[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1335-1341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLEAN 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 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

[[Page 1336]]

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 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.,

[[Page 1337]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 1338]]

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.
  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 
emissions. They understand that this is deadly and costly, and as I 
said a few moments ago, wouldn't it be better if

[[Page 1339]]

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 emissions 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. HOLT. It's not going to happen, but we are here to say we won't 
let it happen.
  Mr. TONKO. This 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.
  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

[[Page 1340]]

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

[[Page 1341]]

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 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.

                          ____________________