[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 17, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1817-E1818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE FREEDOM TO ESTABLISH STATE HIGH AIR QUALITY ACT OF 
                                  2003

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 17, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the 
``Freedom to Establish State High Air Quality (FrESH AIR Quality)'' 
Act. I'm pleased that my colleague from Connecticut, Representative 
Chris Shays, is joining me as an original cosponsor of the bill.
  This bill is designed to preserve the ability of States, Indian 
tribes, municipalities, and air

[[Page E1818]]

pollution control agencies to protect the public health and the 
environment. Specifically, it would give them discretion as to whether 
or not to implement the EPA's August 27, 2003 new source review 
revisions.
  There is no question that our Nation's environmental laws have 
improved the health, safety and environmental quality of communities 
across the country. These laws have served us well. Of course, there is 
always room for improvement, and I am committed to working 
collaboratively to make sure our environmental laws not only work 
effectively to bring about environmental and health and safety 
improvements, but also allow our economy to prosper.
  Environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually 
exclusive--in fact, they go hand-in-hand.
  However, I'm concerned that the EPA's August revisions tip the 
balance, and do so in a way that puts the quality of our air at 
unacceptable risk.
  The Clean Air Act allowed for routine maintenance of old, dirty 
electrical plants and other facilities, while requiring that more 
extensive changes in these plants would require installation of modern 
anti-pollution technology. This compromise was intended to allow a 
smooth transition, not to persist forever. The so-called new source 
review regulations were designed to draw a line between routine 
maintenance and the kind of changes that would require the installation 
of this newer anti-pollution technology.
  Some revisions to these regulations might be appropriate. However, 
the revisions finalized in August, in my opinion, are out of balance. 
They would allow continued emission of airborne contaminants for many 
years after such pollution should have become history.
  Millions of Americans, including the elderly and young children who 
are most vulnerable to air pollution, live close to the nearly 17,000 
industrial facilities that would be shielded by this radical change in 
policy. But there would be no incentive for the owners of these 
facilities to make the investment needed to reduce or prevent continued 
emission of harmful airborne contaminants.
  This is an abdication of the Federal Government's responsibility. But 
this new policy goes even further. It requires all States to adopt 
these new regulations in total.
  In other words, the new rules would take away the States' legal 
ability under the Clean Air Act to develop programs that are more 
protective of health, safety and the environment than required by 
Federal regulations. This flies in the face of the Clean Air Act and of 
the principle of State flexibility. Instead of a regulatory ``floor'' 
which ensures some minimum level of protection for public health and 
the environment, these new regulations would create a floor, a ceiling 
and walls that would hem in every State, every Indian tribe, and every 
air pollution control agency.
  My bill would tear down that structure. It would allow State, tribal, 
and local officials to decide whether to adopt these new EPA 
regulations as a ``floor,'' or instead to maintain their current clean 
air programs--and it reestablishes the principle that these entities 
can go further to establish more stringent requirements to protect the 
health and safety of their citizens. They have this option right now 
under the Clean Air Act, and they should continue to have that 
flexibility, without fear of Federal punishment or discouragement. It 
would be their choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must continue to make progress in 
improving our air quality, and we should continue to do so through 
partnerships between the Federal agencies, the States and Indian 
tribes. The new EPA rules would undermine those partnerships. My bill 
would preserve them and allow the Federal Government's partners to do 
all that they can to protect the public and the environment.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, I am attaching a section-by-section 
digest of the bill.

The Freedom to Establish State High Air Quality Act (FrESH AIR Quality 
                        Act) Section-by-Section


                         Section 1. Short Title

       The bill is cited as the Freedom to Establish State High 
     Air Quality (FrESH AIR Quality) Act.


                    Section 2. Findings and Purpose

       The bill includes findings related to the August 27 new 
     source review revisions, and states the bill's purpose: ``The 
     purpose of this Act is to preserve the ability of States, 
     Indian tribes, municipalities, and air pollution control 
     agencies to protect the public health and the environment by 
     affording them discretion as to whether or not to implement 
     the new source review revisions finalized by the EPA on 
     August 27, 2003.''


         Section 3. Preservation of State and Tribal Authority

       The bill includes the following prohibitions:
       (1) No State, Indian tribe, municipality, or air pollution 
     control agency is required to implement or have implemented 
     EPA's new source review revisions.
       (2) No revision of a Federal implementation plan pursuant 
     to the new revisions can take effect until the affected 
     State, Indian tribe, municipality, or air pollution control 
     agency notifies the EPA that it agrees to this revision.
       (3) If a State, Indian tribe, municipality, or air 
     pollution control agency does not implement the August 27 new 
     source revisions or does not consent to revision of a Federal 
     implementation plan pursuant to the new revisions, it is not 
     subject to sanctions, to the revocation of an approved State 
     implementation plan under the Clean Air Act, or to the 
     imposition of a new or revised Federal implementation plan.

                          ____________________