[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 19 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H536-H542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLEAR AIR ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. TONKO. This evening, Mr. Speaker, we will be joined by a number
of colleagues in the House to discuss the Clean Air Act and its impact
on jobs, on public health, and our national security. It is interesting
to note that we've had an outstanding 40-year record on behalf of the
improvements that have come via the Clean Air Act, and now there are
forces amongst us that would like to repeal important pollution control
standards that are part of that Clean Air Act and roll backward the
very progress that we have enjoyed, the impact that it has made. And
they're being joined now, these forces, by big polluters, people who
would choose to have us go backward and undo the tremendous standards
that have brought about and enhanced quality of life.
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has saved hundreds of thousands of
lives and decreased air pollution by some 60 percent, at the same time
having grown our economy by some 200 percent. So it is very important
to note that there has been a high order of progress associated with
the Clean Air Act, which came, by the way, through bipartisan vision
that thought we could improve our situation here in America, and those
visionaries were absolutely correct.
We now are at risk of endangering our children's health simply by
attacking the health standards that the Clean Air Act promotes. We're
also at risk of promoting ideas that will denounce innovation--
innovation that has moved forward in breaking our gluttonous dependency
on oil, oftentimes imported from unfriendly nations to the United
States, and where also we will roll back the progress that has come
with creating our own sense of innovation as we have responded to these
cleanup measures here in the States. This is an important juncture.
After a 40-year record, 40 years of success, we're now faced with the
forces of big polluters hooking up with our colleagues in the majority
in this House looking to roll back progress and denounce policies that
have impacted us favorably.
We're joined this evening by a number of colleagues. We're joined by
Representative Quigley from the Fifth District of Illinois, who has
thoughts that he wants to share with us. We'll be hearing from a number
of colleagues from Virginia and Washington State as the hour continues
to roll.
Representative Quigley, thank you for joining us this evening on this
very important topic and on this very important effort to hold back any
efforts made to undo the law and weaken it and put our health standards
at risk.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I want to thank you so much for having me. I want
to thank my colleague from New York for his efforts and everyone who's
here tonight toward this end. This issue is critical not just to our
health, our Nation's health, but also to our country's national
security and our economy. Because I rise today to protect the integrity
of all things of science because it is science that these facts and
figures that have led hundreds of scientists to
[[Page H537]]
confirm that global warming is real. It is this science that led the
Supreme Court through jurisprudence to rule that the EPA does in fact
have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. And it is this science
that led the Congress to pass the Clean Air Act, the act which
designated the EPA as the body charged with overseeing, adapting, and
implementing these regulations.
In the coming months, the EPA will begin regulating greenhouse gases
from certain emitters for the first time. These regulations have become
hugely controversial and, sadly, political. These rules combat man-made
climate change--man-made climate change that is melting our polar ice
caps, that is raising the level of our oceans, and that is modifying
our seasonal temperatures; man-made climate change that is altering the
duration of our growing season, that is flooding parts of the world and
causing multi-year droughts on others; man-made climate change that is
allowing particulate matters to infiltrate our children's lungs, making
them suffer from lifelong asthma and making us die earlier.
But some would argue these rules, these new regulations, are
burdensome; that they kill jobs, they imperil economic recovery, they
are nonsensical, they aren't pragmatic. That is nonsensical.
Let's take EPA's proposed rule regarding toxic emission from
industrial boilers, a seemingly innocuous rule, right? Wrong. This rule
called for the cleanup of units that burn fuel onsite to provide
electricity and heat. This action, this rule, would cut mercury
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and acid gases by requiring
facilities to install equipment to clean up these toxic emissions. This
so-called ``job-killing rule'' would, as predicted, save from 2,000 to
5,000 lives each year. The need to crack down on greenhouse gases is
based on sound science, the results of hundreds of peer-reviewed
scientific studies that say that global warming is real and that man
contributes to it.
And if you're keeping score at home, there are zero peer-reviewed
scientific studies that say that global warming is not real and that
man does not contribute to it. But, more than that, the need to crack
down on greenhouse gas emissions, the need to give EPA the tools to do
its duty as mandated by Congress and deemed their responsibility by the
Supreme Court. This issue certainly is lethal. It kills people. And my
friends who oppose this radical fight against global warming, you can't
work if you're dead.
December 31, 2010, marked the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act has saved the lives of over 160,000 people, as
conservatively estimated by the EPA. This issue then is a public health
issue.
Chicago is my hometown. It is in the midst of a public health crisis.
We are the morbidity and mortality capital of the United States for
asthma. Having two children who face this ailment, it strikes near and
dear to home. We are dealing with skyrocketing rates of death due to
asthma, but we're not the only city with this problem. A report
released by the American Lung Association reported nearly 60 percent of
Americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy
levels that can and does make people sick.
{time} 2030
Yet we are standing here on the House floor arguing against job
preserving measures, measures that will keep us alive and able to work,
measures that will create jobs in clean and green industrial areas.
