[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10779-H10783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2988), to amend the Clean Air Act to 
provide that traffic signal synchronization projects are exempt from 
certain requirements of Environmental Protection Agency rules.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2988

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

     SECTION. 1. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS.

       Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding 
     the following at the end thereof:
       ``(D) Traffic signal synchronization projects shall be 
     exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements and from 
     requirements under rules of the Administrator for determining 
     the conformity to State or Federal implementation plans of 
     transportation plans, programs, and projects funded or 
     approved under title 23 of the United States Code or the 
     Federal Transit Act.''.


           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. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS.

       Section 176(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(4)) of the Clean Air 
     Act is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(D) Compliance with the rules of the Administrator for 
     determining the conformity of transportation plans, programs, 
     and projects funded or approved under title 23 of the United 
     States Code or the Federal Transit Act to State or Federal 
     implementation plans shall not be required for traffic signal 
     synchronization projects prior to the funding, approval or 
     implementation of such projects. The supporting regional 
     emissions analysis for any conformity determination made with 
     respect to a transportation plan, program, or project shall 
     consider the effect on emissions of any such project funded, 
     approved, or implemented prior to the conformity 
     determination.''.

  Mr. SCHAEFER (during the reading). Madam 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] 
will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2988 was introduced by the 
gentleman from California, Congressman McKeon, and has been endorsed by 
the Bipartisan Speaker's Advisory Group on Corrections. It has the 
support of both the majority and minority of the House Commerce 
Committee, and was passed out of the committee on a voice vote.
  I would like to thank Mr. McKeon for bringing this issue to the 
committee's attention, as well as the Speaker's Advisory Group and the 
minority for its work on this issue.
  The issue that H.R. 2988 seeks to address is narrow, but nonetheless 
important. Currently, EPA requires that nearly all transportation 
projects be reviewed to determine if they ``conform'' to the State's 
implementation plan for compliance with the Clean Air Act. This 
includes traffic synchronization projects, even though most, if not 
all, synchronization projects lower vehicle emissions. By requiring 
that these projects be reviewed before they can be implemented, some 
projects may be delayed by a year or more, resulting in an increase in 
vehicle emissions.
  H.R. 2988 would allow synchronization projects to proceed as soon as 
they are approved and funded, before conformity determinations are 
made. Nothing in this bill, however, would relieve a jurisdiction from 
its responsibility to conduct a regional emissions analysis at a later 
date, if one is deemed necessary by EPA.
  H.R. 2988 will streamline the approval process for traffic 
synchronization projects and act to speed up

[[Page H10780]]

