[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14268-H14273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EMPLOYER TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAMS

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 325) to amend the Clean Air Act to 
provide for an optional provision for the reduction of work-related 
vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas 
designated as severe, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                H.R. 325

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP REDUCTION.

       Section 182(d)(1)(b) of the Clean Air Act is amended by to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a 
     revision at any time requiring employers in such area to 
     implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and 
     miles travelled by employees. Such revision shall be 
     developed in accordance with guidance issued by the 
     Administrator pursuant to section 108(f) and may require that 
     employers in such area increase average passenger occupancy 
     per vehicle in commuting trips between home and the workplace 
     during peak travel periods. The guidance of the Administrator 
     may specify average vehicle occupancy rates which vary for 
     locations within a nonattainment area (suburban, center city, 
     business district) or among nonattainment areas reflecting 
     existing occupancy rates and the availability of high 
     occupancy modes. The revision may require employers subject 
     to a vehicle occupancy requirement to submit a compliance 
     plan to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this 
     paragraph.''.


           Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
     out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP REDUCTION.

       Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a 
     revision at any time requiring employers in such area to 
     implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and 
     miles travelled by employees. Such revision shall be 
     developed in accordance with guidance issued by the 
     Administrator pursuant to section 108(f) and may require that 
     employers in such area increase average passenger occupancy 
     per vehicle in commuting trips between home and the workplace 
     during peak travel periods. The guidance of the Administrator 
     may specify average vehicle occupancy rates which vary for 
     locations within a nonattainment area (suburban, center city, 
     business district) or among nonattainment areas reflecting 
     existing occupancy rates and the availability of high 
     occupancy modes. Any State required to submit a revision 
     under this subparagraph (as in effect before the date of 
     enactment of this sentence) containing provisions requiring 
     employers to reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles 
     travelled by employees may, in accordance with State law, 
     remove such provisions from the implementation plan, or 
     withdraw its submission, if the State notifies the 
     Administrator, in writing, that the State has undertaken, or 
     will undertake, one or more alternative methods that will 
     achieve emission reductions equivalent to those to be 
     achieved by the removed or withdrawn provisions.''.

  Mr. BILIRAKIS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] 
will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Health and 
Environment Subcommittee and the full Commerce Committee were able to 
report H.R. 325, legislation to amend the Clean Air Act regarding the 
employer-trip-reduction program.
  Very briefly, the legislation repeals the current Federal requirement 
that 11 States and an estimated 28,000 private employers implement the 
employer-trip-reduction program. The legislation makes the employer-
trip-reduction program discretionary on the part of States, and 
provides a simple and straightforward method by which States can 
designate alternative methods to achieve equivalent emission 
reductions.
  H.R. 325 removes a Federal Clean Air Act requirement which many have 
found to be overly burdensome. The present statutory language of 
section 182(d)(1)(B) requires a specific State implementation plan, or 
``SIP'' revision, for the ETR program. It also requires compliance 
plans to be filed by private employers and requires a 25-percent 
increase in the average vehicle occupancy of vehicles driven by 
employees. All of these Federal mandates are now abolished and replaced 
with a voluntary program.
  Under the reported bill, States will decide for themselves whether 
they wish to implement employer-trip-reduction programs--known by the 
acronyms ETR or ECO--as part of their efforts to meet Federal Clean Air 
Act standards. With regard to current ETR SIP revisions which have 
already been approved or submitted to the Environmental Protection 
Agency, a formal SIP revision will not be required. Instead, States 
will be free to designate alternative efforts they have undertaken or 
will undertake to achieve equivalent emissions.
  I want to acknowledge the hard work and assistance of several Members 
with regard to this legislation. Representative Donald Manzullo 
introduced the underlying bill and assembled a list of 166 cosponsors 
from both sides of the aisle.
  Chairman Joe Barton, of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, devoted an entire hearing to the ECO program and helped 
to construct a solid committee record which underpins today's 
legislative effort. Representatives Dennis Hastert and Jim 

