[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 112 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         EPA SHOULD IMPLEMENT CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990

  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three very important 
pieces of legislation intended to rectify an unfair application of the 
law. These bills will direct the Environmental Protection Agency to 
write Federal Implementation Plans in accordance with the 1990 
Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
  My reasons for introducing these measures are twofold. First, to 
alleviate an extremely unfair situation that is facing my State of 
California. Second, for the benefit of every other State in this Nation 
that is working hard to meet the goals set forth in the Clean Air Act.
  The EPA is currently being forced to comply with a court order, which 
was handed down in 1993, 3 years after this Congress amended the Clean 
Air Act, which requires them to implement a Federal plan in accordance 
with the provisions of the 1977 act. I am deeply disturbed by this 
court decision, which neglects to recognize the intent of the 1990 
amendments that place the responsibility of creating such plans 
squarely on the shoulders of the States, in recognition of the need to 
be flexible.
  Additionally, the implementation of this Federal plan is to occur at 
the same time that California is working diligently to meet the 
requirements of the 1990 provisions. This makes the court's order all 
that more confusing. Why must the State of California comply with two 
versions of the same law?
  It is with this question in mind that I rise before this House today 
to make it clear to the courts, the EPA and the States, that it is the 
intent of Congress to only require a State to comply with the latest 
version of the law. If this injustice is not corrected, California, as 
well as many other States, could face economic ruin.
  The California Chamber of Commerce, for example, indicated that if 
this Federal plan is implemented it would result in the loss of a half-
million jobs and $50 billion a year in transportation and related costs 
alone. Small businesses would be especially hard-hit. I do not believe 
that any one of you, my fellow colleagues, could stand by and watch 
this happen to your State.
  Therefore, I call on my colleagues today, to join me in putting an 
end to this devastating, or potentially devastating, precedent which 
will place jobs and economic stability at risk.

                          ____________________