Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on energy and clean air policy for all of America.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4775. The Republican bill is a radical attempt to gut the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act has been one of our bedrock environmental laws for America since the 1970s. So for 50 years it has worked well to ensure that it protects our health while businesses thrive. It has made such a difference in our lives.

I heard my good friend from Houston say he has seen the air cleaned up. The same is true in the Sunshine State of Florida. I remember those smoggy days in the late sixties and early seventies. I watched the impact of the Clean Air Act make it healthier for us to breathe, to grow up, to live healthy lives. All you have to do is look across the globe at China and India and the struggles they have with their economy because they are not able to control their pollution.

The great thing about the Clean Air Act is that it is based on science. It requires the EPA every 5 years to bring scientists together and do a health check, do a check on the air quality standards all across America. Then they can--they are not required to--say: we are going to improve the air quality standards. And then they leave it up to States and stakeholders at home to determine how best to control air pollution. It has been extraordinarily effective at cleaning the air.

EPA has set air quality standards for six different pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, and particulate matter. Between 1980 and 2014, emissions of these six air pollutants dropped by 63 percent. During the same period, the Nation's gross domestic product increased by 147 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased by 97 percent, energy consumption increased by 26 percent, and the U.S. population increased by 41 percent. These emissions reductions have generated dramatic health effects. There is a balance in the law already.

A recent peer-reviewed study says the Clean Air Act will save more than 230,000 lives and will prevent millions of cases of respiratory problems like asthma and other problems in 2020 alone. It will also enhance our national productivity by preventing 17 million lost workdays. These public health benefits translate into $2 trillion in monetized benefits to the economy.

Again, from the Sunshine State's perspective, we have a booming tourist economy largely because we have clean water and clear air. Everyone wants to come to Florida. They are very discerning with their tourist dollars and where they are going to take a vacation. They look across the world, and one of the reasons people travel to America or you travel to the Sunshine State is because it is healthy and clean; and it is largely because of the Clean Air Act that we have been able to do that.

So this bill is irresponsible because it will take us backwards. And let's talk a few specifics. The bill dramatically delays implementation of the 2015 ozone air quality standards by up to 8 years. It says to America: we are going to ignore the science, we are going to ignore the new standards that have been developed with thousands and thousands of comments, and we are going to ignore the fact that these improved standards will net benefits of up to $4.6 billion in 2025 alone.

Second, the bill doubles the air quality standard review period for all criteria air pollutants to every 10 years. Currently, the Clean Air Act says: EPA, every 5 years, look at the best science. Now, this bill says to ignore the science. Again, we will wait 10 years.

That is not smart and that is not helpful to our communities and our neighbors back home.

The bill also gives new and expanded facilities amnesty from new air quality standards. And this is where I think my Republican friends are going to invite a lot of litigation.

Before I came to Congress, I did a little bit of environmental law. Current existing industrial users and businesses will have to bear the burden because the new polluters will get a break--they will get amnesty--while our existing businesses will have to make up the difference. That is not smart, and I think that is going to create a lot of lawsuits.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi from India was here today. One of his messages, besides what a great democracy America is and what a great democracy India is, is that we have to think about the future. And we can tap the American ingenuity and what we have already done to clean air and grow business at the same time.

Other nations are realizing now what we have learned long ago: unregulated emission of dangerous air pollutants is unsustainable. The Clean Air Act has helped us make dramatic improvements in air quality over the past decades. Our economy has grown at the same time.

So I would urge my colleagues, do not gut the Clean Air Act. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4775.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source