July 28, 1976
Page 24293
Mr. MOSS. I appreciate the statement of the Senator from Alabama. I am anxious, of course, to move this matter along in a legislatively acceptable way.
I had a private discussion with the manager of the bill about how we might get out of the parliamentary situation that exists.
The matter of fact is that there are really three amendments that all focus somewhat in the same area. One that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) has indicated he would like to have a vote on, and I have no objection to that, I would be glad to vote on it.
But since the Randolph amendment occupies the least change and mine is sort of in the middle, I think that mine ought to be tested first. If my amendment cannot carry, then, of course, the Randolph amendment would be the next thing up and we would then have to face up to that.
I had suggested that we could make an agreement or an arrangement of some sort and couple it with a time limit so we knew we could proceed and get this matter disposed of, that that might be an acceptable way to go. I would be very happy to discus it with the floor manager.
I do appreciate the Senator from Alabama yielding to me to make my position clear on the matter.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, may I say first of all that I could not make an agreement without agreement on the part of my colleagues on the Republican side, which I may be in a position to do if we get movement on this side.
But I have never viewed the Randolph amendment as occupying any of the substantive ground occupied by the Scott amendment or the Moss amendment. All it is is a study amendment. There seems to be no dispute in the Senate as to the wisdom of an ongoing study. We have done it before.
So the Randolph amendment was offered yesterday, not as a competitor of the Moss or Scott amendments, but rather, as one of the items of business we could take care of yesterday when the leadership was pressing to get business done and more controversial amendments were not being offered.
Yesterday we took up the Domenici amendment, two or three of them, Senator RANDOLPH had indicated willingness to bring his up, which he conceived to be noncontroversial. We had a couple of others lined up to come up.
Then Senator Moss, as in his prerogative, viewed the Randolph amendment as in some way prejudicing his position on his amendment.
That is what led us to the present stalemate.
Now, I have no particular preference with respect to the order as long as Members are put on notice as to what issues will be voted and when.
We can have it Scott-Moss-Randolph or Moss-Scott-Randolph, Randolph-Scott-Moss, or Randolph-Moss-Scott, or any order. Then we have the Allen amendment to fit in.
Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from Alabama — by the way, Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PROXMIRE) . The Senator from Alabama has the floor.
Mr. ALLEN. As the Senator from Alabama stated, he favors the Moss amendment. But the Moss amendment, under the rulings of the Parliamentarian, is not in order as an amendment to the Randolph amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Except by unanimous consent agreement, I think.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, that is all right. That is the reason why the Senator from Alabama presents his amendment No. 2101, which does provide a halfway position between the Randolph amendment and the Moss amendment, and would be more acceptable than the Moss amendment.
If we can have a prior vote on the Moss amendment, the Senator from Alabama would not offer his amendment. But if the Moss amendment failed, and then the Randolph amendment again becomes the pending business, the Senator from Alabama would feel that he had the right to offer his amendment at that time.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, provided I do not lose my right to the floor, and provided the resumption of my remarks is not considered to constitute a second speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. First, may I ask the Senator from Alabama a question? What I have been trying to work out, as a result of Senator Moss' suggestions as to the sequence, was a time frame within which the nondegradation issue can be disposed of in toto.
If we are going to be dragged on indefinitely with regard to the nondegradation issue, as the manager of the bill, I want to preserve my parliamentary freedom the same way other Senators like to preserve their parliamentary freedom. But if we can reach a time agreement, I do not care whether it is 5, 10, 15, or 20 hours
Mr. MOSS. That is a part of the agreement as I presented it.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, but as I understood the Senator from Alabama's comment, he seemed to say that if there is a vote on the Moss amendment, and the Moss amendment is defeated, he then reserves his right to offer an Allen amendment subsequent to that.
I would want any time agreement, if we are to have a time agreement — and I am all for that, and all for any sequence the two Senators can agree upon — I would be happy as long as that sequence includes every nondegradation issue of which we are aware at the moment, including that of the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. ALLEN. My primary concern is that the Moss amendment have the opportunity to be presented to the Senate, and that it not be undercut by another amendment that might go just a little portion of the way that the Moss amendment goes, and, it having been adopted, the Moss amendment then would be more difficult of passage.
