[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 152 (Monday, October 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13260-S13261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             AIR POLLUTION

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today the Bush Administration took 
direct aim against the health of all Americans, but particularly those 
who are the most vulnerable to air pollution--the elderly, the 
children, and the poor. As a result of this frenzy to gut the Clean Air 
Act, millions more of our citizens will now be staring down the barrel 
of a smokestack.
  The administration's new rule on New Source Review adds to all the 
woes and worries that people must face everyday. These new threats 
include more illness, lung disease, and heart attacks.
  This Bush administration's EPA is not his father's EPA. At almost 
every turn, this President Bush is seeking to undo the positive 
environmental legacy of his father, with a particular focus on tearing 
apart the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
  From the beginning, the first President Bush was the motivating force 
behind passage of that complex, politically balanced and protective 
act. In fact, it was his acid rain proposal that broke the legislative 
logjam just before passage. His participation during Senate 
consideration helped ensure passage from this body, and the technical 
assistance of his Federal agencies was critical throughout the process.
  I was proud to work with the first President Bush and his team. But I 
am not proud of what the current President Bush has done on the 
environment. He and his team came to Washington claiming a desire and 
ability to work across the aisle. But that hasn't turned out to be the 
case.
  This President Bush and his team have intervened in environmental 
policy throughout the administration on behalf of polluters, not for 
the health and welfare of the American public and a sustainable 
environment. This is a huge contrast with the first President Bush who 
cared about these matters and cooperatively worked with Congress to 
address environmental problems.
  We did not solve all the problems related to air pollution in the 
1990 amendments. But, through bipartisan cooperation, we built a strong 
legal construct and a renewed commitment to gradual and continual 
reductions in harmful emissions. It has survived legal challenges and 
until 2001 was working quite effectively from a health and an economic 
perspective.
  That is when the new Bush administration came to town. They have 
embarked on a comprehensive program to dismantle or slow walk the Clean 
Air Act, starting with the New Source Review program and extending to 
the ozone and fine particulate matter standards.
  Their Clear Skies proposal is weaker and slower than the existing 
Clean Air Act, if it were fully and faithfully implemented on schedule. 
The Bush proposal delays the achievement of air quality standards 
beyond the act or my bill, the Clean Power Act. In the name of 
``flexibility,'' their proposal does away with vital programs designed 
to protect local and regional air quality, some of which have been 
particularly important to the Northeast.
  Based on the scientific evidence before us, we know that the 1990 
amendments did not go far enough in specifically controlling pollutants 
that cause acid rain, global warming and toxic contamination. However, 
they did provide the Administrator with ample authority to take action 
to address these matters. Instead, this administration has chosen the 
path of delay, non-enforcement, or deregulation.
  Government regulation must protect the public's health. But, the 
administration changed the New Source Review rules while Americans 
enjoyed the last of their summer vacations to allow greater levels of 
pollution than currently emitted. Some analyses suggest that as many as 
20,000 more premature deaths may occur annually as a result--20,000 
deaths. The administration released this terrible news when they 
thought no one would pay attention.
  I have seen charts showing deaths per hundred thousand people who die 
prematurely from ``grandfathered'' powerplant pollution. These are the 
powerplants that haven't put on modern controls. These are the same 
powerplants that will Never be required to clean up to modern standards 
under the Bush administration's new NSR rule. Never. And it is not just 
powerplants.
  Adding insult to that injury, the administration's new rule is 
plainly illegal. So I will be joining with other colleagues in 
Congress, the States, public health and environmental organizations, 
and other members of the public in litigation to stop this newest 
assault on our air quality. The States and attorneys general are filing 
today.
  The Clean Air Act says, and I quote: `` . . . any physical change in, 
or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which 
increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source'' 
triggers New Source Review, NSR. That means if a change or modification 
increases emissions of air pollutants, then the law requires sources to 
put on modern pollution control technology. It is that simple.
  This doesn't mean letting polluters reach back 10 years to pick the 
highest possible emissions baseline from which EPA would then judge the 
increase. Common sense and case law says that the regulators must use 
recent actual emissions levels.
  EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air, Jeff Holmstead, admitted the 
rule will ``in some cases'' allow increases in pollution. That is why 
it is illegal.
  Mr. Holmstead defends this indefensible rule by suggesting that its 
harm will be limited because sources will not be allowed to exceed 
their permitted levels while making these modifications. Sadly, that is 
wrong and its disingenuous. Harm will not be limited, it will be spread 
downwind of 17,000 plants.
  Permitted levels for many sources are substantially above their 
recent average emissions levels. So sources can now increase their 
pollution above levels that would have been allowed prior to this rule. 
That means millions of additional tons of pollutants.
  The new rule lets emissions increase at facilities without review. 
That contradicts the Clean Air Act's statutory language and Congress' 
intent. Government officials who issue such illegal rules betray the 
public's trust and commit malfeasance in my book.
  Mr. Holmstead told Fox News that, ``We can say categorically that 
pollution will not increase as a result of this rule.'' The next day on 
the PBS ``Newshour,'' he agreed that the rule would allow emissions 
increases in some cases. Which is true?
  Mr. Holmstead also had similar trouble giving clear and direct 
answers to questions during our July 16, 2002, joint hearing between 
the Judiciary Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  He said he was advised by Agency and DOJ enforcment personnel that 
the proposed NSR changes wouldn't affect the ongoing enforcement 
actions. The General Accounting Office report and the statements of 
former Agency enforcement personnel say otherwise. Which is true? We 
have asked the EPA Inspector General to investigate.
  NSR was not designed to encourage emissions increases. Instead, 
Congress created it to help continually reduce air emissions as sources 
upgraded their facilities. As they make those improvements, they are 
supposed to put on modern pollution controls, not be exempt from that 
duty.
  I am afraid that this rule is part of an administration agenda to 
lock in air pollution increases for a long time to come.
  The timing of the rule takes advantage of the gap in the permit 
process for these plants in the period between the new and old ozone 
standards.
  The permitted levels that Mr. Holmstead mentioned are part of the 
States' plans to achieve attainment with air quality standards, 
including the 1-hour ozone standard. That standard will soon be 
replaced by a more stringent one known as the 8-hour standard. That 
standard is more protective of public health.
  As Mr. Holmstead knows, polluters ``permitted levels'' are closely 
tied to States' plans to achieve the old 1-hour standard. They are not 
yet tied to the

