June 8, 1977
Page 18067
Mr. GRIFFIN. One of the reasons, I submit, to adopt the amendment in toto without justification is that we do not know, we do not have enough information about the health effects of NOx. The Senate committee and the House committee have concluded that going to 1.0 NOx is more than sufficient on the basis of information that they have.
The Senator from Colorado is proposing that we make a drastic alteration and go down to 0.4. In addition to that, he builds into his amendment a very elaborate taxing and penalty provision for any cars that would be produced that fall in between the 0.4 standard that he would put into place and the 1.0 standard. There is no way of knowing how that could be implemented at the present time, no idea of how much it would cost. The regulatory or bureaucratic machinery that would be necessary could only be speculated about. The automobile companies say that it would be all but impossible at the present time to implement.
Now, then, the very fact that, in his amendment, he includes a provision that the Administrator of EPA shall make a study of the health impact and the costs involved indicates to me, at least, that he has the cart before the horse. We should not put the remedy in place, if one is needed, before we have the study showing that there is a need and also a study which gives us some information about the cost of administering such a program.
I hope that the Senate, in its wisdom, will adopt the amendment that I have offered or will offer in conjunction with my colleague, Mr. RIEGLE, that will, in effect, preserve the part of the Hart amendment that does have merit and will strike the rest of the amendment, which, it seems to me, the committee has rejected, the conference last year rejected, the House committee has rejected, and which cannot be supported at the present time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for 2 minutes?
Mr. HART. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to my good friend from Michigan that the 1 NOx was established as a concession to industry and not as an abandonment of 0.4 as a measure of the public health requirement. The specific proposal which the distinguished Senator from Colorado has put to the Senate and which is pending was not acted upon by the Environment and Public Works Committee. So it has not been rejected. Neither was it supported by the committee. The committee was neutral on the Senator's amendment.
I make this third point with respect to the need for another study. The fact that the Senator from Colorado has introduced the amendment with a study trigger action should not be interpreted as a belief on his part that more study is needed. On the contrary, he believes very strongly that we have enough facts now to set a 0.4 standard, but he has offered the study as a reassurance to those who think we need still more facts. He has offered that study provided the study is followed by action.
So, from the point of view of the Senator from Colorado, the two are indispensable parts of this legislative vehicle. We need the study to get that one more layer of facts that the opponent of 0.4 NOx are insisting upon. But, then having given the study, we have it followed by action in 1983, 13 years after 0.4 was first laid down as a requirement in 1970.
If the study produces the finding that undermines 0.4 as a standard, then Congress would have the option, under the Hart amendment, to change the 0.4 requirement in 1983. That is the nature of the amendment.
I think it is a reasonable amendment. I think it is a sensible one. I think it is consistent with the recommendations of the Committee on Public Works in 1970, which established the standards for 1975,1976, 1977, and 1978. This proposal suggests now giving another 6 years for the achievement of 0.4, comparable to the original 5 years that Congress adopted in 1970.
I thank my good friend from Colorado for yielding.
Mr. HART. I thank the Senator.