[[Page H14269]]
Greenwood were active participants in the oversight subcommittee 
hearings and helped to explore several issues through follow-up 
correspondence with the Environmental Protection Agency.
  I would also note that Representative Hastert offered a successful 
amendment at the full committee level which had been previously 
negotiated with ranking minority member Henry Waxman. This amendment is 
incorporated within H.R. 325 and its approval has allowed us to proceed 
in a truly bipartisan manner.
  Altogether, I believe that H.R. 325, as amended by the Commerce 
Committee, demonstrates that it is possible to alter provisions of the 
Clean Air Act without sacrificing environmental goals. We can increase 
the flexibility of the Clean Air Act and allow States more latitude in 
meeting standards imposed by the law.
  In view of our success with respect to H.R. 325, I also believe it is 
unfortunate that the present administration has consistently opposed 
any and all amendments to the Clean Air Act--no matter how necessary or 
how justified. This position is simply illogical and untenable. 
Congress has the inherent duty to fix misguided or ineffective 
legislation.
  I hope that the success of this legislative effort will help to 
promote a reconsideration of this position and I look forward to 
working with my House colleagues to make further improvements and 
refinements to the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in 
discussing this legislation and urging my colleagues to vote for the 
bill.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] for 
this legislation. It would permit the States at their discretion to 
choose some other alternative manner to achieve their emissions 
reductions than the car pooling or the ECO arrangement as spelled out 
in the existing Clean Air Act.
  The bill is emissions neutral. It requires States that opt-out of the 
ECO program to make up the emission reductions from other sources.
  The administration, to my knowledge, has expressed no opposition to 
this legislation. I would urge the President to sign the bill. I think 
it is a helpful piece of legislation in clarifying and correcting a 
problem that has come into some controversy in some of the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that, even with this bill, many areas will 
retain the ECO programs, and for good reason.
  We knew in 1990 that the increases in the number of vehicles on the 
Nation's roads and the increases in the distances-that these vehicles 
travel could cancel much of the gain we would expect from the cleaner 
cars and cleaner fuels mandated by the Clean Air Act. Between 1970 and 
1990, the number of vehicle miles traveled in this country doubled. 
Both total miles and trips per day continue to grow at a rate faster 
than the population or the economy. If we hold to these present growth 
rates, automobile-related emissions, currently down due to the tough 
tail-pipe standards and clean fuel programs of the 1990 Act, and will 
start to climb within the next 10 years. And the clean air gains we 
have made will be put in jeopardy.
  It should also be emphasized that while this bill allows States the 
flexibility to implement alternative measures, States can retain their 
ECO programs. Indeed, I fully expect that many of these programs will 
be retained. A well-designed and well-run ECO program can provide not 
only emissions reductions, it can reduce traffic congestion, provide 
employees with more commuting options, and encourage employer 
participation in regional transportation planning.
  And some employers report more than these successes, they report 
improved bottom lines. For instance, a California company was able to 
avoid building a $1 million parking garage due to its trip reduction 
measures. A Connecticut employer found that sales staff staying later 
in the day as part of their compressed work week increased West Coast 
sales. Clearly both employers and the breathing public can benefit from 
these programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the 
bill.
  I want to reserve the balance of our time on this side of the aisle 
so that other Members, should they wish to speak on the matter, will 
have an opportunity and that we can further the debate should there be 
any issues that need to be clarified.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], the originator of this legislation.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act mandates that in the 14 
population centers across the Nation, States require companies with 100 
or more employees to reduce the number of automobile work-related trips 
to and from work. The EPA estimates the number of people impacted to be 
between 11 and 12 million and that the cost of this would be somewhere 
between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion annually. The number of affected 
businesses ranges in the area of 30,000.
  This past January, an Assistant Administrator from the EPA stated 
that car pooling simply does not work under all circumstances. In fact, 
the exact words are, ``The air emission reductions from these programs 
are minuscule, so there is not any reason for the EPA to be forcing 
people to do them from an air quality perspective. We are not going to 
double check those plans. We are not going to verify them. We are not 
going to enforce them.''
  Our bill, H.R. 325, as amended, is a simple commonsense bill that 
will not change the goals or standards of the Clean Air Act. They will 
not change the deadlines set up in the act. It simply lets the States 
decide if they want to use trip reduction in their menu of options for 
cleaning the air. Thus, it makes this mandate now voluntary.
  Working with distinguished Members and staff of the Committee on 
Commerce, particularly Bob Meyers and Charles Ingebretson, and my 
colleague from Los Angeles, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], 
Phil Barnett and Phil Schiliro of the staff, we were able to come up 
with a clarifying amendment that stipulates the emissions reductions 
committed to in the State implementation plans for trip reduction will 
be made up in some other fashion.
  Where the original bill is implicit, the amended version is now 
explicit that the emissions will be made up. But, and this is very 
important, the emissions will not need to be equivalent to those that 
would have been achieved under a full-scale compliance with the current 
law. Simply, the State must account for those emissions actually set 
apart for trip reduction purposes.

