[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18573-S18575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AMENDING THE CLEAN AIR ACT

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 325 just received from 
the House. 

[[Page S18574]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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 traveled in ozone nonattainment areas 
     designated as severe, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, H.R. 325 is a short, simple bill that 
seeks to maintain our clean air standards while giving States greater 
flexibility in how they achieve them. It does this by removing the 
requirement that the 14 cities in 11 States with severely polluted air 
devise a program to reduce work-related travel by employees. But the 
bill reaffirms that those cities must still meet the health-based air 
quality standards contained in the Clean Air Act. Thus, these cities 
can now develop alternative methods to achieve the goal of cleaner, 
healthier air.
  This is a narrow bill that responds to a particular problem by 
granting States greater flexibility while, at the same time, 
maintaining progress toward improving our Nation's air quality. I 
support both those efforts. Over the years we have learned that clean 
air will not be ours without careful vigilance.
  There are some in Congress who would turn back the clock on our 
efforts to protect air quality. Those same people say we have gone 
overboard. That the health-based standards contained in the Clean Air 
Act are too difficult to achieve. That the time has come when we must 
relax the laws and regulations that have been responsible for improving 
our air quality.
  Well, I disagree. And the American people disagree. The Clean Air Act 
has successfully delivered on its promises. Let me cite some examples.
  In the 5 years since passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 
over half of the cities that did not then meet the air quality standard 
for urban smog now meet that standard.
  Over three-quarters of the cities that did not meet the air quality 
standard for carbon monoxide in 1990 now meet that standard.
  Emissions of toxic air pollutants have been reduced by 1.6 billion 
pounds per year, more than six times the reductions achieved in the 
first 20 years under the original Clean Air Act.
  Sulphur dioxide emissions, the principal cause of acid rain, have 
been reduced by 2.6 million tons since 1990.
  And U.S. production of chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone 
layer has been reduced by over 90 percent since 1990.
  Despite these successes, we cannot rest on them. Nearly two-thirds of 
American sampled in a poll this past summer believed that our current 
air pollution control laws are not strict enough.
  So we must not weaken our resolve to achieve clean air. Nor can we 
put the special interests of some ahead of the public interest. Where 
we can work together to develop better, more efficient and more 
effective ways of achieving our environmental goals, we should. That is 
what this bill does, and it is why I support it. But where there are 
efforts to roll back our standards, to weaken the protection of human 
health and the environment, then we must stand firm against such 
changes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to support the passage of H.R. 
325, which was received from the House of Representatives this 
afternoon. As the original Senate sponsor of this bipartisan 
legislation, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee for his support and prompt assistance in 
obtaining unanimous consent to take up and pass this measure.
  H.R. 325 repeals a costly and bureaucratic mandate, known as the 
Employee Trip Reduction Program [ETRP], which was imposed as part of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Under the law, States are 
responsible for establishing the program in regions considered to be in 
severe nonattainment for certain air pollutants. Individual employers 
in these areas must develop plans to show how their employees will curb 
automobile use. Although this program was initially viewed as a means 
of encouraging ride-sharing and mass transportation in areas with 
severe air quality problems, it has proven very complicated and 
expensive to implement.
  Some studies have set the cost of ETRP as high as $1,000 per employee 
annually, and the Environmental Protection Agency projected that it 
might cost employers $1.2 to $1.4 billion nationwide. When 
Congressional Research Service looked at this requirement, the report's 
authors estimated that ETRP would only reduce volatile organic 
compounds by 0.5 to 0.8 percent over current levels. Moreover, the 
failure to establish a plan and ensure employee compliance could expose 
businesses to fines as high as $25,000 per day.
  Although I have serious questions about whether ETRP can be 
implemented successfully, I must stress that this legislation does not 
remove the trip reduction program from the Clean Air Act entirely. 
Instead, it replaces the law's one-size-fits-all mandate with language 
making this program voluntary. In crafting this legislation, it was our 
specific goal to leave the trip reduction program in place as a tool 
for States to use in meeting their overall air quality goals. In this 
way, it would leave States the option of electing a car-pooling program 
when, and where, it will have the greatest benefits.
  The measure was further amended in the House Commerce Committee to 
make clear that states will still be responsible for achieving the 
pollution reductions allotted for the ETRP program, and I believe that 
this change will help to ensure that the environmental objectives of 
the Clean Air Act are not weakened.
  The need for this measure is clear. In the Philadelphia metropolitan 
area, the looming threat of a forced car pooling program earlier this 
year sent hundreds of employers scrambling to establish ride-sharing 
programs. For some firms in the Center City area where mass 
transportation options are prevalent, such plans could be set up 
easily. Many companies in the surrounding counties or employers with 
irregular shifts, however, found that they could not meet the law's 
requirements without taking costly and extraordinary steps to 
restructure work schedules.
  Thankfully, both the EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shelved 
plans for implementing the ETRP before the law was to take effect. 
Nevertheless, the law itself has remained in place, exposing all 
involved to the possibility of legal action to enforce its 
requirements. Twice this year, Congress has passed legislation 
containing a prohibition on enforcement of the ETRP. By passing H.R. 
325, we will achieve a small measure of common sense regulatory relief 
and finally close the books on this unnecessary mandate once and for 
all.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his support of H.R. 325, and I look 
forward to seeing this measure signed into law quickly.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, H.R. 325 makes amendments to the Clean 
Air Act to fix a provision that has not worked. The 1990 Amendments 
required each State with a severe ozone nonattainment problem to adopt 
measures that would increase vehicle occupancy rates during the rush 
hour. Businesses and other organizations employing more than 100 people 
in nine major metropolitan regions were expected to encourage 
carpooling and the use of mass transit to reduce the number of vehicles 
travleing to and from work each day.
  This provision of the 1990 Amendments was modeled on a program that 
was being implemented in Los Angeles. As more and more employers have 
relocated to the deep suburbs where mass transit is impractical and 
have built large parking facilities for their workers, metropolitan 
areas have experienced a dramatic increase in the number of cars on the 
road and the distances that commuters travel to their jobs. This 
increase in trips and miles traveled has, to some extent, offset 
dramatic gains in emissions reduction that have been achieved through 
catalytic converters and other pollution control devices on 
automobiles. The employer trip reduction program was intended to 
address this troublesome side of the air quality problem. 

