August 3, 1976
Page 25178
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order the Senator from Alabama is to be recognized at this time.
May I inquire of the Chair how much time is available to the Senator from Alabama to discuss the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 103 minutes remaining.
Mr. ALLEN. May I use that time at this time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on this amendment must occur by 1:30.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time does the unanimous consent agreement give to the Senator from Maine on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It gave him 1 hour in addition to the Scott amendment where he has 58 minutes. The total on both amendments is 58 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have 58 minutes of the time remaining between now and 1:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator gets the floor and wishes to use the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Chair tell the Senator from Maine that, since the Senator from Alabama has the floor, the Senator from Alabama can exclude me from any discussion in this debate between now and 1:30?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, may I—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend until we have order in the Senate. The Chair did recognize the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I do not have any desire to use all the time between now and the time of the vote. At the same time, I feel the distinguished Senator from Utah should have an opportunity, while there are a number of Senators present, to present the case for his amendment.
He spoke to empty seats all during the morning. I would ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment come at 2 p.m.
SEVERAL SENATORS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. ALLEN. How much time remains to the Senator from Alabama?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-eight minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. I can use that at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 100 minutes but under the unanimous consent agreement the vote must occur at 1:30.
Mr. ALLEN. Do I have the right to use that time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can use his time.
Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent, that this hour be divided equally between the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator from Maine.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
The Senator will suspend until we have order. We are having difficulty hearing. We would appreciate the cooperation of the Senators. The staff is advised to cease conversation in the
Chamber.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I did not have any idea, when the unanimous consent agreement was made, that the distinguished Senator from Alabama was going to take any except a small portion of the time during the period between now and 1:30.
May I say, incidentally, as far as I am concerned I would not object to a 2 o'clock vote but a Member has objected because of a death in his family and he has to catch a plane so there is nothing we can do about that.
But it was stated specifically that the Senator from Maine would have 1 hour. I think 2 or 3 minutes of that 1 hour has been used: The Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) was given 2 hours, and I think he has used that time, and the rest of the time was to be allocated to the Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS).
We did come in at 8:30 this morning. The Senator from Utah called up his amendment, it was laid before the Senate, and he spoke for about 40 minutes, I believe, at that time, and then, because of a lull which occurred, a colloquy ensued between the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS) on Mr. Moss's time, which took up about another 40 minutes.
So if my figures are correct, the Senator from Utah has had an hour and 20 minutes in one form or another, plus the fact that the Senator from Alabama, I think, used up 17 minutes of his own time previously.
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) is left holding the bag, even though it was specifically stated in the unanimous consent agreement that he would have 1 hour. Of that time, as I say, I think 2 or 3 minutes has been used by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the committee.
So I would hope this could be worked out with the smallest degree of friction possible. May I say again, I would not have been adverse to a 15-minute extension, but because of the circumstance which I mentioned, that was not possible.
Mr. ALLEN. I am not asking for any time, Mr. President, but I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be given 15 minutes between now and 1:30.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object—
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would like to have something to say on how the time that was assigned to me through a unanimous consent agreement is going to be used.
Mr. MOSS. Reserving the right to object, may I address the Chair?
I came here because the leadership asked me to be here at 8:30 to lay my amendment down, which I did. I spoke with one other Senator on the floor. Then Senator BAKER was able to come in, and we did have some colloquy. At one time the Senator from West Virginia was on the floor.
Finally there was no one to talk, and we had a quorum call taken out of my time because there was no one here.
Now the Senator from Maine says, "I have to have my time." Where was the Senator from Maine? He walked on the floor at noon today and the amendment was laid down at 8:30 this morning.
You can beat the game various ways, and it seems to me that this has been a pretty good ploy, just nobody is there, and nobody is going to read the RECORD until tomorrow, and the vote has to happen at 1:30.
What kind of debate is that? I think in fairness the Senator from Maine ought to be heard, and I think in fairness I ought to be heard when there are a few Senators here to hear us, especially because the votes are going to be cast by the Senators who are sitting on the floor listening; they are not going to be cast on the record that they read tomorrow.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield and allow the Senator from Maine to have his say?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield 2 minutes, provided I do not lose my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am overwhelmed by the Senator's generosity, but in this unanimous consent agreement, I voluntarily, in order to get an agreement, limited my share of the time since 8:30 this morning, on two amendments, to 1 hour. The opposition to the committee's position had the remainder of the time.
