[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 45 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2029-S2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             EPA AMENDMENTS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business.
  This afternoon, quite possibly, or another time, quite possibly, we 
will have very significant amendments that will strip EPA of its 
mandate to protect the American public from pollution which threatens 
our public health and welfare by inducing climate change.
  Specifically, I strongly oppose the McConnell amendment, which would 
be a complete stop-work order for the EPA to reduce carbon pollution.

[[Page S2030]]

  I also oppose Senator Stabenow's amendment number 265, which would 
strip California of its right to impose tailpipe emission standards 
beyond Federal standards. California has had the right to go beyond the 
Federal standards to protect its citizens from dangerous pollution 
since 1970. That is 40 years.
  I oppose Senator Rockefeller's proposal to prevent EPA from studying, 
developing, improving, or enforcing Clean Air Act greenhouse gas 
regulations for at least 2 years. I oppose these amendments because 
they would allow polluters to keep polluting, they would endanger 
public health and welfare, and they would increase our dependence on 
oil. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
  As the lead author of the bipartisan Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, 
with Senator Snowe and Senator Ted Stevens, which passed this body by 
voice vote, I would like to explain why the McConnell amendment would 
undermine fuel economy and lead to less efficient vehicles in the 
United States.
  The amendment would legislatively prevent EPA from acting to reduce 
vehicle emissions that threaten our public health after 2016, and it 
would also strip California of its right to protect its own citizens 
from dangerous pollution. The prohibition would undermine the bill we 
sought to pass and did pass, and it was signed by President Bush; that 
is, 10 miles of increased fuel efficiency in 10 years. It directed the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to 
work cooperatively to increase fuel economy and decrease pollution. 
This was a big win.
  I began in 1993 with Senators Slade Gorton and Dick Bryan--no longer 
in the Senate; one from Washington and one from Nevada--and we sat 
right over there and tried to draft some language for a sense of the 
Senate--something as benign as a sense of the Senate--to begin to work 
on automobile fuel efficiency, and we could not get it passed.
  Then Senator Snowe and I got together on an SUV loophole closure 
bill. That went on for several years, and we could not get that passed.
  Then there was the ten-in-ten fuel efficiency bill, and, voila, we 
were able to get it passed. It is going well. Cars are more fuel 
efficient, and the corporate average fuel-efficiency standards are 
being established in a much more constructive way based on science. As 
a result of the law, the administration has put forward the most 
aggressive increases in vehicle efficiency since the 1970s, increasing 
fleetwide fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. The final rules 
will save about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions by nearly 1 billion tons over the lives of the vehicles 
covered. It seems to me that is very good public policy. As a result, 
American consumers benefit. They will have more efficient vehicles, and 
they will pay less for gas. And those savings are considerable.
  This single program to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas 
emissions under the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act and the Clean Air Act 
results in an aggressive policy to advance the goals of both laws. The 
regulations also demonstrate that strong Federal standards are the best 
means to ensure that California and other States are not legally 
obligated to enforce more aggressive standards to protect the health of 
their citizens--a right Californians have had since 1970.
  Bottom line: These harmonized standards demonstrate the success of 
ten-in-ten fuel economy. Despite the tremendous success of this first 
round of joint fuel economy and tailpipe regulations, the McConnell 
amendment would prevent the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and 
California from pursuing cooperative and coordinated standards again. 
Similarly, the Stabenow amendment number 265 would prevent California 
from participating in this process. This would halt an ongoing 
cooperative process to set a single set of cost-effective standards for 
cars, trucks, and SUVs from 2017 to 2025 which will increase fuel 
economy, which will reduce pollution, and which will save Americans 
billions of dollars.
  It is backward public policy. EPA and the Department of 
Transportation have already conducted the technical assessment which 
demonstrates the significant increases in fleetwide fuel economy--6 
percent annually--which is both technically feasible and cost effective 
for consumers. They are working to complete a single set of standards 
in full cooperation with California. But the McConnell amendment and 
Senator Stabenow's amendment number 265 would stop this effort because 
the auto industry would prefer to sell gas guzzlers that continue our 
dependence on oil, and the amendments prevent waivers that have been a 
part of the Clean Air Act for decades, preventing leading States such 
as California from doing anything beyond the national standard. So it 
both handcuffs and cripples corporate average fuel efficiency. It 
stymies it. It stops it.
  California has 38 million people. We are our own pace setter. We want 
to work with the rest of the States to have a unified standard so that 
we are not our own economy, so to speak, with fuel efficiency. That is 
the right thing to do, and it is happening now. This would put an end 
to it.
  The amendments prevent waivers, as I said, that have been part of 
this act for decades. That means that never again, no matter what the 
situation is, can there be a waiver for greenhouse gas emissions. It 
would turn back the clock on historic efforts to improve the efficiency 
of the Nation's automobiles and slow any future effort to reduce 
pollution and improve fuel economy.
  Bottom line: A vote for this amendment is a vote to increase our 
susceptibility to oil market price spikes, let there be no doubt, a 
vote to increase how much Americans will spend at the pump for decades 
to come--it will be much more--and a vote to increase pollution that 
threatens our public health.
  Unfortunately, these amendments not only stop the vehicle rules, the 
McConnell amendment strips EPA of its authority to enforce the Clean 
Air Act with regard to pollutants that EPA scientists have conclusively 
determined endanger public health, an endangerment finding that the 
Supreme Court ordered EPA to make in the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA 
decision. The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendments similarly delay this 
action. Polluters would be able to continue to pollute, and the agency 
charged with protecting us from this pollution would be powerless to 
stop it or even limit it.
  Blocking the Clean Air Act and its lifesaving protections makes no 
sense. This act has had a long and successful track record of reducing 
pollution and protecting the health of our children and our families. 
Since its passage in 1970, the act has sharply reduced pollution from 
automobiles, industrial smokestacks, utility plants, and major sources 
of toxic chemicals and particulate matter. In its first 20 years, the 
act made real strides in reducing pollution, and that provided enormous 
benefits for public health. In 1990 alone, the act prevented 205,000 
premature deaths, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of 
heart disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million child respiratory 
illnesses.
  The Clean Air Act continues to provide benefits for our children and 
our families. Emissions of six common pollutants have dropped 40 
percent. In 2010, 1.7 million asthma attacks were prevented and 130,000 
heart attacks and 86,000 emergency room visits. That is in 1 year 
alone, this past year. And it provides economic benefit to the United 
States.

  Thoroughly peer-reviewed studies have found that for every one dollar 
spent on clean air protections, we get $30 of benefits in return. In 
2020 alone, the annual benefit of the Clean Air Act's rules is 
estimated to be nearly $2 trillion.
  Advocates for these amendments argue the United States cannot afford 
environmental protection. They continue to say we must poison our air 
and water in order to develop our country. I don't believe that. 
Pollution is a burden on our economy. It is not a force for good. Cost-
effective reduction makes our Nation stronger, not weaker. We harm our 
economy when we ignore pollution. Time and time again, the people of 
California have demonstrated that we are unwilling to choose between a 
healthy environment and a healthy economy, because we choose both. And 
so should the United States.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject these misguided 
amendments,

[[Page S2031]]

whether they come up this afternoon at 4 o'clock or another time, that 
would let polluters off the hook, that would increase our dependence on 
oil, that would decrease the mileage efficiency of automobiles and 
light trucks and would harm the environment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________