these projects. I urge the passage of this bill, which will decrease 
motorist frustration, as well as vehicle emissions.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and I want to commend 
my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for bringing 
this issue to us.
  It came first to the Corrections Day Advisory Committee because this 
really is a genuine proposal to correct an anomaly in the law. That 
anomaly is if the local governments want to synchronize the signals so 
that passengers do not have to stop every block or so, there seems to 
be a question of whether they might be in violation of the clean air 
law.
  We discussed this in the context of how to make the proposal work and 
not have unintended consequences, as far as we knew anyway, and I think 
we have a good proposal. It reflects a compromise that we developed 
with the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], and I thank him for 
bringing this matter to our attention.
  This bill will allow communities to synchronize their traffic lights 
without needless delay.
  Under the Clean Air Act, before a transportation project can go 
forward the project must be determined to be in conformity with State 
or Federal implementation plans.
  Because many jurisdictions make conformity determinations only once a 
year, projects can be delayed while awaiting a conformity 
determination.
  This bill will allow traffic light synchronization projects to go 
forward without first undergoing a conformity determination.
  Then the project's effects on air pollution can be fully considered 
when the next conformity determinations are made.
  This is a narrow but important issue, and it is notable as well for 
the process with which it was crafted.
  Representative McKeon first brought this bill before the Corrections 
Day Advisory Group this spring. We engaged in collegial discussions and 
have been able to craft a bill that works toward the goals of the Clean 
Air Act, but gives local governments the flexibility they feel they 
need.
  In my view, this is a model way to protect and improve our 
environmental laws. Earlier in this Congress, some proposed wholesale 
repeals of even our most successful environmental laws--all in the name 
of increasing flexibility.
  This bill is an example of how we can address desires for flexibility 
while maintaining the integrity of our environmental laws.
  This marks the second time we have amended the Clean Air Act through 
the corrections process. Earlier this year, we passed a bill which gave 
States greater flexibility in implementing the Clean Air Act's employee 
trip reduction requirements. That bill has now become law. This bill 
should become law as well.
  I urge your support for H.R. 2988 and again want to recognize 
Representative McKeon for his outstanding efforts on this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding 
me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 2988, which 
corrects a regulation in the Clean Air Act that unnecessarily delays 
the implementation of traffic signal synchronization projects.
  This issue was brought to my attention last year by the city of 
Lancaster, CA, which is in my congressional district. The city had 
proposed a straightforward traffic signal synchronization project that 
would improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in the community. The 
city had hoped to implement this project in a timely manner. However, 
because of an EPA rule governing the implementation of these projects 
in air quality nonattainment areas, a regional emissions analysis of 
the project was required. The city became frustrated when it learned 
that it could take more than a year for the responsible local agency to 
perform the required analysis, and contacted my office for assistance.
  As written, H.R. 2988 would allow synchronization projects to be 
implemented before undergoing a regional emissions analysis to 
determine whether the project conforms to a State or Federal air 
quality implementation plan. The signal synchronization project would 
still be subject to the traditional review process that exists for 
determining the air quality implications of the project. This is a 
fair, nonpartisan bill that deserves our support, and I would like to 
thank my friends from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, the gentleman from 
Colorado, Chairman Schaefer, and my friend from California, Mr. Waxman, 
for their support in moving this legislation forward. I especially want 
to note that when I discussed this legislation with the correction's 
day task force earlier this year, Mr. Waxman volunteered his help in 
addressing this issue, and I have valued his involvement in bringing 
this bill before us today.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I have never liked this corrections day procedure. I 
think it is very much contrary to the spirit of legislating, creating a 
whole new category of majority, and because my concern at the very 
outset was that these issues would not likely be given substantial 
consideration in committees.
  Today we have an example of an issue that was not given the benefit 
of public hearings, either in the Committee on Commerce or in the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  I do not disagree with the intent of the proponents of this 
legislation, but it does raise very significant policy issues that at 
least ought to have been aired in the committee process.
  The legislation would create an entirely new type of exemption to the 
Clean Air Act's conformity requirements. That is cause in itself to 
have hearings and to air this issue so the public can have input and so 
Members of Congress who have concerns about the policy could have at 
least the opportunity to debate the issue in the committee structure.
  Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is proceeding on 
streamlining its transportation conformity rule, and specifically is 
reviewing this issue of signalization in the course of rulemaking. That 
public process of rulemaking should be allowed to proceed prior to any 
legislative action being taken by the Congress, especially on a bill on 
which hearings have not been held.
  There is a jurisdictional concern for me, and that is the issues 
raised within the bill are clearly within the ambit of the congestion, 
mitigation and air quality provisions of ISTEA, Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Therefore, they are within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to 
whom the bill was not even referred.
  The bill affects the ability of States and localities to use Federal 
transportation funds in nonattainment areas. A change of that 
significance ought to be reviewed by the committee with generic 
jurisdiction over transportation.
  In addition, the bill specifically amends section 176 of the Clean 
Air Act. In 1990, when the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, as it was then known, undertook consideration of ISTEA, 
we very clearly and extensively looked at the impact on clean air 
requirements of congestion in urbanized areas. We specifically amended 
section 176, and the Speaker of the House appointed Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure members as conferees on this section 
during consideration of ISTEA.

                              {time}  1300

  The bill is properly within the jurisdiction of our committee.
  Under EPA's rules, transportation projects that have a neutral or a 
very small impact on air quality are exempt from conformity 
determinations, those determination which cover a project's

[[Page H10781]]