With respect to the time of the Senator from Alabama, I was in the negotiations over this time, and it was agreed that out of the total of 15 hours between this morning and Thursday afternoon, the Senator from Alabama would have 2 hours, the principal purpose of which he told us was to be able to offer amendments, in the event the Moss amendment was defeated, to the Randolph amendment which would then be pending. But now the Senator from Alabama wishes to use that grant of time for the purpose of eating into the time of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. That is not the desire of the Senator from Alabama. The Senator from Alabama said he did not wish to use any time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will try to accommodate the Senator from Alabama. The Senator from Utah expresses a desire to have me make my case but wants to eat into the time for doing so. I would agree to an agreement to divide the time equally for the remainder of this morning.
Mr. ALLEN. That is perfectly satisfactory.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for this concession. I think it is a very fair deal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does theSenator from Utah seek recognition?
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MOSS. We are about to come to a vote on this—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will kindly suspend until order is restored.
The Senate will be in order before we proceed. The Senate is not in order. Each side has been allocated 27 minutes for debate on this amendment, and the Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 290
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I appreciate the agreement of the Senator from Maine and others, and I would hope that a number of our colleagues would remain on the floor, because we are about to come to a vote on what is really an extremely crucial direction this country is going to take, having to do with continuing to preserve and improve our clean air resource, and at the same time balance it with the other things that we can never exclude from our minds, which include the production of energy, economic growth, and jobs.
This amendment simply says, "Let's leave everything in place where it is now."
Section 109, which mandates EPA to fix standards that will protect the health and welfare of the people of this country, leave that in place, do not disturb it, but do not lay another statute on top that changes the degradation standards and other standards to be met until we have had a study that will tell us what that is going to do. We want to know not only what it will do to our air, we want to know what it will do to our lands and our cities, our production of energy, and all.
I am told, for instance, that the lung association is calling Senators about the Moss amendment and saying it is simply a dirty air amendment.
I deny that. As a matter of fact, the regulations will not deteriorate at all. They will stay right where they are if the Moss amendment passes for a year, while we have our study and the Clean Air Act remains in force.
The issue is not a clean air or dirty air issue; it is more a growth or no-growth issue. I simply ask, why should we legislate blindly?
I pointed out that up until 2 or 3 days ago there had been no indication publicly as to where the President of the United States stands on this matter, and so I presented to this body an article written by a correspondent for the Deseret News, in an exclusive interview with the President, in which the President stated his position very clearly.
Mr. White, who wrote the article, in summarizing what the President was for and against, said:
The President favors an amendment which would delay for a year the new stricter provisions of the Clean Air Act.
And in a later paragraph, he writes: Ford said a legislative proposal by Senator Frank E. Moss (D.-Utah), to put off new stricter Clean Air Act amendments for a year, is a good one. "I am sympathetic with the Moss amendment. I believe that the significant deterioration issue requires more study, and I think the Moss amendment would give that time."
That is about what it reduces to, Mr. President, all we are saying is, "Of course we want clean air. We want the cleanest air we can possibly get in every part of this country."
But the provisions of section 6 will fix into law certain areas and certain standards that will not then be changeable unless we come back and legislate again. My amendment simply says: Let us not do that. Let us leave what we have in place now, keep all the protection we have now, but let us have a study. And I mean a full length study that goes into many factors that I read into the RECORD the other day. That is what it is all about.
The map was discussed in the Chambers, and I was hoping that there would be more Senators present when we discussed the map. I found that was not possible. I discussed it, and Senators can read that discussion in the RECORD tomorrow, but they will not hear the discussion, at least from me, before the vote. That is simply the way it has worked out.
I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Maine dividing the time, giving me a chance to say with Senators in the Chamber what my amendment is about and dispelling what I hope are misconceptions about it so that when the vote occurs Senators will vote with that in mind.
I will be glad to yield now to the Senator from Maine and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me say two things that I understand about the Moss amendment, and I do not think that they are inaccurate statements.
First of all, he proposes a study as a condition to any further action on the part of Congress or the Environmental Protection Agency under existing law doing anything about the clean air areas of our country, and he has said over and over again that there have been inadequate studies.
