[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1603-E1604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 99-1037

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 20, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, Colorado is a national leader in the 
efforts to protect public health and the integrity of our environment. 
My state's devotion to high standards is coupled to its desire to 
maintain the economic prosperity and the excellent quality of life all 
Coloradans enjoy.
  In fact, Colorado has found ways to achieve both objectives due to 
the brilliance of her citizenry and facility of the state legislature. 
In particular, I commend the exemplary leadership of Colorado State 
Representative Jack Taylor, and State Senator Ken Chlouber, in 
challenging those federal actions which molest Colorado's ability to 
achieve its enviable balance of environmental health and economic 
liberty.
  This year, the pair persuaded members of their respective houses to 
join in elevating Colorado's grievances to a national level. As one 
whose voice speaks for Colorado, I urge my colleagues tonight to lend 
careful consideration to Colorado's position on the matter of its 
relationship to the federal regulatory structure.
  A resolution adopted by the Colorado General Assembly (HJR 99-1037) 
was forwarded to the Congress urging our intervention and initiative in 
this important matter. The content of the Resolution is worthy of 
review here and now.
  Mr. Speaker, protection of public health and the environment is among 
the highest priority of government requiring a united and uniform 
effort at all levels. The United States Congress has enacted 
environmental laws to protect the health of the citizens of the United 
States. These federal environmental laws often delegate the primacy of 
their administration and enforcement to individual states.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
is responsible for the administration and enforcement of these federal 
environmental laws. The states that have been delegated primacy have 
demonstrated to the EPA that they have adopted laws, regulations, and 
policies at least as stringent as federal standards. These individual 
states are best able to administer and enforce environmental laws for 
the benefit of all citizens of the United States.
  Accordingly, the EPA and the states have bilaterally developed policy 
agreements over the past twenty-five years that reflect the roles of 
the states and the EPA. These agreements also recognize the primary 
responsibility for enforcement action resides with the individual 
states, with EPA taking enforcement action principally where an 
individual state requests assistance, or is unwilling or unable to take 
timely and appropriate enforcement action.
  However, inconsistent with these policy agreements, the EPA has 
levied fines and penalties against regulated entities in cases where 
the state previously took appropriate action consistent with the 
agreements to bring such entities into compliance. For example, 
Colorado statutes give authority to the appropriate state agencies for 
the administration and enforcement of state and federal environmental 
laws, but the EPA continues to enforce federal environmental laws 
despite the state's primacy and has acted in areas of violations where 
the state has already acted.
  The EPA has been unwilling to recognize the importance of Colorado's 
ability to develop methods for the state to meet the standards 
established by the EPA and federal environmental laws while recognizing 
state and local concerns unique to Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a cooperative 
effort between the states and the EPA is clearly essential to ensure 
such consistency, while making certain to consider state and local 
concerns.
  The EPA has been hesitant to recognize that economic incentives and 
rewarding compliance are acceptable alternatives to acting only after 
violations have occurred.
  Currently, the EPA's enforcement practices and policies result in 
detailed oversight, and overfiling of state actions causing a weakening 
of the states' ability to take effective compliance actions and resolve 
environmental issues. The EPA's redundant enforcement policy and 
actions have adversely impacted its working relationships with Colorado 
and many western states.
  In response to the EPA, the Western Governors' Association has 
adopted ``Principles for Environmental Protection of the West,'' which 
encourages collaboration and polarization between the EPA and the 
states, and further encourages the replacement of the EPA's command-
and-control structure with economic incentives encouraging results and 
environmental decisions that weigh costs against benefits in taking 
actions.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress must require the EPA to recognize the states 
have the requisite authority, expertise, experience, and resources to 
administer delegated federal environmental programs. The EPA should 
afford states flexibility and deference in the administration and 
enforcement of delegated federal environmental programs.
  EPA enforcers should also refrain from over-filing against recognized 
violators when a state has negotiated a compliance action in accordance 
with its approved EPA management systems so that compliance action 
achieves compliance with applicable requirements. The EPA should allow 
states the ability

[[Page E1604]]

to develop plans for achieving national environmental standards 
established by the EPA which are tailored to meet local conditions and 
priorities.
  Moreover, the EPA should enter into memoranda of understanding with 
individual states outlining performance, firm joint goals, and measures 
to ensure compliance with federal environmental laws while recognizing 
states that having achieved primacy in environmental programs have the 
right to direct compliance actions.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, I call upon Congress to direct the EPA to 
develop policies and practices which recognize successful environmental 
policy and implementation are best achieved through balanced, open, 
inclusive approaches where the public and private stakeholders work 
together to formulate locally-based solutions to environmental issues. 
In addition, threats of enforcement action to coerce compliance with 
specific technology or processes often do not result in environmental 
protection but rather encourage delay and litigation, and are 
disincentives to technological innovation, increasing animosity between 
government, industry and the public, and raising the cost of 
environment protection.
  Finally, effective management of environmental compliance is 
dependent upon the EPA shifting its focus from threats of enforcement 
action to one of compliance and the use of all available technologies, 
tools, and actions of the individual states.

                          ____________________