As Al Gore said in 2005, ``It is now clear that we face a deepening
global climate crisis that requires us to act boldly, quickly and
wisely.'' Attacks on the Clean Air Act and the EPA's ability to
regulate greenhouse gases are a huge piece of the larger climate
crisis, a crisis that has a hefty cost--our health and our lives.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Quigley, for presenting your
perspective on this important discussion.
I think it's important to note when we talk about the statistics,
when we talk about an attack on public health standards, which this is,
it's done to enhance the opportunities--for lobbyists, for special
interests, for deep pockets of the oil industry, where they want to
avoid that sense of accountability and where they want to build their
profit column at the expense of the health outcomes that we have
generated to the good over the last 40 years. In fact, in 2010 alone,
the stat is that some 160,000 lives plus were saved by this
legislation, by this law that was produced 40 years ago. And when it
comes to children, some 18 million cases over the last 20 years of
children's bronchial or respiratory illnesses were prevented. So right
there the proof is in the pudding. This is an attack on our public
health, and I think it's important to state it for the record so that
when these forces of negativity come into play, they're checked for
their wanting to roll us backward.
I thank you for joining us this evening, Representative Quigley.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you for having me.
Mr. TONKO. We are joined by Representative Gerry Connolly from the
11th District in Virginia. It is always good to hear from you, also,
Gerry.
It is important, I think, that everyone share their perspective here
this evening of what damage can be calculated here after 40 years of
progress and where there is an attack on our health care standards and
on job creation. Because, as we all know, innovation to respond to the
efforts of this law, the intent purpose, produces jobs and produces a
technical response that is unique and provides for America to dig deep
into solutions.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. My friend from New York is absolutely
right. Let me thank him for his leadership in taking up this Special
Order tonight on the all-important preservation of the Clean Air Act. I
can't think frankly of a more reckless idea than repeal of all or parts
of the Clean Air Act. It would transform the quality of life for all
Americans.
Our colleague from Illinois' comments about having children who live
in Chicago, the number one asthma affected municipality in the United
States, really resonates with me. I also have a close relative here in
the Nation's capital, I represent the suburbs of Washington, DC, and I
can tell you that as a nonattainment region, we have significant health
effects from our air pollution. We are a nonattainment region as
measured by the Environmental Protection Agency, and cleaning up our
air quality is critical to thousands of people and thousands of
children whose health depends on the efficacy of the Clean Air Act and
making sure it is fully implemented.
I wanted just to share with my friend from New York and my colleagues
tonight some of the costs of repealing the Clean Air Act, because I
think Americans need to focus on that. It's not cost-free to repeal
this all-important environmental piece of legislation. Thanks to the
Clean Air Act, Americans will see gas consumption of cars reduced by an
average of 30 percent, saving the average car owner over $2,000. That
would be lost. Repealing the Clean Air Act would increase OPEC imports
by 72 million barrels every year by 2020. Repealing the Clean Air Act
will force Americans to spend $9.9 billion each year to Libya and
Venezuela and other OPEC countries, not all of which have America's
best interests at heart. Repealing the Clean Air Act would forgo
savings for Americans of 77 billion gallons of fuel over the life of
the vehicles sold in those years, representing $240 billion in
benefits, including over $182 billion in fuel savings.
In addition to undermining national security, repealing the Clean Air
Act would cause thousands of premature deaths which my colleagues were
referring to. For example, the proposed EPA boiler MACT standard would
save from 2,000 to 5,100 lives each year. Those lives would not be
saved with repeal of the Clean Air Act.
A report released by the American Lung Association recently reported
that nearly 60 percent of all Americans live in areas where air
pollution has reached unhealthy levels that can and do make people
sick, including right here in the Nation's capital. Approximately
171,632 children and 544,013 adults have asthma in my home State of
Virginia alone, according to the American Lung Association. Repealing
EPA's authority to limit mercury, particulate matter, carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide pollution would increase those numbers significantly
and would aggravate already existing respiratory conditions. We cannot
afford to repeal the Clean Air Act when it
[[Page H538]]
would imperil public health, undermine national security, countermand
all of our goals in terms of energy independence, and set a dangerous
precedent for repealing our most important public health law.
I thank my colleague from New York for leading us tonight and
highlighting the risks involved, the very serious and real risks
involved in this reckless action that is proposed.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Connolly. We will continue to
banter here this evening about the merits of the Clean Air Act and the
good that it has produced. But when we talk about some of this
innovation, how we can drive our energy independence, our self-
sufficiency, it goes well beyond the public health efforts that can be
secured simply by that kind of work as we reduce the amount of
emissions, but it also turns into an issue of national security, where
we know sending these over $400 billion a year to foreign sources for
our oil importation is actually feeding the treasuries of some very
unfriendly nations to the U.S., and then perhaps having those dollars
used to train the troops that are fighting our troops in our efforts
for peace in the Mideast. It is a never ending cycle of madness that
has to be prevented, and I think the Clean Air Act, accompanied by
other efforts that we can do to spur jobs and create an innovation
economy are very important aspects. They are outcomes of sound
progressive legislation that then achieves wonderful results and allows
us to address public health standards in a way that is magnanimous.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. My colleague could not be more correct.