                              {time}  1515

  In other words, a State may offer any plan that is outside what is 
required under current law. If a State would have only accomplished 
removing 2 tons of emissions per day utilizing the current employer 
trip reduction mandate, a State, with a mandatory--required--program 
stipulating 15 tons of emission removal per day, may add 2 tons per day 
to that same activity because anything over and above the mandatory 
requirement is, by definition, nonmandatory. That basically means that 
identified reduction may make up for those emissions that go over and 
above the requirements of the law.
  Is that the way the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] 
understands it?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that this is my 
understanding of the amended bill and certainly the intent of it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Two years ago I was approached by several business owners in McHenry 
County, IL, in the congressional district I represent. Jim Allen, Vince 
Foglia of Dan McMullen Local Leaders, took their time to educate me 
about this mandate started in the last Congress. Dan McMullen traveled 
to Washington to testify before our Committee on Small Business 
Subcommittee on Procurement, Exports, and Business Opportunities. He 
also testified before a field hearing which the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Poshard] chaired in Crystal Lake, IL. The people such as the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Bilirakis], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] are also 
dramatically responsible for this bill.
  Businesses in Illinois will spend between $200 million and $210 
million if this mandate had been allowed to exist. 

[[Page H14270]]
But today this shows that, working together, we can maintain the high 
standards of clean air to which we all ascribe while at the same time 
giving the States maximum flexibility in order to reach those clean air 
standards.
  Many Governors such as Illinois Governor Jim Edgar have been critical 
of this mandate and issued moratoriums on the mandate. California 
recently enacted two laws essentially eliminating the trip reduction 
mandate from State law. Some States, such as New York, have been 
enforcing the law by travel to Westchester County, NY, to speak about 
this with our good colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Kelly]. There are some very real problems in that State as a result of 
the enforcement of this inflexible law.
  I want to close by saying that I am extremely happy and encouraged to 
know that this body can come together in a bipartisan basis to reach 
accommodation on this issue. This is a commonsense solution that 
everybody can support. I deeply appreciate the efforts of all involved 
and, Mr. Speaker, this also goes to show something else, that when 
parties recognize a problem, and cross over philosophical and party 
lines and sit down and work very, very hard; many times into the late 
evening I recall at one meeting when Bob Myers and I met at midnight in 
order to make sure this language is correct, that we can achieve a 
consensus and move forward on passing legislation through the House of 
Representatives, and I especially want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], for his graciousness and his 
tenacity in trying to work with me in steering this through the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. At first I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] for moving this bill so quickly through committee. I would also 
like to compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], my good 
friend, for his good-faith efforts in working with us to perfect and 
draft perfecting language to the bill. Also my good neighbor to the 
north, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], has helped, and we 
worked on this bill through finding out from our employers, people who 
employ over 100 folks in their places, high schools, school districts, 
that they, quite frankly, could not make this thing work, and it was 
going to cost a lot of money, and it did not do what it was supposed to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today deal with the Clean Air Act, 
an act I voted for in 1990. I believe in the underlying intent of the 
Clean Air Act--to clean up the air we breathe, and maintain high air 
quality. Those are worthy goals and I am fully committed to them.
  However, the Clean Air Act, although well-intentioned is not perfect. 
After 4 years of implementation, we know that one particular provision 
of the act is not working. That provision is commonly referred to as 
ECO--it is the forced carpooling program. Under this provision, States 
with severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas must implement a 
program which forces workers to carpool. There is no flexibility in 
this mandate. The way it is written on the books, it is simply 
unworkable, and it is contributing no significant improvements to air 
quality.
  The USEPA has determined that while the forced carpooling program 
