15 Legislative History of the Clean Air Act of 1990 Public Law 101-549 H 1488 (1990)

handle is hein.leghis/lecleaia0015 and id is 1 raw text is: ´╗┐CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

April 4, 1990

d it Bush has strongly endorsed t s
le 'lation.
It sa bipartisan bill that se S to
make accessible employment, trans-
portat n, communication, a     places
of pub1 accommodation t those in
our soci y who are disa ed. There
are 43 m  *on such Amer .ans.
I see on t e floor a nu ber of people
who have beon very, v y important in
the success of'(hat bi , not the least of
which is the gntl an trom Califor-
nia (Mr. ANDEItS   I who is on the
floor. I also mi t observe that my
good   friend,  hl  gentleman   from
Texas (Mr. B   TLEgT), has also been a
very signific nt lab'qrer on behalf of
receiving r asonable' accommodations
on Amer ans with ')isabfities Act,
and I w   t to thank aX of those who
have w rked on it so dill ently at this
time,   d say that I look  rward to its
earl passage upon our re       to the
Ho se of Representatives. I ow that
t President looks forward t signing
t is bill in the near future.
CONSIDERING THE NATIONWIDE
CONSEQUENCES          OF      THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
(Mr. DONALD E. 'BUZ LUKENS
asked and was given permission to ad-
dress the House for 1 minute and to
revise and extend his remarks and in-
clude extraneous matter.)
Mr. DONALD E. IBUZ' LUKENS.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Senate
passed the most comprehensive revi-
sion of the clean air laws in 13 years.
The House version will be on the floor
in the next few weeks or months.
While we all support the concept of
clean air, I am very concerned about
the economic consequences we in Mid-
west will face if this bill becomes law
are worth Lhe environmental gains.
Either wkay, consumers and workers
look to be losers.
Mr. Speael:r, I support a cleaner en-
vironment, but I am concerned that
the Midwest will take a disproportion-
al hit with the clean air act revisions.
The only study commissioned by the
U.S. Government does not in anyway
support the claim that the Midwest
pollution is causing the acid rain de-
struction of lakes in the Northeast.
I urge my colleagues in the House to
consider the consequences of this bill
nationwide when we debate it here in
the House.
According to an article in Monday's
Dayton Daily News, some 19,000 coal
miners in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Indiana. and Illinois could
lose their jobs because of restriction,
on high sulfur coal in the bill. Utility
customers will face higher bills, too.
The article follows:
[From the Dayton Daily News, Apr. 2, 1990]
CLEAN-Arn LEGisTATIoN BINos SoME TOUGH
CHOICES
(By Jon Talton)
Just a year ago, environmentalism was a
low-risk way for politicians, left and right to
pad their moral assets; Who could argue
with mom, apple pie and the environment?

Now comes the morning after, and we
must face the real-life human and economic
costs of ideas and intentions.
No longer just a glib campaign promise,
the Bush clean-air legislation moving
through Congress could be one of the most
significant influences on the economy in
coming years.
The costs will be high: at least $21 bilon
a year as businesses are forc-d to make
changes to clean up smog and acid rain. The
real losers, of course, will be consumers and
workers-especially in the Midwest-who
will pay higher prices and face lost jobs.
Moreover, the added costs and regulation
will be a sizable drag on U.S. competitive-
ness already burdened by rules from Wash-
ington.
In return, backers say, the United States
will end up with the cleanest air, cars and
power plants of any industrialized country.
In addition, cancer dcath will drop, acid rain
damage to forests will cease and a beginning
can be made in addressing global warming.
That, at least, is the rehtoric. But a closer
look shows more messy trade-offs.
For example, some 19,000 coal miners in
Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana
and Illinois could lose their jobs depending
on how severely Congress seeks to curtail
use of high-sulfur eastern coal to deal with
acid rain. Midwestern utility consumers
could face much higher bills, too.
But Draconian measures against high-
sulfur coal may not yield more improve-
ments than would be achieved over a some-
what longer length of time as industries are
modernized. In addition, a $500 million gov-
ernment study indicates acid rain has
caused relatively little damage to forests
and lakes, and no harm to crops or health.
This pattern repeats itself throughout
close examination of the clean-air proposals;
hard economic consequences versus margin-
al environmental or health gains, in a cli-
mate of dividend and uncertain scientific
opinion.
Business itself has a habit of exaggerating
costs, when in the past the economy has
proven itself remarkably able to adapt to
changes and stress. But we srould not
delude ourselves into t inking thcre will be
no cost.
The estimated $21 billion annual price tag
for the clean air bill a i be added onto an
estimated $80 billion a year already spent in
this country to comply wiLL environmental
regulation. Many companies have simply
closed as a result, and we can expect more
to do so.
This cost will hit industries, such as autos
and steel, already struggling in a tough
global marketplace. It could extend into
smaller businesses. And in every case, the
cost is ultimately passed along to consum-
ers.
The broad question facing the nation is
how to turn legitimate environmental con-
cerns into effective policy that does not
choke the prosperity that allows us to worry
about clean air in the first place. Then we
have to worry about getting the world to go
along.
But even that's not the real flesh-and-
bone issue. Such a large economy as ours
can endure a lot. But policy picks invariably
winners and losers, whether they be regions
or individuals.
The danger with ill-conceived environmen-
tal policies is that they disproportionately
hurt the neediest segments of society. If
those policies take away avenues of econom-
ic empowerment, then no amount of welfare
can undo the damage.
It's ante up time for the environmental
politicians.

