[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 45 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S2012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLEAN AIR ACT

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, sometime today we are going to get back to 
the SBIR bill, the bill that deals with helping our small businesses 
with innovation and growth so we can create more jobs and continue to 
lead the world in innovation, so we can win that international 
competition the President talks about. We need to do that by 
outeducating and outinnovating and outbuilding our competitors. Part of 
that is helping our small business community with innovation. The bill 
that is on the floor--the authorization of the SBIR program--helps 
small, innovative companies in order to create jobs and help America 
grow.
  I take this time, though, to urge my colleagues to reject all of the 
amendments that may be offered that would take away from the 
Environmental Protection Agency their ability to enforce our Clean Air 
Act. I say that because I truly believe--I think most people believe; 
and it has been proven over history--we can have a clean environment 
and we can grow our economy. In fact, I think if we do not have a clean 
environment, it is going to be more difficult for us to grow our 
economy.
  We need to do what is right for the people of this Nation as it 
relates to their public health. The Clean Air Act has been one of the 
most important bills to protect the public health of the people of this 
Nation.
  Carbon emissions are pollution. They are polluting our environment. 
They are causing respiratory ailments. They are making it more 
difficult for people who have respiratory illness to be able to 
breathe. We have children with asthma who are directly affected by the 
quality of the air they breathe.
  It is our responsibility to take care of our children. It is our 
responsibility to make sure they have clean air. The Clean Air Act has 
helped us deal with those needs. We want the enforcement of the Clean 
Air Act to be based upon science, not the political whims here in 
Washington. We want the scientists to tell us what we can do to protect 
our public health. That is what the Clean Air Act and its enforcement 
is about, and it is being done in a way that allows our economy to 
grow.
  There are some here who say: Well, some of these amendments are a 
temporary holdback from what EPA can do to enforce our laws by putting 
a moratorium on enforcement. Well, we all know what happens with 
moratoriums. We do not know whether we will ever get beyond those 
short-term delays. We do not want to go down that path.
  What do you do if you are a business and you are trying to do what is 
right with the investments of your company to comply with the Clean Air 
Act and now you are being told, well, maybe those rules will change? 
How do you make the necessary investments in your company without 
knowing the ground rules are the ground rules? Let's not go down that 
path. That would be the wrong way to go.
  Let me give an example in my own State of Maryland where we have seen 
that a clean environment is good for our economy.
  In 2007, the Maryland legislature passed the Healthy Air Act. Let me 
tell you something, Mr. President. Since the creation of that bill, it 
created thousands of jobs. It created more opportunity for the people 
of Maryland. Constellation Energy invested $1 billion in compliance 
with the 2007 Healthy Air Act, reducing its SO2, 
SOX emissions by 85 percent and mercury by 80 percent. We 
have seen in our State of Maryland that the Healthy Air Act created 
jobs and has provided healthier air for the people of Maryland.
  Let me tell you something, air knows no boundary. We have helped our 
surrounding States. The problem is, the people of Maryland are downwind 
from other States we wish were making the same type of commitments we 
are making in Maryland.
  Let's at least maintain the standards of the Clean Air Act. This is 
the wrong bill to consider this issue anyway. Remember, I started by 
saying we will be taking up the small business bill to help our small 
business communities with innovation--SBIR: innovation and research. 
That is the bill we are on. Yet my colleagues want to attach to this 
bill amendments that would restrict the Environmental Protection Agency 
from doing its responsibility on behalf of the public to protect our 
clean air.
  Let me give you by way of example--we tried this. The EPA is the cop 
on the beat to make sure the polluters do not pollute our air. We at 
one time had a cop on the beat for the financial markets, and we sort 
of eased that up because we said we needed to do that for business. 
What happened is, we had a financial meltdown.
  We do not want to go down the same path on protecting the public 
health of the people of this Nation by removing the cop on the beat. 
That would be the wrong thing to do. I urge my colleagues to reject 
those types of amendments.
  Let me tell you something: The public gets this. Seven out of ten 
Americans want us to enforce our Clean Air Act against the polluters. 
Seven out of ten Americans do not want us to weaken the laws of this 
country that protect the public health of the people of America.
  We cannot afford to turn the clock back on our clean air policies and 
we cannot turn the clock back on the health of our citizens. I urge my 
colleagues to reject each and every one of these amendments that may be 
offered that would restrict the enforcement of the Clean Air Act 
against the polluters of America.
  Let's speak out for our children, let's speak out for clean air, 
let's speak out for our future, and let's speak out for our economic 
growth which very much depends upon a clean environment.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________