[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 45 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2033-S2034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EPA AMENDMENTS
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am here to join my colleagues who
have been on the floor of the Senate today, with the leadership of
Senator Boxer, to oppose amendments that would undermine the Clean Air
Act. The Clean Air Act has been one of the greatest public health
success stories we have ever had in this country. In 1970, Republicans
and Democrats came together to pass this landmark legislation to
address air pollution that was leading to countless deaths and
lifetimes spent battling chronic illness, illnesses such as asthma and
emphysema. That legislation, back in 1970, was signed into law by
President Richard Nixon.
It is very clear that the threat of greenhouse gas emissions to
public health is real. Two years ago the EPA found that manmade
greenhouse gas emissions threaten the health and welfare of the
American people. Their decision was not made in a vacuum and, despite
what some of the supporters of these harmful amendments may claim,
EPA's decision was based on the best peer-reviewed science. They were
guided by the best science protecting the public health, not politics.
The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association,
the Trust for America's Health and the American Thoracic Society--some
of our Nation's leading public health experts--all opposed these
misguided efforts to stop EPA from protecting our clean air.
We have heard the same story from polluters over and over. Today they
tell us that reducing carbon pollution through the EPA will wreck our
economy. Back in 1970, and then again in 1990, they said the Clean Air
Act would wreck our economy. Time and again we have heard the same
arguments, and they have not been true. It reminds me of Aesop's fable
of the boy who cried wolf.
Since we passed the Clean Air Act of 1970, we have dramatically
reduced emissions of dozens of pollutants. We have improved air
quality, and we have improved the public health. The EPA estimates that
last year alone the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks,
130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits.
This is particularly important to us in New Hampshire and in New
England because we are effectively the tailpipe of this country. In New
Hampshire we have one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the
country because we are still phasing out some of the coal-fired plants
in the Midwest that are causing these air emissions.
During the same period--since the Clean Air Act saved all of those
illnesses and deaths last year--we have been able to grow our economy.
Our gross domestic product has more than tripled, and the average
household income has grown more than 45 percent. So we know we can
protect public health, we can save our environment, and we can grow our
economy.
I recognize that as Governor of New Hampshire when, back in 2001, we
passed the first legislation in the country to deal with four
pollutants because we understood that we needed to clean up our air and
that we could do that and protect public health and keep a strong
economy all at the same time. I wish that same can-do spirit and
bipartisanship that led to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 and
then later the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990--I wish that same can-
do spirit existed today to address carbon pollution. Instead of
debating amendments to undercut the Clean Air Act, we should be working
together to enact commonsense legislation to reduce carbon pollution
and to continue to grow our economy.
[[Page S2034]]
I have no doubt that the American people have the ingenuity and the
competitive spirit to solve our energy challenges. What they need from
us in Washington is leadership.
I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments and then to work
together to craft energy policies that can help move us away from a
carbon economy and transition to a clean energy economy.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________