And, of course, as he recalls, not only sound progressive legislation
but sound environmental legislation that had broad bipartisan support
and was signed into law by a Republican President.
Mr. TONKO. Right. And produced great benefits for every dollar
invested. You, Representative Connolly, and I serve on SEEC, which is a
wonderful group of legislators, like-minded in producing a green agenda
that reaches to a sustainable energy and environmental outcome. That
SEEC coalition is what is driving that agenda here in the House. One of
our cochairs is with us this evening, the gentleman from Washington
State's First District, Jay Inslee. Representative Jay Inslee is a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is ranker on a
subcommittee, I believe, that will have a very important hearing.
Representative Inslee, thank you for joining us this evening to talk
about this important topic.
Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I can't think of anything more important.
Tomorrow we will have the first hearing in Congress on the Dirty Air
Act. Of course the Dirty Air Act is the act that intends to gut Uncle
Sam's ability to protect clean air for all of us to breathe--
Republicans, Democrats and independents. This Dirty Air Act is clearly
bad for children with asthma. This Dirty Air Act is bad for senior men
with respiratory problems. This Dirty Air Act is bad for senior
American women with heart problems. This Dirty Air Act is bad for
American workers who are going to lose the jobs that will be created in
the innovative new industries that we're going to build so we can
produce electricity and power for our cars in a clean way. This Dirty
Air Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen in my
time in the U.S. Congress and I will tell you why. It breaks faith with
some of the values, at least two of the great works done by Republican
Presidents. And it's really a tragedy that my colleagues across the
aisle have fallen for the siren sound of the polluters, because it's
the polluters who want to pass the Dirty Air Act, which by the way you
could also call the Inhaler Enhancement Act of 2011, if you want to
know what it does to children who have asthma.
We just spent an hour talking about the optimism of President Ronald
Reagan, which was manifest and appreciated by Democrats and Republicans
alike. And those of us who stand against this Dirty Air Act believe we
ought to have optimism that we can create electricity in clean ways. We
can do it in solar energy created and powered by Americans. We can do
it with electric cars made by Americans. The GM Volt was just the car
of the year made by Americans, General Motors; a plug-in electric
hybrid car.
{time} 2040
We can do it with wind. We can do it, perhaps, with advanced forms of
nuclear power.
The point is that that sense of optimism has now been shucked
overboard because the polluters have come up to Washington, DC, with
their lobbyist friends, and have convinced our friends and colleagues
to throw aside 40 years of Republican success. This thing was started
by Richard Nixon with a good assist by William Ruckelshaus, who is now
a citizen of Seattle, Washington. It was a Republican who recognized
our ability to innovate in a way that would grow jobs and reduce air
pollution.
I want to leave you with one statistic--and Richard Nixon was right
in this regard. He was wrong on some other things, but he was right on
this.
He said the polluting industry resisted the Clean Air Act when it
started 40 years ago, but what he believed--and it turned out to be
accurate--was that we could innovate our way to create new technologies
to produce energy. That's why we have reduced air pollution by 60
percent since 1970. It is because of the Clean Air Act. Yet our economy
has grown by 200 percent--a 200 percent growth at the time the
polluters said this was going to wreck the U.S. economy. That's the
same thing we can do now in using the innovative talents so we can
start making electric cars here and ship them to China, so we can start
making solar panels here, with jobs in America, so we can ship those to
China.
I'll just part with one statement.
There ought not to be any debate about the health care impacts here
either. Congress has received a letter signed by 2,505 American
scientists, calling on Congress to resist and defeat the Republicans'
dirty air act, because, it says, the Clean Air Act is a science-based
law that has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of
millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the
40 years since it was first passed, all without diminishing economic
growth.
Those are from American scientists, who understand American
innovation, who understand American asthma, who understand the American
ability to keep moving forward and to not go backwards. Heaven help
those who would support the dirty air act and who would support to
repeal clean air protections for Americans.
Mr. TONKO. Representative Inslee, you talk about the jobs effect.
Obviously, there are those who would suggest that this kills jobs when,
in fact, we have data from 2007 that shows the air pollution control
equipment industry was generating some $18.3 billion with $3 billion of
that in terms of exporting that is done.
So this spurs innovation. It puts into working order the science and
tech community that creates sustainable-type jobs that really make an
impact on our quality of life and on our public health standards. I
think those facts are missing here when those forces of lobbyists, deep
pocket sorts, and oil voices join with our partners on the other side
of the aisle to kill this legislation.
Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman would yield for a moment, I have a
little story about how I've seen this firsthand.
I went to the coolest event a few weeks ago that I've ever gone to as
a public official. It was in Woodinville, Washington, at the
Woodinville Wooden Cross Church. I got to participate in the
benediction, in the dedication, of the very first electric car charging
station at a church in America. It was great. It was, you know, let
there be light and there was light. Let there be power and there was
power. More importantly, there were jobs, because every time we put in
one of these charging stations, there are five American jobs created
due to these investments.
