[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 126 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
             IN SUPPORT OF SENATE AMENDMENT 87 to H.R. 4624

                                 ______


                             HON. RON WYDEN

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 12, 1994

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to concur 
with Senate amendment 87.
  EPA's proposed reformulated gasoline rule for foreign refiners is the 
product of a back-room deal that would undercut the goals of the Clean 
Air Act and subjugate critical environmental protection to technical 
trade concerns.
  It is an example of what happens when trade policy and environmental 
policy are made in separate forums, and it is why I have worked to 
ensure that, in the future, trade agreements will be negotiated with a 
full understanding of their environmental implications.
  EPA needs to back off of this backdoor proposal. It should scrap this 
rule and start over, following an open process that complies with the 
Administrative Procedures Act, and it should develop a final rule that 
protects the domestic environment and satisfies our obligations under 
international trade agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, last December, EPA issued a so-called final reformulated 
gasoline rule that was challenged before the GATT by Venezuela. Then, 
after intercession by the State Department, EPA rewrote the rule to 
respond to Venezuela's concerns. This bizarre rulemaking process, which 
seemed designed to meet a predetermined outcome, does not seem to be in 
line with the open process called for in the Administrative Procedures 
Act.
  It is not only the process EPA used that is highly questionable but 
also the result. When EPA issued its final rule last December, it had 
good reasons for not giving foreign refiners the authority to establish 
individual baselines for imported RFG. As the EPA stated in issuing the 
final rule:

       There is a fundamental distinction between EPA's ability to 
     monitor and enforce regulatory requirements that would apply 
     against domestic as opposed to foreign refiners. Simply put, 
     domestic refiners are subject to the full panoply of EPA's 
     regulatory jurisdiction and compliance monitoring, while not 
     all foreign refiners desiring to produce reformulated and/or 
     conventional gasoline would be subject to EPA's regulatory 
     jurisdiction with equivalent certainty.

  Somehow, between December and May, when EPA reversed itself on the 
foreign refiner issue, the EPA's serious concerns managed to evaporate 
like fugitive emissions into the atmosphere.
  The EPA now seems to be unable to protect the domestic environment 
without sparking a trade challenge from Venezuela. This situation is 
exactly the kind of dilemma we will continue to face until the trade 
and environmental experts start to work together.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, EPA's arbitrary rulemaking raises serious 
questions about the validity of other U.S. environmental regulations. 
During the NAFTA and GATT debates, Members of Congress have been 
assured that U.S. environmental standards would not be struck down by 
trade challenges because our rulemaking process was science-based and 
not arbitrary. However, the reformulated gasoline rulemaking process 
was almost completely arbitrary and based not on science but on 
political pressure from the State Department and the Government of 
Venezuela.
  Mr. Speaker, starting with this reformulated gasoline rule, I want to 
know whether EPA can assure Congress that its rulemaking process is 
science-based and able to withstand future GATT challenges. Because 
from this position, it certainly looks as though a flawed process has 
produced a seriously flawed reformulated gasoline rule that will not 
only damage our domestic environment but will also hinder our future 
efforts to integrate reasonable environmental protection with measures 
to expand trade.
  If we vote to support Senate Amendment 87, we can stop this arbitrary 
fiasco in its tracks and get to the business of producing sensible 
environmental protection in a way that lives up to our GATT 
responsibilities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to concur.

                          ____________________