Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the efforts to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards or MATS. This far-reaching resolution would severely and permanently undermine EPA's authority to protect our Nation's air from harmful and dangerous pollutants.

In New Hampshire, we have long enjoyed bipartisan cooperation when it comes to crafting policies that ensure clean air, a strong economy, and healthy citizens. We do have coal-fired powerplants in New Hampshire, but they have scrubbers on them to clean up the air. When I was Governor, we passed the pollutant bill to address mercury, and it passed with bipartisan support.

Nobody appreciates our clean air more than a woman named Lia Houk, from Henniker, NH. She has lived with cystic fibrosis for the past 40 years. In order to breathe, she must use a nebulizer three times a day and has to exercise daily to clear her lungs. When pollution poisons the air, she suffers from chest tightness and lung hemorrhaging that can lead to hospitalization. Pollution also worsens the long-term effects of cystic fibrosis, such as lung scarring, and it causes her disease to progress more rapidly.

To protect Lia and millions like her, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and it has long been one of our most

successful public health and environmental laws. Yet despite the success of the Clean Air Act, we now face efforts to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic air pollutants.

At issue are the new mercury and air toxics standards, which will require powerplants to control the pollution that affects Lia and others who suffer from respiratory problems. For the first time, the standards set Federal limits on the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acid gases that powerplants can release into our air. These standards will eliminate emissions of these poisonous chemicals from the powerplants by 90 percent by 2015.

The new nationwide standards are based on widely available pollution control technologies that are already in place at powerplants across the country. They represent a realistic, achievable goal. Yet opponents of MATS argue the environmental regulations will hurt the economy. That is simply not true. These standards will benefit our health, our economy, and our environment.

By removing the largest source of many of these toxins, the new standards will prevent an estimated 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks each year. America's children will be spared 120,000 asthma incidents and 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis. That is particularly important for us in the Northeast. The Presiding Officer, who is from Rhode Island, knows what this is because we are in the tailpipe of the Nation in New England in the Northeast. We get all the pollution coming out of the Midwest from those dirty powerplants. In New Hampshire, we have one of the highest children's asthma rates in the country because of that pollution.

Far from being job killers, these regulations will mean new work for the innovative American companies that supply the equipment needed for plants to comply with the law. In fact, a study by the Economic Policy Institute found that enactment of these standards would create a net gain of 117,000 jobs.

Of course, clean air is also vital to the tourism and outdoor recreation economy, which, in my State, is the second largest industry.

All the beautiful sights of our State, from the White Mountains to the Great Bay, can only be enjoyed if our air is free of smog and clean to breathe.

So as we consider whether to keep the Clean Air Act in place, we don't have to choose between helping people such as Lia or helping our economy. We can and we must do both.

I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution that Senator Inhofe has offered and to continue to protect the health and welfare of our citizens.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source