Mr. President, on May 26, 1976, I had printed in the RECORD some facts with respect to the time the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution has put in in studying this problem. I also included in considerable detail, that took, I think, three full columns in the RECORD, the studies that have been developed by the Environmental Protection Agency because, Mr. President, under the mandate of the courts, the Environmental Protection Agency held rulemaking hearings all over this country before developing EPA's nondegradation regulations. It is on the basis of that kind of foundation that the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld EPA's regulations. And what did the court say? Let me read this significant paragraph.
It was a rational policy decision that the significance of deterioration of air quality should be determined by a qualitative balancing of clean air considerations against the competing demands of economic growth, population expansion and development of alternative sources of energy. The approach provides a workable definition of significant deterioration which neither stifles necessary economic development nor permits unregulated deterioration to the national standards.
We, therefore, find that EPA acted within the discretion it is granted as matters of policy in choosing this design to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
Mr. President, if EPA's regulations are a reasonable exercise of the authority provided by current law, it follows that the committee language is even more reasonable from the point of view of those who are concerned about economic growth, population expansion, and development of alternative sources of energy.
Let me direct the Senate's attention to another map in the back of the room. The red areas of that map are the only areas that are required to maintain what anyone might define by any terms pristine air quality. Those are the existing national parks and wilderness areas in excess of 5,000 acres which are included as the class I areas, and even as to them under the standards of the committee bill that air quality may be reduced if the air quality values of those regions are not jeopardized by that kind of a decision. So even as to them the committee bill is less restrictive than EPA's regulations, which were upheld yesterday by the circuit court of appeals.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will theSenator yield on that point?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is making the point that under the present legal, valid EPA no significant deterioration policy there is no flexibility in those red areas under their very regulations that one has to follow on the modeled increment, and that is no flexibility. Ours even has flexibility there. Is that what the Senator is suggesting?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. Under EPA's regulations, if there is a source outside those areas, no matter how distant, which intrudes upon them and would cause degradation to the standards set in the bill, they would be prevented, and it is for that reason that we have seen all these buffer zone maps for the last 9 months.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have seen all these buffer zone maps for the last 9 months which have no relevance to that new map that has been put up on the floor, absolutely none. It is EPA's regulations, those which were sustained by the court yesterday, which are the basis for the buffer zone maps.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. And that is as clear as can be to anyone who has read the hearings or followed the development of this legislation.
Second, all the white areas on this map are to be defined by the States who are mandated under the committee bill to identify the areas which are not meeting national ambient air quality standards and by definition the other areas which are cleaner than national ambient air quality standards. Until the States have done that job, no one can draw a map more defined than that one, and that map which was on the floor before I arrived in the Chamber this afternoon is such a map. It comes out of someone's daydreams because under the committee bill air quality regions, and by definition clean air quality regions, are to be defined under a process which gives the initiative to the States to establish those designations. So that map is the only map that is relevant to the discussion of nondegradation.
Mr. President, what the Moss amendment would do is not suspend the committee nondegradation provisions but kill them, because in order to reestablish a nondegradation provision if the Moss amendment were adopted, we would have to go through the whole legislative process all over again. Legislation would have to be introduced, committee hearings would have to be held, legislation would have to be reported to each body of Congress and enacted by Congress. The Moss amendment does not suspend anything. It kills it. And leaves in place what? It leaves in place the EPA regulations which the circuit court of appeals yesterday upheld as valid, notwithstanding the pleas of both industry and the environmentalists.
Let me make another point about that. The environmental groups challenged EPA's regulations for what reason? It was for a number of reasons but, among other things, because EPA's regulations cover only sulfur oxides and particulates, and the environmental groups think we ought to cover the other four major pollutants as well.
I do not know how that circuit court of appeals case ultimately is going to be decided by the Supreme Court, but it is going to be appealed by both industry and the environmentalists.
What, I ask Members of this body, will be the attitude of the supporters of the Moss amendment if, on a final judicial determination, the environmentalists win their case? What then? We may have four more major pollutants further restricting the potential for economic development and growth, and we may have some stricter guidelines than those that the circuit court of appeals applied to EPA's regulations yesterday.
