04.06.11

Cantwell: ‘Passing an Anti-EPA Amendment Would Hurt our Economy’

In floor remarks, Cantwell urges colleagues to oppose anti-EPA amendments that would ‘increase our dependence on foreign oil, force consumers to buy more gasoline and make our air dirtier’ ****VIDEO/AUDIO AVAILABLE****

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) opposed attempts to gut the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

In a floor speech, Cantwell criticized attempts to add anti-EPA amendments to an unrelated small business bill, saying the amendments would hurt the economy and make America more reliant on foreign oil.

“We can solve our carbon pollution problem by working together, not by burying our heads in the sand, and saying that we can ignore the Supreme Court's edict to enforce the Clean Air Act,”Cantwell said.

Watch Senator Cantwell delivering her remarks on the floor today.

Senator Cantwell’s full remarks as delivered follow the five excerpts below:

EXCERPTS:

“These anti-environmental, anti-public health, anti-economic riders, I believe, don't belong on a small business bill. When you boil it down, what's at stake here is pretty straightforward. It's about the good versus the special interest.”

“We can solve our carbon pollution problem by working together, not by burying our heads in the sand, and saying that we can ignore the Supreme Court's edict to enforce the Clean Air Act. There is a way to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a 21st century economy, and we should get about that. It doesn't have to be about picking winners and losers, and we can do it and protect consumers while we go.”

“…Passing an anti-EPA amendment would hurt our economy. That’s certainly the case with the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. It would overturn hard-won gains from the 2007 Energy Bill that put CAFE standards in place at a higher level to get fuel efficiency economy for consumers in America. This was passed on a bipartisan basis and it was very important in helping consumers save money, and car buyers as much as $3,000 over the life of a car, because we have made them more fuel efficient. …And it is these fuel economy standards passed with that bipartisan majority in 2007 that is helping us get off of our dependence on foreign oil – not more domestic drilling.”

“I don't understand why the minority leader wants us to increase our nation's reliance on foreign oil. I think we should be getting off of foreign oil and not allowing polluters to addict another generation to that product. I think we should be getting off of foreign oil, not a future generation where we'll be fighting the Chinese over every last remaining supply of expensive oil.”

“…I urge my colleagues to vote against these amendments that will undermine our Clean Air Act. That will actually increase our dependence on foreign oil, force consumers to buy more gasoline and make our air dirtier.”

FULL REMARKS AS DELIVERED:

Ms. Cantwell:Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the radical McConnell-Inhofe amendment and in opposition to the efforts to overturn the Supreme Court. We should not be gutting the Clean Air Act, and public health, and environmental protections that are important to every American.

These anti -environmental, anti-public health, anti-economic riders, I believe, don't belong on a small business bill. When you boil it down, what's at stake here is pretty straightforward. It's about the good versus the special interest. The facts speak for themselves. And according to some comprehensive reports, the Clean Air Act will save our economy $2 trillion dollars through the year 2020. And even more importantly, the Clean Air Act will cumulatively save 4.2 million lives by 2020.

Mr. President, those are striking numbers and that's why it is so important that we protect the Clean Air Act and turn down these radical amendments that are trying to overturn it. You know, Congress has stopped other radical attempts to overturn laws that are about protecting our environment and protecting the safety of American people.

I remember here on the Senate floor the debate in 2003 on MTBE. MTBE was a fuel additive that just a drop leaked into a water system could ruin that supply. Yet MTBE manufacturers, who were on the hook for billions of dollars of cleanup, wanted a free pass. They wanted immunity. And they came here to the United States Senate hoping to get that. Well, importantly enough, a group of bipartisan senators stood up to that proposal, and the proposal to let MTBE manufacturers off the hook was turned down.

There have been other attempts to overturn the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Superfund Cleanup Act, and sometimes they get as far as bills, or only a hearing. Sometimes we have votes on them. But these things all have one thing in common. It is about the greater good versus special interests. And time and time again Congress has ended up wisely on the right side and has rejected these proposals by special interests.

The environmental protections that we have continue today because we've stood up to fight for them. And passing an anti-EPA amendment would hurt our economy. That’s certainly the case with the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. It would overturn hard-won gains from the 2007 Energy Bill that put CAFE standards in place at a higher level to get fuel efficiency economy for consumers in America. This was passed on a bipartisan basis and it was very important in helping consumers save money, and car buyers as much as $3,000 over the life of a car, because we have made them more fuel efficient. This legislation seeks to overturn that.

And it is these fuel economy standards passed with that bipartisan majority in 2007 that is helping us get off of our dependence on foreign oil – not more domestic drilling. We could drill in every pristine, untouched corner of the United States and sometimes it seems like the backers of those interests would like us to do that. But in a recent letter Senator Bingaman and I received from the Energy Information Administration, which I would like to place into the record, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer:Without objection.

Ms. Cantwell:In 2007, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) was predicting that our foreign dependency was going to continue to increase in the coming decades. Now, I should note that after the 2005 Energy Bill, I've heard some of my colleagues on the other side say that was the great predictor and it was going to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But the truth is, is that the subsequent EIA analysis, made after we passed the 2007 Energy Bill, says according to the experts and analysis, only two policies in that landmark bill – increasing CAFE standards and renewable fuel standards – are the reason we are less dependent on foreign oil.

So the things that have made us less dependent on foreign oil are the very things that people are trying to gut out of important legislation already on the books. It is not the case that additional drilling, drilling, drilling, and saying to the EPA, ‘ignore the Supreme Court on the Clean Air Act,’ is going to help us.

Reducing demand is going to reduce prices at the pump, and looking at the U.K., they produce almost all their own oil from the North Sea, but they still got hammered in 2008 when oil prices peaked at $147 a barrel. So the notion that somehow let's skirt our environmental responsibilities and drill, drill, drill and somehow we're going to protect ourselves from the price of oil, you need to look no further than the U.K. in that example.

I don't understand why the minority leader wants us to increase our nation's reliance on foreign oil. I think we should be getting off of foreign oil and not allowing polluters to addict another generation to that product. I think we should be getting off of foreign oil, not a future generation where we'll be fighting the Chinese over every last remaining supply of expensive oil.

I agree that it would be better if Congress acted to address the diversity of our nation's energy sources, and I'm anxious to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help get free market legislation that would do that and would protect consumers. And I'm certain that there isa bipartisan solution here that we can all agree to.

But we can solve our carbon pollution problem by working together, not by burying our heads in the sand, and saying that we can ignore the Supreme Court's edict to enforce the Clean Air Act. There is a way to reduce carbon pollution andtransition to a 21st century economy, and we should get about that. It doesn't have to be about picking winners and losers, and we can do it and protect consumers while we go.

I want my colleagues to continue to work on thatas a framework, but until then, I urge my colleagues to vote against these amendmentsthat will undermine our Clean Air Act. That will actually increase our dependence on foreign oil, force consumers to buy more gasoline and make our air dirtier.

We can do better, Mr. President, and I hope that we will. I thank the president and I yield the floor.

###