[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Page 4794]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

                          ____________________