If it can be voted on prior to the Randolph amendment, then, as the Senator from Alabama said, if the Randolph amendment then becomes the pending business, he would feel that he has the right to offer an amendment.
I would not have any objection to placing a time limit on the amendment to the Randolph amendment, but I do feel I should have the right to offer amendments, and not rule out the possibility of offering amendments to the Randolph amendment if that becomes the pending business.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand. If the Senators could agree to, say, 5 hours, which will take us to roughly 2 o'clock, I would like to have a vote today if we could. I would hope we could vote today by 2 o'clock. We could vote on the Scott amendment first, the Moss amendment second, the Randolph amendment third, and then possibly have a vote on the Allen amendment if the parliamentary situation is such that the Randolph amendment is first among those three, a possible amendment by Senator ALLEN to amend the Randolph amendment.
Mr. ALLEN. Amendment or amendments. But I do not see how we could possibly conclude the issue at 2 o'clock, with a series of amendments to be voted on. I do not see how that is possible.
Mr. MUSKIE. What time frame is the Senator mulling over in his mind?
Mr. ALLEN. I have not mulled at all.
Mr. MUSKIE. Oh, I see.
Mr. ALLEN. I have no objection whatsoever to limiting the time with respect to these amendments, provided the sequence can be agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know, but you see it is a very difficult thing the Senator asks for, I know the kind of bargains the Senator likes to strike.
Mr. MOSS. I would suggest the time—
Mr. ALLEN. I have stated the position of the Senator from Alabama. I stated I would be willing to have a time limit on any amendments I might offer to Randolph. But it is true that 5 hours of debate would carry us beyond 2 o'clock right now, without any votes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator care to suggest a time limit?
Mr. ALLEN. I would suggest a vote tomorrow on the Scott or Moss amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think we have no schedule as to coming in tomorrow. May I ask the majority leader if he could suggest a time?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I would suggest 8 o'clock, and I intend to make such a request, but I intend to discuss the matter with Senator GRIFFIN first.
I would point out that that is a courtesy usually accorded the majority leadership, which has to set the schedule and tries to do so on all occasions with the Republican leadership.
If we come in at 8 o'clock, it will not be because we necessarily are entranced with that hour, but because we have no other choice, in view of the time limits affecting the Senate relative to the Republican Convention, the Labor Day recess, and the determined desire of the leadership to adjourn sine die on October 2.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I know he understands that we on our side are certainly willing to consider that, but Senator GRIFFIN particularly asked me to suggest that that matter of the question of the hour of convening tomorrow be reserved for the moment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I have so indicated that that would be my intention, but that I would discuss it with the acting Republican leader.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Alabama that the agreement being contemplated, if it can be reached, regarding the time, would require unanimous consent.
Mr. MOSS. Yes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And Senator GRIFFIN would not— or is he all right on that part of it?
The remaining question is the time, and you might consider what you would like in that respect.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator from Idaho would like to be heard.
Mr. McCLURE. My understanding of the situation — and I hope someone will correct me if I have either misunderstood or been misinformed as to the situation — is that the only amendment now pending is the Randolph amendment, and the Randolph amendment deals with a study.
Mr. MUSKIE. There has been an Allen substitute or perfecting amendment.
Mr. McCLURE. Has the Senator from Alabama offered his amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not yet.
Mr. ALLEN. I was fixing to have it offered at the conclusion of my remarks, but I stated I would not offer it if the order of voting be put in line with the discussions we have had here, the first vote being on the Scott amendment tomorrow, and then the Moss amendment, that being the order. If the Moss amendment fails, then the Randolph amendment would be offered, which would itself be subject to amendment and I stated I would be willing to limit the time on the amendments to the Randolph amendment, but I do not want to say how many amendments there will be. There would not be an undue number; but I put in two last night, and I understand the distinguished Senator from Utah has an amendment, or a substitute.
