Date: 1982-09-15
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. a measure which makes light of the established committee process of this body while attempting to strike at the heart of the Clean Air Act. If a Member has a disagreement with a portion of the Clean Air Act. a public law supported by more than 80 percent of the American people. according to recent polls. the House floor appropriations process is not the place to express that disagreement. The many complicated issues associated with the renewal of the Clean Air Act have been considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for months. It is in that forum. and in the House debate on the reauthorization of this very important act. that objections to specific provisions should be heard. I am not sure of the purpose of this amendment. coming as it does in the midst of debate over an appropriations bill. Do the sponsors believe that by cutting off funds for a program they do not approve. that somehow their objections will be met? Surely they know this is not the case. Funding sanctions in effect for areas in violation of clean air standards would not be lifted. Individual citizens will retain the right to sue for enforcement of the law where there are violations of emissions standards. If we are to relax the antipollution effort as it relates to autos. we can only expect the number of such suits to multiply. thereby turning over enforcement of the law to the courts. The buck should stop with the Congress. which authorizes antipollution laws. and the administration. whose duty it is to enforce those laws. By agreeing to this amendment. we would be passing the buck to the courts. The air would not be less polluted. the basic law would not be changed. and the arguments over the inspection and maintenance programs effectiveness would continue. We risk. however. having those arguments ultimately settled in court if we strip the EPA of its ability to enforce existing law. I believe the inspection and maintenance program of the EPA has proved effective in reducing pollution. According to a 1981 EPA study. estimates of emissions reductions average over a year f1aulAed a 20percent reduction in hydrocarbons and a 36percent reduction in carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide. we should remember. cm cause chest pains and cardiovascuiar diseases. Hydrocarbons can lead to asthma. eye irritation. and breathing difficulty. The inspection and maintenance program is also cost effective. A 1981 EPA update showed the cost of inspection to range from $17 in Portland. Oreg.. to $30 in California. Cutting off funds for this program will mean a rise in air pollution from automobiles. If we are to maintain our current clean air standards. we can then expect to hear demands for more stringent controls on industry. By relaxing our antipollution effort for mobile vehiclesthe largest single source of pollution in the United Stateswe encourage more comprehensive controls on industries such as steel. This is an uninviting prospect indeed for an industry already hard pressed by imports and a general economic slowdown. Mr. Chairman. by cutting off funds for a Federal antipollution effort. the advocates of this amendment argue in favor of States rights when it comes to controlling automobile emissions. conditions do indeed vary from State to State. and flexibility is an important part of the Clean Air Act. A retreat to States rights when it comes to reducing air pollution would undermine. however. one of the most basic rights of the entire populationthe right to breathe clean air. Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.