Senator Murray urges colleagues to oppose amendments to the Clean Air Act

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) spoke on the Senate floor in opposition to the pending amendments that would remove tools from the Environmental Protection Agency that it needs to do its job. She highlighted the effects that this would have on the environment and public health, as well as the detrimental impact it would have on efforts to compete, win, and create jobs in the 21st century clean-energy economy.

“I rise today to express my strong opposition to any attempt to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job and protecting our families and environment,” said Senator Murray on the Senate floor today. “The amendments we are considering today would hurt our environment, harm our national security by increasing our dependence on foreign oil, devastate our public health efforts, and take us in the wrong direction as we fight to compete, win, and create jobs in the 21st century clean-energy economy.”

The full text of Senator Murray’s speech follows:

M. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to any attempt to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job and protecting our families and environment.

The amendments we are considering today would hurt our environment, harm our national security by increasing our dependence on foreign oil, devastate our public health efforts, and take us in the wrong direction as we fight to compete, win, and create jobs in the 21st century clean-energy economy.

M. President, the positions of leading scientists, doctors, and public health experts are clear—global climate change is real, it’s harmful, and it needs to be addressed—and rolling back EPA standards would be devastating to the health of our families, and especially our children.

These are settled issues in the scientific world, and we shouldn’t be spending time debating them over and over on the Senate floor.

And M. President, with the price of oil spiking, and families paying more and more at the pump—we should also be focused on ways to move our country away from our dependence on foreign oil.

But these amendments would do the opposite.

They would disrupt efficiency standards—sacrificing billions of gallons of fuel savings and increasing our foreign imports.

They would also derail the cooperative effort of automakers, autoworkers, EPA, and states to develop unified national standards that provide certainty for businesses to invest in new technologies.

And frankly, Mr. President, they would be harmful to our national security.

Every dollar we send overseas to pay for oil is more money in the pockets of countries that are too often far from friendly to our national security interests.

And that just doesn’t make sense.

But M. President—this debate is not just about health and the environment—and it’s not just about our national security dependence on foreign oil—it’s also about jobs and  the economy—which is exactly what we should be focused on right now.

We are currently working on legislation to help small business owners innovate and grow. To give them the resources they need to expand, add jobs, and compete in a global economy.

But these amendments would move our country in the opposite direction.

First of all, they would cause massive uncertainty and upheaval for the clean-energy companies like the McKinstry Company in Washington state that are trying to create jobs and grow the clean energy economy.

If the rules of the game keep changing, businesses are never going to have the confidence they need to invest and add workers.

And second of all, we all know that America needs to move quickly into the 21st century clean-energy economy.

Other countries, like China and India, are pouring resources into investments that are creating jobs and building infrastructure.

And we need to make sure we position ourselves to compete and win in this critical sector.

That’s why instead of harmful legislation that would take us in the wrong direction, we should be talking about policies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil, support our national security objectives, and unshackle our economy.

That would tap the creative energy of our nation’s workers, support millions of good, family-wage jobs, and make sure our workers continue leading the way in the 21st century economy.

M. President, that’s the direction our country needs to be moving.

Toward a healthy and clean environment, and toward the clean-energy jobs of the future.

We can’t simply bury our heads in the sand and expect our energy and environmental problems to go away.

The longer we put off dealing with these issues, the more it will cost us in the future.

And M. President, that’s exactly what these amendments would do.

They are bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and dangerous to our families’ health. The science on this issue is clear. And it’s something people in my home state of Washington take very seriously

Because when families across America go outside for some fresh air, or turn on their tap for a glass of water—they expect those resources to be clean.

So once again, I strongly oppose any attempt to take away the EPA’s ability to do their job, and I hope we can work together to find real solutions to this critical problem.

Thank you, I yield the floor.