[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E71]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              [[Page E71]]

                          ``TIME OUT'' FOR EPA

                                 ______


                            HON. FRED UPTON

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 11, 1995
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today legislation to delay 
full implementation of the Clean Air Act by 2 years. As this program 
has unfolded, it is clear that it is generating more expense and 
disruption than was foreseen at enactment.
  Most knowledgeable Americans still support the Clean Air Act's goals 
and most are willing to accept reasonable personal sacrifice to achieve 
those goals. But, as EPA tightens the program's enforcement screws, I 
fear a public backlash that could undermine support for the program 
itself. Americans are simply in no mood for Dracoian regulatory 
programs, especially when program benefits are so difficult to 
determine.
  We have a situation in western Michigan that illustrates this point. 
A three county area generally around Grand Rapids and Muskegon is a 
nonattainment area. Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
and Michigan's Department of Natural Resources confirm that 80 to 90 
percent of the pollution measured in this nonattainment area is not 
produced locally, but drifts across Lake Michigan from the industrial 
complexes on her western shore.
  EPA is leaning hard on the State and on local agencies to take 
difficult steps to bring the area into compliance. These steps include 
a centralized or enhanced inspection and maintenance system for 
automobiles, a system that will be expensive and inconvenient. Three 
testing centers have been built in western Michigan at a cost of some 
$16 million but they have catalyzed great public outcry and their 
opening has been delayed.
  EPA has required development of regional transportation plans to 
evaluate transportation proposals to insure that traffic generated by 
those proposals won't push the region over its ozone budget. As 
described by one local official:

       We have to take into consideration all the variables, 
     including employment centers and traffic patterns, and 
     project those in place in future years. We then have to run 
     that data through the EPA's model and prove that the 
     resulting emissions are less than the base case, which is 
     1990.

  This is a significant and questionable change in the way local 
governments have operated. Under such a system, it's hard to see what 
the function of local government will be. If all decisions are driven 
by Clean Air Act considerations, what is the residual role of State and 
local agencies? Is EPA to be a national office of planning, zoning and 
development?
  The public has yet to be convinced that such heavyhanded regulation 
will achieve results worth the costs involved. In the case of enhanced 
inspection and maintenance, a 1992 study by the General Accounting 
Office found more than one in four cars that failed the initial 
emissions test subsequently passed a second emissions test even though 
no repairs were made to the vehicles.
  In areas more severely out of compliance, EPA has advocated an array 
of programs including mandatory carpooling that will have even heavier 
impact on the daily lives of working Americans. Small wonder that these 
planning, inspection, and trip reduction strictures cause many to 
wonder if job creation and economic development are even possible in 
areas under EPA's regulatory thumb. Few of the people I represent, 
viewing EPA data on the steady improvement in air quality, truly 
believe that the problem demands such solutions.
  Earlier today, I wrote to the new chairman of the Commerce 
Committee's Subcommittee on Health and the Environment urging two 
actions on him. First, I asked that he schedule informational hearings 
as soon as feasible to reexamine the Clean Air Act, the assumptions 
accepted at the time of enactment and the methods proposed for 
achieving the act's goals. Secondly, I asked him to support a 
postponement in further enforcement of the act.
  I have in mind a time out to reassess the situation and to allow 
State and local agencies additional time to determine what needs to be 
done and to do it. The bill I am introducing today simply grants a 2-
year delay in further EPA requirements and in the imposition of 
sanctions against those unable to fulfill them.
  Mr. Speaker, a clear message in November's election results is that 
Americans are weary of big, complicated and burdensome Federal 
regulatory programs. The public is not convinced that they generate 
benefits commensurate with their costs. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in assuring that the Clean Air Act's results justify its costs.


                          ____________________