impact on a region's air quality. So when a community constructs bike 
and pedestrian paths or purchases new buses, it may use Federal 
transportation dollars to fund the project without showing the air 
quality effects, in this case benefits, or alternative transportation 
projects.
  Under current rules, traffic signalization projects which are not 
regionally significant may be funded without a new regional emissions 
analysis but region-wide traffic signalization and synchronization 
projects that affect hundreds of intersections are not exempt from the 
Clean Air Act's conformity determination. Those projects are likely to 
affect traffic on a regional level, and the impacts may be positive; 
they may be negative, depending on the pollutant involved and the 
speeds on the roads and the impact of traffic flow at the regional 
level.
  Improved traffic flow and increases in traffic speed may reduce 
carbon monoxide emissions. They may also increase nitrogen oxide 
emissions in certain speed ranges; particulate matter, PM-10. Those 
emissions may also increase under certain conditions. These pollutant 
effects, together with the affected projects, are best considered as 
part of a community's conformity plan.
  Under this legislation, region-wide traffic signal synchronization 
projects are prospectively exempted from the Clean Air Act's required 
conformity determination. So States and localities can use Federal 
funds to adopt region-wide synchronization projects without considering 
the Clean Air Act effects of the projects before they undertake them. 
Subsequently States and localities will look back at the effects of 
these projects in their next conformity determination.
  So the bill creates an entirely new category of exemption: projects 
not required to show conformity with air quality controls prior to 
funding, but projects that have to look back to see what good or harm 
they did after they have been done. Now, that is an inherent conflict, 
and it should have been aired, should have been extensively discussed, 
and it was not, unfortunately.
  So I just do not think in the waning hours of the Congress we should 
pass something so hastily, albeit in response to a wide range of 
concern. I do not question at all the concerns based on real 
circumstances, but their is another forum, the rulemaking process in 
which this should be considered. There is another forum, the committee 
hearing process, in which this should be considered.
  We should have taken this matter up in our committee against the 
backdrop of 2 years of hearings prior to enactment of ISTEA, against 
the backdrop of regional transportation institutes that are studying 
and developing synchronization projects under scientific conditions, 
and given this a full, thorough in-depth consideration. That is what 
troubles me about this process. That is why I oppose the legislation 
and urge Members to oppose the bill.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, this bill, which amends the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990, would allow States to avoid delay and implement traffic signal 
synchronization projects prior to demonstrating that such projects are 
in conformity with State and Federal implementation plans. Instead, 
States would be required to consider the effect on emissions of such 
projects in subsequent conformity determinations. As a result, this 
bill does not waive any Clean Air Act conformity requirements.
  Although I do not object to the bill today, I note for the record 
that the subject matter of H.R. 2988 does fall within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as the 
Committee on Commerce. When Congress was considering the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, members of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation were named as conferees on various provisions of the 
bill that impacted transportation, including the very provision being 
amended.
  While not ceding our committee's shared jurisdiction on conformity 
provisions within the Clean Air Act, I do applaud this bill which seeks 
to speed project delivery and enhance air quality and traffic 
congestion.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I think we have a good example of why the Corrections Day Calendar 
was needed. Here we have a commonsense proposal by the Representative 
from California, Mr. McKeon, to say that, if a local government wants 
to synchronize their traffic signals, they should be able to do it.
  The question that we had before us is whether that is going to 
interfere with environmental standards under the Clean Air Act. Our 
committee, which is the primary committee on the Clean Air Act, I 
looked at that issue and made sure we are not going to add to 
pollution. That was really not a factor. If it added to air pollution, 
it would be considered later.
  That is why this thing has been worked out, and now this bill is 
being presented to the full House for consideration on the Corrections 
Day Calendar.
  The argument by my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
was they should have had jurisdiction. They should have been able to 
look at this bill. They should have considered it within a couple of 
years of hearings.
  Well, how many years of hearings do we need on the idea that cities 
and communities ought to be able to synchronize their traffic signals? 
Why should this be held up for a long period of time? I think the idea 
of the Corrections Day Calendar was not to let committee jurisdictions 
become an impediment for doing something that is sensible.
  Now, if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure should 
have had jurisdiction, they should have gone to the Speaker and said: 
Refer this bill to us. You referred it to Commerce. We think we have 
jurisdiction, refer it to us as well.
  Presumably they did. If they did not, they should have. But if they 
did and the Speaker looked at it and said this is something that has 
been reviewed sufficiently, and it is his decision to end it to the 
House floor, it is now before us.
  Madam Speaker, I do not think we ought to let jurisdictional concerns 
hold up a commonsense proposal that has been reviewed by the committee 
that has primary, maybe exclusive jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act.
  I respect the fact that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has areas of the law that might also impact on this. 
That issue should have been taken up with the Speaker. But I would hope 
we would not hold up something interminably that is so small and makes 
so much sense.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
want to offer a correction of my own.
  In my statement I said we held 2 years of hearings on ISTEA before 
bringing the legislation to the House floor. I felt this provision 
should at least have had hearing, not 2 years of hearings.
  The gentleman may have confused something I said earlier with my 
suggestion that we have hearings. At least a half day of hearing, at 
least an hour of hearing the issue would have been sufficient.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and that is a correction, 
but the point I would still make is we looked at it with our majority 
and minority staff on the Committee on Commerce. We talked about ways 
to make this legislation work. We did not feel a hearing would be 
particularly productive because I do not know what anybody would have 
to say about the idea that a community should be able to synchronize 
their traffic signals.
  But I respect the fact the gentleman feels there should have been a 
jurisdictional claim, and in exercising his jurisdiction he might have 
held a hearing and might not have. But I would hope now we will pass 
this bill forward to the other body. I hope it becomes law.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].