Mr. MOSS. Possibly.
Mr. ALLEN. I was willing to get a time limitation, so we would be sure of having a vote at some time.
Mr. McCLURE. I understand the parliamentary situation is such that no amendment to the Randolph amendment would be in order which amends any other portion of the bill.
Mr. ALLEN. Well, on the request of the distinguished Senator from Maine for a parliamentary ruling, the Chair has ruled that amendment 2101 by the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Florida (Mr. STONE) would be in order, and it is a halfway position between Randolph and Moss, but it has not been offered, and I shall not offer it if we can have agreement that the Moss amendment be voted on first.
Mr. McCLURE. If the Senator will yield further, my understanding is, while the Senator has several amendments that are printed and could be offered, the Senator from Alabama has announced that his intention is to offer amendment No. 2101 to the Randolph amendment at the conclusion of his remarks unless some other unanimous consent agreement is reached. Is that correct?
Mr. ALLEN. That is correct. But then if the Randolph amendment became the pending business again on the possible defeat of the Moss amendment, the Senator from Alabama and any other Senator would have an opportunity to offer amendments that would be in order to the Randolph amendment. But I am willing to agree to a time limit on those amendments. I am not trying to prevent a vote. But I wish some opportunity to discuss amendments. That has always been the custom in the Senate.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator from Alabama yield further for a question dealing with the merits of his amendment rather than a parliamentary situation?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield.
Mr. McCLURE. Amendment 2101, which would seek to amend the Randolph amendment, does not directly suspend the provisions of the current law of the current EPA regulations; is that correct?
Mr. ALLEN. It would not suspend anything except this new section 6 which is section 110(g). It would suspend that for 1 year after the filing of the report to give an opportunity to amend the law to correspond with the Commission's recommendation. Then it has a second feature which says that none of these provisions would be enforced or implemented that contravene the recommendation of the Commission.
Mr. McCLURE. But then the effect of the Allen amendment to the Randolph amendment, the way it relates to the bill reported by the committee, for a period of 1 year following the Commission's report, it would leave in effect during the period from now until that time the current provisions of law and EPA regulations under current provisions of law.
Mr. ALLEN. It has absolutely nothing to do with present law. It merely would suspend for 1 year the operation of this new section 6.
Mr. McCLURE. That is right. So that the current law would be in effect from now until that time occurred.
Mr. ALLEN. That is correct, yes.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I am delighted to yield.
Mr. MOSS. I think we are coming close to an agreement, or at least I hope we are, and I suggest as a possibility that we agree to take up the Scott amendment no later than 10 a.m., and that the Scott amendment be limited to 1 hour.
Mr. ALLEN. Scott amendment to what?
Mr. MOSS. The Scott amendment to the Moss amendment. I have to put the Moss amendment up first, that is right. I shall ask that the Moss amendment be permitted by unanimous consent to be laid down, and then that the Scott amendment be in order on the Moss amendment with debate limited to 1 hour on the Scott amendment and then that the Moss amendment either as amended or not by the Scott amendment have 4 hours, at which time there would be a vote and thereafter that the Randolph amendment then be in order and have not to exceed 2 hours on the Randolph amendment at that point, and that amendments be in order to the Randolph amendment if and when it returns as the pending business.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes. What about amendments to the Moss amendment?
Mr. MOSS. I certainly think they are in order, yes. Give an hour on any amendment to the Moss amendment.
Mr. ALLEN. I certainly am glad to agree to that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might suggest the absence of a quorum and at the completion of the quorum call have the floor returned to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What was the request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of the Senator from Alabama was he suggests the absence of a quorum, retaining the right to the floor after the quorum is completed.
Is there objection?
Mr. BAKER. All I wish to say on the reservation is that Senator WILLIAM L. SCOTT of Virginia is not here.
Mr. MOSS. He will be here at 9:45 a.m.
Mr. BAKER. That is right; that is my information as well. Since his rights are materially involved in this growing and evolving unanimous consent request I think I ought to say to our colleagues that we will not agree on this side until we have had a chance to confer with
Senator WILLIAM L. SCOTT.