If the Republicans get their way, what will happen is they will
repeal the Clean Air Act, which will affect carbon and methane and
ozone--very dangerous gasses in a lot of different ways. Instead of the
investment going to create new energy industries, those investments are
going to go to China, and it's China that is going to make the electric
cars and the solar power and the advanced systems of maybe finding ways
to burn coal cleanly.
[[Page H539]]
We don't want to give that competitive advantage up. This is the
pedal to the metal, this Clean Air Act, which drives the investment
which has made America the leading producer of scrubbing equipment in
the world today to clean up these stacks today. This is what makes us
competitive. So I think this is a job killer to pass the dirty air act,
and we've got to get in this race with China.
Mr. TONKO. You know, I think, too, it taps into the pioneer spirit of
America--the ingenuity, the creative genius that has always guided us,
that is nurtured simply by our open system of government and capitalist
style of opportunity. We have been able to go forward with so many
advances. In this case, as we address health-threatening, life-
threatening situations because of toxic poisoning, it produces jobs
that are of a very sustainable quality and that are really tapping into
the cerebral power of this country. I don't know why anyone would want
to disrupt that progress as there is no higher priority than jobs,
jobs, jobs in our society today.
At the same time, if we can create stronger public health standards--
as you said, address women of senior age varieties and children of all
types and working middle-aged couples around this country--everyone in
every age demographic will be protected and helped by the Clean Air
Act. There is 40 years of documented success that ought to guide us
here and tell us this is a move in the wrong direction.
We are so happy that so many people are offering their thoughts here
this evening in this Special Order, in this 1-hour's worth of info
exchange. We are joined by a great Representative from New Jersey, who
is, again, a very thoughtful scientist of types--a physicist, I
believe--from New Jersey's 12th Congressional District, Representative
Rush Holt.
Thank you so much, Representative Holt, for joining us this evening.
Mr. HOLT. I would like to add a comment to Mr. Inslee's point and
just repeat: Pollution is costly. It's costly in lives and it's costly
in dollars, and one of the best instruments that has existed in the
world over the past 40 years is the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act has decreased lead emissions by 95 percent. In
using the Clean Air Act, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency,
has reduced emissions from diesel engines by almost 90 percent, and
that is saving lives and saving dollars. By phasing out ozone-depleting
chemicals and working through international agreements, the EPA is
cutting non-melanoma skin cancer by hundreds of millions, and reducing
smog and soot reduces premature deaths. This is successful legislation.
My colleague, Mr. Inslee, what do we call it? You were calling it the
``dirty air act.''
Mr. INSLEE. I think it's simply fair to call it the ``dirty air act''
because that's what you get if this legislation passes. You get dirty
air. If you pass a dirty air act, you get dirty air. I think it's a
fair assessment of what it does.
Mr. HOLT. Undoing the Clean Air Act makes the air less clean. The
Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing into the atmosphere the
emissions of pollutants/chemicals that kill people. The Clean Air Act
has been successful.
And what do we have before us?
Well, tomorrow, as you say, there will be a hearing on legislation
not yet in final form--let's hope that it never finds its way into
final form. It is legislation that would gut the Clean Air Act. It
would prevent the Clean Air Act from keeping up with the times. It
would prevent the Clean Air Act from continuing to protect Americans by
removing dangerous chemicals from the atmosphere. This is really a
matter of public health, and it is also a matter of economics.
The cost of clean air safeguards has been exaggerated over the years.
I remember--and I think my colleagues are old enough to remember. I
certainly am--when the Clean Air Act was passed. At the time, they
said, Oh, this is going to be terrible. It's going to ruin industry.
You know, claims about the cost of sulphur dioxide standards were
exaggerated by factors of--I don't know--5 or 10.
{time} 2050
You know, we've seen from the market price of the sulfur dioxide
allowances that the actual market is much less than the estimated cost
of complying with the sulfur dioxide regulations. So, again and again,
these have been exaggerated, and by implementing the Clean Air Act, we
have saved lives and, by association, by extension, saved dollars.
Furthermore, if the Clean Air Act is allowed to continue to look
after the air that you and I breathe, it will lead to further
efficiency and all of the burgeoning industries that you, my colleague
from New York, and you, my colleague from Washington, have talked
about. This is going to be very good for the United States to be able
to sell these environmentally attractive technologies to the rest of
the world rather than to buy them.
So, for all sorts of reasons, we simply cannot afford the proposal of
what's coming from the majority on the other side of the aisle that
would increase our dependence on foreign oil, that would leave the air
less breathable, that would aggravate asthma and heart disease, and
would end up undoing the Clean Air Act. What Congress should be doing
is making it possible for the Clean Air Act to continue to protect
Americans' health and lives, not undoing it.