The committee bill, in contrast, eliminates that uncertainty, eliminates those unknowns, eliminates those doubts. It is for that reason that 91 witnesses in behalf of industry urged EPA to defer its regulations so that congressional policy on nondegradation could be further clarified. That is exactly what we have done.
The court told us yesterday that this was not an antigrowth provision. This is a growth provision. The nondegradation provisions of this bill permit the construction of a 1,000 megawatt power plant. That is bigger than anything we have in my State. Is that a no growth policy? Power plants are the principal contributors of sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions. If a thousand watt power plant can meet the standards of this bill, what other source could raise a reasonable objection to this standard?
Mr. President, it is not that these provisions restrict growth. On the contrary, they make it possible for the future growth of this country to take into account, in an orderly and constructive way, not only economic growth, population expansion, and alternative sources of energy, but clean air considerations as well.
I have faced the ranks of opponents to clean air legislation since 1963. Led by the utilities of this country, they have opposed environmental legislation through all that time.
They do not want to suspend these regulations. They do not want to suspend EPA's regulations.
They want to kill them. They want to have as much right to invade the public interest in clean air and clean water as they had for the last 200 years. That is what they want. Regardless of the consequences, they want to pioneer the empty areas of this country until they are as dirty as anything else.
I have heard Senator MOSS and Senator SCOTT ask, Why are not the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards good enough? I will indicate why they are not good enough. It is because they are the minimal standards that we could insist upon in the dirty areas of this country. It is not that they are sufficient by all standards, all measures of the public interest. Not at all.
So I take it, by implications, from what Senator MOSS and Senator SCOTT have said, that they would be satisfied if the standard in every square inch of this country were the national primary and secondary standards.
Well, that was not good enough for this committee, which voted unanimously for this provision.
When we have Senator McCLURE on one end of the political spectrum of this committee — and I will not pick anybody but myself at the other end, lest I hurt somebody politically — but when we consider the range of political philosophies represented in the Committee on Public Works, and they supported this unanimously, and the more conservative members of the committee have been among the most ardent and vigorous and enthusiastic proponents of the committee provisions, there must be a reason. The only reason I can suggest is the reason well reflected in the language in the court's opinion yesterday.
We did not all agree in committee. Some of us wanted stricter standards than those contained in this bill. I cannot recall anybody who wanted anything that would have deliberately weakened the bill. It was a matter of judgment.
The increment approach is simply a device for enabling State and local governments, under the jurisdiction of EPA, but with the initiative clearly left to States, to plan for the orderly growth of
their economies, so that they do not again produce for this country situations such as those in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, and many others that I could define.
I yield to the chairman of the full committee, Senator RANDOLPH.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, not only the members of the Committee on Public Works, but also the Members of the Senate, are grateful for the record that the able Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has made in the field of well reasoned environmental programs. Through his leadership the opportunity for continued growth and progress in this country has remained.
To reemphasize what the Senator has just said about the State of Maine under the provisions of this bill, construction of a 1,000 megawatt power plant would be permitted. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator said that in Maine there was nothing of that size. In the State of West Virginia, we have some rather large plants. But there is none that is more than about half that size.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at this point I reserve the remainder of my time, because I want to yield some time. I assume that Senator MOSS and Senator ALLEN will want to respond to what I said. In due course, I will yield to the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY)and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI).
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 11½ minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the presentation of the floor manager of the bill, the Senator from Maine, and I noticed that he placed tremendous emphasis on the fact that this was unanimous. In fact, as I recall, he repeated that again and again.
I have before me the committee report on this bill and I find that in the committee report, individual views were filed — these are separate individual views — by Senators RANDOLPH, MUSKIE, MONTOYA, GRAVEL, BENTSEN, MORGAN; then Senators BAKER, BUCKLEY, and STAFFORD joined in expressing their views; then Senator BUCKLEY and Senator STAFFORD put in some other individual views; then Senator McCLURE, Senator DOMENICI, and Senator HART.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. Each had individual views.
Mr. MUSKIE. Individuals views are not necessarily dissenting views.
Mr. MOSS. I did not say they were dissenting views.
Mr. MUSKIE. The vote was 13 to 1 on reporting.
Mr. MOSS. I am not challenging that. I was just saying that the Senator—
Mr. MUSKIE. For what purpose is the Senator wasting valuable time?