Mr. MOSS. Of course, the Senator should confirm that, but we have been talking with him.
Mr. ALLEN. The purpose for the quorum call is to see if we could work it out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection to the request of the Senator from Alabama, the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, without any rights of Senator ALLEN to the floor being waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tim McKeever, of my staff, having the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MORGAN). Without objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS UNTIL 10:45 A.M.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 10:45 a.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CULVER). Is there objection?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will the Senator from Alabama then have the floor under the unanimous consent request?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. We have it now. So it would hold.
Mr. ALLEN. Then I do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Has the Chair ruled?
There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:20 a.m., recessed until 10:45 a.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. HANSEN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bevinetto of the staff of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming (Mr. HANSEN) be given the privilege of the floor during consideration of and votes on this bill and amendments to the bill. Also, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bill Smith and Mr. Henry Poole be given the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CULVER). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is some discussion of trying to set aside the pending matter and move onto the Bentsen amendment whenever Senator BENTSEN is available — shortly, I hope. Would that accord with the Senator's convenience?
Mr. ALLEN. I would have no objection. I should like to have permission to offer the next amendment to the Randolph amendment. In other words, I should like to have unanimous consent that I might offer the first amendment to the Randolph amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is, when we go back to the Randolph amendment?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. In other words, what the Senator would like to preserve is his right
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I cannot hear the distinguished Senator from Maine. I do want to know what he is saying.
Mr. ALLEN. We can handle it by reserving my right to the floor when the Senator has completed action on the matter he wishes to take up at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator from Virginia that what I asked the Senator from Alabama is whether or not he would have any objection to setting aside the pending matter, which is the Randolph amendment, and the Senator's proposed amendment — he has not yet offered it — to the Randolph amendment, so we can take up the Bentsen amendment, which is on another subject, and hope to dispose of it before we turn to the tax bill today.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I appreciate the Senator's explanation.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator from Alabama is asking is, if we do that, he would like to preserve his present status.
Mr. ALLEN. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. I see no problem with that.
Mr. ALLEN. I have no objection to that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why not proceed until the Senator from Texas arrives?
Mr. ALLEN. Does the Senator wish to wait until the Senator from Texas comes in before we move to this other matter?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I want to be sure it meets his convenience.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield briefly, we have a hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I should like to be present because of the matter under consideration. May I have an understanding that we are not going to change the rules for the next 10 or 15 minutes so I may run over there?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, in behalf of the distinguished Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Don Argetsinger be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate will be in order. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, earlier this morning I was discussing the general provisions of the Clean Air Act, and I stated that at the conclusion of my remarks I did plan to offer, and I do plan to offer, amendment No. 2101. It would be an amendment to the amendment, now pending, of the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), and I might state it would preserve the Randolph amendment and the concept of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) as to the setting up of a commission to study the effects of the nondegradation policy and, specifically, to study the implementation of section 6 of the bill, which is also an amendment to section 110 of the act.
But it does not disturb the Randolph conception of the mandate to the Commission for its study. It leaves that intact. As a matter of fact, it would greatly strengthen the role, the mission, and the function of the Commission set up by the Randolph amendment.
I might state that it occupies a middle position as between the pending amendment, the Randolph amendment, and the Moss amendment, that is, where both have to do with the setting up of a commission. Their mandates are different, but the amendment I will offer preserves the Randolph concept under the Randolph amendment. It would not deprive the distinguished chairman of the committee of being the author of the amendment that sets up the Commission to make this study.
Now, under the pending amendment, the Randolph amendment, a commission is set up to study the matter of the degradation of the environment and, specifically, to study the implementation of section 6 which, as I say, is a section that is added as section (G) of section 110 of the act.
Now, the Randolph commission would begin operation, I assume, when they are appointed, when it comes into being. But while they are studying the question, section 6, the nondegradation section, becomes law and is subject to being implemented and enforced, so you would have an ongoing study of something that has already become law, and nothing that the Commission could do would prevent that law from being implemented.
