The bottomline is simple: The scant environmental benefits to be gained from these flawed programs fall way short of the costs involved in implementing them. By preventing EPA from enforcing these requirements through the end of the fiscal year, we are giving the authorizing committee time to reopen the Clean Air Act. Changes must be made to reflect the expensive failures all of our constituents have encountered in dealing with these programs. Likewise, we must give States the option to choose the methods that work best for them to address their pollution problems. EPA has backed off the trip reduction requirement. They acknowledge its ineffectiveness and say they will not enforce it.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing provisions in H.R. 1159 related to environmental regulations and the Clean Air Act.
Share
More from Edward Livingston
the amendment does not specifically relate to that. However, it is our expectation, and the understanding of all of the task force members, that in accordance with precedent the Committee will determine by majority vote which, if any…
the gentleman is fundamentally correct. It was not the intent of the committee to interpret the facts of the situation but rather to highlight the problem for future action.
I congratulate him and the gentleman from Wisconsin for the outstanding job that they have done on bringing this most extraordinarily difficult bill thus far. The fact is, as has been just said by the gentleman from Wisconsin, we currently…
I want to offer my most sincere and hearty congratulations to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) as he embarks on this wonderful opportunity to serve the people of his State and the people of this country in the United States…





