Clean Air Act

Floor Speech

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of a landmark piece of legislation, the Clean Air Act. Congress passed the Clean Air Act over 40 years ago with broad bipartisan support from both Chambers of Congress, and President Nixon wisely signed it into law. Since then, we have seen remarkable benefits to the health of our Nation. We have seen significant reductions in pollution from lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and a host of other contaminants. America reduced pollution and made remarkable strides in improving public health even while our economy adjusted and thrived. In fact, the Clean Air Act has a long track record of promoting job creation and economic growth while reducing pollution.

The economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are significant. For every $1 spent on Clear Air Act protections, we get $30 of public health benefits in return.

In the year 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act saved 160,000 lives and avoided millions of cases of pollution-related illness, including 1.7 million cases of asthma exacerbation, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits, 3.2 million lost school days, and 13 million lost work days.

This is a profoundly important law. It protects every single American from the types of pollution that can cause asthma attacks, lost school days for young children, emergency room visits, heart attacks, strokes, and even premature deaths.

The House of Representatives recently passed a continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year

that would make truly Draconian cuts to Clean Air Act funding and authority. These policy riders do not belong in the 7-month budget. And I am glad the Senate recently voted down that legislation.

Upon passage of the House bill, the American Lung Association, which is the leading organization working to save American lives from the ravages of lung disease, said:

The House of Representatives also adopted amendments that would block implementation of the Clean Air Act and its lifesaving protections .....

These provisions and others adopted by the House would result in millions of Americans--including children, seniors and people with chronic disease such as asthma--being forced to breathe air that is unhealthy.

Breathing air pollution can cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and shortened lives.

That is coming from one of the most respected public health organizations in the world telling us that this weakening of the Clean Air Act would have dire public health consequences, that more Americans will get sick from toxic pollution.

We can and should be flexible and listen to the industries affected by the law, but we cannot undermine its purpose. Legitimate concerns about regulation should be addressed so we can prosper and grow jobs in the United States of America. It is important that the Clean Air Act be enforced in a commonsense manner that is workable for American businesses, but we cannot abandon its core charges--to preserve public health and ensure the cleanliness of the air we breathe.

I know there is often tension between the EPA, the regulated community, and stakeholders seeking to navigate the Clean Air Act, and there probably always will be. Our economy functions best and in a way that is best for our citizens when we seek a robust Clean Air Act and are responsive to the needs of our economy.

An example of this working well is recent praise that the administration received from the CEO of a leading energy company, who said:

When I look at what EPA has done so far ..... it's actually been pretty moderate.

When the same CEO was asked whether Congress should delay the administrations's work to protect public health for 2 years, he said:

That's just two more years of uncertainty where I think a lot of the investment will remain on the sideline in our industry instead of being invested in technology. We know how to build ..... I don't support delay for those reasons.

I support continued implementation of the Clean Air Act and will oppose efforts to undermine this important law. For my part, the decision is very simple: We should let doctors and scientists dictate our public health policy instead of politicians. I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will come to this same conclusion as well and vote against efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act.

For more than 40 years, we have seen that protecting the air we breathe does not have to come at a cost to the Nation's economy. Both can improve, both must improve hand in hand.

To close, I would like to reiterate that the Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing levels of dozens of dangerous air pollutants and protecting the health of millions of Americans, all while our economy grew. This is a landmark law that has had strong bipartisan support for decades. The Senate should not weaken it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source