The Commission could find that the implementation of the law would have serious economic effects on the economy of a particular State or particular locality; that it might have serious economic effects on the economy of the entire Nation. But if they make that finding it could not change the law. The law would be there. So what is the use of passing a law and then setting up a commission to see whether the law is a wise law or not?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will my able colleague yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am appreciative always of the consideration the Senator from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN) gives to not only this subject but to all subjects considered in the Senate. I would only want the record to show that we have begun to realize in the Senate at long last — and I have advocated it for many years — that we have a constancy of oversight. After a law is enacted, agencies sometimes do not carry out what we believe is the intent of the law. This is one of the reasons in recent years that we have an expanded oversight process here in the Senate, and I think that has been very helpful. We have adopted it in the Public Works Committee.
Many of the measures we adopted provide for complex regulation and the attainment of far reaching goals. Therefore, we have established review commissions to examine the implementation of these laws and the propriety and attainability of the goals.
I mention this because, in a sense, this is what we are doing here. In connection with the control of water pollution, for example, we felt it was very necessary, and I offered the amendment which created a National Commission on Water Quality. The Commission was directed to study the effects of that law and to make recommendations as to the future of the water pollution control program. That, of course, is what is proposed here, as the Senator well understands.
Change is constantly under way, and it is impossible to write a law in hard and fast language which can carry over from one year to the next without review. In legislation of this kind, the bill managed here by the able Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), we prescribe certain guidelines, regulations, and goals that keep in mind the energy, economic, and social problems of the United States, while we work to improve the quality of air for the American people.
So we continue to study and revise, at the same time we implement the law within the framework adopted by the Congress.
Does my colleague agree with me that all times we must do this?
Mr. ALLEN. I think it is well to have an ongoing study. But, it seems to me, we are putting the cart before the horse when we pass the law and then provide in six different major categories of action required under that law that this Commission will be called on to examine the merits of such requirements.
I would say it would be much better to set up the Commission, assign it the same mission of studying these various points, and then, on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission, act, and act on the basis that this, in effect, is a hearing by this Commission. It would make an investigation, and I am sure it would conduct hearings. But this is just like passing a bill without having hearings. You pass the law, you pass section 6, and then set up a commission and say, "You gentlemen" or "you ladies and gentlemen, check this out and see if this law is a good law, and if it provides protection in these various areas."
So the Moss amendment has a somewhat different concept.
I will not go into the different measures or mandates of those two commissions. I do not know that I am sufficiently advised on that point and I am not worried. I do not care which commission is set up and I am for the setting up of a commission to make a study.
But what the Moss amendment does, it seems to have a much more practical approach. This says, let us set up a commission, let us study nondegradation issues, let us see how proposed section 6 will operate on the economy, how it will operate on the environment, does it place too heavy a burden, can it be achieved.
Find these things out before we legislate. That is the Moss amendment.
Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will let me complete this thought on these three different approaches.
The Moss amendment takes, as I understand it, this view.
Yes, let us set up a commission, let us study this matter, and after we have studied it, let us then legislate. Let us legislate on the basis of knowledge, of information gathered, on scientific information. Let us find out what the facts are, what the effects of this law will be, and then let us legislate.
But the parliamentary situation is such that when the distinguished Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS) sought to offer his amendment as an amendment to the Randolph amendment, he was advised that this amendment was not in order because it amended different sections of the bill from the sections of the bill amended by the Randolph amendment.
So it seemed that we were going to have to have an up and down vote on the Randolph amendment.
I have two or three amendments. Amendment No. 2101 takes a halfway position, a midway position, between the Moss and the Randolph approaches.
I might say that I am for the Moss approach, if we can get an up and down vote on that amendment.
I thought we had an agreement pretty well worked out to allow the Moss amendment to be acted on by the Senate in an up and down vote, but negotiations for a unanimous consent agreement did break down.
So that put us back to amendment No. 2101.
It is in two parts. It might not be two parts, based on the parliamentary ruling, but it does have two parts because I have separate amendments to do separately what No. 2101 would do by itself.