Mr. INSLEE. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. HOLT. I'd be happy to.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Holt made a really important point that we need to
discuss. He made a strong statement that this dirty air act that the
Republicans have introduced would gut the Clean Air Act. That is a
strong statement, and it is entirely accurate.
Mr. HOLT. If I may explain, the Clean Air Act is based on science.
Mr. INSLEE. Yeah.
Mr. HOLT. And the Clean Air Act, as the years have gone by, has used
the best science to find the best ways to remove the worst pollutants
from our air, and this is a very unscientific approach that they're
saying. They're saying because of politics we are not going to listen
to science; because of politics, we're going to say the Clean Air Act
stops here.
Mr. INSLEE. What I want to make clear to the public is that when we
say gut, we mean gut the Clean Air Act because the Republican dirty air
act doesn't just reduce protections by 10 percent to children with
asthma. It doesn't reduce it by 50 percent. It entirely eliminates the
ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to provide kids with
asthma any protection whatsoever for these listed emissions from
polluting industries.
Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. And you know, I think that our goal,
gentlemen, should be to strengthen the public health standards. When we
think of the reduced amount of impacts on children, for instance, those
18 million cases that were prevented of respiratory diseases for
children, those are important steps. That ought to drive us.
But you know, Representative Holt talked about the cost of the
program and the associated benefits. Well, right now the average has
been for every dollar of investment there is a $13 benefit. That's a
tremendous, powerful outcome. Why would we not want to continue that
sort of benefit that befalls the American public and produces jobs at
the same time? This whole session of Congress that preceded this 112th
and now this Congress, this session of Congress to date is all about
jobs, and why would we walk away from the jobs potential and the public
health improvements for the sake of politics? And by the way, those
benefits are projected by the year 2020 to rise to $20 trillion, which
is a 30:1 ratio. For every dollar invested, $30 of benefits will be
produced. This is an awesome track record, and one that really, again,
speaks to the well-being, the general health of the American public and
produces jobs.
By the way, the American manufacturing teams that work on air
pollution reduction technology are the kingpins in that global market.
They are producing and exporting. Now, everywhere we go we're looking
for American industry to be bolstered, for manufacturing to come back.
We in this House have adopted the mantra, Make it in America, Make it
in America again. Here we are, we're achieving and exporting,
exporting, which is the goal here, so that we can bulk up the American
economy, and getting good results from it.
[[Page H540]]
Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield on that very point.
Mr. TONKO. Absolutely.
Mr. HOLT. The rest of the world is not backing down. The rest of the
world is not moving toward dirtier atmosphere, toward more atmospheric
admissions. They understand that this is deadly and costly, and as I
said a few moments ago, wouldn't it be better if we Americans were
selling the technologies to the rest of the world? Many of these
technologies were developed here in the United States. Many of the
opportunities for more energy efficiency and less atmospheric
admissions can be developed here in the United States. Wouldn't it
be better if we developed them here and sold them to the rest of the
world instead of someday having to buy them?
Mr. TONKO. There's a point that comes to mind, Representative Holt,
when you talk about building it here and developing the technology and
having that think-tank quality in this country. That also has to be
nurtured by the next generation of workers. We have to pull from the
students in the classroom today their experience or their awareness of
science, technology, engineering, and math. We must enable them to
explore those areas as a career path.
What sort of message are we offering out there? What is the message
that resonates from this sort of approach? If I'm a youngster in a
classroom, I'm thinking science and technology has no value in our
society. We're able to clean up, but we don't want to clean up. We're
able to produce jobs through air pollution reduction technology that
requires some sort of research and development concept--we don't care
about that.
We're sending a message to young people that these careers don't
matter, and oh, by the way, your health doesn't matter because all of
those young people, say from asthma or say from some sort of
respiratory ailment, just don't matter. That is a terrible statement to
offer our young people, I would think. And Representative Inslee, you
have something to say?
Mr. HOLT. I would urge you to put your comment in the conditional.
This is not going to happen. We are not going to let it happen. It
would be so unwise to say we're not going to follow the science. It
would be so unwise to say to the young people, we're going to turn away
from this innovative challenge. It would be so unwise to say to
families with asthma, we're not going to make the atmosphere better.
Mr. TONKO. Just following on the heels of----
Mr. HOLT. It's not going to happen but, we are here to say we won't
let it happen.
Mr. TONKO. Just following on the heels of the President saying right
from the podium, right in the State of the Union, it's time to
celebrate the science bowl as much as we celebrate the Super Bowl. Here
he is trying to draw the innovation economy into the classroom to give
students a sense of vision, partake in a creative venture out there
that will make the world better, and now we're rolling back technology.
What a terrible message to leave our young people.
Representative Inslee.
Mr. INSLEE. You just may be thinking, President Obama gave a State of
the Union. He talked about celebrating winning the science bowl, about
using the Chinese advances, and how clean energy is our Sputnik moment,
so that we would be called to have a new Apollo energy project, and we
know we can do in clean energy what our, you know, ancestors did in
space, which is to lead the world in clean energy. We know this can be
the American destiny, and the reason we know that is because our vision
is one based on optimism and confidence. Our vision is that we know we
can invent new forms of energy so that we don't cause additional asthma
problems in our children.
