June 22, 2000: Congressional Record publishes “DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001”

Volume 146, No. 80 covering the 2nd Session of the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1081-E1082 on June 22, 2000.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

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 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.

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 146, No. 80