[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.
____________________