SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. I rise to address the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to repeal EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. My colleague from Texas was addressing this amendment and noting her support for it. But I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention several reasons this amendment is bad policy for America.

First and foremost, this amendment increases our addiction to foreign oil. It increases oil consumption by 455 million barrels. Right now we import about 9.7 million barrels of oil per day. This amendment is equivalent to 6 weeks worth of oil imports. Recognize that gas prices are about $3.50 per gallon, so the McConnell-Inhofe amendment amounts to a $68 billion pricetag for working families to buy gas from oil imported from overseas.

This is not a tax that in any way supports our economy. In fact, this is a tax that goes out of our economy to purchase energy from overseas--from the Middle East, from Nigeria, from Venezuela. That is very profitable to the companies that supply that oil. It is very profitable to the governments far outside of the United States of America. But it certainly hurts the citizens of our Nation. It takes our energy dollars and puts them elsewhere, rather than keeping them inside our economy. It decreases our national security rather than increasing our national security.

Furthermore, gasoline prices are set by the law of supply and demand. This amendment increases our demand for foreign oil. So if anything, this amendment increases gas prices.

My colleague from Texas said we cannot afford to ``raise the cost of fuel.'' I absolutely agree, and that is why we should defeat this amendment. Indeed, I think almost everyone understands that when you increase demand for a product, you drive the price up, not down. But there are some third parties that have weighed in on this conversation.

PolitiFact.com did an analysis of the claim that this amendment would keep prices from increasing, and it did not find this claim to be true. It found it to be false. So at this moment, when world events are unfolding in Cairo in Egypt, in Libya, and we recognize that our dependence on foreign oil is a huge strategic vulnerability for the United States of America, that the flow of our energy dollars overseas is a huge mistake for our economy, why--why--would we vote for an amendment designed to increase our dependence, our dependence on oil, our dependence on foreign governments, decrease our security, and damage our economy? It is simply a wrong amendment in all that framework about our dependence on foreign oil.

Second, this amendment is an attack on public health. It is an unprecedented attack, asking Congress to step in and veto the scientific judgment of the EPA scientists. It tells the agency charged with protecting our public health and the health of our children to ignore dangerous global warming, gas pollution, carbon pollution, and a long list of other global warming gases.

The Clean Air Act in 1990 alone prevented 205,000 premature deaths, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of heart disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million cases of child respiratory illness.

In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits. It has been studied time and time again. What we know is the application of the effort to clean up our air results in all of us having a better quality of life.

This amendment, this attack on public health, is the wrong policy for our Nation. Again, it is something that third parties have weighed in on, those who seek to protect our health and our health care system. The American Lung Association calls this amendment ``a reckless and irresponsible attempt to put special interests ahead of public health.'' The American Public Health Association has weighed in similarly.

Finally, this amendment is an attack on science. The Clean Air Act, passed by a large bipartisan majority and signed by President George H. W. Bush, tasked the EPA with updating our clean air standards and setting commonsense limits on pollution based on recent science.

This amendment would have Congress step in and overrule the EPA on science, not just by gutting basic protections for clean air and clean water but by repealing EPA's program for having polluters simply report their pollution.

In other words, this amendment says to the American public, we are not even going to let you know about the dangerous pollutants being put in the air. Certainly that philosophy, not only of attacking our public health, but of attacking our right to know, is absolutely wrong.

Colleagues, let me wrap up. This amendment increases our dependence on foreign oil, it increases air pollution that endangers our health, it overrules the Nation's top scientific experts who are warning us to reduce pollution, not increase it, it asks American families to pay $68 billion to the oil industry and foreign governments, instead of keeping that money here at home. It is a mistake. Let's vote it down.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source