[[Page H10782]]

  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the 
subcommittee chairman, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong 
support of this effort that the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] 
is moving ahead with under this corrections day procedure.
  I am here to not only support Mr. McKeon's efforts but to support 
what we are doing with this corrections day procedure. I want to begin 
as we sit here just 42 days before the election to congratulate 
wholeheartedly my fellow Angelino, Mr. Waxman, for his excellent 
statement and his assessment that the has provided of not only this 
effort of Mr. McKeon's but also the corrections day procedure.
  I also want to congratulate Mr. Waxman for the terrific testimony 
that he gave to our Committee on Rules about 10 days ago, I guess it 
was on September 12, when he looked at the issue of corrections day and 
said, and I am going to quote his testimony here, he said: When 
corrections day was first proposed over a year ago, I had serious 
reservations about instituting such a process. I was concerned that the 
corrections procedure would become a fast track for special interest 
legislation.
  I think that was a justifiable concern he raised at that point, but 
we have worked in a bipartisan way to do everything possible to ensure 
that the Corrections Day Calendar would be used as it was intended, to 
deal with preposterous situations like Mr. McKeon's attempt to 
synchronize traffic lights when we have a bureaucracy in Washington 
that is blocking that.
  The assessment that Mr. Waxman went on to make was that he believes 
the process has worked basically as intended, and I quote, the bills 
that were placed on the Corrections Day Calendar were for the most part 
noncontroversial and appropriate for the abbreviated legislative 
process of corrections day. The corrections day process has proved an 
opportunity to expeditiously legislate. We have been able to repeal 
duplicative laws, act to increase flexibility and even make bipartisan 
policy changes.
  The speech that my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Waxman], just gave is one that I think more often than not emanates 
from this side of the aisle. I would like to congratulate Henry Waxman 
for his vision in being so strongly committed in dealing with a 
preposterous situation like this.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and appreciate his 
efforts for moving this forward. I strongly want to support the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] in his efforts.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to thank the 
gentleman from California for his kind statements. I think the 
Corrections Day Calendar has worked well for the most part. It can work 
well. We always have to be vigilant it is not used for improper 
purposes. Under the leadership of our chairman, the gentlewoman from 
Nevada, Barbara Vucanovich, who has been exceedingly fair, I think the 
committee has lived up to the representations of those who called for 
it claimed and those of us who were wary and skeptical have been proved 
wrong.
  I thank the gentleman for his statements in support of this 
legislation as well.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to again say to the gentlemen from California, Mr. Waxman and 
Mr. McKeon, that this is excellent legislation, and I think it is going 
to certainly speed up the process and be good for the American people.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2988.
  This bill, which amends the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990, would 
allow States to implement traffic signal synchronization projects 
without first having to make a determination that such projects are in 
conformity with State and Federal implementation plans.
  It is important to note that this bill does not waive Clean Air Act 
conformity requirements, but requires States to consider the emissions 
effect of these projects in subsequent conformity determinations.
  The Transportation Committee shares jurisdiction with the Commerce 
Committee over the transportation conformity provisions of the Clean 
Air Act. During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 
members of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation were 
conferees on the transportation conformity provisions and worked 
closely with the Commerce Committee to resolve these issues.
  We on the Transportation Committee have closely followed the 
implementation of the transportation conformity rules because of their 
direct impact on transportation programs. The conformity rules are 
often determinative of whether transportation projects can be built in 
urban areas.
  The bill before us today is a constructive proposal that will 
facilitate completion of projects that will decrease traffic congestion 
and improve air quality and I therefore urge support of the bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2988, the 
Traffic Signal Synchronization Act.
  Under section 176 of the Clean Air Act, transportation plans, 
programs and projects must conform to a State's air quality 
implementation plan [SIP]. Conformity to a SIP means that 
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, 
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national 
ambient air quality standards.
  EPA requires that nearly all transportation projects be reviewed to 
``conform'' to the State's implementation plan for attaining or 
maintaining the national ambient air quality standards. This includes 
traffic synchronization projects, even though most, if not all, 
synchronization projects lower vehicle emissions. By requiring that 
these projects be reviewed before they can be implemented, some 
projects may be delayed by a year or more, resulting in an increase in 
vehicle emissions.
  Clearly, this situation is contrary to the original intent of the 
Clean Air Act. As chairman of the Commerce Health and Environment 
Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act, I would 
like to thank Representative McKeon, who introduced H.R. 2988, for 
bringing this matter to the attention of the Commerce Committee. I 
would also like to thank Representative Waxman, the ranking minority 
member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee, for his willingness 
to seek a bipartisan solution to this problem.
  During our markup, the Commerce Committee unanimously approved an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute which allows synchronization 
projects to proceed at the earliest opportunity while a regional 
emissions analysis or other conformity determinations are made. 
However, nothing in the bill, as amended, would relieve a jurisdiction 
from its responsibility to conduct a regional emissions analysis at a 
later date, if one is deemed necessary by EPA. It is the purpose of the 
legislation that traffic light synchronization projects be approved and 
that any emissions increase or decrease caused by such synchronization 
be credited or made up in the overall SIP.
  Altogether, H.R. 2988, as amended, will streamline the approval 
process for traffic synchronization projects and act to speed up these 
projects--resulting in lower emissions.
  I believe H.R. 2988 is consistent with correction's day and would 
urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 3153 and H.R. 2988, the two bills we are considering on the 
Corrections Day Calendar. This will be the last time this session that 
we call upon the Corrections Day Calendar as the 104th Congress comes 
to a close. I believe that we have had significant success and the 
corrections day process will be looked upon as a useful and productive 
means to make commonsense changes in current law.
  I want to commend the Speaker for his creativity in working to make 
our lives less cumbersome and less intrusive, and I especially want to 
thank him for giving me the opportunity to chair this innovative and 
effective corrections day advisory group. It has also been an honor and 
a privilege to serve with my cochairs, Mr. Zeliff and Mr. McIntosh, Mr. 
Waxman, and the other eight members of the advisory group in making 
this process a success. As we all know, change is never easy to 
implement, especially in the legislative process. However, I believe 
corrections day has worked and I am very pleased with what we have 
accomplished this Congress.
  Since the commencement of corrections day, 10 bills have been signed 
into law by the President, and 8 bills have passed the House and are 
waiting further action in the Senate. The American people are demanding 
a more responsive Government, and corrections day is a key part in 
meeting their demands.
  H.R. 3153, the Small Business Transport Correction Advancement Act, 
directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule 
concerning the ``materials of trade'' exception by December 31, 1996. 
This bill would provide an exception for small businesses such as 
farming, plumbing, and painting to transport relatively small 
quantities of certain hazardous materials. Also, H.R. 2988, the Traffic 
Signal