{time} 2100
Now this is a difference between us and the Republicans who want to
pass this dirty air act. We realize two things about our children.
Number one, when polluters pollute and expose them to dangerous levels
of ozone and increase--dramatic increases--in asthma attacks and
respiratory problems in senior citizens, those kids don't have anywhere
to run and hide. You know, an oil company can go around places in the
world. A kid is stuck where he lives, and there's nowhere to hide from
dirty air. That's why I'm not very happy about this effort to put more
of our kids in the way of dirty air, number one.
And number two, we realized that this is real when it comes to new
technology. You know, when we passed the bill to create an investment
in lithium ion battery manufacturing plants this year, some of our
Republican colleagues scoffed at that effort. They thought, This is
never going to happen. Well, in Holland, Michigan, we have laid-off
American auto workers now making lithium ion batteries, or shortly, for
sale all around the world to power electric cars.
We know there are jobs to make that happen. We know in Seattle,
Washington, we've got the leaders in the discovery of location for wind
power. We know those jobs can be made to happen. In Moses Lake,
Washington, we have one of the largest manufacturers of silicone, a
part of solar panels, to be shipped around the world. We know those
jobs can be made to happen. At the Boeing Company, we are making
airplanes--or shortly will--that can burn biofuels so we don't put out
CO2 emission and pollution. We know those jobs can happen.
Now we want our Republican colleagues to join us in this sense of
optimism, because the rule that the EPA has proposed is really pretty
modest. Now we're having a full-throated discussion here, debate, and
we'll have a big debate tomorrow about this. But the rule is pretty
modest. Let me tell you how modest it is. It simply requires
essentially known efficiency standards at very, very large power
plants, over 100,000 tons of emissions a year. Now, a lot of small
businesses are going to be told, this is going to shut down restaurants
and dry cleaners, et cetera. That's bunk. This rule is only proposing
to deal with very, very large emitters, like large coal plants. This is
a very modest first step in an approach to try to rein in some of these
dangerous gases like carbon dioxide and ozone and toxins like that. It
is a reasonable first step.
Mr. TONKO. And people have asked, they said, Well, what are these
emissions? What are these particulates that may be harmful to us or our
children? And when you start talking, Representative Inslee, about
mercury poisoning, when you start talking about carbon emission, when
there is the talk about arsenic and lead poisoning, people begin to see
it as something very real, something they've heard of, that they know
people have been impacted by. So of course people want to protect their
children. They are our most sacred commodity. They are a precious
commodity. And with so much track record here, 40 years of success, of
strong public health standards, it's very difficult to imagine that
someone wants to take that backward.
I think of the innovation that I saw when I served as the leader of
NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority,
which was my last workstation before entering the House. I saw what R&D
and basic research, research and development can mean in the new shelf
opportunities that come our way that are science and tech associated.
You know, people said when you went to the catalytic converter for
automobiles, it was going to kill the auto industry, and we're going to
have no jobs here. It didn't happen. People understood that this
catalytic converter can now clean us of that pollution, that emission.
You know, we were told of all sorts of things that would happen when
we were addressing the emissions in some smokestacks. People came about
and found ways to make it happen. The industries many times are
painted--many out there that are part of this concern--have really come
forward and said, This is a reasonable approach. Many have said that.
They want predictability. They want some sort of plan, and they'll
engage their operation into that plan and its outcome. There are many
groups, like Entergy, Constellation Energy, NextEra Energy, National
Grid, PSE&G, and one in my home base, the New York State Power
Authority, all of whom have said that this is a reasonable approach,
that they are willing to be those partners out there to make the world,
the environment, the air that we breathe a better quality.
[[Page H541]]
So the proof is in the pudding here. There is an outstanding 40-year
track record. There are children who breathe freely, and there are
lives that have been saved. Just 160,000, if that matters, last year
alone. But people need to look at the facts here and not be so
connected to those deep pockets, special interests, friends from the
oil industry that want to come here and partner with colleagues in the
House and say, We're going to undo this, and we're going to kill jobs.
Job-killing, life-threatening, health-threatening, toxic poisoning that
can take place if we allow it to. And we will stop this, I'm convinced.
Mr. INSLEE. And I hope we will be successful and believe that we will
because there are multiple reasons for this. And this really is an
issue about democracy, about who is going to make a decision about the
air we breathe and the air our children breathe. Is it going to be
scientists and physicians at the American Lung Association and
scientists who base their decision on science and health? Or is it
going to be lobbyists for polluting industries?
Now we say it should be the scientists. We say we should follow the
science. When we go to doctors, we get medical advice, it's based on
science. When we want health advice, we don't go to lobbyists for
polluting industries. We let a health decision be made by scientists.
And unfortunately, the dirty air act that my Republican colleagues want
to pass, they want to take that decision away from scientists and away
from physicians and away from health practitioners and give it to the
folks who lobby up here for special breaks. That's wrong.
