Political Quotes

“If we could take a look at this amendment, this amendment would require the EPA Administrator to notify affected States and localities of any anticipated effects of the legislation on air quality. The issue is the SENSE Act prohibits any increase in covered emissions, so any impact on air quality will be very limited. The SENSE Act mandates that sulfur dioxide emissions stay within the EPA-approved caps so there can be no increase above approved levels. Coal refuse-to-energy plants are negligible emitters of mercury, and the bill requires emissions reductions of hydrogen chloride and other compounds only at a rate achievable for this type of facility. The proposed amendment is one-sided, as it ignores the air and water quality benefits from reducing the coal refuse problem, including reducing the risk of heavily polluting coal refuse fires that can affect many State and local governments. For example, this amendment would not require the EPA Administrator to notify affected communities of what happens when a coal refuse pile catches on fire and there is an uncontrolled release of pollutants into the environment. We should be focused on ensuring that these innovative refuse-to- energy facilities can continue to operate and reduce the serious water and air quality problems posed by coal refuse. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.…”