[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 156 (Friday, October 31, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2191-E2192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 29, 2003

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a motion offered by 
Representative

[[Page E2192]]

Eddie Bernice Johnson to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 6, The 
Energy Policy Act of 2003. This motion would strike language in the 
energy conference draft that would prevent areas of the country from 
having to bear the economic burden of transported air emissions from 
other areas.
  In 1998 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a policy 
that allowed the EPA to extend the attainment date for moderate or 
serious ozone non-attainment areas that were affected by transported 
pollution. That policy was successfully challenged in court in several 
regions of the country, where courts ruled that the EPA did not have 
the authority to extend the ozone attainment dates for those areas. The 
proposal in the energy bill is a good proposal that would simply codify 
a 5-year old policy designed to prevent an unjust result. I think we 
can all agree that downwind areas not attaining ozone standards should 
not be penalized for pollution they do not generate. An area that is 
``bumped up'' to a higher non-attainment classification automatically 
forces a region into a more stringent and expensive regulatory regimen 
through no fault of their own.
  The codification of the 1998 policy allows the EPA flexibility in 
remedying this situation but does not let downwind areas off the hook 
for attainment of the ozone standards. In order to qualify, an area 
must be a victim of pollution transported from another area that 
significantly contributes to non-attainment in the downwind area. The 
EPA must approve a plan that complies with all requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) that are currently applicable to the areas, as well 
as includes any additional measures needed to reach attainment by the 
date for the upwind area. Finally, the extension of any date must 
provide for attainment of CAA standards ``as expeditiously as 
practicable'' but in no case later than the time in which upwind 
controls are in place.

  In my State of Georgia and, more specifically, the metro Atlanta 
area, we have been working hard to improve our air quality and I am 
pleased to report that based upon the last 3 years of air quality data, 
we are almost in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. In fact, one 
bad air day, at one monitoring station has kept Atlanta from attaining 
the one-hour standard. As you know to be in compliance, each monitor 
must not have more than 3 ``exceedances'' over a 3-year period. The 
Conyers station reported 4 ``exceedances'' between 2001 and 2002.
  Striking the language in H.R. 6 will roll back years of progress that 
we have made in the Atlanta region, while at the same time forcing us 
to adopt a regimen that will only serve to hurt business, commerce, and 
government through more regulation. The Senate and House energy 
conferees are working hard to achieve a balanced, long-term energy bill 
that provides adequate energy supplies at affordable prices. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Eddie Bernice Johnson motion to instruct 
and to give the EPA the flexibility it needs in implementing its ozone 
policy.

                          ____________________