[[Page H10783]]

Synchronization Act, allows States to quickly implement traffic light 
synchronization projects, which would likely lower vehicle emissions. 
The bill also requires the EPA to examine the effects of traffic 
synchronization projects in all subsequent conformity reviews.
  I believe that the two bills we are considering today are good 
examples of how the corrections day process works well in a bipartisan 
manner with the agency and committees of jurisdiction. I want to 
recognize the Committees on Transportation and Commerce, Chairman 
Shuster and Chairman Bliley, and their staffs for the expedient and 
hard work they did to get these bills to the floor. I am hopeful that 
the Senate will recognize the need for quick action and send these 
bills to the President without delay.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of this measure as 
amended by the Commerce Committee. It will clarify our intent that 
traffic signal synchronization projects should go forward without delay 
while still preserving the overall duty of regional authorities to 
monitor the air quality impacts of transportation projects. In this 
way, the bill promotes local flexibility while ensuring that air 
quality will not be harmed.
  I do regret that we must even take up this amendment to the Clean Air 
Act. It is my strong view that there should never have been an issue as 
to whether traffic light projects that ease congestion are subject to 
the Clean Air Act's conformity requirements. However, EPA failed to 
reach this common sense conclusion so we are forced to act.
  I thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. McKeon--the author of the measure--and 
Mr. Waxman for their work on this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the measure.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Greene of Utah). Pursuant to the rule, 
the previous question is ordered on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and the bill.
  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 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.

                          ____________________