 1978, 1979, and 1980 and in our 1.0 NOx, we have far exceeded what that distinguished environmentalist, quoted extensively here this morning as to what we should be doing. Mr. Train's eloquent words about being the cutting edge for cleaning up this mobility by forcing technology are reflected in the committee bill, both with reference to 1608, the first amendment, and with reference to 1.0 NOx. This bill is stricter than Mr. Train's recommendation.
I also wish to make one comment about the California data. The eloquent Mr. Quinn, the expert Mr. Quinn, also urges that we push ahead. But I remind the Senate that with reference to amendment 1608, the first amendment of Senator HART, he recommends that we go slower than we are going. Yet, he is the one with the field experience with the Volvo in California.
In conclusion, there is no doubt in my mind that California led the way to new technology in NOx. They led it with the 1.5 standard. They measure differently from the national certification whether or not you are certified. They permit you to exceed the limitation. We do not do that in our national certification. So if a 1.5 standard gets a .4 result under their system, a 1 with our national certification will force technology, also.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yielded 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes remain.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, it is no secret that I am not satisfied with the reported bill as it relates to auto emission standards. The pending amendment would make the bill even worse by tightening the nitrogen oxide — NOx — emissions standard to 0.4 gram mile for cars built after 1981. That was the standard originally mandated by Congress in the Clean Air Act of 1970.
In deciding to recommend that the current statutory NOx standard should be relaxed to a level of 1.0 gram mile, the Senate Public Works Committee recognized that the added costs of meeting the 0.4 gram mile standard were not justified by public health consideration. Regrettably, the committee did not go far enough in modifying this overly restrictive standard.
For example, a study by a panel of the Committee on Motor Vehicles of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the NOx standard "seems more restrictive than need be by a factor of about three" and that a 1.5 grams per mile standard seemed "more nearly what is required."
Additional justification for a more reasonable NOx standard is provided by a 1975 Yale Medical School study, which concluded that the existing statutory standard of 0.4 gram per mile was too stringent by a factor of four.
Furthermore, as the Public Works Committee report points out:
(i)t is difficult to justify stringent nitrogen oxide controls on moving sources, when more than half of the nitrogen oxides come from stationary sources and these sources remain relatively uncontrolled.
Indeed, in most major cities today stationary sources contribute more NOx to the atmosphere than do autos. And, NOx control of stationary sources has been shown to be far more cost effective than imposing still more stringent NOx control on autos.
Much attention has been given to the recent announcement by the California Air Resources Board that tests of a 1977 four cylinder Volvo resulted in emissions lower than those allowed by the existing Federal standards. A 10 percent improvement in fuel economy was also claimed. It has been argued that these test results militate against any change in the NOx standard or any further delay in the deadlines for meeting the statutory standards.
Several important clarifications are necessary, however, to set the record straight on this matter. First, the cars would not have complied with Federal test requirements, which are more rigid than the California test standards.
Second, these results were achieved only on a four cylinder Volvo equipped with fuel injection and a three-way catalyst. The added cost of this system is nearly $300.
Third, the fuel economy gain was based on a comparison with a 1976 Volvo without a catalyst.
Even larger gains have been made by catalyst equipped American cars, and a number of domestic built cars get better fuel economy than the 21.6 mpg average of this foreign car.
Fourth, the three-way catalyst is the only technology that has shown any real potential to meet a 0.4 NOx standard in the near future. As studies by EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Science Foundation have suggested, development of more promising technology would be precluded if the current NOx standard is retained.
Fifth, the three-way catalyst installed in the test Volvo requires heavy use of the scarce metal rhodium. Indeed, rhodium producers have expressed concern about the availability of supply if this precious metal is used in the quantities required by this type of catalyst system.
Finally, Volvo itself believes that it would be "unrealistic to conclude that the three-way catalyst technology can be immediately applied to all engine configuration or that in doing so, the very low emissions levels specified in the Clean Air Act could be met." In fact, the company has recommended a moratorium on emissions standards at levels that are less stringent than those contained in the pending bill.
At a time when the economic and energy effects of clean air regulations need to be given far greater weight, this amendment points exactly in the wrong direction. It would create a technological straitjacket and lead to substantially higher fuel consumption and consumer costs.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, or I am prepared to yield it back. I understand that the Senator from Colorado would like to speak.
Mr. GARY HART. I will summarize my arguments.
Mr. President, Congress was right in 1970 when it enacted into law a statutory 0.4 NOx standard to be applicable for 1975. Since 1970, when Congress enacted this, nothing has changed.
The arguments made before the Committee on Public Works to change this standard upward from 0.4 to 1 were two: First, the state of the economy and, second, the state of our energy situation. Both arguments are phony. No one is going to lose his or her job as a result of putting this catalyst converter on an automobile. In fact, it can create jobs.
No. 2, it is not going to destroy our energy situation.
The California standards and the California experience, which we have introduced into the RECORD and argued here this morning, show that you can have clean air and fuel efficiency. So nothing is changed.
All the testimony we heard in that committee about how we have to relax standards to protect our economy and protect our energy situation just do not hold water. The history of auto pollution controls in this country, in spite of the valiant efforts of people like the Senator from Maine, has been delayed. In April 1973, the EPA delayed the 1975 standards for 1 year. In July 1973, EPA postponed 1976 standards for 1 year. In June of 1974, Congress postponed standards for yet another year in response to the energy crisis. On March 5, 1975, EPA again delayed the standards for another year.
That is the record. The Senator from Maine says, and I believe I quote him accurately:
In the good faith study that EPA conducted, the maximum effort was not being made by the automobile industry to meet the 1978 emission standards, including .4 NOx. As a result, the industry can now claim that technology is not available to meet that standard.
That is precisely the argument that I made here earlier: Because Detroit does not move on this and does not attempt to meet these standards, they can later argue that technology does not exist.
The Senator from Maine says something to the effect that 0.4 NOx is mainly a shibboleth at this point, used by the automobile manufacturers as an arguing point to debate and delay every standard they must deal with.
Mr. President, I bow to no one in my respect for the record that the Senator from Maine has made on this issue. He is a pioneer and he is courageous. I think that now, to change that standard upward from 0.4, which was right when it was put in and is right today, to 1.0 as a means of getting the automobile industry off this point, to get them to meet the other standards, is the wrong approach. I think what we need now is not more delay but more pressure. That is why I offer this amendment. That is why I hope the Senate will accept it.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall take just a few seconds. First of all, the concerns which moved me to present the1.0 for the standard were not energy and the economy of the automobile industry, as I think my comments this morning disclosed. I simply refer to them.
Second, the 0.4 controversy has, without question, even according to the Senator from Colorado, been responsible for foot dragging and delay by the automobile industry in moving toward the solution of all of the automobile pollutant problems; 1.0 eliminates that argument. It is a legitimate target. It presses technology. It moves us forward. So I think it would be a more effective way of prodding the industry and it moves us toward progress. It enables us to move toward 0.4 sometime, if we need it.
I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10 minute vote so we can save some of the precious time allotted to this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A 10 minute interval between—
Mr. MUSKIE. No, that the second roll call vote be a 10 minute roll call vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is all time yielded back? Has the Senator from Colorado yielded back his time?
Mr. GARY HART. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado No. 1608. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 30, nays 61, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]