[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5831-5832]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              INTRODUCTION OF THE CLEAN AIR INVESTMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KEN BENTSEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 4, 2001

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, well over 100 million Americans live in 
metropolitan, suburban, and even rural regions that are facing a 
serious environmental and economic problem--attainment of air quality 
standards of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Arguably, the most 
pressing issue affecting my region's prosperity and quality of life is 
State Implementation Plans (SIP) to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions 
(NOX), which are causing the greater Houston area to exceed 
the EPA

[[Page 5832]]

standard for ground level ozone. As an effect to assist non-attainment 
areas meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act I am introducing today 
a bill the Clean Air Investment Act, along with my colleague 
Representative Kevin Brady. This bill is designed to assist all non-
compliance areas achieve improved environmental quality while 
protecting their economic prosperity.
  Failure to attain compliance risks losing essential federal highway 
funding. Many of my colleagues know that Atlanta's federal highway 
funding was frozen for two years for non-compliance with the Clean Air 
Act. Now, while non-compliance carries costs, compliance also carries 
significant costs, some of which are the responsibility of the federal 
government. A study commissioned by the Greater Houston Partnership has 
showed that the SIP for the Houston-Galveston area will cost area 
households $550 million a year, and could reduce job growth 
significantly.
  Under the law implementation plans are designed by the states, and 
approval must be made at the federal level by EPA. EPA-regulated 
sources account for a significant percentage of the NOX 
emissions in most non-attainment regions, 40% in the Houston region. 
These sources are mobile interstate and international NOX 
sources, such as automobiles, planes, trains, and ships. In the Clean 
Air Act, Congress clearly intended for compliance burdens to be borne 
proportionally by state and federally regulated sources. However, in 
the forming a plan that would meet EPA approval under the Clean Air 
Act, the State of Texas through its Texas Natural Resource Conservation 
Commission (``TNRCC'') could not incorporate promised EPA reductions 
into the SIP. Many EPA reductions from federally regulated sources are 
supposed to exist, but do not because EPA has failed to meet their 
statutory deadlines. With serious economic burdens looming for 114 non-
attainment areas in 33 states, EPA must make allowance for federally 
pre-empted items for which they have not met their own deadlines. The 
EPA failure to act, whether due to budget constraints, political 
resistance, or bureaucratic inertia is not the fault of local 
communities.
  For instance, the EPA had a statutory deadline to produce regulations 
for all non-road engines in November 1992. Of the six regulations that 
have been produced the earliest was finalized in 1994, and one has not 
yet been finalized. The EPA was required by law to issue regulations 
covering locomotive engines in November 1995, but the rule was not 
promulgated until three years later. The rule for commercial diesel 
marine engines, exceedingly important for our area, was not finalized 
until November 1999. Further emission regulations for commercial marine 
engines will not be proposed until April of 2002. At this time, we will 
begin a debate of whether these marine emission standards can apply to 
foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. territorial waters. As a major shipping 
and railroad transportations enter, the greater Houston area is very 
dependent on the EPA to regulate these sources to reduce the burden on 
the state regulated industrial sources, which are currently being asked 
to achieve the steepest emission reduction every attempted--90%. I see 
the Houston area and many other non-attainment areas around the country 
engaged full force in a good faith attempt to meet the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act, and I believe that we owe them some small amount of 
assistance.
  Along with my colleague, Kevin Brady, and I am proposing a way for 
the federal government to assist the state regulated sources that are 
bearing an increased burden as a result of regulatory delays by the 
EPA. The U.S. Tax Code provides for tax-exempt bond financing for a 
number of public and some private entities for a number of purposes 
that contribute to the public good. Through reduced borrowing costs, 
the government encourages investment in airports, maritime transport 
facilities, commuting families, water treatment, solid waste disposal, 
and local electric transmission. Prior to 1986, investment in air 
pollution control equipment was also encouraged in this way. However, 
during the massive rewrite of the tax code in 1986 air pollution was 
not recognized as a priority. I feel very strongly that at a time when 
massive air pollution investments are being mandated for the public 
good, we should allow for some assistance in financing their 
implementation as quickly as possible.
  The Clean Air Investment Act will assist all industries in non-
attainment areas finance the necessary investments that we are asking 
them to make. By reducing the cost of this investment, even by a couple 
of percentage points, we can help protect our prosperity and save 
American jobs. All Americans want clean air but we also want a strong 
economy. By providing lower costs to achieve reduced point service 
emissions Congress can aid in meeting both of these goals.

                          ____________________