will cost billions of dollars to implement, it produces only minuscule 
air quality improvements. After that recognition, USEPA indicated its 
intent not to enforce the forced carpooling program against individual 
employers.
  Further, the States have given up trying to implement this flawed 
program. In Illinois, after months of making a good-faith effort to 
implement this program, our Governor finally gave up and told our 
employers last March that he will not enforce the forced carpooling 
program in Illinois. He made that decision after it became clear that 
Illinois businesses alone would be spending $210 million a year to 
implement a program which was not working. It was not working because 
Americans do not want to be told they cannot use their own cars to come 
in early, or to stay late, or to drop their daughter off at preschool 
on their way to work.
  The program has failed nationwide. Several other Governors and State 
legislatures have joined Illinois' Governor in deciding not to enforce 
the forced carpooling program.
  But State action and EPA intent can only provide partial relief from 
this mandate.
  One of the things I thought was very, very showing in this piece of 
legislation:
  If my colleagues had a small business on the edge of an urban area, 
suburban area, and they drew their employees from rural areas, they had 
to decrease their carpooling and riding from 25 percent, 
notwithstanding those people did not have mass transportation, there is 
no way to get in to work. It is a program that just did not work, but 
yet, if my colleagues were in a high school, and they had 1,000 kids in 
the high school and 100 teachers, the teachers would have to carpool or 
find another way to work, but yet every kid could drive. It just did 
not make sense, it did not work, and this a good piece of legislation 
to change what does not work.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 325, and 
I encourage every Member of the House to support this important 
bipartisan legislation.
  The hearings conducted by the House Commerce Committee's Oversight 
and Investigations Subcommittee, on which I serve, provided us with an 
important opportunity to identify provisions in the Clean Air Act which 
were imposing undue hardship and economic costs on the States, 
businesses, and individual motorists. There was universal agreement 
that the Employer Trip Reduction [ETR] Program was overly prescriptive 
and of questionable value in terms of improving overall air quality.
  The Employer Trip Reduction Program requires all employers with 100 
or more employees in severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas to 
reduce work-related vehicle travel by 25 percent.
  The Employer Trip Reduction Program is based on the theory that a 
reduction in the number of employee trips to and from work would result 
in reduced air emissions from mobile sources. It was assumed by the 
authors that this reduction in air emissions would, in turn, assist the 
Nation's most polluted areas in complying with national ambient air 
quality standards. If these assumptions proved to be true, I would 
oppose this legislation to repeal the program.
  But witness after witness, some of whom have done extensive computer 
modeling, have made compelling arguments that it is nearly impossible 
to devise plans which meet the required reductions. Furthermore, EPA's 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Mary Nichols, has stated 
that the air quality benefits from this program are ``minuscule.''
  In my district, companies have struggled for years and spent millions 
of dollars to develop plans to comply with the ill-conceived Employer 
Trip Reduction Program. Nationally, this program has a net social cost 
of $1.2 to $1.4 billion a year. And for this enormous sum of money, the 
program would only provide marginal environmental benefits, while 
imposing real hardships on both employees and employers.
  June Barry, vice president of human resources at Betz Laboratories in 
Trevose, PA, located in my Congressional district, testified in March 
that:

       Many of our work force are members of dual career families. 
     A significant percentage of our work force goes to school at 
     night to pursue graduate education and undergraduate degrees. 
     Are we responsible in emergency situations dealing with child 
     care and elder care and education and the variety of other 
     problems that people encounter to get the employee to their 
     family when car pools don't work? Since our business is 
     worldwide, the majority of the professional work force cannot 
     leave at a preappointed time, mainly due to customer calls 
     and servicing the customer. What does forcing people into car 
     pools really mean? It mans that regardless of whether you 
     have a family obligation, church obligation, night school or 
     a 

[[Page H14271]]
     variety of other things that you do to and from work, the Federal 
     Government is going to tell you when you can go to work and 
     when you can leave; that you have to hop into a van pool or a 
     car pool despite your individual needs or obligations * * *.

