Date: 1990-10-26
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this is truly a historic occasion. After almost a decade. we have finally passed a clean air bill that promises to be strong but fair. The commitment. dedication and time put into this project by the Members. staff. and other interested parties. is reflected in the final product before us today. Many of the issues that we have had to come to terms with in this legislation were highly contentious. as local interests and needs produced deep splits among the conferees along regional lines. Perhaps no issue was more regionally divisive than the regulation of pollutants which are precursors to acid rain. The acid rain issue pitted the socalled clean States against the Midwest in a battle that threatened to kill the ensire bill. There will be losses of jobs in one area and gains in others. significant shifts. That means sacrifice and suffering. There was serious danger that Members would lose sight of our ultimate goal to produce a strong but equitable bill. But I am happy to say that in the end. through the efforts and support of people directly affected such as PHIL SHARP and MIKE OXLEY and even of those whose interests were not simi-. lar to the Midwests. the conferees were able to produce an acid rain title that is. on balance. more fair and workable. I must say that upon reflection of someof the statements made against states like Ohio. Indiana. and Illinois. during the acid rain debate. I was struck by the failure of some to recognize the interdependency of each State in this Union and of the intricacy of our common environment. I hope that Members will come to recognize these interrelationships and accept responsibility for addressing other pressing environmental problems like our growing solid waste crisis and the long distance interstate transportation of solid waste. As a conferee on this legislation I am pleased to see that a number of matters in the proposal that are not in the area of acid rain. such toxics. enforcement. mobile sources. permits and other sources. In the area of mobile sources. the bill establishes a number of new tallpipe standards and other standards applicable to the motor vehicles industry. All of these ae quite stringent. They will require over the next decade the use of engineers and other sources to bring about compliance. Nevertheless. I am pleased to see that included in the propoals is an intention of Congress that EPA not further tighten down on these standards through regulatory actions. As a conferee I believe that is wise policy. In short. it provides that Congress intends that EPA not take further action over the next decade to increase stringency of these standards and requirements. Congress is stating that there should be stability in that industry in that where there are new requirements EPA not in fact increase the stringency of the regulations. In my view that is a sound approach. Let me also express my views on other mobile source matters: In the case of onboard controls. intent of Congress is that EPA resolve safety concerns before manadating onboard controls. The consultation with DOT must be meaningful. with EPA satisfactorly addressing any NHTSA concers. Onboard controls should be required only if they are safe. As the text of the conference report states. the onboard vapor recovery requirements is limited to lightduty vehicles. which means passenger cars. Congress made this choice because it was clear that applying onboard to trucks would be infeasible and inappropriate. due in part to their larger fuel tanks. Manufacturers are to specify which engine families are to be covered by the new standards. which must be projected to meet the necessary percentages for each model year. As in California. manufacturers may use. and EPA would be expected to accept. projected sales information in determining compliance with the percentage phasein requirements. California has also recently issued regulations regarding emision control diagnostic systems that monitor a wide range of emission control functions. Congress expects EPA to conform its implementation requirements and procedures to those of California. Here as elsewhere. Californias program in this area is sufficiently rigorous for the Nation as a whole. It is heartening to see the clean air feud finally come to an end. as the Members of both Houses and the industrial community and environmental groups have come together at last to produce this package. Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate and applaud the fine efforts of my colleagues. especially Chairman JOHN DINGELL. PHIL SHARP. and HENRY WAXMAN. Congratulations.