[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 70 (Friday, May 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S5371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 1053. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to incorporate certain 
provisions of the transportation conformity regulations, as in effect 
on March 1, 1999; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                        clean air act amendments

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on March 2, 1999, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision in the 
Environmental Defense Fund versus Environmental Protection Agency 
lawsuit whereby the EDF filed suit challenging several provisions of 
the EPA's air quality conformity rule. The court ruled in favor of the 
EDF.
  This decision overturned a well-established EPA rule permitting 
previously approved transportation projects being ``grandfathered'' 
into transportation air quality conformity plans. The court decision 
eliminates any flexibility for local authorities to proceed with 
projects and protect them from disruptions caused by issues often 
beyond their control--including changes in federal regulations and 
standards. In addition, the court decision impacted use of submitted 
budgets, non-federal project flexibility, grace periods before SIP 
disapprovals, and SIP safety margins.
  As of April 19, the Federal Highway Administration had identified ten 
areas in conformity lapse where transportation projects are impacted. 
The areas are: Ashland, Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee; Raleigh, North 
Carolina; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; Monterey, 
California; Santa Barbara, California; Knoxville, Tennessee; Paducah, 
Kentucky; and South Bend, Indiana.
  Many people probably thought that would be the end of the list. To 
give another example of why this is such an important issue--one week 
ago today the United States Department of Transportation determined 
that the Kansas City metropolitan area's conformity plan had lapsed. 
The Kansas and Missouri Divisions of the Federal Highway Administration 
halted approval of transportation projects in the region. More and more 
areas could be faced with this situation.
  If we do not address this issue, it could potentially bring to a halt 
transportation improvement projects around the country--further 
jeopardizing the safety of the traveling public, hindering economic 
growth, and in my opinion, doing nothing to improve the air quality 
situation in any of these areas.
  Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk.
  Mr. President, the only thing this legislation does is amend the 
Clean Air Act to reinstate those EPA rules which were struck down or 
remanded in the Environmental Defense Fund vs. Environmental Protection 
Agency lawsuit. No more. No less. This legislation has zero impact on 
the Clean Air Act of EPA's rules.
  In 1997, in the EPA's information on the final conformity rule that 
incorporated the 1997 changes, EPA reported the following:

       The conformity rule changes promulgated today result from 
     the experience that EPA, the Department of Transportation, 
     and state and local air and transportation officials have had 
     with implementation of the rule since it was first published 
     in November of 1993. While these changes clarify the rule and 
     in some cases offer increased flexibility, they will not 
     result in any negative change in health and environmental 
     benefits.

  So the EPA got together with the stakeholders, issued a rulemaking, 
provided the public comment period, issued a final rule, practiced for 
several years, and defended the position in court. I want to take this 
position and codify it.
  Mr. President--there will be some who will argue for more or less 
restrictive changes to the underlying conformity provision in the Clean 
Air Act. Should that discussion and debate occur? Yes. I might support 
some of those changes. However, we have an immediate situation where 
transportation projects around the country are or could be impacted by 
the court's ruling. States and metropolitan areas across the country 
are needing assistance with this issue. I urge my colleagues to 
cosponsor and support this common sense legislation that simply takes 
EPA's own regulations on conformity that the court overturned and puts 
them into law.
  Mr. President, we must address the immediate situation and then 
continue the debate on conformity to address further needs.
                                 ______