Political Quotes

Henry Waxman: When the VA-HUD appropriations bill was passed by the House in July, it contained numerous provisions in the…

On the recordOctober 6, 1998
When the VA-HUD appropriations bill was passed by the House in July, it contained numerous provisions in the accompanying report that were intended to interfere with the implementation of our environmental laws. In the legislation now before us, I see that the conferees have improved most of these anti-environmental riders. However, there is still some potentially damaging language in the bill and I want to mention some of these specific provisions. The report urges EPA to start over in their efforts to clean up air pollution in our national parks. I understand this language was included by the Republicans at the request of coal-burning utilities in Colorado. In the mid 1970s, there was growing public concern regarding air pollution clouding the beautiful vistas of our national parks. As a result, Congress directed EPA to address the problem in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. After a stalled effort, the program was improved and strengthened in 1990. Unfortunately, just as this program was finally beginning to be implemented, the program was stalled for 9 years by an anti-environmental rider attached to this year's highway bill. The language in the VA-HUD appropriations bill now adds insult to injury by urging EPA to start over and not encourage the States to even plan or think about addressing this serious issue.
Said by
Henry Waxman
Democratic · California

Editor's note · Context

Addressing environmental provisions in the VA-HUD appropriations bill during a House floor debate.

Share

More from Henry Waxman

Nov 20, 2014

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…

govinfo.gov
Apr 10, 2018

The $200 billion in the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House of Representatives was turned down over here in the Senate.

congress.gov
Nov 19, 2014

So what we are seeing is something that sounds good from a party that has no credibility to say that they are for more science information. What they would do is limit what EPA would be able to use to determine, based on the science, what…

govinfo.gov
Jul 11, 2019

It is not for the President to say or to obstruct congressional deliberations and investigations or other legitimate functions.

congress.gov

Other voices in this conversation