Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
Senate Environment and Public Works Full Committee
Hearing on Conformity
July 14, 1999

Mr. Chairman--Thank you for having this hearing. My staff and I put together the packet that is now being handed out to the committee members. The information includes a copy of Senate Bill 1053, support letters from the labor unions, the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, etc., charts explaining the conformity process prior to the March 2nd court decision, and some additional information for each of you.

On May 14, I introduced S. 1053, a copy of which you now have. I introduced this bill because the court's decision is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it delays vitally important highway projects that are needed in areas across the country. These projects will save lives, reduce congestion, and these projects have already gone through the NEPA process which requires an air quality analysis.

My bill is simple. The ONLY thing it does is give EPA and DOT the flexibility back that they lost as a result of a March 2nd court decision.

In 1996, EPA received more than 50 comments from interest groups--including MPOs,state and local air quality and transportation officials, and environmentalists, including the Environmental Defense Fund on the regulations affected by the court decision.

Mr. Chairman, I have read the testimony provided by Mr. Replogle of the Environmental Defense Fund. His first two sentences are, "A vital provision of the Clean Air Act is today under attack. Senate Bill 1053 would reopen a loophole to let those who profit from building roads at taxpayer expense avoid accountability for the effects of their projects on public health and air quality."

These comments are unfounded and outrageous. EPA--which promulgated the rule we seek to reinstate--said about the rule: "While these changes clarify the rule and ins some cases offer increased flexibility, they will not result in any negative change in health and environmental benefits. "

Furthermore, he doesn't understand the everyday situation in Missouri, specifically Kansas City. Missouri's highway fatality rate is above the national average. From 1992 to 1996, poor highway conditions contributed to the deaths of more than 5,000 people in Missouri. According to data from the Federal Highway Administration, more than 50 percent of Missouri's roads are ranked poor or mediocre. Needed transportation improvements in the Kansas City area are delayed as a result of the EDF and the court decision.

Mr. Replogle's written testimony disappoints me, but does not surprise me. Unfortunately, this has become standard practice for too many of the environmental groups. The facts are that my bill will simply allow the regulations that went through formal notice and public comment, negotiated, finalized, and implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to go forward. The same regulations that EPA defended in court! NOTHING MORE. My bill doesn't propose to change EPA's practice which has been in place for many years and was found to work! This is NOT an attack on the Clean Air Act.

Included in your packets are copies of the large charts that I have here. These charts come from DOT material and list the countless requirements and steps which the regulations overturned by the courts required. These charts reflect what my bill does. No new charts will need to be made.

The testimony of Mark Pisano, Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments says, ". . .that since the process of conformity was reinforced by the 1990 Clean Air Act, we have found it to be a major tool in our efforts to plan transportation improvements while at the same time meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act. It has provided us with a structured and flexible process that permits innovative policy making in the preparation of both our transportation and air quality plans." This is from a group that actually has to go through the conformity process--and work through with all sorts of groups on the local level.

Mr. Pisano's testimony also lists, along with the testimony of the Road Builders, some changes that they believe should be made to the underlying statutory provision in the Clean Air Act on conformity. I want to review these in further detail, but several of the suggestions seem to make a lot of sense.

Let me be clear, S. 1053 is not the final answer on conformity. We need to work on rewriting the underlying Clean Air Act conformity provisions. I want to work with my colleagues and do just that.

However, we have a problem as a result of the March 2nd court decision and the guidance that came from it. We have projects that are delayed and maybe halted altogether. The 15 Building Trade Unions have endorsed S. 1053 because "Not only are thousands of good-paying construction jobs at stake, but the safety of the traveling public and future economic growth may be adversely affected if this decision is allowed to stand." State Transportation officials have endorsed 1053 because they believe the guidance "would create a safety hazard and an air quality `hot spot'. . ." The National Association of Regional Councils and Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations support S. 1053 because ". . .no regionally significant federally funded or non-federally funded project can proceed regardless of how far along in the project development process it is."

Mr. Chairman, we have a problem. I hope that this hearing will lead to the consensus that we must provide the relief that areas across the country need by passing S. 1053. S. 1053 is not an attack on the environment or the Clean Air Act. It is a reasonable and responsible proposal to address the situation. My bill is an attempt to give EPA and DOT the legal backing to allow us to finish what we start when it comes to making our highways safer. In addition, I want to work with those here today and my colleagues in possibly reworking the underlying conformity provision of the Clean Air Act.