The first part of 2101 would provide that section 6, or, wording it another way, subsection (g) of section 110, would not be enforced or implemented for 1 year, after the filing of the report of the commission set up by the Randolph amendment.
This does not put the Moss commission approach into the Randolph amendment. It preserves the Randolph amendment on the setting up of the Commission and the mandate and function of the Commission.
But section 6 would go ahead and be subject to being enacted by the Senate. It would become law. But it would become law with the Randolph amendment as amended by No. 2101 that would say that none of the provisions of section 6 would be implemented for 1 year after the filing of the report. After that year, they could be implemented.
But why the year? That gives Congress an opportunity to study the report of the Commission set up by the Randolph amendment, gives it 1 year to study it, see what is good and what is bad in putting into effect section 6, the nondegradation feature.
It gives the Congress an opportunity to get the benefit of the Commission's recommendation. It gives it a whole year, which is not too long in the legislative process, gives it the opportunity for 1 year to study those recommendations and to enact a statute having in mind or drawing upon the recommendations of the Commission.
If the Congress does not pass anything, then section 6 would become operative at the end of the 1 year after the filing of the report.
The Moss amendment would knock out section 6.
The Randolph amendment would leave section 6 in, leave it in full force and effect while a study is being made.
Amendment No. 2101 would suspend the operation of section 6 for 1 year after the filing of the Commission's report to give the Congress an opportunity to study the report and get some benefit out of the study made by the Commission.
Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I am delighted to yield for a question.
Mr. MORGAN. I wonder if the Senator would engage in a colloquy with me for a few moments so that I can understand this?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I am delighted to.
The Senator from Alabama certainly will gain much information from a discussion with the distinguished Senator from North Carolina because of the expertise of the Senator in this field.
I have read with great interest his individual views that are a part of the report of the committee.
Mr. MORGAN. I appreciate the Senator's kind remarks. I am afraid they were written so long ago that I have forgotten a great deal in it.
Mr. ALLEN. That shows why we need a year to study the recommendations of the Commission before we start enacting laws.
Mr. MORGAN. As I understand it, section 6 deals with nondegradation?
Mr. ALLEN. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. MORGAN. And is it the Senator's understanding that this question arose because of a decision of one of the appellate courts which had disallowed deterioration of the air?
Mr. ALLEN. I feel that decision had some effect upon the thinking that went into this amendment. I do not know that it was a direct cause, but certainly it had some effect on the thinking.
Mr. MORGAN. It is my understanding now that under the present law, if the Congress fails to act at all, no new industry can come into my area that would degrade the air to any extent unless EPA promulgates some regulation that would permit that to take place. Is that the Senator's understanding of it?
Mr. ALLEN. I am not absolutely sure. As I understand section 4, it goes beyond the present regulations. It adds a new concept, a new regulation, beyond what the present law is.
Mr. MORGAN. I am not sure but what I may later agree with the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Utah because many, many questions have arisen about this matter since it came to the floor.
I may say to the Senator that I am new in the Senate, and this bill itself arose in a somewhat unusual way. We had a series of hearings over a period of a year or two and then the bill itself was drafted with no specific period on the particular provisions of the bill. Since the bill has been brought out I have been deluged with constituents who say this measure means this or this measure means something else.
My thought is that at least in this section there is some authority delegated to the State planning or regulatory agency, some discretion. But if we repeal this section or if we suspend it, would we not then leave ourselves completely at the mercy of the Federal bureaucracy rather than the State bureaucracy? That is the question which enters my mind.
Mr. ALLEN. If we knock section 6 out or if we suspend its operation, as my amendment would do, we would be under the present law, under which EPA has closed factories in my State. I did not agree with EPA in the action that it took. What the amendment of the Senator from Alabama would do would merely stay this section until the committee has an opportunity to report. The Congress has 1 year in which to avail itself of the recommendations of the Commission in shaping some legislation.
Mr. MORGAN. I must assume the Chair in a moment, but I would say that the Senator gives an illustration which concerns me. EPA here in Washington closes a factory in Alabama.
Mr. ALLEN. They threw 300 men out of work, I might say.