And I will just make a closing comment, if I can. We are going to
fight the dirty air act on behalf of the health of our kids. We are
going to fight the dirty air act on behalf of our senior citizens with
their health problems. And we are going to fight the dirty air act so
that we can grow millions of clean energy jobs right here in this
country and not ship them off to China.
Mr. TONKO. Well, I can't help but think too of the Citizens United
case, where special interests now are able to open the corporate
checkbook and just write sizable checks. The sky is the limit,
according to the Supreme Court decision. And that can bring about
special interest flavor into campaigns that are waged and into
candidates that are produced into the House. And when we look at
special interests like that, we then begin to see what the real agenda
is, and it's counterproductive. It is kicking back progress that has
been achieved for 40 years, celebrations of life that were allowed to
breathe freely because of this legislation. And the introduction of
innovation and technology.
So these deep-rooted power plays are perhaps going to be more
prevalent as we go forward in time, and I think that it's setting a
dangerous precedent. I think that what we have here is an opportunity
to say ``yes'' to sound public health standards, ``yes'' to job
creation, ``yes'' to innovation. I know that from the work that's being
done--even in the auto industry, GE is putting together an advanced
battery manufacturing facility that will be available for heavy fleets.
We have those who are working on all sorts of alternative fuels. We are
looking at renewables to cut the kind of pollution that has been
allowed to continue because of our gluttonous dependency on oil
imported from unfriendly nations to the U.S. And 60 percent of that
demand is met simply by those oil imports. So there is an awful lot of
progressive perspective that is associated with what the Clean Air Act
has achieved. We have to go forward with this one.
Mr. INSLEE. I would just note in closing that if we are successful in
asking Republicans to stand with us against the dirty air act, we will
celebrate a Republican achievement of 40 years ago that we will have
preserved, the Clean Air Act. And we will argue that the next electric
vehicle should be called the Nixon. We want to honor a Republican
President. Thanks very much.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Inslee.
You know, the efforts made here tonight were to inform people as to
the impact that could be felt if we rolled back the progress of the
Clean Air Act, one that has had this 40-year record of achievement, one
that has given a big boost to innovation in our economy. Our President,
this President, President Obama, has indicated that this is the sort of
sustainable restructuring of our economy that can drive us forward.
{time} 2110
If we invest in the intellect of this great American society, if we
encourage education and higher education to be pronounced in the lives
of individuals, if we can pull from them their interests in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, we can then have this hopeful
opportunity of job creation that comes simply through ideas, ideas that
are produced perhaps in that education experience that we can provide
for our young people and by public policy that drives initiatives, that
drives a series of goals to in this case clean the air quality that has
enabled us to go forward with the soundness in the manufacturing sector
that has retrofitted, has modernized, has adjusted, retooled that
industry, those industries in the manufacturing realm to respond in a
way that is much more sensitive to public health standards. This is the
sort of progress that we can achieve in this country simply by moving
forward with soundness of policy.
And so, I thank all of our colleagues this evening who have joined us
in the efforts to speak to the soundness of clean air, what it means
not only in public health standards but certainly in the efforts to
create jobs and to sustain the economy in a way that will continue to
strive to build on the progress that we have achieved over these last
four decades, and continue to explore new eras of job creation that
will provide the soundness in our economy that will be the strength of
this country in many, many decades and generations to come.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TONKO. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I was listening with interest to the gentleman's
remarks and especially taking into interest the importance of the Clean
Air Act, and I want to commend the gentleman for raising these issues
not only with our colleagues, but the importance of why we have to make
sure that this part of the element of our current laws are being
sustained and upheld.
I think the question also is raised here in terms of this is not a
new issue. This is really an issue that has been ongoing for years and
years in terms of development versus conservation and the environment.
I think the challenge for us as legislators is to see if we can find a
sense of balance.
Currently, we have to import well over $700 billion worth of oil from
foreign countries. I don't think our Republican friends think that
we're antidevelopment. I think we are for development and in doing it
in such a way that the sciences are there and in such a way that it
provides safety and, at the same time, provides the kind of resources
that are really needful to meet the needs of the American people.
And I want to again commend the gentleman for raising this issue, and
I hope that in the coming weeks and months we will continue the
dialogue and debate on this very important matter.
Mr. TONKO. Well, Representative Faleomavaega, thank you for joining
us this evening.
But during the course of this hour we have all talked about
innovation that we see happening right in our very own districts. I
have a global center on renewables that is conducted through the
auspices of GE. We talked about their advanced battery manufacturing
facility. I talked about the nanoscience that has been promoted in the
21st Congressional District of New York. We witness every day the
semiconductor work that is done and work in the biotech and infotech
and nanotech communities, all of which are critically important to
providing the workforce of the future and the workplace of the future.
This is what I think policy like this can initiate.