  H.R. 325 makes the ETR program a voluntary program. The States would 
still have the option of implementing such a program, but this bill 
would give them the power to develop programs that best meet the needs 
of their residents.
  I commend Chairmen Bliley, Bilirakis, and Barton, as well as 
Congressmen Manzullo and Waxman for their efforts, and encourage my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Bilirakis] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 325. I am an original 
cosponsor of this bill which makes the employee commute options or the 
echo provisions of the Clean Air Act voluntary. H.R. 325 would amend 
the Clean Air Act which requires States and companies in areas where 
pollutant levels are designated severe to reduce work-related trips by 
25 percent. The Chicago area has been classified by the EPA as an area 
of severe ozone nonattainment as formulated under the Clean Air Act, 
although the accuracy, I think, of this particular classification is in 
question. The echo provisions would have forced employees and employers 
to limit the amount of trips made by employees, a costly and unproven 
remedy for the ozone problems. A recent congressional research study 
estimates that nationwide the echo efforts have cost $1.2 billion per 
year, and yet the annual reductions in emissions attributable to these 
programs have been less than 1 percent.
  The legislation, as approved by the House Committee on Commerce 
includes an amendment which requires States who choose not to 
participate in the ECO program, to submit in writing to the 
Environmental Protection Agency alternative methods it will use to 
achieve emission reductions that are equivalent to those in the trip-
reduction program. In this way, the bill allows maximum flexibility for 
the States, without compromising air quality.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Manzullo] for his tenacity and his leadership on this issue. I have 
been an active participant in a coalition of business groups, other 
Members of Congress, Governors, and interested parties who studied this 
problem from the beginning to find a workable solution. I am pleased to 
see the House consideration of this bill, a perfect candidate for 
corrections day. I strongly support H.R. 325, and urge a ``yea'' vote 
on this legislation.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox].

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, as well, in strong support of H.R. 325. I too am 
an original cosponsor, and as vice chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, we have had 
12 hearings on the Clean Air Act, and we have heard repeatedly 
testimony in support of this commonsense reform and opposed to 
continuing this unfunded and ineffective mandate.
  We ought to call H.R. 325 the Victory for Common Sense Act, because 
the truth is it relies on our native common sense. The ability to 
reason, to learn from experience, is what distinguishes human beings 
from other life forms. If you are doing the same thing over and over 
again, and you continue to get no results but you continue to waste 
money in the process, it is time to learn from that experience. It is 
time to stop and do things a better, a different, another way.
  That is what we are setting out to do here today. It is not just the 
waste of money, yielding no results for businesses that we are worried 
about. It is the waste of money for our schools, for almost everyone 
whose employees drive to work.
  Listen to some of the comments that we have received from school 
districts in southern California. The Tustin Unified School District 
was forced to spend $73,000 for their ride-sharing plan for teachers 
that did not work.
  Another school district wrote: ``The mandatory trip reduction plan 
has been very costly to us. It has diverted already scarce funds away 
from the education of children, from classroom use,'' to support a 
program that does not work.
  The Capistrano Unified School District said: ``The additional 
financial hardships we are facing make this mandated program extremely 
detrimental to meet the educational needs of the children in our 
districts.''
  McDonnell Douglas, a big employer of the kind that we have been 
hearing about on the floor today, tried in earnest to get this Federal 
mandate to work. They spent millions of dollars training employee 
coordinators, providing direct financial incentives to workers so they 
would car pool. They bought bicycles. They built showers and locker 
rooms so employees could bike, run, or walk to work. None of this, even 
hosting ride-share events, made even a dent in the average vehicle 
occupancy rate of their employees.
  Today we are saying enough; enough to the vast expense that in 
California, under our similar program, was costing $200 million a year. 
Let us spend this money on the education of students. Let us spend it 
on employee wages. Let us spend it on other efforts to clean up our air 
that really work.
  I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Bilirakis], and the other Members who have brought this legislation to 
the floor. I look forward to a swift vote on passage.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] has done a very good job of correcting one of 
the problems we have seen in the Clean Air Act. My experience in 
reviewing various Clean Air Act regulations stems from my work with 
Vice President Quayle's Competitiveness Council, and then as a Member 
of Congress looking at that act and saying, do the regulations that are 
required there make sense; do they use common sense in trying to reach 
a goal that we all share of having cleaner air in this country?
  This regulation, the trip reduction mandate, or what I think of as 
mandatory carpooling, does not make sense on that commonsense basis. It 
is extremely costly, anywhere from $1.2 to $1.6 billion to implement, 
and provides very little benefits in terms of cleaner air for some of 
the country's areas where we have the most difficulty with air 
pollution.
  I think there are a lot of alternative approaches that have been 
thought about by the agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, by 
citizens working on this area. One of the most creative ones is a 
project that we worked with at the Competitiveness Council called Cash 
for Klunkers, where the studies showed that older cars actually 
produced a vast, disproportionate amount of the air pollution in our 
cities, and if we could pay a bonus for taking those older cars off of 
our freeways, we could go a lot further in reaching the goal of cleaner 
air.
  Those innovative ideas, frankly, are not possible if we have to 
devote an enormous amount of our resources in meeting this regulation 
that provides very little benefit for the environment. I commend the 
chairman of the committee on his work for this corrections bills. I 
commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] for his work in 
taking the leadership in introducing the bill, and I want to urge my 
colleagues in the House to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 325.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Health and Environment 
Subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Waxman, for bringing H.R. 325 to 
the floor today.
  This legislation gives greater reign to local authorities in 
determining how best to meet pollution standards. H.R. 325, a balance 
has 

