[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H4822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLINTON'S ENDORSEMENT OF THE NEW EPA AIR REGULATIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my absolute
disappointment, frankly disgust with the President's decision endorsing
the EPA's stricter regulations on air pollution. The President says
that the reason for imposing these new rigorous regulations was because
he, and I, quote, thinks kids ought to be healthy. I agree with him.
But I also think it is in the best interest of America's kids if their
parents are able to remain employed.
And frankly, the new proposals may in fact hurt our kids. The current
clean air standards already require cities to have emission-control
plans to ensure the air is cleaner each year. As stated in the June 24
Wall Street Journal, current emission control plans will be thrown out
while the new ones are being written. This will actually slow, slow the
clean air progress perhaps for years. And in the process our workers
will be placed at risk. The unions know these standards will cost
workers their jobs. That is why many are opposing the EPA's stricter
standards.
I think we need to ask ourselves, when is enough enough? How many
jobs must we lose to clean up the air more than it is? There is a point
of diminishing returns where the cost far outweighs any benefits. Mr.
Speaker, the Browner-Gore-Clinton EPA standards reaches that point.
We have made great progress in the last 20 years. Today the air is
cleaner than it has ever been. When our current standards were put in
place, the majority of our States and communities could not comply.
Today over 96 percent, over 96 percent of our communities in nearly
every State is able to comply with the current standards. Compliance
has carried an expensive price tag but improving our environment and
our air was necessary to protect the future of our country.
I believe we have succeeded. Now is not the time to turn the tables
on these successes and apply more regulations and tougher standards on
our communities, our workers and our families.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, the President is about to make perfect the
enemy of good. Pushed by the most radical, including the Vice President
and EPA Administrator Carol Browner, he is about to sacrifice our
workers, our jobs and our economy at the altar of perfect air.
I and many others are not ready to blindly follow. I think we know
the facts. We studied the circumstances and we have seen the data. For
example, a New England Journal of Medicine study has said our children
are harmed more by cockroaches, dust mites and mold than by our current
air. Only 4 of the EPA's 21 scientists who serve on the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee actually supported the tougher standards
that the President has endorsed. Even Newsweek provided a feature issue
on how to protect your children from asthma. And almost nothing in that
article, nothing focused on our current air standards as the problem.
The PR game has begun and the President is beginning to play his part
on the bully pulpit. But I would suggest we not buy the snake oil that
is being sold. His evidence is razor-thin and the costs are steep for
our communities, our businesses, our workers, and our families.
Today we have a strong coalition, Republicans included, Democrats,
business leaders, workers, who oppose these new regulations. I believe
we need to stop the new EPA regulations before they do damage to
America.
We need to commend our communities for the great progress that they
have made on clean air and progress they have made. Instead, it seems
President Clinton wants to reward them by punishing them with these
impossible standards which they may never ever be able to meet.
____________________