[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               CLEAN AIR

                                 ______


                         HON. WILLIAM J. HUGHES

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 16, 1994

  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Illinois and other Members in introducing this legislation that 
addresses a very serious policy problem.
  In 1990, many of us in this body voted to pass a historic law, the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. We had a very admirable goal: to 
clean up our air. We knew that achieving our goal was not going to be 
easy and that it would take time and cost money. But we supported that 
act because we knew those sacrifices made sense in order to achieve an 
important goal.
  However, this legislation addresses one provision in the clean air 
law that is causing many communities to make senseless sacrifices. That 
provision, which calls for employee trip reductions in certain areas of 
our Nation, is causing many of our counties and towns to clean their 
air in one of the least efficient ways possible.
  As an example, let me tell you a tale of two counties. These two 
counties in my district, Cumberland and Salem, comprise the most rural 
region in New Jersey. I know many of my colleagues derive their 
impression of New Jersey from their travels up and down the turnpike or 
in and out of Newark airport, but my district contains areas that are 
as rural and beautiful as any you can find in the Nation. In Cumberland 
County, for instance, public open space, farmland, and undeveloped 
areas account for nearly 88 percent of total land use. The agricultural 
sector is one of the largest sources of employment for the area's 
citizens. The two counties together register perhaps the lowest 
population density in New Jersey.
  Air quality data collected from the Cumberland-Salem area reveal that 
ozone pollution in the counties is not as pervasive as EPA has 
indicated. The highest daily maximum 1 hour level recorded at the New 
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Millville monitoring 
station in Cumberland County was .157 parts per million, which is 
consistent with a moderate nonattainment designation under the 1990 
act. Furthermore, new data reveal that the area may soon reach 
attainment for ozone.
  Despite these facts, Cumberland and Salem Counties are being told 
that they must reduce employee ridership in the same manner as some of 
our country's most compact, populous, and polluted cities. This makes 
little sense for rural areas like Cumberland and Salem which do not 
contribute to the region's ozone problems in any significant fashion.
  So what is the basis for this requirement? Is it environmental 
science? Not at all. Cumberland and Salem are required to do this 
because of an accounting convenience of the Census Bureau. This 
accounting procedure causes Cumberland and Salem to be considered as 
part of the Philadelphia consolidated metropolitan statistical area. 
Because they are considered as part of Philadelphia by the Census 
Bureau, the EPA says that these rural counties must comply with trip 
reduction requirements in the same manner as New York and Washington, 
DC.
  Implementation of trip reductions in Cumberland and Salem would have 
a severe impact on the local economy and quality of life in these 
counties without contributing to any reduction in the aggregate ozone 
level. Neither Cumberland nor Salem has the mass transportation 
infrastructure that makes it feasible to increase average employee 
ridership by 25 percent. In fact, last year the State of New Jersey 
denied mass transit funding to Cumberland and Salem stating that there 
was not enough need in the area to justify such an expense.
  I invite any Member of this Chamber to come visit my district to tour 
these two counties. I am sure that a brief trip through these areas not 
only will convince Members that the counties contribute little to ozone 
problems in the region, but it will also show how unfeasible it would 
be to implement this program in Cumberland and Salem.
  Common sense clearly dictates that these and other rural counties 
should not be forced to implement the same stringent trip reduction 
programs as large, polluted urban centers and suburbs. Yet, that is 
exactly what will happen under the trip reduction program.
  The legislation that the distinguished gentleman from Illinois is 
introducing today will help restore some flexibility and common sense 
to our Clean Air Program. It is important to point out that this bill 
does not exempt any area from the strict pollution reduction goals of 
the 1990 legislation. Rather it removes needless and burdensome 
directives to towns and counties on how they should achieve those 
goals.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to work with my colleagues and EPA to 
mitigate this situation. The sanctions clock is already ticking for our 
States and counties in terms of implementing the Clean Air Act. I'm 
sure that if we work together we can find a solution to this problem. 
In the meantime, I believe that this legislation will help us begin the 
process of addressing these problems, and I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support the bill.

                          ____________________