The Facts about Emissions Testing House Bill 1181 Thank you for your interest in the emissions testing issue. The heavily edited "You Paid for It" segment regarding the emission's program left out several key points.

My Position on the Current Emissions Testing Program I supported fiscally responsible efforts to end the current emissions testing contract. I voted to establish a Joint Committee on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse charged with investigating allegations of unnecessary inspection failures in the emissions testing program (Adoption of HSA1 HA 1 HB 1599, Journal of the Missouri House of Representatives, April 28, 2004 available at: http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/jrn/jrn059.htm ).

Costs Associated with Rep. Selby's Proposal to Terminate the Current Contract Terminating the existing contract will cost the state at least $40 million. The Department of Natural Resources provided information to the Joint Committee on Legislative Oversight indicating terminating the current contract will cost Missouri taxpayers at least $40 million. This information was reviewed and included in the fiscal note for House Bill 1181. (Fiscal Note published on May 4, 2004 is available at: http://www.moga.state.mo.us/Oversight/OVER04/fishtm/3930-02P.ORG.htm ). The Department of Natural Resources re-confirmed the projection of a cost in excess of $40 million to Missouri taxpayers is accurate on May 24, 2004. (File notes of the Office of the House Budget Chairman, May 24, 2004). Terminating the existing contract will jeopardize up to $700 million in federal highway construction dollars. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has indicated that federal sanctions could cost Missouri between $350 million and $700 million in federal transportation dollars. These dollars would not be available to maintain and improve Missouri's crumbling road and bridge system. (Fiscal Note published on March 31, 2004). The "You Paid for It" segment reported that Rep. Selby's claims there is an "out" in the contract and that breaching the current contract would cost taxpayers nothing. Unfortunately this is simply not true. In similar contract cases, Missouri's Supreme Court has found that the state is liable for "lost profit" costs associated with a breach of contract during the time between which the breach occurred and the established termination date of the contract. The so-called out deals with contract language that involves "subject to appropriations" wording in the contract. The only money that is appropriated in the budget is for the state's oversight of the program. Failure to appropriate funds would result in the contractor going unsupervised but would not terminate the contract. In 1997, the State of Texas was forced to settle a lawsuit with its emissions testing contractor over the early termination of the contract, which cost the state $70 million. (AP article by Juan Elizondo, July 24, 1997). In 1995, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was forced to negotiate and settle upon an agreement with its emissions testing contractor over the early termination of the contract, costing the state $145 million. (Duquesne University Law Review, Spring 1996).

Threats by the EPA to Sanction State and Local Governments are Real The United States Department of Transportation expressed deep concern over Rep. Harold Selby's efforts to eliminate the emissions testing program. This legislation could "subject the St. Louis metropolitan area to sanctions that prevent its receipt of federal transportation dollars." (Letter from Mohktee Ahmad, Regional Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration and Allen Masuda, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, May 3, 2004). In Missouri, the EPA levied sanctions against Iron County for failing to comply with federal air quality attainment standards. These sanctions resulted in the denial of federal road funds for Iron County for more than 13 months. Helena, Montana was sanctioned for failure to comply with EPA standards in 1996 and still today is receiving no federal transportation funds. Boston, Massachusetts was sanctioned in 1999 for not complying with EPA standards and received no federal transportation funds for more than a year.

Representative Harold Selby Ordered the End of the Fiscal Investigation on His Own Bill Representative Selby contacted the Director of the Joint Committee of Legislative Oversight to request a formal challenge of the fiscal note for House Bill 1181. Missouri state law establishes this formal challenge as the only method by which costs associated with a fiscal note can be changed. (Letter from Rep. Selby dated April 6, 2004, 23.140, RSMo). A review and analysis of the current contract was completed by a staff attorney within the Joint Committee on Legislative Research. The analysis concluded with an opinion that the state would still be liable for costs associated with the contract; costs which the Department of Natural Resources indicates will be approximately $40 million. (File notes from the Joint Committee on Legislative Oversight, April 8, 2004). After findings of the analysis were reported to Rep. Selby, he directed the Legislative Oversight staff not to proceed on the fiscal note challenge. Failing to proceed with the fiscal note challenge resulted in the confirmation that the bill will cost at least $40 million. (File Notes from the Joint Committee on Legislative Oversight, April 14, 2004).

Final Thoughts I am committed to a fiscally responsible approach and to ending any waste, fraud, and abuse of the emissions testing program. Representative Jim Lembke is working to reform this broken program through a fiscally responsible approach to protecting the rights of Missouri's motorists and I will support his efforts.