SAFETY DEFECTS SURFACE IN
JAPANESE PRODUCTS
Mr. WALGREN        asked  and   w9#
gi' en permission to address the Hous
foi 1 minute and to revise and exten
hisemarks.)
. WALGREN. Mr. Speaker, as
all   ow, Americans have a traditi n
of bIng tough on themselves-and      e
are   ften quick to criticize prod  t
made in America-and quick to /at-
tribut  better qualities to prod ets
made 4broad. Yet we know, as Le la-
cocca 1as been reminding us, /that
Americqn products can be the b st in
the wor d.
As     erican consumers, we    hould
rememb that imported produts are
often pr  uced where there is ttle or
no regula ion or system of prt/duct li-
ability w ich the American 'market-
place reli on to protect cotsumers.
And, that   true not just of  ss devel-
oped count ies, but of our    jor trad-
ing partne like Japan, wh ch has no
law governi g recalls or r   uiring re-
porting of d ects.
Last Thursday, the Was ington Post
carried a repoprt on an     barrassing
wave of prodiet recalls i Japan. The
problem is not just poo quality con-
trol but safety involvin TV sets that
could catch on 4re.
It is crucial th t Ame Ian consumers
be protected froia uns e foreign con-
sumer products. \As t e chairman of
the Subcommittee      ith jurisdiction
over the Cons      er Product Safety
Commission, I h v written to the
CPSC, urging the     mmissioner to in-
vestigate whether   reign TV sets sold
here are subject t the same safety de-
fects and to mak clear to the manu-
facturers involve thkt unsafe imports
have no place in his qountry.
Mr. Speaker, subnit my letter and
the news repor on thdse problems for
the REcORD, as ollows:,
CommrfEE ON NERGY AND COMMERCE,
W hington, D , April 3, 1990.
Hon. JACQUELI  JoNEs-SaiM ,
Chairman, Co Samer Prod   t Safety Com-
mission, ashington, DC.
DEAR CHAI MAN JONEs-SmitH: I am very
concerned w th tne growing Iumber of re-
calls of def ctive Japanese a pliances and
its implicat ons for the safety of American
consumers. For your reference I have en-
closed two articles which discuss this serious
problem.
As you    see, since January, four Japa-
nese ele tronics companies havg recalled
hundre of thousands of color itelevision
sets th  suddenly smoked or catsed fires.
While t ese recalls apparently tool* place in
Japan the companies involved 41so sell
many      sets in the United Statts. It is
very  ssible that the defects whichi caused
these roblems in TV sets sold in Japo may
also   present in TV sets sold in the Vnited
Stat
I m particularly concerned becau, the
arti les point out that Japan has no law
gov ming recalls or defect reporting for
no -automotive products. The article notes
t  t one company, Pioneer, quietly bogan
f* ing some defective TV sets and did Ot
ue a public recall notice for nine months.
ny took almost four months to issu  a
ublic recall notice for six TV models. Pr-

H 1488

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?