Mr. MOSS. I will not yield for that.
The Senator said the committee was unanimous, the committee was unanimous.
Mr. MUSKIE. I mean on this provision.
Mr. MOSS. Will the Senator please not interrupt me? I will yield if I am asked to yield, but I do not like this constant interruption, interruption, interruption.
The committee may have voted finally to report the bill. However, if we are talking about great unanimity, why in the world did every Senator on that committee feel he had to register his individual views? That is the point I am trying to make.
I think the Senator, himself, in discussing this matter, pointed out — in fact, I will quote him from the RECORD of Tuesday. He said:
As a matter of fact, the whole area of environmental pollution is replete with uncertainties because of our dynamic, ongoing, involving industrial society, so that we can never have a status quo we can measure in its dimensions.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that that is really the basis that we who favor the Moss amendment are talking about. We are playing with uncertainties, replete with uncertainties. That is part of what I am saying on all these individual views, because of those uncertainties.
Does that not argue for having a full, complete study of this matter before we go forward?
The Senator from Maine pointed out that a certain number of hearings were held and that there had been a number of studies on this matter before the bill was written. Well, those that were had before there was any section to write a study about probably did not have much relation to what they had. Consequently, what we need now is to have the commission in place, with the expertise it has, answer the questions that are laid down specifically in the Moss amendment, that have to be answered before we decide what we can write into law, that will then be difficult to change once it is in the law.
The EPA regulations that were upheld yesterday to which the Senator referred had the safety valve of a class III area. The present Senate bill would abolish that safety valve of a class III. That safety valve was part and parcel of the reasonableness of EPA's present regulations.
How does the Senator cite this point as support for its abolition here? What I wanted to hold onto in place is what the court has found reasonable at this point. I say that we are not taking a step backward. We are saying, from here, let us not go any further; let us take what we have in place now. The powers of the EPA remain in place, and then, after the study is complete, in a year's time, we shall then know.
I suppose one of the great faults of the legislative body, and any that is as busy as the U.S. Senate, is that we do legislate without having all the facts at hand. We ought to do everything we can to overcome that deficiency. In this case, we ought to do it by mandating the study, mandating that it be made. I would like to do that.
I also wanted to comment that the Senator indicated that some 91 industry witnesses came in and testified for the bill, but I would also like to point out that the members of the National Construction Industry Council joined in a statement supporting the Moss amendment. This includes a long list of very prestigious national associations — the American Concrete Paving Association, the American Consulting Engineers Council, the American Institute of Architects, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Roadbuilders Association, the American Society of Landscape Artists, the American Subcontractors Association, the Association of Builders and Contractors, the Associated Equipment Dealers, the Associated General Contractors of America, the Associated Landscape Contractors of America, Ceilings and Intersystem Contractors, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, the Council of Construction Employers, and the Mechanical Contractors.
As the Senate can see, that is about half of the ones that I have read so far, including, I might say, the National Association of Home Builders. All of them said, "Let us not lock this in until we have a study. That is what we think we ought to have, because we are dealing not only with clean air; we are dealing also with economy, energy, the place where people live, the lifestyle that we have. Let us know the answers to that before we lock it in."
I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama if he has a question.
Mr. ALLEN. I would like to make some remarks with respect to the amendment. May I have about 6 minutes?
Mr. MOSS. Yes, I have that time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine has stated that the power that EPA now has to forbid degradation of the environment is greater than it would have under the provisions of this bill — under section 6, that is. If that be true, Mr. President why does he object to retaining in EPA this greater power that it now has and not, at this time, put in section 6, which is, according to him, a limitation upon the power of EPA?
It is less restrictive, he says, than the present law, the present power of EPA. If that be true, let us leave EPA with this greater power that it now has, greater than is provided in section 6, and then, let us study, under this commission provided by the Moss amendment, the very questions raised in the Randolph amendment — and there are plenty of questions raised.
I ask unanimous consent to insert, as questions to be studied by this commission under the Randolph amendment, sections (A) through (F) of the Randolph amendment as showing the areas that need to be studied — that need to be studied — according to the Randolph amendment, while section 6 is put in, but under the Moss amendment, before section 6 is put in.