[[Page H14272]]
been struck between providing greater flexibility while maintaining the 
commitment to achieving the federal goals.
  If the author of H.R. 325, Mr. Manzullo of Illinois, had come to the 
floor with a bill that provided flexibility to States but eliminated 
the Federal standards of performance, there would not be the bipartisan 
support you see today.
  There is a consensus across America that the days of polluted skies 
should be no more. There is a recognition by citizens across America 
that what occurs in one State impacts the quality of life in another 
State.
  I am puzzled that in other areas of Federal policy where a national 
consensus is as strong, the new Majority has taken a different 
approach. I believe we can learn something from the approach taken in 
H.R. 325 and carry it to other areas of vital importance to Americans.
  I'd like to take just a couple of minutes to do just that--highlight 
how the example of H.R. 325 can be instructive for legislating in other 
areas of vital importance to Americans.
  The Republican plan for Medicaid provides the greatest contrast in 
approach to H.R. 325. Flexibility for States abounds. Standards are 
absent. Rather than maintain the Federal guarantee for Americans of 
very modest means to a set of health care benefits, under the guise of 
State flexibility Republicans remove any semblance of accountability.
  Republicans intend to send checks to the States totaling $790 billion 
over the next 7 years with little-to-no requirements on how States must 
perform. This is in contrast to the structure of H.R. 325 which 
provides flexibility but maintains standards of performance.
  For $790 billion in taxpayer money, it would seem reasonable to 
require States to guarantee health insurance coverage to low-income 
Americans.
  Does the Republican Medicaid plan guarantee that all kids that live 
in poverty have comprehensive health insurance coverage? No. Does the 
Republican Medicaid plan guarantee that the Medicare Part B premiums of 
low-income senior citizens are paid? No. Does the Republican Medicaid 
plan guarantee a nursing home bed to those who are entitled today? No. 
Does the Republican Medicaid plan continue the guarantee of coverage 
for Medicare-related copayments and deductibles for poor seniors? No. 
Does the Republican Medicaid plan require States to provide even just 
one person a comprehensive package of health insurance benefits, 
something equivalent to what they as Members of Congress receive? No.
  Why not apply the model of H.R. 325? Why not hold States accountable? 
Why shouldn't we guarantee American taxpayers that their taxes will be 
spent as promised?
  H.R. 325 requires that an equivalent level of emission reductions be 
achieved. The Republican Medicaid plan does not require an equivalency 
of performance. This difference in standards is not trivial.
  The Urban Institute predicts that 4 to 9 million Americans will lose 
health insurance coverage because of the Republican Medicaid plan. 
Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumers Reports, has estimated 
that 395,000 nursing home residents are likely to lose Medicaid payment 
for their care next year if the Republican Medicaid plan is approved. 
The Council on the Economic Impact of Health Care Reform--a panel of 
respected health economists--found that that the uninsured rolls will 
soar to over 66 million Americans, or one-in-four Americans, under the 
Republican plans. This is a 70-percent increase in the number of 
uninsured Americans over today's level.
  H.R. 325 extends flexibility in meeting national goals; it does not 
eliminate them. Likewise, flexibility for States in meeting the health 
care needs of low-income Americans should not be used as a cover to 
shred the national commitment to a health care safety net.
  While the guarantee to coverage is explicitly eliminated under the 
Republican Medicaid bill, I'd argue that the spending for Medicaid 
isn't enough to meet the national commitment either.
  I believe that a per person growth rate of under 2 percent isn't 
wise. It's rationing. Members of Congress would never inflict that type 
of constraints on their own health care spending. In fact they don't. 
Under the Republican budget, taxpayer spending for their health 
insurance will increase right along with health care inflation.
  But whatever the amount of health care spending, we should hold 
States accountable for how they spend the money we give them. As with 
H.R. 325, there must be accountability.
  The balance struck in H.R. 325 between providing broader flexibility 
to States at the same time requiring that national goals be met should 
apply to other initiatives as well, like Medicaid. If Republicans tried 
this approach, they might find themselves with the support of 
Congressional Democrats. And instead of having their Medicaid bill 
vetoed, they'd have the support of President Clinton.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, today is a chance for the House to loosen 
