[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H1368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      EPA OFFERS MORE REGULATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Shimkus] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, according to the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the air in this Nation is getting cleaner. Major metropolitan 
areas are experiencing fewer and fewer days of dirty air, and it is 
time to thank the EPA for a job well done. In fact, according to the 
EPA, in almost every major city in America, air pollution levels have 
been dropping. Nationally since the EPA was established, the combined 
total of all causes of dirty air have decreased by 29 percent. This 
reduction occurred even as the Nation's population has grown by 28 
percent, people drove more than twice as many miles, and the economy 
doubled in size.
  Our Nation is on the right track to cleaner air. But if you talk to 
the EPA, you would think the sky was falling. This agency has proposed 
tightening the standards for ozone and particulate matter even more. 
This new standard, which may take effect without congressional 
approval, will not clean the air faster. In fact, it will cost the 
American economy jobs, erode local tax bases and provide nominal 
positive health effects. Our Nation does not need new regulations which 
may force people to car pool to work and increase regulations on our 
Nation's industries and family farms.
  Our Nation needs regulations that are based on sound science, not 
emotionally driven, feel-good politics. Indeed the scientific community 
is not unified in its support of these new regulations. While the EPA 
has a study that claims it can save thousands of lives with these new 
rules, the National Institute of Environment Health Sciences, another 
government agency, came to the conclusion that high rates of pollution 
do not increase rates of asthma. This information directly contradicts 
the fundamental basis for the new regulation.
  In addition, the EPA's own scientific advisory board, which is made 
up of industry, academic and medical experts, told the EPA that its new 
standard for particulate matter, quote, ``does not provide a 
scientifically adequate basis for making regulatory decisions for the 
setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and related control 
of particulate matter in the Clean Air Act,'' end quote.
  We must also ask ourselves why, when the air is getting cleaner in 
America, the number of people being admitted to hospitals with 
respiratory complications are increasing? Why is a good thing having a 
bad effect?
  Our Nation needs regulations that do not needlessly destroy jobs. 
Five of the 19 counties which I represent rely on coal as a substantial 
part of their economies. The coal industry has been hit hard by the EPA 
and stands to be eliminated in southern Illinois if stricter standards 
are implemented. Unemployment levels in some of my counties would climb 
even higher than the current 7, 8 to 9 percent that they are now. Not 
only would these new regulations mean more jobs lost in areas already 
suffering, but prices on consumer goods will go up as well. 
Conservative estimates on the direct cost of this regulation on 
Americans will be around $10 billion every year in higher costs for 
cars, farm equipment, electricity, and countless products that 
Americans rely on every day for their well-being.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, as a newly elected Member of Congress, I can say that I 
am truly amazed and disappointed that the EPA would impose such high 
costs on the American people without little benefit. Our Nation's air 
is getting cleaner, the economy is growing, and the unemployment 
averages on the national level are at an all time low. Controversy 
surrounds the EPA studies, and all they can do is offer more 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems that the EPA is more interested in political 
agendas and self-preservation than in creating good national policy.

                          ____________________