I think he makes an excellent point. We do give the States the flexibility in that responsibility that they take to devise their own plans for reducing emissions so that the health of the public will be protected. But I would suggest that when we hear about all these private enterprises like the chamber of commerce, thinking that they are not going to be at a competitive disadvantage, I suspect that some of these private industries think, well, if it is going to be an unfunded mandate the government-owned polluter, perhaps we will not put any regulations on either of them. I suspect that that is what a lot of them would like. They do not see themselves ever being at a competitive disadvantage. They think that none of the polluters will have regulations placed upon them. I think that would be a disservice to the people whose lungs are going to have to breathe in pollution when we deal with these air pollution problems.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing state flexibility in emission reduction plans and concerns about regulatory fairness.
Share
More from Henry Waxman
We do not know exactly what Takata and auto manufacturers knew about these defective airbags and when they knew it.
Subsection 3(b) creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality standards. This means more pollution will enter the air, and it will be harder to clean up. When one facility is allowed to pollute…
Our legislation improves the early warning reporting system by making more reported information public and ensuring that NHTSA receives significantly more information for manufacturers on any fatal incident involving a safety defect.
Today's hearing is about the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is a rare program in Washington that has enjoyed bipartisan support since its inception in 1997.