one knot in the woven, tangled mess called the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990. The employee trip reduction plan for implementation is a 
costly and confusing mandate that only benefits the argument for 
regulatory reform and cost/benefit analysis.
  Of course I support efforts to reduce pollution, as do the employers 
and employees of my district. But what I cannot support is an 
inflexible, ineffective and impractical requirement such as the 
employee trip reduction plan. It makes no sense to demand compliance 
with a plan that promises less than a 1-percent reduction in emissions, 
and guarantees a much larger increase in headaches.
  In a city the geographical size of Houston, it is naive to assume 
public transportation and carpooling are the most practical options for 
reducing auto emissions. I have heard hundreds of complaints from my 
constituents who must face a disruption of their work routines and 
compromise the quality of their private lives to comply with this 
impotent regulation. H.R. 325 will give States the chance to create 
programs that suit their communities and still achieve air quality 
standards.
  There are smarter ways for us to reach a common goal of cleaner air. 
It is imperative, though, that each State decide what is most practical 
and more importantly, most effective.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 325 
for a number of reasons. But before, I elaborate on them, let me 
congratulate my Illinois colleague, Mr. Manzullo, on introducing this 
bill and for the determined efforts he has made on its behalf. Also, I 
wish to express my appreciation to the members of the Commerce 
Committee, and its Health and Environment Subcommittee in particular, 
for making today's consideration of H.R. 325 possible.
  This is a measure whose time has long since come. However well 
intentioned, the employee commute reduction program, better known as 
the ECO Program, would do more harm than good. Based on prior analysis 
and experience, about the best that could be expected from such an 
approach is a 2-3 percent reduction in auto emissions, with 1 percent 
being a more likely figure. Not only that, but the cost of effecting 
such a minimal reduction in air pollution is very high. In the Chicago 
area, for instance, it has been estimated that implementation of the 
ECO Program would cost more than $200 million annually. For all 11 
severe ozone nonattainment areas nationwide, the cost of implementing 
ECO has been pegged at $1.2-$1.4 billion a year by the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  If money grew on trees or materialized out of thin air, it might be 
possible to overlook such financial considerations. But when a severe 
nonattainment area such as Chicago has to reduce its ozone levels by 65 
percent, it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify investing so 
heavily in an effort that will achieve such a small fraction of that 
amount. Not only that, but the imposition of such costs of employers--
an unfunded mandate if there ever was one--could prompt them to 
relocate to other areas of the country. In that event, some Chicago 
area workers could find themselves out of more than just a parking 
place at work; they could be out of job as well.
  Nor is that all that would be lost. Gone are the days when, in most 
American families, one parent stayed at home and was in a position to 
handle any child care or other emergencies that might arise during the 
course of the work day. Now we live in an era when working parents need 
to be able to get home quickly should any of their children get sick or 
run into trouble at school or at the neighborhood child care center. 
Federally mandated carpooling not only deprives them of that capability 
but it leaves them at risk if their job requires overtime and/or 
unexpected evening work. Finally, the investment of time and effort 
into arranging carpools or other commuting alternatives could be better 
directed towards pollution reduction programs having far greater 
potential for bringing about the desired improvements in air quality.
  However, all is not lost. By adopting the bill before us today, we 
can move away from the Federal Government telling people in certain 
areas how they should get to and from work and focus instead on the 
most effective means of reducing ozone levels and achieving compliance 
with existing air quality standards.
  As reported by the Commerce Committee, H.R. 325 would enable us to do 
just that. If enacted into law, this measure would allow States having 
severe ozone nonattainment areas to determine for themselves whether to 
undertake an ECO program. However, a State deciding against the ECO 
approach would be obliged to identify and implement alternatives that 
would be at least as effective in reducing emissions. In short, States 
will be given more freedom to carry out their air pollution control 
responsibilities. But that does not mean that they will have any less 
of an obligation to comply with the standards and deadlines established 
by the Clean Air Act. 

