It seems to me, following the most recent court decision on this issue, that we are left with a system of uncertainty for transportation planning.
Under my subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I have held a series of hearings on streamlining and project delivery. I am concerned that this recent court decision may cause delay or impact projects already in the pipeline.
What has developed is uncertainty and unpredictability. We need a universal solution to move forward.
For this reason, we may need to look at reimplementing the grandfathering provision which existed prior to the recent court decision.
I think the Bond bill is a reasonable and balanced approach to allowing transportation projects to move forward. Now some may be concerned that we are trying to get around air standards. But that is not the case. What S. 1053 does is simply codify the rules that EPA previously implemented which offered increased flexibility with no negative impact on health or environmental benefits.
Under this bill, states still would be required to meet the current NAAQS standards. And I think that is important.
While I was Governor, Ohio took great strides to meet air quality standards. When I first entered office, most of our urban areas were not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard, but by the time I left, all cities had attained the standard and Cincinnati was awaiting approval from EPA. Recently EPA issued the proposed rule to revoke the 1-hour standard for that area.
To help meet the existing standards, Ohio implemented emissions testing and I took a lot of heat for it. In fact, I vetoed legislation in 1997 that would have removed our enhanced emissions testing program.
Ohio has done its part to meet the existing NAAQS standards and I think everyone else should too before they build new highways.
And let me make clear that we are talking about the existing NAAQS standards. When I was Governor of Ohio, I spent over 100 hours trying to convince EPA, the Clinton Administration, members of Congress and members of this committee that the costs of the new ozone and particulate matter standards to this country far outweighed the benefits to public health and the environment.