- Eyes on Katko as Extreme Vote to Block Climate Action Nears

For Immediate Release: December 1, 2015

Eyes on Katko as Extreme Vote to Block Climate Action Nears

Congress Prepares Again to Attack Clean Power Plan, Clean Air Act

Albany – The U.S. House of Representatives is preparing to vote a second time since June today to block climate action and clean air protections, advancing extreme legislation that no New York member of Congress can justify supporting.

In his first vote, Rep. John Katko sided with his majority colleagues to stall the plan. The new iteration of this effort is far more extreme than the first, and would not only immediately nullify the Clean Power Plan, but also prevent further action until Congress specifically directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a climate plan.

The following statement is attributable to Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York:

“The bad news is that even as world leaders convene on global climate action in Paris, our own House of Representatives continues their quixotic quest to gut the Clean Air Act. The good news, for Rep. Katko at least, is that this is his chance to redeem himself and prove to his constituents that they are not represented by someone who has turned his back on science and public health.

New Yorkers have been the victim of pollution from western coal and fossil fuel plants for decades. If Kentucky Rep. Whitfield gets his way, those plants will continue to spew their toxic emissions into our air without regard for the people here in New York who are made sick as a result.

This legislation not only stalls climate action indefinitely, it attacks the very integrity of the Clean Air Act, and rolls back the progress New York has already made through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). No New York member of Congress can justify, in good conscience, their support of this extreme effort.

Rep. Katko was wrong in his first vote. He should take ownership of his vote this time and stand with his constituents by opposing S.J. Res 23 and S.J. Res 24.”

###