And I'm certain within the realm of your own district or in the
region that you represent or the State that you call home, within that
whole context there are those stories of success and innovation. And
that, I think, is the outcome here that we want to preserve, and not
only preserve but enhance, so that we can continue to grow those
[[Page H542]]
jobs and provide a better quality of life for the people that we
represent.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I hope that in the coming weeks and months we will
continue to discuss this issue and, hopefully, our friends on the other
side will understand our concerns.
Again, it's the challenge of establishing a balance between
development and the environment and the conservation, and I think the
American people are looking for answers to those issues and those
problems.
Mr. TONKO. Built on 40 years of success then, we want to defend
people of all ages from the most young to the most senior in our
society. They have experienced and lived the benefits of soundness of
policy that came via the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan effort that was
initiated by a Republican President. And so it defies logic to move
forward with a plan that will take us backward. So we have to thwart
that effort and call it for what it is, check it at the door and say,
Look, it is a life-threatening, health-threatening, toxic-poisoning
situation that would reduce jobs, denounce innovation in our society,
in our economy, and really take us backward.
I think this House ought to be about moving us forward, creating
jobs, enhancing the public health standards and embracing the quality
of innovation in our society that really builds the magic in our
economy, that digs deep into the pioneer spirit that is uniquely
American. And we can make it happen simply by saying ``no'' to those
agents that want to roll back progress and defeat us with their dirty
air act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back and thank you for the opportunity for all
of us to express our concerns about those who are advancing a dirty air
act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protect the Clean Air
Act. Since the passage of the legislation our skies have become cleaner
and our economy has become stronger. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the
United States has made significant gains in public health, a cleaner
environment and a stronger more sustainable economy.
Air pollution is costly. It increases asthma attacks, heart attacks,
strokes, respiratory diseases, and lung cancer, and causes premature
deaths, hurting our families and burdening our economy. The dangers
from air pollution are particularly acute for children and seniors.
It is well established that cleaner air and a healthier population go
hand in hand. In fact, according to the American Lung Association, in
2010 alone, the Clean Air Act saved over 160,000 lives.
Cleaner air also helps build a stronger economy. In addition to
keeping workers on the job, cleaning up air pollution can create new
jobs--in designing and manufacturing pollution controls, installing and
operating new equipment, and building cleaner facilities.
The draft bill from Representative Upton would return us to a Dirty
Air Economy, an economy dominated by big polluters willing to pour
pollution into our communities in order to help their companies.
Erasing the Clean Air Act may be good for corporate profits but it's
bad for our national interest.
The truth is that we can have clean air and a strong economy at the
same time. The last 30 years have proved it. Since the passage of the
Clean Air Act, the United States has reduced key air pollutants by 60
percent, while growing our economy by over 200 percent. The
legislation, in conjunction with additional protections passed by both
parties, has made our country a healthier, cleaner place to live.
A new study by scientists at the University of Rochester Medical
Center and Clarkson University found that the air quality in Rochester,
New York improved markedly in recent years and that public health may
well improve as a result. Falling levels of air pollutants given off by
cars, trucks and power plants has resulted in far fewer irritants in
the air that could worsen asthma and lead to serious respiratory
disease. The decline is in part due to the tighter federal rules on
diesel fuel and engines that went into effect in 2006 under a
Republican Administration. Like others have pointed out before, clean
air standards have always been, and should continue to be, a bipartisan
concern.
I have the privilege to represent the good people living in
Tonawanda, New York--a city that has a staggering and urgent air
pollution problem. These hard working Americans are surrounded by
facilities that make up the highest concentration of air polluters in
the state of New York. In 2007, a study found that the people of
Tonawanda's risk of developing cancer are 100 times that of the New
York State guideline.
During my time serving the 28th District of New York, I have received
multiple letters from the people of Tonawanda telling me about how
their family and loved ones have developed cancer, asthma and other
illnesses due to the extremely poor air quality in their community.
Today, I would like to share the story of Ann, a woman who has lived
in Tonawanda for 16 years. Ann's mother and father moved to the city to
fulfill the American dream of owning their own home. Ann's mother
cultivated her own garden in her yard, spending her free time outside
gardening and breathing in what she thought was fresh, New York air.
Sadly, Ann lost her mother to cancer at the young age of 67, just
nine years after moving to Tonawanda and breathing the dirty air. Ann
can't help to think that if only her family knew what toxic, cancerous
chemicals the local facilities were pumping into the air, they could
have protected the health of their loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of upholding the Clean Air Act and
supporting the Environmental Protection Act in doing its work to
protect the American people against dangerous corporate polluters. I
rise in support of improving our national health and economy, while
reducing our dependence on oil. And I rise in support of Ann and the
people of Tonawanda who are facing the devastating consequences of air
pollution every day.
The choice is simple. When it was passed in 1970, the Clean Air Act
was enacted with strong bipartisan support. Like today, we had a
divided government, with both parties coming together to enact a law
that would protect public health and the environment, as well as our
economy.
We must reject any effort to repeal our valuable protections, and
recommit our pledge to the American people to work toward a cleaner,
healthier, more prosperous future.
____________________