Mr. MORGAN. Under the present situation, the State of Alabama clean air commission or environmental protection agency, or whatever it is called, had no input into that situation at all. But under section 6 the State agency does have some input. I recall, for instance, having offered one amendment which would have restricted the use of best available technology, taking into consideration social, economic, and environmental factors. In other words, what I am saying, and I am not taking a position, is if we suspend section 6 are we not jumping out of the frying pan into the fire?
Mr. ALLEN. I think not. The Senator has made a more detailed study of this issue than has the Senator from Alabama. But I believe the option which the State has under section 6 is as to section 6 provisions. I would seriously doubt if it gives the State agencies control over existing regulations. I do not state that emphatically because I do not know for sure. But I believe the power given to the States has to do with the nondegradation features set up by section 6.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. The distinguished Senator from Maine can correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to comment on three points which appear to have arisen in the colloquy between the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Alabama.
In the first place, permits under the nondegradation provisions of this bill are issued by the States, not by EPA. We have made it a State-administered program.
Second, the provisions of this bill are not more strict than EPA regulations; they are less strict. It is for that reason that testimony before the committee is replete with requests by industry to shape a congressional policy. The Senator from North Carolina referred to the way the provision came into the bill. It came into the bill because we were urged by industrial sources and by environmental sources to direct ourselves to this issue. The issue was in the process of being defined by the courts. That was fine with me. We just did not reach out and grab a handful of trouble for ourselves because we were looking for trouble. We took up the issue because we were urged to do so by people on both sides, industry and environmentalists.
The third point I would make is that the nondegradation provisions cannot be used to close factories. All the nondegradation provisions do is protect areas that are not developed from the consequences of irresponsible, unrestricted, and unrestrained growth. It does not apply to existing industry. It cannot be used to close existing industry doors.
Those three points, it seems to me, had to be clarified, given the nature of the colloquy between our two colleague.
May I at this point ask this of the Senator from Alabama: We have a time agreement on the Bentsen amendment which would enable us to get to maybe one or two votes before 2 o'clock, if he is now ready to resume.
(Mr. MORGAN assumed the chair at this point.)
Mr. ALLEN. I want to answer one or two things the Senator has spoken of. The Senator from Alabama did not say that the plants in Alabama was closed under the nondegradation feature, which has not yet been enacted into law. What the Senator from Alabama said was that under existing law they did close a factory in Alabama only recently. If this section 6 and this bill in general places less of a burden on industry, it seems strange to the Senator from Alabama that industry seems to be making an all-out fight against section 6. That is what makes it very strange to me.
I did not quite complete the analysis of my amendment, No. 2101.
I explained the fact that the provisions of section 6 would be stayed for 1 year following the filing of the report so that Congress could analyze the recommendations that were made and pass legislation in line with the Commission's report.
On the second feature of this amendment, it is possible I will offer only one part of the amendment, one that I might possibly not insist upon. I indicated that by filing a different amendment knocking out the second part as to section 6, or, stated another way, subsection (G) of section 110 of the act.
If the Commission was able to point out that the provisions of this section 6 were so burdensome or nonattainable that as to any of the provisions of section 6 that contravened the recommendations of the Commission they would not be implemented or enforced, that would provide some basis or reason for having the Commission if its recommendation will have some force and effect.
I would now be delighted to ask unanimous consent to lay this matter aside in order that the Bentsen amendment may be brought up, provided I will be recognized immediately upon disposition of the Bentsen amendment.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we turn now to the Bentsen amendment, to be followed by the Baker amendment, both on a different subject than the one which is pending; that we agree to a time limitation of 2 hours on the Bentsen amendment to be equally divided between Senator BENTSEN and myself, and a time limitation of 1 hour on the Baker amendment, to be equally divided between Senator BAKER and myself or my designee, who might conceivably be Senator BENTSEN; that following the disposition of those two amendments, we return to the consideration of the Randolph amendment, and the status of the Senator from Alabama will then be that he will have the floor and be in a position to offer the amendment we have been discussing.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator.