July 27, 1976
Page 23961
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the issue of significant deterioration in the quality of air has drawn more public attention than any other one feature of the Clean Air Amendments of 1976.
The concern that has been expressed is an understandable concern. Certainly, the procedures established in this area by the bill are intended to implement the policy which states, very clearly, that clean air areas should be protected.
It should be obvious to all Members of the Senate that the implications of such a policy, as it is carried forward, will be substantial. There are, however, some legitimate questions about the long term impact of a nondeterioration policy. So, in developing this legislation, the members of the committee gave much time to this problem, I think perhaps more time than to any other portion of the bill. I believe that the approach adopted and reflected in Senate 3219 is a correct and a well-reasoned approach.
Mr. President, the nondeterioration provisions of the bill were agreed to after the most careful consideration. We received all available information and consulted with many, many individuals and many, many organizations. These individuals and organizations represented a diversity of viewpoints. The provisions in the bill represent, I think, a positive improvement over the current Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the prevention of significant deterioration.
The members of our committee believe we know what will take place if this legislation is implemented. We are convinced that it would be unwise to delay the establishment of a procedure to prevent the deterioration of air quality in areas that are relatively free of pollutants or to leave the flawed Environmental Protection Agency approach in place. I do not believe that we should postpone action, because it is important to protect these areas. The pressures of our growing — we hope it is a growth society of which we are a part — and highly industrialized society threaten those areas which, so far, have been only slightly affected by pollution.
Our experience has indicated how difficult, expensive, and time consuming it is to correct the environmental abuses that have taken place in past years. It is far more prudent to avoid severe pollution conditions than it is to permit their development and then to attempt to correct them.
This is not a criticism; it is an observation that, too often in our country, we act after the fact, not before the fact. We need, whenever possible, to have people understand what the problems are that can develop so that they, in the process of consideration and action, can be a party to whatever is done.
Mr. President, the comprehensive nature of the nondeterioration policy requires that it be carefully monitored, especially as to its long term effects. I have introduced, accordingly, an amendment requiring that our Commission on Air Quality — which is to be a part of this bill, through the leadership, in substantial degree, of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) — give priority to a study of the implementation of the nondeterioration provisions.
The Commission, which is established by this bill, was chosen in this instance to avoid the creation of another body or the placing of responsibility for studying air pollution matters and thus the impact of the nondeterioration program is well within its mandate.
I think it was proper that the amendment offered by Senator BENTSEN earlier today, for the study of a particular problem that he has in Texas and perhaps in other areas, might be incorporated in the work of the Commission, keeping in mind the 3-year limitation on the Commission report. There is concern, Mr. President, that the value of such a study would be diluted if a long period of time were required for the Commission to be organized and then to get down to work. For that reason, the amendment that I offer provides that the members of the Commission shall be appointed within 60 days of the enactment of this legislation. A report on nondeterioration would be submitted to Congress within a period of 2 years. This would provide a sufficient time for the nondeterioration section to be implemented and for the various components of the problem to be properly assessed. The amendment calls particular attention to several features which, I think, we must give attention to during the study.
These include the adequacy of the provisions for the designation of class 1 regions and protection of air quality in those regions.
The 3-hour and 24-hour increments allowed under the nondeterioration provisions are certainly critical to the control of emissions in the affected areas.
Mr. President, these limitations on additions to existing emission levels will certainly influence the extent to which development can take place in the protected areas.
The study must include the impact of statutory increments and their effect on the location and size of major emitting facilities, whether these effects are consistent with other national policy regarding the development of these facilities.
Mr. President, the study will examine what technology is available to properly control emissions subject to regulation under the program.
Only major emission sources are covered by the legislation, so the study that is proposed would bring an examination of the effect to non-major sources on air quality.
The purpose of the program of nondeterioration is to protect air quality, let me repeat, to protect air quality. The Members of this Congress and the American people mean to do that, keeping in mind, of course, the energy problems, the economic problems, the social problems, all the problems that are inherent in the complex problem in the overall that we are considering. But we do believe the people of the United States are committed to a high quality of air, commensurate with the other matters I have discussed.
So, Mr. President, this is a program in which we want to achieve certain goals, but whatever these achievements may be they will not be complete without our realizing that air quality for the American people is a matter of priority.
Mr. President, I suggest this is not the last time Congress will be called on to legislate in air pollution control matters. We have addressed this subject before, and I am sure we will do it again as we make progress under the programs and as conditions change. Sometimes, perhaps, it is even necessary to have a pause, and I have used that word because I want as one member, not just as the chairman of the committee, to try to be very reasoned about my position in these matters.
The National Commission on Water Quality was established as a part of a major revision of our Federal Water Pollution Control Act which became law in 1972. That commission was charged specifically with providing information to assist Congress in determining the future program.
The National Commission on Air Quality as it is envisaged in this bill would be authorized to carry out the same functions, as I have earlier said, with respect to the air pollution program.
So the study I have in this amendment is consistent with philosophy underlying the establishment of both the prior Water Commission and now, the Air Commission.
The prevention of any significant deterioration of air quality is highly desirable and is an essential part of our total pollution effort.
It is equally important that we closely watch the results of our efforts. We must not forget to do this. We must monitor the program. We must have the oversight hearings. We must be very careful to see that the intent of Congress is carried out, as well as the actual language of the law.
As we move forward during this debate I hope we will have an understanding by the Members of Congress, regardless of where they stand exactly on this or that provision, that we do want us to watch very carefully the results of our efforts.
So I trust the managers of the measure will believe that it is a wholesome amendment I have offered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, I yield.
Mr. MOSS. Do I understand the Senator's amendment to be that this study would be conducted after enactment of this bill and within the time limits the Senator was talking about?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct.
Mr. MOSS. It would, therefore, presuppose the passage of all the terms of the bill, which would make it different from the one I proposed where section 6 would not go into effect until after the study was completed; is that the difference?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct. As the Senator has indicated, it applies to the bill as brought from the committee.
Mr. MOSS. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am offering the amendment to that measure.
Mr. MOSS. I see.
Mr. RANDOLPH. As we listen to the presentation of the able Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS) I will, of course, be very interested, intensely interested, in what he is going to say. At the moment it is not necessary for me to say I will or will not support his amendment.
Mr. MOSS. I understand.
Mr. RANDOLPH. But I have, perhaps, given as much attention to the amendment and the implications of the amendment, the challenges, of the amendment, as any member of our committee. But I believe what we are doing here is apart, it is set in a different frame, from what the Senator refers to in his own amendment.
Mr. MOSS. I thank the Senator. I was just trying to clarify that point, and I think I understand it fully. I support the study I did.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. If I may pursue the point raised by the Senator from Utah, the Senator's record is totally clear, but am I correct in my understanding that the proposed study would in no way delay the implementation of the statutory program contemplated in this bill dealing with the problem of nondeterioration?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It would not delay it.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Section (C) on page 3, the section dealing with the examination of technology, would not in any way interfere or delay the action by the States and determining the best available technology?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct.
I appreciate both questions.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE I do not have the floor.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. GARY HART. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Peter Gold and Mr. Kevin Cornell of my staff have the privilege of the floor during the debate on this pending legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GARY HART. I thank the Senator.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am not certain, Mr.President, that this is an amendment on which the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) or the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) might wish a roll call. I think it is highly important, but I would rest the matter with the judgment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it might be useful to respond for this reason: I have read in the public press and elsewhere more misinformation and more distortion of what the committee bill does on the question of nondegradation than on almost any other legislative issue I have ever been exposed to. It might be a useful way to begin to focus the attention of the Senate on the fact that we are about to begin debate on that issue, hopefully to clarify the issue, hopefully to lay a basis of understanding upon which the Senate can act.
May I say at this point, if the Senator will permit me—
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the first place, after glancing over an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, I am just amazed that that presumably enlightened publication would express such an unenlightened view as to how we arrived at the conclusions that resulted in the committee bill.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there be printed in the RECORD a memorandum dated June 26, 1975, prepared by the subcommittee staff for the members of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, which undertakes to analyze the question of how much growth is allowed by 'the Environmental Protection Agency's nondegradation scheme. 'The Wall Street Journal entitles this article "Senator Muskie's No-Growth Bill."
I invite those who wrote that editorial to read this memorandum, and for their convenience, if no one else's, I ask unanimous consent that this memorandum be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MEMORANDUM
To Members of the Environment Pollution Subcommittee.
From Subcommittee staff.
Subject Growth Allowed Within EPA's Nondegradation Scheme.
1. THE CONCEPT OF CLASS II
EPA defined the Class II area specifically to allow development of "average sized" facilities within the Class II region. Class II was not developed by relating it to any specific ambient air quality, such as visibility. Class II does not establish a new kind of national ambient air quality standard, but instead states how much additional pollution could be added to any area which presently has air cleaner than national ambient air quality standards. Areas designated as Class II, whether moderately clean or extremely clean, would be allowed to add the exact same increment of pollution to whatever existing background levels are present.
EPA examined the average plant being constructed in the industrial categories most likely to have pollution problems and then projected the probable air quality impact of construction of such sources using the best available control technology. The Agency concluded that ".. typical coal gasification plants, oil shale processing facilities, and petroleum refineries would not be expected individually to exceed the Class II increments in most areas. However, the Class II increments would prevent the aggregation of such sources within close proximity of each other." (Technical Support Document — EPA Regulations for Preventing Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, EPA, January 1975, p. 20)
The same statement holds true for the average sized plants in the following categories: fossil fuel fired steam electric power units, municipal incinerators, kraft pulp mills, iron and steel mills, coal cleaning plants, sulfur recovery plants, lime plants, Portland Cement plants, phosphate rock processing plants, petroleum refineries, by-product coke oven batteries, sulfuric acid plants, carbon black plants, primary aluminum plants, primary zinc smelters, primary copper smelters, fuel conversion plants and primary lead smelters. For many of these sources, the average sized plant would be substantially lower than the increment allowed.
2. STIMULUS FOR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
The size of the facility or the number of identical facilities located within a Class II area is limited only by the existing technology for controlling emissions. As that technology increases in sophistication, larger facilities and facilities spaced in closer proximity would be allowed within the Class II increment.
3. POWER PLANTS
Much of the discussion has revolved around plants, since the size of the average new power plant has grown much more than other sources and presents the greatest difficulty in fitting within a Class II area. EPA concluded that a 1000 megawatt power plant could fit within a Class II area, and "assuming that such a source used up 90 percent of the allowable increment in a Class II area, a similar source could not be located within 25 miles of the first plant." (Technical Support Document, p. 20)
The location chosen for a site within the Class II area is of critical concern. When EPA examined existing coal burning power plants and projected the impact of such plants in a Class II area, they discovered one 1300 megawatt power plant which used only half of the increment allowed under the Class II designation; this occurred principally because of the design of the power plant and surrounding terrain and meteorological conditions.
4. OIL SHALE
Industries interested in establishing oil shale facilities in western States have raised objections to the entire EPA nondegradation scheme. One of the objections raised was that such controls would not allow 8 to 10 oil shale plants to be located in close proximity to each other. If the industry assumptions of the technology to be used are correct, this may be true, but these points should be considered:
(1) The industry has not established the technology which would be used to process oil shale and has not done modelling as to the probable air quality impact of such technology; such modelling would be difficult since the choice of technology has not been made.
(2) Even if the projected "guess" of the Federal Energy Administration regarding the most probable "typical" oil shale facility is used, approximately two such facilities could be located at the same site in a Class II area, with similar clusters located 20 to 30 miles apart. (Task Force Report — Oil Shale, Project Independence, FEA, November 1974, p. 446)
(3) Air quality considerations seem to be less important in constraining oil shale development than factors such as uncertainty regarding technology, costs of processing, availability of water for processing, and the international price of oil and related fuels.
5. STEEL MILLS
Administrator Train, in a letter to Senator Muskie dated June 5, 1975, indicated that the Agency's projections of the air quality impact of an integrated steel mill presently being planned for Northern Indiana with a capacity of 2.3 million tons per year would increase the 24-hour particulate matter concentration by about 2 micrograms per cubic meter (under conditions which would result in the highest concentration for that plant).
Since the Class II increment allows 30 micrograms per cubic meter of particulate matter over a 24-hour period, this would allow considerable room for further development within the class II increment if such a facility were built.
6. PETROLEUM REFINERIES
The Class II increment was designed to allow a petroleum refinery with the capacity of 150,000 barrels per day to be constructed without consuming the entire air pollution increment available. Industry data indicates that the average refinery is 100,000 barrels per day with the largest planned facility being 200,000 barrels per day.
7. THE QUESTION OF SIZE
The Class II increment raises considerable difficulty for the planned development of extremely large power plants (3000 megawatts and more in some cases) clustered closely around the energy resource to be used (principally mine mouth power plants). The Class II area would not prohibit such plants completely, but would require either (1) a scaledown in the size of plants planned, (2) a reduction in the total number of such plants, (3) the development of substantial improvements in pollution control technology, (4) cleaning and preparation of the fuel or improved combustion, or (5) a combination of all of these.
Such limitations would restrict some growth. They could also lead to smaller plants. This would mean less of a "boom and bust" cycle for the region since the resource would be used at a slower rate and would sustain the production activity for a longer period of time. If pollution control technology were advanced as a result of the restrictions, then the total emissions from the facility over its lifetime could be substantially reduced in total. And recreation resources close to such facilities would remain viable tourist attractions.
8. INCREMENTS FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II
For reference, the increments allowed under the EPA regulations are included below. The second table includes increments which would be suggested for other regulated pollutants should the Members decide to cover all regulated pollutants in such a classification scheme.
[Tables omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Second, the question that arises is whether or not the public interest requires something by way of protection beyond the primary and secondary standards.
The primary and secondary standards were devised as a way of cleaning up dirty air areas. They are minimal standards which recognize the practical limitations of restoring to their pristine condition the areas in which the health and public welfare requirements of the American people are not being met.
There is the attempt being made to use those standards which were designed as minimal standards for the dirty air areas of the country as adequate standards for the clean air areas of the country.
I can understand that that kind of rationalization could take place among people who do not understand the difference between the national primary and secondary standards and for those required in the national interest in the many clean areas of the country.
But, for those puzzled about that question, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD a letter dated October 10, 1975, from Russell Train, the Administrator of the EPA, in which he undertakes to outline the inadequacies of the national primary and secondary standards in terms of public interest.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
October 10, 1975.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of June 6, 1975, requested comments on the adequacy of the Federal secondary ambient air quality standards. As you know, secondary standards have been set for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. The numeric values of these standards are summarized in the enclosed table.
For particulate matter, an annual mean concentration of 60 ug/m3 and a mean 24 hour concentration of 150 ug/m3 have been set as the secondary standard. Suspended particulates are known to have effects on vegetation, visibility, and manmade materials. At concentrations of 150 ug/m3, visibility may be reduced to as low as five miles. The 24 hour standard was designed to prevent such deterioration. When annual concentrations exceed 60 ug/m3, accelerated rates of corrosion of steel and zinc panels have been noted. The annual standard was set to avoid this type of damage.
There has been no new evidence to indicate that total suspended particulates, as a conglomerate, have any pronounced effect on public welfare below the levels of the existing secondary standards. However, recent advances in instrumentation and monitoring methodology permit more definitive effects investigations of fine particulates, trace elements, and heavy metal components of the total suspended particulate mix in the atmosphere. For example, specific work is in progress on the fate and effects of cadmium and lead on plant and soil systems. When evidence on components of total suspended particulate matter indicates the need for control action, appropriate controls will be instituted for specific substances.
The primary and secondary carbon monoxide standards are identical, based on health effects. This standard is designed to limit the level of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood of nonsmokers to 1.5%. Increased cardiovascular difficulties among individuals suffering from atherosclerotic heart disease have been identified in relation to these levels of COHb. Plants are relatively insensitive to CO at the lower levels that have been found to be toxic to animals. Concentrations above 115 mg/m3 are required to produce detrimental effects on certain higher plants. Evidence does not demonstrate an association between existing ambient levels of CO and adverse effects on other aspects of human welfare. It is therefore felt that this secondary standard is well established as protective of welfare and will not foreseeably need revision.
The standard for hydrocarbons was established for use as a guide in devising implementation plans to achieve oxidant standards. At the time the standards were set there was no known direct adverse effect on human health and only minor probability for plant damage to sensitive plants at the ambient levels. The standard was set as a guide for controlling photochemical oxidants, which do have an effect on health and welfare.
The primary and secondary standards for photochemical oxidants are also identical. Damage by the principal photochemical oxidant, ozone, has been noted on vegetation and manmade materials. Plant species vary in their sensitivity to ozone and other oxidants. Toxicity also varies with the composition of the oxidants. Injury has occurred experimentally in the most sensitive species after exposure to 60 ug/m3 of ozone for 8 hours. Crop losses could occur as the result of planting genetically uniform, susceptible varieties. Therefore, the current standard, 160 ug/m3 for one hour, may not protect all vegetation. Little is known regarding the tolerance of plants under field conditions. The presence of other pollutants and changes in environmental conditions may affect the tolerance of plants for photochemical oxidants.
Photochemical oxidants' effects on manmade materials center on the effects of ozone on elastomers and textile dyes. Many elastomers, including natural rubber, are chemically prone to oxidation and therefore, to ozone attack. Cracking of rubber has been noted at 40 ug/m3.
Background levels of naturally occurring ozone range up to 100 ug/m3. Industry has developed antiozonant additives to protect rubber products against damage. Some important textile dyes, particularly certain blue dyes, used on acetate and polyester/cotton fabrics, and nylon carpets, are susceptible to fading during exposure to ozone. This effect may also occur at background level exposure. To prevent or mitigate fading by ozone, the textile industry must use more resistant dyes and/or inhibitors; these increase the cost of the item. The current secondary standard for photochemical oxidants appears to represent a level sufficient to prevent significant deleterious effects on welfare resulting from anthropogenic sources.
The primary and secondary standards for nitrogen dioxide are identical, being an annual concentration not exceeding 100 ug/m3. NO2 has been shown capable of producing acute damage to plants; however, the levels required are substantially above that of the standard. For example, reduced yields of navel oranges were encountered when exposed 470 ug/m3 for eight months. The current standard appears protective of welfare against damage from direct exposure to atmospheric NO2. NO2 may also cause indirect damage to the extent that it contributes to the formation of the nitric acid in acid precipitation. Nitric acid constituted 24% of the acid in precipitation during 1972–1973 in the Eastern U.S.
The secondary standard for sulfur dioxide is set at 1300 ug/m3, maximum three hour concentration, not to be exceeded more than once a year. This standard was set at the level necessary to protect sensitive species of plants such as maple trees, spinach, and sweet potatoes. Damage to those species has been noted at concentration levels of 2620 to 10,480 ug/m3 over periods of ½ hour. No other welfare effects have been noted at concentrations lower than those causing damage to sensitive plants. Conclusive data are lacking on synergistic effects of sulfur oxides and other pollutants, but preliminary results of work being conducted at EPA's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory indicate that a sound basis for standards based on long term growth and processes effects caused by low concentration of sulfur oxides and ozone may be developed in the future.
The phenomenon of acid rainfall is of concern to this agency. A growing body of evidence suggests that acid rain may be responsible for substantial adverse effects on the public welfare.
Such effects may include acidification of lakes, rivers, and ground waters, with resultant damage to fish and other components of aquatic ecosystems, acidification and demineralization of soils, reduction of forest productivity, and damage to crops. These effects may be subject to cumulative buildup as a result of years of exposure to acidic precipitation, but some may also result from "peak" acidity episodes.
Unfortunately research into the acid rainfall problem is in its infancy. A brief evaluation of the research presented at the First International Symposium on Acid Precipitation is attached. The mechanism by which air pollution contributes to acid precipitation is poorly understood. At this time, we are unable to definitively link emissions in one area with more acidic precipitation in another. Further research is necessary to determine what pollutants and levels of those pollutants significantly contribute to acid rainfall, and to draw pollution emission relationships to environmental damage.
Considerable work, with good progress, has been underway for the past several years to establish a more meaningful basis for setting a comprehensive sulfur oxide, sulfate, and acid rain complex of standards which addresses the total problem of sulfur mass balance. It is anticipated that plant growth data closely approximating the effect of exposure to ambient levels will result from research efforts which apply probability models based on existing air quality data. and which simulate the effects of acid precipitation on the soil and growth processes. These data will provide a sound basis for meaningful economic tradeoff analyses.
It has been noted that a 24 state area of the Northeast (which has been identified as having suspended sulfate levels significantly higher than the rest of the nation) is almost identical with the area impacted by precipitation of pH 5 or less, i.e., precipitation which is highly acidic. Assuming that SO2 is one of the more important agents in forming the regional acid precipitation, a dramatic increase in sulfuric acid related precipitation over the next few years is not expected as trends in acid sulfate aerosol levels in this area are not expected to increase substantially.
In summary, as more data concerning long term accumulations becomes available, the secondary standards may need to be reevaluated to determine that they truly are protective of the public welfare. Future regulatory strategies will need to consider the synergistic effect of pollutant mixes, long term low level exposures, and the acid precipitation problem. Prior to modification of the current standards, a sound technical understanding is necessary of processes by which specific pollutants emitted are transported, converted in the atmosphere, interact with other pollutant, and inflict damage to welfare.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
SUMMARY OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ACID PRECIPITATION AND THE FOREST ECOSYSTEM, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, MAY 12-15, 1975
1. The phenomenon of acid precipitation was well documented. The large majority of participants agreed that increases in sulfuric and nitric acid stemming from anthropogenic sources, are generally responsible for lowering the pH of rainwater, although other substances may also contribute.
2. Acidic precipitation is a pervasive local, regional and international problem. In this country, the entire northeastern quarter is affected including seemingly remote areas such as Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire. In addition, sub-regional areas throughout the United States are affected by local sources. The extent of the areas impacted by acidic precipitation is increasing.
3. The mechanisms by which sulfur is oxidized to sulfate are not well understood, and there are many competing theories. It is thus impossible, given the present state of the art, to relate emissions from one area to lower rainwater pH in another.
4. Ecological effects are very poorly understood. Many papers were speculating and most experiments either used unrealistic application of acid rain, or lacked adequate controls. It is thus currently impossible to evaluate the impact of acid precipitation on forests in any defensible manner.
5. Increased soil acidity resulting from continual exposures to acid rainfall could have serious consequences in terms of increased leaching of plant nutrients and changes in the basic chemical properties of the soil systems. Concisely, many soil systems have tremendous differing capabilities. A good deal is known concerning the basic chemistry of these systems, but it appears that the potential application of available knowledge and expertise for predicting the magnitude of these effects has not been adequately utilized.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is on the basis of those kinds of analyses that the Committee arrived at the conclusions which are reflected in the Committee bill, and I have included them in the REC0RD so Members can read them and understand, at the very least, that the Committee did not casually and arbitrarily pick some numbers out of the air to impose on the country.
Third, as I understand the amendment of the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee, what he undertakes to make clear is what I think the committee intended, that is, that the Commission established by the committee bill include in its studies the questions raised in connection with this nondegradation issue.
I think it is an appropriate clarification; it is an appropriate study. I think for the purpose of focusing the Senate's attention on the fact that the discussion of that very controversial issue has begun and that we are putting these matters in the RECORD for their information, that a roll call vote at this point might be in order.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I want to have Senator Buckley, if I might, because I want to have it completely in accord, if possible. I am rather impressed, perhaps, that a roll call would be in order.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I think it would very definitely be in order, in fact, a signal that we are coming into the area that has stirred up the greatest amount of controversy.
I believe the study recommended by the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is one that has to be made, and it is, I think, entirely appropriate it be highlighted in the legislation authorizing the establishment of the commission.
So I would certainly join in asking for the yeas and nays.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McINTYRE) . Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, is debate still in order on this amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do some Senators seek recognition before we proceed to vote?
Mr. MOSS. Yes, I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, a few minutes ago I engaged the Senator from West Virginia in colloquy about his amendment, at which time he was talking about it being an amendment to make a study of the effects of nondegradation or nondeterioration. The reason I engaged him in colloquy was to determine whether or not this study would go into effect after the bill became law and based on the terms of the bill.
He confirmed the fact that it would and that this would include, of course, section 6 which deals with this problem.
The thing that I want to bring to the attention of the Senate and the thing that we need to be concerned with is that if this amendment of the Senator is adopted and the Members of the Senate then say, "Well, we voted for a study," we have still not accomplished what we needed to do. That is, have the study before we had the nondegradation section in place.
I think the Senator from West Virginia himself discussed the fact that he recognized the futility of studying after the fact and then trying to undo something, as against withholding action until the study is completed and then taking the positive action to put in place whatever the study would indicate is acceptable.
Mr. President, the most controversial issue, as the Senator from Maine indicated, in this year's Clear Air Act amendments is the policy of nondeterioration proposed by section 6. If successfully enacted, this section would establish Federal law preventing the deterioration of air quality in those areas of the country with air quality better than that required under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards — NAAQS. I have introduced amendments which would delete section 6 from the bill and which would require a comprehensive study to be made over a period of 1 year.
This study is for the purpose of thoroughly evaluating the economic impacts of the proposed nondeterioration policy. In order that my amendments might be seen in their true perspective, I wish to make several important points relative to their thrust and impact.
THE NONDETERIORATION ISSUE IS MORE ECONOMIC THAN ENVIRONMENTAL
I again state that the nondeterioration issue only involves areas of the Nation which have air quality better than that required by the national ambient primary standards — set to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety — and national ambient secondary standards — set to protect welfare, including damage to crops, and so forth.
Proponents of the nondeterioration provision of the bill claim that the ambient standards are not adequate to protect human health and welfare. If this is true, let them come forward with facts. If there are known risks we are needlessly taking, EPA is required under section 109 of the existing Clean Air Act to take steps to tighten these ambient standards. EPA has not taken such steps.
The health issue must therefore be viewed as relatively unimportant to those responsible for enforcing these standards. Why should additional standards be enacted if those already in effect are not being enforced? Proper administrative procedure surely requires that existing law be enforced before new law on the same subject increases the burden of enforcement.
The questionability of the health issue suggests that the overriding economic issue deserves greater attention than the environmental one. What will be the increased cost for utilities and goods and services? What will be the effect on the employment situation? What domestic natural resources will go undeveloped? What effect on social mobility? What effect on the relationship between Federal and State governments? What total price are we willing to pay for that last increment of clean air? I have no doubt that as our technology develops over the next several years, it will be possible to have pristine air without severe economicand social dislocations. This will come about with development of cleaner sources of energy. However, legislating "nondeterioration," now under the scheme provided in section 6 of this bill, is likely to cause much more severe damage to the total quality of life of our citizens, than any short run incremental air quality benefits it may provide.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to theSenator from Virginia for a question.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I spoke briefly with the author of the amendment now before us. From my own analysis I take it that the amendment he has offered would not later preclude an amendment that I have, amendment 1617, which would strike the entire portion of the bill that deals with nondegradation.
Also, I have a separate amendment that is not printed which would provide that during the period of a study, whether it is the period provided in the original bill, the period provided by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, or the period that is to be proposed by the distinguished Senator from Utah, the Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus holding would not be in effect; that we would not have the nondegradation policy during that period of time.
With that understanding I have no objection to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Studying the matter, gathering more knowledge, is a good thing, but it is like referring something to a committee. I do not think we ought to be killing the amendment that I am going to propose and that the distinguished Senator from Utah is going to propose. I do not believe that is the intention of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in making this proposal.
I intend to vote for the amendment of the distinguished Senator.
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to respond to the question of the Senator from Virginia as to why I feel this matter must be put in perspective now.
When my amendment was offered and circulated and began to get some attention, immediately thereafter the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia appeared. It took up the study part but did not suspend section 6. Immediately, I began to detect some feeling among Senators who said, "Well there is an easy way out, then. We just vote for the study part and we can say we voted to make the study, but section 6 would go into place." That is what I am concerned about.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Let me ask the distinguished Senator, is it his intention, or the intention of his amendment, to eliminate section 6? I have not read his amendment that way. Is it during the period of the study section 6 would be suspended?
Mr. MOSS. That is correct. Section 6 would not go into effect until after the study was completed. A decision is then made on what the effect of section 6 would be.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am sorry, I do not believe the Senator from Utah means to say that.
Mr. MOSS. I am talking about my amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I doubt he is really explaining exactly what his amendment does in that regard. I want to be very careful. I am not critical.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, while his amendment would suspend section 6, it would not do anything to change the decision of the courts in Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus under which the EPA is making regulations. My amendment to the amendment that the distinguished Senator intends to offer would also hold that decision in abeyance during the time the study is under way.
Mr. MOSS. The amendment of the Senator goes a step beyond mine. My amendment does not have anything to do with the current law as it exists and and as it has been interpreted by the court. So Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus is still the law. My amendment simply says that section 6 of the bill which is before us will not be enacted and that there will be a study made of the nondeterioration issue. At that time we can then address that particular point.
The Senator would go even further than that, as I understand it, and say even the Ruckelshaus case is suspended, or the application of it.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I believe we are in agreement on this. Perhaps our discussion might well be postponed, or further discussion, until the distinguished Senator offers his amendment and I offer my substitute. Then I know we will want to go into depth on the matter.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Will the Senator yield.
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Briefly, I think the reason for the offering of my amendment was not that I was trying to have a catchup amendment in any sense. I believe that the proposal I presented is the best way to make the study. Others may feel that the Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS) or the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) has a better methodology to do this.
I believe the amendment which is proposed by the Senator from Utah certainly does not affect the regulations that have been set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency on nondeterioration. I believe we have to think of the effect without a congressional statement of policy. That is what I am attempting to do here.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The easiest course for the committee to follow would have been to let the matter proceed through the courts; to let each of these cases be dealt with individually by the courts, and let case history build up the public policy.
We were pressured by industrial sources and by environmental groups todo something about setting a policy for clean air areas that would balance the requirements for economic growth against the need for environmental protection.
We did not greedily assume the authority to write new law. It was a 9-month process of balancing out these conflicting interests and trying to arrive at a balance. Now it is said that we have reached too far, that we have demanded too much, that we were unreasonable, and that a separate policy from that of national primary and secondary standards is not needed. Well, we spent 9 months of study on it and arrived at our conclusions, which the Senate will judge in due course.
What the Senator from West Virginia is advocating is to make clear what I think was clear anyway, that the learning process should be an ongoing one, and that it should be done through the structure of the commission which Senator RANDOLPH and Senator BAKER together proposed before the committee, and which we adopted.
Obviously its effect is not to bypass the Moss amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have agreed we would try to get to the Moss amendment tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. This is not an attempt to bypass it or diminish the distinguished Senator's parliamentary prerogatives in that respect whatsoever.
I want to emphasize that it was simply for the purpose of rounding out what the committee had already done within the confines of the bill. I just want to make that clear. It is not a sneak attack.
Mr. MOSS. As I have indicated before, I certainly agree with the study feature. In fact, that is a part of my amendment, to mandate that the study go forward and give us the data.
As I listened to the Senator from West Virginia, that was the reason why I questioned him on the floor. I asked, "Do we suspend the new law in section 6 while the study goes forward?"
Of course, he answered no, that it made no change in that.
That is the thrust of my amendment, that if we do not study it first, we get locked into the statute, and it may be extremely difficult to change or get out of the statute if the study shows some contrary or unacceptable results that would come from that policy of nondeterioration.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I agree with the Senator that the courts want Congress to speak, and if we say, "Yes, we are going to have this study and then we are going to speak," I think we have taken the initiative.
I would also like to say to the Senator and the chairman of the committee and all those who have worked on it that I think most of that bill is excellent, and I think it is needed. I am not going to vote against the bill in toto. What I am concerned about is section 6, and that is what I want to zero in on, and see if I cannot persuade my colleagues that that should not be enacted until the study is made.
The reason why I feel I have to speak at this time on the Randolph amendment is that this sort of offers an out for some who would want to say, "Well, surely, I was for the study, I was for studying it," without realizing they have not done the other thing which is to suspend the section until the study is completed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sure the Senator will make clear that they have not done that.
Mr. MOSS. Well, if they were all here I would be happy to let it go at that.
Mr. MUSKIE. But with respect to the philosophical question the Senator has posed on nondegradation, if we had waited to write a regulation until all the uncertainties involved in this field of nondegradation were settled, we would not have written the 1967 law, and we would not have written the 1970 law. For example, when we wrote the automobile emission provisions of the 1970 act, it was said by the distinguished minority whip, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN) that we were asking the automobile industry to do something that we conceded they did not know how to do at that point. That was the absolute truth. At that point they did not know how to do what we were requiring them to do in the 1970 law.
But let me ask the Members of the Senate two questions. If we had not imposed that requirement, would the automobile industry have done as much as it has done? And if it had not, then what condition would we face with respect to cleaning up auto emissions and auto pollutants? We would face an automobile population which has grown, an automobile population which would have contributed even more pollution to the environment.
But we reached the conclusion that the only way we would resolve the uncertainty with respect to public health was, in 1970, to ask the automobile industry to do something that at that point they did not know how to do.
They did not do all we asked them to do in 1970, so we have given them some delays, and this bill gives them some more delays. But whatever we have achieved, we have achieved because we have insisted upon a public standard that would move them in the right direction.
With respect to nondegradation, if there is anyone in this body who believes that national primary and secondary standards were ever advanced as a complete protection for the public health, let him stand up and say so. They were never advocated as the complete definition of what the public health required.
If there is anyone in this body who believes that the national primary and secondary standards are a complete definition of what the public interest requires, given all the uncertainties that have been stated over and over again in testimony before the committee, and about which EPA has warned us, let him stand up and say so, and document it.
No such case can be made, that the national primary and secondary standards are a complete, final, and ultimate definition of what the protection of the public health and welfare requires. If there is anyone who can prove otherwise then it is his duty and responsibility to say so and to document it and prove it on the Senate floor.
The committee has not taken either position and the two documents I put in the RECORD this morning, I think, are good explanations of the basis upon which the committee acted. We believe that the public interest requires some protection in addition to primary and secondary standards. We believe there is good reason for that conclusion, and we believe there is good documentation in the testimony before our committee to support that conclusion.
If you believe otherwise, if you are ready to discard all of the experts who point to the uncertainties and the need for further protection, particularly in clean air areas, then stand up and say so now.
Mr. WILLIAML. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may finish this thought.
The Senator from Utah says that if we put this policy in place and the studies indicate that the policy goes too far, that we cannot recoup the ground that we have lost — presumably ground that we have lost in terms of unrestrained economic growth.
Does anyone really believe that? Let me put it the other way: If we do not do something like this to protect cleaner air, and we put in place economic growth that runs counter to the public interest requirements of the country, then that cleanup becomes enormously expensive.
The Senators from Nevada are advocating an amendment to grandfather in one smelting plant. Why is that smelting plant a problem? Because it is in there, with jobs, hardware — a plant representing an enormous investment, that cannot be retrofitted with pollution control equipment from any economic standpoint.
So now the advocates, or those who want to wait, are saying, "Let us not worry about what it costs to retrofit whatever we put in place, but we will all replenish our equipment between now and sometime in the future. Let us go ahead, and not worry about that."
All of our problems in the dirty air area of this country stem from the fact that we have not given a damn as we went along. We have put these facilities, communities, plants, and transportation modes into place without ever considering what they were doing to the air blankets that surround this globe. Now we are finding it almost a Herculean task to clean them up.
Those who oppose the nondegradation provisions of this bill are saying:
Let's do it the same way in the clean air areas of the country. Let's build new Augean stables in the clean air areas of the country and worry about cleaning them up only if some more studies tell us that in some way we did not mean what we did not intend. You know, we violated the public interest that we were not able to perceive in the midsummer of 1976.
Now those are the choices: I mean, obviously a policy we make is going to be in place until we change it. But which course creates the greatest potential for irrevocability? One choice imposes a very mild kind of restraint, as we will document when we get in full discussion of the nondegradation issue, a very mild kind of restraint on economic growth in clean air areas. Or we can choose a policy which says:
Go into these areas, wherever you want to, build plants, invest hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, and we will worry about whether or not you are defiling the atmosphere in unacceptable ways after we have studied it some more.
Those are the two choices.
The committee has made its choice. We have taken counts. It is a close issue in this Senate. In a time of recession and economic adversity all you have to do is put the label of jobs or energy on an environmental policy, and the votes flock to your banner.
But I am telling Senators that the committee was as concerned with the economic arguments that are being raised, the uncertainties of the future, and the difficulty of fashioning a policy that works without stepping on anyone's toes, as any Member of the Senate.
I think the product that was finally produced, even though I did not approve every block that was put in it — I mean I did not vote for everything that went into this nondegradation policy — was the product of discussion and deliberation by nearly a unanimous attendance of committee members over a 9-month period. I felt it was about as representative a view of what the Senate, as a whole, would do if it were exposed to the same facts, arguments, and analyses, that could be devised.
And it was for that reason, and that reason only, that I agreed to floor manage this bill. There has not been an environmental bill out of the Committee on Public Works in 13 years that I came as close to opposing as this one. But I agreed to floor manage it because I had confidence in the good sense, intentions, motivations, and the capacity to make judgments of my colleagues on the committee. This is, after all, a representativebody, and I do not know of any issue in all the years that I have worked on committees in the Senate which has been given more intelligent, comprehensive, and time consuming attention by the members of a committee as this nondegradation policy.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not intend to say that at this time, and I shall be happy to engage in full debate on nondegradation at this time, but because of some of the points that the Senator from Utah made, it seemed to me important to make some kind of response.
Mr. MOSS. I appreciate the response of the Senator from Maine, and I may say he has brought to the Chamber his full talents in managing this bill which he said he came very close to not supporting. I do not know. If he threw his heart into one he really believed in, I think he could sweep the floor entirely and not lose a vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know. I have been losing recently on the floor.
Mr. MOSS. But as the Senator pointed out himself, the law is now in place anyway, and Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus is the law of the land now on degradation and much is in place. I believe the Senator knows we have to move ahead, but I am not one that likes to run and jump over the cliff and then look back up and say:
I really should not have jumped over that; I should have looked down first to see where those rocks were.
That is what I am trying to get through here.
I do not deny that the subcommittee held hearings on the Clean Air Act. But the official four volume record of the subcommittee hearings does not support the allegation that the nondeterioration policy was aired fully during these hearings. Those witnesses who did address the issue of nondeterioration did so only in the broadest philosophical terms and in complete ignorance of the specific proposal for amending that policy.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will look at the transcript of the committee markups, I think he will find a much more extensive discussion of nondegradation supplementing that in the form of hearings.
Mr. MOSS. I agree.
Mr. MUSKIE. All of the markups were held in open session. We had 48 of them. All of those who are interested in the act, the environmentalists, the industrial groups, the Chamber of Commerce, were well represented, I assure the Senator. I cannot remember one of those sessions that was not fully represented in attendance. We discussed these issues openly. We sought additional information from EPA and, when we received it, we disclosed it in open session. So the learning process both for the committee and for those affected by the committee's conclusions, went on beyond the formal hearings. The transcript is there. I assure the Senator that there is a considerable amount of information. May I say this, second, that we produced several committee prints.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And widely distributed them.
Mr. MUSKIE. They were widely distributed.
Before we recessed in August last year we deliberately approved a committee print on nondegradation which we ourselves had not yet finally digested so that it might be distributed broadly around the country for the purpose of indicating to interested groups the directions we were exploring for decision making.
I must say that I have misgivings about doing that sort of thing again because industrial groups all over this country distorted what we had done, advertised the committee print as the final product of committee deliberation, distorted its implications and in every way possible built the propaganda barrage that has never ceased since, to try to undermine the committee work. As a matter of fact, analyses that I read today of what is in this bill for nondegradation are addressed to that committee print of last July which the committee itself rejected months ago. So I am not sure that kind of information and educational process necessarily serves the interest of those who become subsequent critics.
Mr. MOSS. Is it not a fact that several members of the subcommittee expressed serious reservations about the wisdom of adopting sweeping nondeterioration legislation without the benefits of hearings on its specific provisions in the markup sessions? The Senator held I know months of them.
Mr. MUSKIE. There were so many disagreements voiced on various aspects of the bill during the 48 markup sessions over 9 months that I do not know that I can characterize any one of them in those terms. I disagreed with some propositions here. But we have to write a bill, and now we are being told by the administration that we ought to ditch all of the bill except that part of it dealing with auto emissions because of the time involved. So we have certainly used the time. I think we have used it in a way that has been informational and educational. We had a virtually unanimous vote from the committee to report this bill, but I am not sure about Senator HART. Senator HART dissented. Senator HART was the only one to dissent. But the remainder of the committee voted unanimously to report the bill in the form which is before the Senate.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I point out that what we have agreed upon represents, in substance, a codification of the regulations now in place.
Yes, there were questions about the effect of doing this. But we felt that we would be far better off, that the environment was better off, that business was better off, by stabilizing the ground rules, rather than relying on court decisions, with the delays that result from litigation, and on regulations, in the absence of specific congressional direction. The results of this Air Quality Commission study we have mandated will examine the kind of issues that are raised by the Senator from Utah, but they will not be solved or resolved by his amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say, in all fairness to Senator HART, who wanted me to do so, that he did not vote against the bill because it was too tough. He voted against it because it was too lenient, in his view, in some respects.
Second, his objections were not raised to this particular issue but another one. I just want the record to reflect accurately his position.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Rowan, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor during the debate and votes on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I think this has been clarifying and helpful.
I do not anticipate that I will have the agreement of the Senator from Utah, but there is nothing in this amendment that does violence to the approach that he will take. He will bring up his amendment, and it will be discussed further. Members will make that decision. The same will be addressed by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) in a different way.
Let us have those matters stand by themselves, because what we are doing here, I feel, is proper. If the Senator cannot support the amendment, I will understand. We have asked for the yeas and nays, and I hope we can have a vote on the amendment as I have presented it. I trust that we will be given an opportunity then to work the will of the Senate on matters that are brought to our attention.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I agree completely with what the distinguished Senator has said. I have the foundation for my amendment, which I have been trying to offer for some time. I believe the time for discussion of a number of these amendments is at a later date, when we can formulate them.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will theSenator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Miss Jacqueline Schaeffer, of the staff of the Committee on Public Works, be granted the privilege of the floor during the discussion of this bill and during votes on any amendments offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Sindt, of Senator HRUSKA's staff, have the privilege of the floor during the discussion of this bill and during votes on any amendments offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I appreciate the contribution of my colleagues and especially the discussion of the chairman of the subcommittee.
My position is that I think we are proceeding in the wrong sequence on the amendments we are talking about. The amendment of the Senator from Virginia is perhaps the most extreme, to use a designation; next, perhaps, is mine; and finally comes the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.
The normal way to proceed is to decide whether we want to go the whole way and even suspend the Ruckelshaus law, or whether we want to go halfway and just take out section 6 until this study is made, or whether to leave section 6 in and go with the Senator from West Virginia and simply put the bill in place and then do the study.
What I am concerned about is that we are in the reverse order. Everybody probably should vote for the study. Hardly anybody could object to a study, if it is done with alacrity and efficiency.
But, having done that, they are less likely to consider suspending application of part of the bill until the study is over, and even less likely to suspend the law of Sierra Club against Ruckelshaus.
If I could get that worked out so that our voting could come in that kind of sequence, I would be perfectly happy to do it. If we could agree to have this presented and have the voting in that sequence, it would suit me.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I will insist on having the yeas and nays on the amendment I have offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 1599
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I therefore offer my amendment as a substitute for the Randolph amendment, amendment No. 1599.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss) proposes an amendment numbered 1599.
The amendment is as follows:
Section 37 is amended as follows:
"Sec. 37. Section 315(d) (redesignated as 315(f) by the foregoing amendment) is further amended by changing the reference to 'section (a) (3)' to 'section (a) (4)', by striking everything after 'March 1, 1977,' and by inserting in lieu thereof 'and the results of the investigation and study concerning section (a) (1) of this section no later than one year after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976'.".
As amended section 315(f) would provide as follows:
"(f) A report, together with any appropriate recommendations, shall be submitted to the Congress on the results of the investigation and study concerning section (a) (4) of this section no later than March 1, 1977, and the results of the investigation and study concerning section (a) (1) of this section no later than one year after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not drafted as a substitute and therefore is not in order.