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.
Edward Livingston: “The bottomline is simple: The scant environmental benefits to be gained from these flawed programs fall way short of the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing provisions in H.R. 1159 related to environmental regulations and the Clean Air Act.
Share
More from Edward Livingston
I happen to think that he will be one of the most missed Members. He is one of the most colorful, one of the most dedicated, and one of the most hard-working. The Washingtonian magazine did say he was one of the most hard-working, and I…
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 would point out that this gentleman shares the concern of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) about extraneous issues. That is why we divided the U.N. arrearages, the IMF, and the abortion lobbying restrictions and put them on a…
The amendment before the committee would provide $20 million for HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program to assist in the recovery from the recent Northeastern U.S. ice storm. This storm caused damage to property and utilities in…