[[Page S18575]]

  But evidence accumulated since the 1990 Amendments were enacted 
indicates that ridesharing programs are not a cost-effective option in 
the short-term to control air pollution. The effort necessary to 
convince commuters to get out of their cars and into carpools or buses 
or trains is quite expensive compared to other steps that would achieve 
the same emissions reductions in the short-term. It may be that over a 
very long period, a requirement like this would convince major 
employers to make locational decisions that encourage the use of 
transit and other ridesharing options. But in the short-run, the 
emissions reductions achieved do not justify the great difficulties 
that would be experienced by the States and by employers to carry out 
the trip reduction program.
  This requirement of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments has engendered 
much opposition in the legislatures of the several States that are 
subject to. EPA made it clear earlier this year that the Agency would 
not aggressively enforce the requirements. And even in Los Angeles, the 
program that served as a model for the 1990 federal program has been 
discontinued. All seem to agree that this is a measure that should not 
be mandated.
  H.R. 325 does not entirely repeal the employer trip reduction 
program. It makes it voluntary with the States. It will remain as 
potential avenue for emissions reductions for the States that choose to 
use it. And the bill does not rollback the Clean Air Act in any sense. 
All States will continue to bear an obligation to achieve healthy air 
quality by the same deadlines that are currently in the law. The bill 
makes clear that States that choose not to carry out the trip reduction 
program must find equivalent emissions reductions from other sources.
  Madam President, we have a responsibility to act quickly to fix 
Federal programs, such as this one, that have proved unworkable. So, I 
have urged that the Senate act on this bill immediately and send it to 
the President without further delay. I would note that the National 
Highway System bill that the President recently signed corrected 
problems with EPA regulations for the vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program under the Clean Air Act. Where legitimate problems 
with implementation of the Clean Air Act have been discovered, we are 
moving to correct them.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at 
the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 325) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.

                          ____________________