There being no objection, the sections were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
In carrying out the authority of this subsection the Commission shall study, among others, the following:
"(A) whether the provisions relating to the designation of, and protection of air quality in class I regions under this Act are appropriate to protect the air quality over lands of special national significance, including recommendations for, and methods to (i) add to or delete lands from such designation, and (ii) provide appropriate protection of the air quality over such lands;
"(B) whether the provisions of subsection (g) of section 110 of this Act, including the three-hour and twenty-four-hour increments, (i) affect the location and size of major emitting facilities, and (ii) whether such effects are in conflict or consonance with other national policies regarding the development of such facilities;
"(C) whether the technology is available to control emissions from the major emitting facilities which are subject to regulation under subsection (g) of section 110 of this Act, including an analysis of the costs associated with that technology;
"(D) whether the exclusion of non-major emitting sources from the regulatory framework under this Act will affect the protection of air quality in class I and class II regions designated under this Act;
"(E) whether the increments of change of air quality under this Act are appropriate to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in class I and class II regions designated under this Act; and
"(F) whether the choice of predictive air quality models and the assumptions of those models are appropriate to protect air quality in the class I and class II regions designated under this Act for the pollutant subject to regulation under subsection (g) of section 110 of this Act."
Mr. ALLEN. Let us leave EPA with this great power that it has and let us study and see whether it needs to retain this great power or whether some less power is given to EPA. I do not regard this as being less restrictive than the present power of EPA. The proponents of the bill say, "Yes, section 6 is less restrictive." I do not believe that.
There is another point that I want to take issue with the distinguished Senator from Maine on. He said that certain industries — I believe he spoke of the utilities — want to kill the EPA regulations. If there is any indication of that in the Moss amendment, I do not see it. It does not strike out any present power of EPA. It leaves EPA with all the powers that it now has, but it says, let us not put in these more restrictive or less restrictive — depending on who is talking — let us not put in these measures until we have had a study to recommend to Congress what added or what less power should be given to EPA in the field of nondegradation. The Moss amendment, far from killing EPA's power, leaves it with every single bit of power that it now has; so how is that trying to kill the EPA regulation? It retains it.
The distinguished Senator from Maine says that the bill is less restrictive, so it would seem to the Senator from Alabama, according to the statement of the Senator from Maine, that he is seeking to weaken the power of EPA; whereas, the Moss amendment would allow EPA to retain all of its present power and then have a study by the Commission to determine what the policy of the Congress should be in this regard. After the study, we could legislate.
What is the use of legislating and then studying? It is getting the cart before the horse. We ought to study and then, in the light of that study and the recommendations of the Commission, we should legislate.
One of the points that the Randolph amendment called for a study on is in connection with the implementation of section 6 of the bill — let us listen to this.This is what it is supposed to study.
"(C) whether the technology is available to control emissions from the major emitting facilities which are subject to regulation under subsection (g) of section 110 of this Act—
That is another way of saying section 6—
including an analysis of the costs associated with that technology."
So apparently, Mr. President, we do not even know the present state of our knowledge on this subject which is such that we do not even know whether the technology is available to control emissions from the major emitting facilities which are subject to regulation under this section. I would say we ought to find that out before we legislate.
Five other areas of study are called for here in the Randolph amendment. I suppose any commission would want to study these very same subjects. I do not think it is peculiar to the Randolph amendment. I am sure the commission under the Moss amendment would make the same study in these areas.
Apparently we know practically nothing about this subject, yet we are legislating in the blind. So I believe the Moss amendment is a sound amendment and, apparently, it would retain the higher power that EPA now has and would not change that until a study has been made indicating the changes that should be made.
But the proponents of the bill say that EPA has more power now than they would have under this bill. So why weaken EPA's power? I would not think the advocates of the clean air amendments would be seeking to make EPA less powerful in this area, and that is exactlywhat they say they are doing. Yet they have the temerity to say that those who are opposing these amendments are seeking to kill EPA regulations. Well, it is just contrary, it would seem, because theMoss amendment keeps EPA at its present power.
The proponents of this bill say that section 6 will be less restrictive than EPA is now able to mandate.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUMPERS). Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what is the situation with respect to time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time does the Senator from Utah have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield, Mr. President, 4 minutes to the Senator from New York, 4 minutes — 3 minutes each to Senators BUCKLEY, McCLURE, and DOMENICI.