On the recordApril 6, 2011
Briefly, in response to the gentleman's assertion, of course the court has said EPA does, in fact, have this authority. This is not a new authority they're making up. Rather than invest in new energy technologies, address carbon pollution, and create clean energy jobs, our friends on the other side are choosing instead to deny the problem and take away America's tools for responding to it. This bill would overturn auto emission standards that are making our cars and trucks cheaper to drive and breaking our independence on foreign oil. This bill would not do a single thing to bring down the price of gas, but it would keep America from saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of our new cars. We would not have gotten there, frankly, if some of the proponents of this bill who opposed getting to those standards had prevailed. And it would do so at a time when the turmoil in the Middle East should serve as an energy independence wake-up call. I'm for using all of our energy that we can do so in a healthy, safe way. This bill, however, would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act over its 40-year span. The benefits of the act: longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and protected ecosystems have outweighed the costs by more than 30-1. That's a pretty good return, ladies and gentlemen. Last year, according to the EPA, just one part of the Clean Air Act prevented someone 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, and 100,000 hospital visits.…





