[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12102-12103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JAMES A. BARCIA

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 21, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under

[[Page 12103]]

     consideration the bill, (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for 
     the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes,

  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Collins/
Linder amendment. This amendment would prohibit EPA from using any 
funds in the bill to designate ``ozone non-attainment areas'' under the 
more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued by EPA in 
1997 which were ruled unconstitutional by the D.C. Superior Court. The 
amendment will simply postpone the designation of new non-attainment 
areas using the 1997 standards, until the Supreme Court decides once 
and for all if the standards are legally enforceable. If we fail to 
pass this important amendment a similar problem that we are facing in 
Michigan could occur in other states.
  And now I would like to highlight how we in Michigan are grappling 
with this similar problem. The proposal by the EPA to reinstate the 1-
hour ozone standard--after the 8-hour rule was declared 
unconstitutional--based on monitoring data collected in 1997 is flawed. 
Using that data counties such as Saginaw, Allegan, Genesee, Bay and 
Midland would be designated nonattainment areas even though all of 
these counties are currently measuring acceptable attainment levels.
  Let me say that there isn't a person or organization in this room who 
doesn't want clean air, clean water, and a safe environmental legacy to 
leave to our children and grandchildren.
  As a legislator, I have consistently worked toward achieving a 
cleaner environment, and as a nation we have made great gains in the 
past two decades to clean polluted rivers, to ensure that toxic 
emissions are reduced, and expedite the clean-up of hazardous waste 
sites across the country.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has played a major role in 
spearheading these efforts and we should fully recognize the important 
role they play in maintaining a clean and healthy environment.
  Their mission, ``to protect human health and to safeguard the natural 
environment'' is one of the most important that is carried out by any 
federal agency.
  Unfortunately, the proposed rule EPA has under discussion--is of the 
type that unnecessarily causes friction between the business community 
and environmental groups. It causes friction where none should exist. 
And just as damaging--I think the ruling undermines the credibility of 
the EPA.
  For me, this fails the litmus test of common sense and is therefore 
unreasonable. If an area is clean now, then they should be treated 
accordingly.
  The whole idea behind any enforcement mechanism is to ensure 
compliance. If compliance is met then there shouldn't be a problem--the 
EPA ruling is putting the cart before the horse--and it is placing 
bureaucratic gymnastics above the economic and environmental well being 
of our community.
  Keeping the Attainment status is important for the viability of our 
local economy. A non-attainment status will have far reaching negative 
effects for our economic base, including putting into jeopardy $24 
million in much needed transportation projects, making our area 
unattractive to new business and stifle economic development.
  And for what--to penalize a community because their air is well 
within compliance in the first place?
  The EPA needs to meet us halfway so that the problem can be resolved. 
It is that simple.

                          ____________________