Two points on the review and the standards. Certainly not every review would require a change in standards, and I think that needs to be made clear here. When we talk about the difficulty of having to respond or achieve the standards that have been established and then they go stronger, well, on your way to 70 parts per billion, you are going to be moving through 75 parts per billion as you reduce those particulates that get emitted into our air. It is only logical that you could move along and continue to improve those standards. This is about maintaining a quality of life, enhancing a quality of life, cutting into, for public health policy purposes, the devastating impacts of air pollutants and their relation to our public health. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).
Paul Tonko: “Two points on the review and the standards. Certainly not every review would require a change in standards, and I think…”
Share
More from Paul Tonko
in just 1 short year, our constituents have already begun to suffer the consequences of the Trump administration's agenda to undo lifesaving environmental protections. The latest rollback is expected to target key parts of the EPA's 2015…
I thank Ranking Member McGovern for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, Democrats plan to offer a vote on the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act. The SUPPORT Act, which House Republicans…
I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. The American Lung Association recently issued its annual ``State of the Air'' report, which found that nearly…
I was using that to set in context my comments because, again, waste addressed in an efficiency exercise is important, but ironically, today, we are finally on the House floor talking about an EPA rule that reduces actual, literal waste…





