[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 128 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S10585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against 
the Boxer amendment No. 4308 to the FY01 VA/HUD Appropriations bill.
  This amendment addressed two issues which are very important to 
Michiganians: clean air and clean water. Unfortunately, whatever the 
intentions of the author, the amendment would have done more harm than 
good. I particular, I was troubled by the attempt to strike language 
which will prevent the EPA from designating Michigan counties as being 
in nonattainment, or not meeting clear air requirements.
  On May 14, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit, in American Trucking Association v USEPA, ruled 
that the 8-hour ozone standard as proposed by EPA be remanded to EPA 
for further consideration. The 8-hour standard was therefore suspended. 
The court specifically noted that USEPA retains the power to designate 
areas as nonattainment under a revised national Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS), however, there must be a legal standard in place 
before USEPA makes such designations. Since the 8-hour standard was 
remanded, it is not legal NAAQS.
  In response, EPA announced its intention to reinstate applicability 
of the one-hour ozone standard. However, in determining which 
communities were in nonattainment under the one-hour standard, EPA 
intended to make air quality designations based on the designations of 
these areas at the time the 1-hour standard was originally revoked, 
rather than rely on the most recent air quality data.
  Under this proposed action, six Michigan counties would have been in 
nonattainment even though all six have monitoring data measuring 
attainment--Midland, Bay, Saginaw, Genesee, Muskegon, and Allegan. 
These are counties that were previously designated as nonattainment of 
the 1-hour standard. Although they were previously designated as 
nonattainment, only Muskegon was ``classified'' under the 
classification scheme of the Clean Air Act. Thus, only Muskegon County 
was subject to the major ozone control programs, but all nonattainment 
counties are subject to tougher permit and offset requirements.
  Even though these counties are now in attainment, tougher permit 
standards would have been required for new major stationary sources 
just because these counties were previously designated as nonattainment 
for the 1-hour standard. Additionally, offset requirements for major 
stationary sources would have applied. In addition, these six counties 
would have had to resume doing transportation and general conformity 
for projects receiving federal funds. Under the revocation, conformity 
was not a requirement. Conformity was a continuing requirement for 
redesignated areas.
  Shortly after the announcement, I made clear to USEPA that in my 
opinion there was no rational basis for intentionally jeopardizing 
economic development and the construction of much-needed road projects 
in areas that are meeting attainment levels for the 1-hour ozone 
standard. Further, I noted that EPA should not disregard air quality 
improvements made in several areas of the state and should base any 
non-attainment designations under this rulemaking on the most current 
air quality monitoring data available.
  To date, I have not been satisfied with the response from USEPA and 
for that reason, I supported the language included in the FY01 VA/HUD 
Appropriations bill. This language will prevent EPA from designating 
any Michigan county as nonattainment for the next 12 months or until 
the courts have settled the pending matter, whichever happens first. In 
fact, I understand that EPA actually agreed to this language in a 
compromise with the house.
  It was unfortunate that the Boxer amendment also sought to permit EPA 
to move forward on a new arsenic standard. This is an issue which I 
believe merits independent consideration. I understand the arsenic 
standard has not been updated in almost 60 years. However, I am 
concerned that the push to lower the standard to 5ppb from the current 
50ppb may be too extreme. While large water systems may be able to 
comply with such a strict requirement, I am not at all certain that 
smaller systems which serve a great percentage of the Michigan 
population would be able to comply with that standard. They would 
therefore be subject to penalties for their inability to comply with 
yet another unfunded mandate. In any event, I look forward to the 
opportunity to consider this issue on its own merit, and urge the EPA 
to base whatever standard it eventually proposes on sound science and 
even then only after extensive peer review.

                          ____________________