[[Page S13261]]

new, more stringent 8-hour standard or the new fine particulate 
standard. The States will revise those plans for the new standards, 
including adjusting ``permitted'' levels, but that will be done in 
2007-2008.
  In the meantime, the powerplants and industrial sources exempted by 
this rule can make huge modifications that increase emissions. These 
pollution increases will be locked in for many, many years and make it 
harder to achieve the new air quality standards.
  I am not opposed to making the New Source Review program work better 
through constructive changes. But it is important to know the costs and 
benefits related to a program before doing radical surgery. An EPA memo 
estimated that just a small portion of the NSR program may have health 
benefits worth more than $1.8 billion annually. We can ill afford to 
throw away all the lives represented by that number.
  Beginning in May 2001, I have repeatedly sought, and most often been 
denied, full information on the public health and environmental impacts 
of the administration's agenda on New Source Review.
  I agreed not to subpoena this information, while chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, in exchange for promises that 
most of it would be forthcoming. Those promises have been broken and I 
am still waiting.
  And Congress is still waiting for EPA to comply with the Supplemental 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 passed in February. That Act 
directed EPA to fund a study by the National Academy of Sciences to 
look at the effects on public health of the other NSR changes made on 
New Year's Eve last year. After 6 months of delay, EPA authorized the 
Academy to start.
  A recent General Accounting Office report, which I requested, 
demonstrates that the administration does not collect and has not 
collected valid, credible information on the New Source Review program.
  The Agency has no factual basis to determine that their regulation 
changes will be beneficial, as they have claimed. Indeed, GAO said that 
EPA and an electric utility industry group think that post-rule 
modifications may increase efficiency at some facilities, but will also 
encourage greater emissions at those same facilities due to expanded 
production.
  The hypocrisy of the Bush administration is stunning. They want to 
exempt thousands of major sources of pollution from using modern 
control technology. This is based on flimsy and unsubstantiated 
anecdotes.
  At the same time, they pretend to support ``sound science'' and hide 
behind the Data Quality Act when choosing not to regulate in the face 
of abundant proof of potential environmental harm.
  This new NSR rule has been a time-consuming waste of taxpayer's 
dollars. EPA's resources would have been better spent in saving lives 
by taking some kind of regulatory action, any kind of action, over the 
last 2\1/2\ years to halt powerplant pollution.
  There is real and legitimate authority under the Clean Air Act to do 
that now. There is even real and legitimate authority to make the New 
Source Review program work better and more efficiently. But the 
administration has failed to use that authority correctly and 
squandered their opportunities.
  Using his father's model, this President Bush could have worked with 
me and my staff and Democrats in Congress to develop a strong 
tripartisan, multi-pollutant bill to control emissions of sulfur 
dioxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. But they have 
refused requests for technical assistance, evaded legitimate oversight, 
politicized every possible matter, and avoided any real policy 
discussions.
  They have spent their time ignoring the people's representatives in 
Congress, pandering to polluters and wishing away the abundant evidence 
that increasing air pollution causes increases in death, disease and 
illness.
  Pollution is an indiscriminate weapon. It should be emitted only as a 
last resort. Instead, this Bush administration brandishes it, boasting 
about flexibility and ``sound science'' while more people die 
prematurely and the Earth warms. If we were dealing with the first 
administration, I would breathe easier about the future.

                          ____________________