[[Page H14273]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 325 is a good, commonsense bill which is not just 
timely but long overdue. I urge my colleagues to give it their support.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 325, 
legislation to make optional the Employee Commute Option [ECO] trip 
reduction program.
  The dilemma facing Zierick Manufacturing Corp. is possibly the best 
reason why we should pass H.R. 325.
  Zierick Manufacturing Corp. is a small manufacturer of electronic 
connectors and assembly equipment located in Mount Kisco in northern 
Westchester County, NY. With over 120 employees, they are faced with 
the impossible task of complying with the Employee Commute Options 
program.
  Part of the problem is the limited availability of public 
transportation. In addition, the train station and the nearest bus stop 
are over a mile from the factory. If the employee took a cab from the 
station to the factory, under the regulations developed by New York 
State to comply with this Federal mandate, the 1-mile cab ride would be 
counted as if the employee drove the entire distance from home. In 
other words, the employee could ride a train for 50 miles, but the cab 
ride from the train station would be the mode of travel counted under 
the formula used to calculate employee trips.
  Ridesharing opportunities are limited in Mount Kisco, and since 
Zierick employees are spread out over 12 counties in 3 States, carpools 
are difficult to form. Zierick is a manufacturing facility, so 
telecommuting is not an option.
  Zierick Manufacturing is clearly faced with a set of circumstances 
which prevent it from complying with the law, and yet the regulations 
allow for no flexibility in these situations. As a result, the company 
presently faces fines of $43,800 per year.
  Ms. Gretchen Zierick, the company's corporate secretary, has 
indicated that their plans for future growth will be directly affected 
by this legislation.
  Mr. Harold Vogt, the chairman and CEO of the Westchester County 
Chamber of Commerce, wrote to me recently and put this issue into 
perspective:

       In the last five years, Westchester County has suffered 
     enough as we've seen 40,000 jobs leave our county. The 
     Employee Trip Reduction/Employee Commute Option Mandate gives 
     businesses just one more reason to look elsewhere when making 
     plans to grow. Similarly, businesses looking to relocate to 
     our county may well think twice about moving here. We cannot 
     afford any more disincentives to reviving Westchester's 
     economy. We need relief from this costly and inefficient 
     mandate.

  Mr. Chairman, our support for H.R. 325 will send Zierick 
Manufacturing in Westchester County and the approximately 28,000 other 
employers around the country affected by the ECO mandate a clear 
message that we care about their future, and we care about creating 
jobs. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________