Over the past 25 years, Congress has enacted landmark legislation to improve and protect our nation's air quality - and with remarkable success. The most recent air pollution report card issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that pollution levels have been reduced by nearly 30 percent, with the biggest gains on lowering serious pollutants taking place in cities with the poorest air quality.

In November, the EPA proposed new regulations to accelerate the fight against two pollutants, soot and smog. These proposals are very controversial largely because they stretch the scientific credibility of the Clean Air Act to its limits.

As a prime author of the Clean Air Act, I believe the law's credibility is critical to its continued success. For this reason, I am concerned that imposing tougher, more stringent pollution standards will now further discourage states and localities - all the while they are struggling to reach current standards on air quality.

To illustrate how the credibility of the Clean Air Act can be squandered, consider the recent effort to reduce car pollutants, and what occurred as a result in Rhode Island and other states.

In 1990, we recognized that annual emissions inspections for the family car could be one of the most effective tools to reduce smog pollution in American cities - especially since a relatively small number of cars caused a very large portion of the smog problem. We also knew that the tailpipe inspections many states already required were not enough. Thus, the 1990 law instructed EPA and the states to upgrade vehicle inspection programs.

But where Congress demanded improvement, EPA demanded perfection. The EPA's final regulations required tailpipe testing with equipment so sophisticated and expensive that neighborhood service stations and automotive repair shops could no longer afford to perform the tests. The regulations also prohibited service stations and automotive repair shops who conducted the tests from also doing any of the repair work.

As a result, motorists with problems had to make no fewer than three trips - one for the test; one for the repair; and one for the retest. The few states that implemented EPA's vision built centralized testing stations where motorists experienced long lines, faulty equipment and higher inspection fees.

Motorists, and the lawmakers directly accountable to them, revolted. Legislatures repealed statutes authorizing state testing programs. Governors shut down their centralized stations. Even states with the most admirable air quality programs, such as California, refused to comply.

In Rhode Island, the EPA regulations proved so unpopular that the General Assembly has refused to pass a bill authorizing our state to upgrade its program at all. Furthermore, if this impasse is not resolved soon, Rhode Island may lose its federal highway grants as a penalty.

So, an effective tool to improve air quality was quickly discredited. The backlash reached Washington in 1995, and Congress amended the Clean Air Act giving states much greater discretion to design their own, mostly unimproved smog check programs.

Once again, I fear, EPA will overload the circuits and risk open revolt by pushing too far, too fast - providing an unfavorable reaction. But, now, the stakes are much higher. The credibility of the most fundamental principles of the Clean Air Act are in question.

The national effort to reduce smog pollution is far behind schedule and deeply troubled. Many states - especially in the Northeast - have not been able to attain pollution reductions to meet current standards. In fact - as I pointed out to EPA Administrator Carol Browner last week - if Rhode Island shut down all of its businesses and automobiles within state borders, we still could not meet the new standards proposed by the EPA!

Now EPA seeks an even tougher smog standard that would require an additional 25 percent reduction in emissions from states and would triple the number of counties that fail to meet federal regulations.

In spite of these problems, I would be the first to urge that we press ahead if the scientific evidence on the health effects of soot and smog was clear and convincing. Unfortunately, there are several faults in the science that spell trouble for the law's credibility.

The science supporting EPA's proposed standards for fine particulates - called soot - is limited. There are only a few inconclusive studies linking fine particulate pollution to adverse health effects.

Furthermore, the studies don't identify the precise particles in the air causing the hazards. Weak science is certainly not a solid foundation on which to build a complex set of new burdensome government regulations.

The actual health benefits of EPA's tighter standard for ozone - called smog - appear to be very small. Although significant emissions reductions would be needed to attain the proposed standard, the health benefits may not be commensurate - or even perceptible.

If federal air quality standards are seen as unachievable aspirations, rather than realistic targets, the future of the Clean Air Act itself may be at risk. When standards are widely perceived as unsound or unneeded, states may give up on the Clean Air Act altogether.

In recent years, I have opposed attempts by many in Congress to weaken environmental laws, and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, many lawmakers remain skeptical of the current air pollution regulations. EPA's proposal could strengthen the hand of those who seek to roll them back, and weaken the ability of those like me who want to continue effective enforcement of our environmental laws.

How can we preserve and protect the Clean Air Act? I firmly believe we can maintain our environmental credibility and still move forward by agreeing upon a preliminary agenda for action.

First, we can agree to change the smog standard to protect against exposure at lower levels averaged over a longer period of time. Second, we can improve the way we measure violations of federal air standards. And, third, over the next five years we can do our utmost to fully study and understand what exact particulates (soot) are causing the most egregious health hazards, and then set up the appropriate monitoring devices to eradicate that type of particulate matter.

Exact science can yield a more exact and efficient result, and we don't have to delay health protection in the process, since it will take the EPA five years to develop and implement soot control plans. By taking these steps, we can make the Clean Air Act work without further erosion on Clean Air credibility.

My record on the environment and protecting the health of our citizens is a proven one. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am committed to making clean air, clean water and a pristine environment clear priorities for America in the 21st century. I want to build on our successes. But I also believe in a common-sense and prudent approach to enforcing any new regulations proposed by the EPA. After all, the success of America's clean air laws depends on compliance, sound science, and sensible enforcement. The American people - especially the next generation - deserve no less.

RATE THIS ARTICLE What do you think of this article? Your input will help AutoInc. develop additional articles on this subject. Share your thoughts! Your name Your e-mail address

MOST ACCESSED ARTICLES Fuel Injection Service, Not Just Cleaning The Art of Extraction EGR Systems: Operation and Diagnosis Proactive Target Marketing:_Rethinking Your Business Strategy Engine Performance: HO2S Diagnostics MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES Developing Employee Potential How Critical Thinking Can Help Your Business How to Diagnose the Ford Glow Plug What to Look for When Shopping for the Right Shop Management Software Putting a Price Tag on Complaints

AutoInc. Web Site | ASA Web Site | Let's Enact Auto Insurance Reform The Right Way | E-mail And Its Business Applications | Product Technology: Today And Tomorrow | Guest Editorial | Tech to Tech | Tech Tips | Shop Profile | Net Worth | Chairman's Message