Political Quotes

“Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Madam Speaker, this amendment would prohibit the use of any funds to finalize or implement or enforce the EPA's recent proposal to maintain the current Particulate Matter National Air Ambient Quality Standard. In April of this year, the EPA proposed retaining the existing particulate matter standard. The standard is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. It was last reviewed and substantially tightened in 2013 during the previous administration. The current EPA undertook the required 5-year review of the PM standard. In a resounding 5-to-1 decision, the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee voted to retain the standard. The CASAC determined that there were substantial uncertainties with studies alleging to demonstrate health effects below the current standard. Following the requirements of the regulatory process, the EPA conducted a science-based review and analysis of the relevant data, and it proposed retaining the current PM standards. So if I have this right, the EPA conducted a scientific review and analysis, it followed the requisite Administrative Procedures Act process, and it made a regulatory proposal which it still will take public comment on, review the feedback, and eventually make a final determination. So where is the misstep here that requires this kind of amendment? Did the agency falter by listening to science? Did the agency falter by following the rulemaking process?…”