[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 113 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9912-S9921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  DISAPPROVAL OF EPA RULE PROMULGATION

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Vermont, the Senators from Maine, and many other Senators in a 
bipartisan effort to oppose the administration's mishandling of the 
Clean Air Act. That is what our resolution of disapproval is about.
  We are here because the Bush administration's mercury rule violates 
the Clean Air Act. This rule is plainly illegal, it is unwise, and it 
is definitely unhealthy for Americans living downwind of coal-fired 
powerplants, especially mothers and their soon-to-be-born children.
  The administration, with a simple wave of its hands, has used the 
rules to delay compliance with the mercury control requirements for a 
decade or longer than the law allows. Our resolution of disapproval is 
simple enough for even the biggest energy company, and the 
administration even, to understand. We reject this abuse of the Clean 
Air Act, and we demand they follow the rules of the land.
  The law says: Each and every powerplant unit that emits mercury and 
other toxic air pollutants must take action to reduce these emissions 
by using maximum available control technology, or MACT.
  The administration could have gone through the appropriate statutory 
process to delist and exempt their powerplants from regulation, but 
that is not what they did. Instead, they made up a whole new 
deregulatory scheme to help out the big energy companies. But the act 
does not provide them with that authority. They do not have the luxury 
of ignoring the laws that regular Americans must follow and that 
Congress wrote to protect the public's health and the environment. This 
administration is not above the law.
  The EPA is allowed to set the MACT standard after considering costs 
and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy 
requirements. That they could have done. But, instead, the 
administration chose to violate a settlement agreement. They shut down 
an advisory commission because they did not like getting scientifically 
credible answers on mercury controls and costs. The process used to 
create this rule was flawed and was intended to delay and obstruct any 
mercury control requirements whatsoever.

[[Page S9913]]

  In the end, the administration almost wholly adopted the utility 
industry's proposal on how to regulate mercury emissions. If this is 
not the proverbial ``fox watching the chicken coop,'' what is? This is 
not the way the law is supposed to work in America, nor does work in 
America.
  I urge my colleagues, and everyone listening, to support our 
resolution of disapproval and to support this motion to proceed. We 
deserve a fair up-or-down vote on the administration's rule that 
illegally exempts big energy companies from having to reduce toxic air 
pollution wherever it is emitted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask that we yield 3 minutes to Senator Thomas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we deal today with a very 
interesting and important issue, as a matter of fact. All of us want to 
do something about mercury and the emissions of mercury. We also want 
to have electricity, and we want to have it at a reasonable cost. Of 
course, our efforts now, in terms of energy, are to try to move toward 
using more and more coal for production because that is the biggest 
fossil fuel resource we have.
  What we have, of course, is a proposal by the administration over a 
period of time to reduce mercury from this kind of production by as 
much as 71 percent in the country and to be able to do that in a way 
which will allow us to continue to use coal and to allow us to continue 
to do it at the reasonable price that we now have.
  What we have done is developed a program to accomplish those 
important things. We have a regulation, 15 years in the making, which 
has been designed to allow for the continuation of production, to allow 
for the reduction over 70 percent in a period of 9 years, and to allow 
those who have trouble to have some offset sales so the result is a 
reduction in mercury, which we all want to do, while we continue to 
produce, which we all want to do.
  I think it is a big mistake, after all these efforts that have been 
made to accomplish all the things we want to accomplish, to say we want 
to reject that and establish something that is likely to be unworkable 
over a period of time, plus extremely expensive.
  I urge we do not repeal this effort. The opportunity has been there 
for Congress to work on it. We certainly will. There will be an 
opportunity to vote on it, if we proceed here as we should, and to be 
able to say, yes, we want to reduce mercury; yes, we want to continue 
the production of electricity produced by coal, and we want to be able 
to do that over a period of time with a reasonable program. That is 
what we have.
  EPA estimates the cost of this at about $2 billion over this period 
of time, when what is being proposed is to do a very different thing 
that costs about $300 billion.
  At any rate, I certainly urge we do not approve this idea of removing 
this regulation, this program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the Senator from Maine 8 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution 
that would disapprove of the EPA's improperly crafted rule on mercury 
emissions, a rule that both the Agency's own inspector general, as well 
as the Government Accountability Office, have criticized.
  In the wrong form, mercury is an acutely dangerous toxin that can 
cause serious neurodevelopmental harm, especially to children and 
pregnant women. Recent studies indicate that at least one in six women 
of childbearing age is carrying enough accumulated mercury in her body 
to pose risk of adverse health effects to her children, should she 
become pregnant.
  Tragically, EPA's own scientists found that some 630,000 infants were 
born in the United States in the 12-month period from 1999 to 2000 with 
blood mercury levels higher than what are considered safe. In addition, 
a new study released last week by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine 
found that more than 1,500 children are born in the United States every 
year with mental retardation as a result of mercury exposure.
  To see just how toxic mercury is, one does not have to look any 
farther than my home State of Maine. Every freshwater river, lake, and 
stream in my State is subject to a mercury advisory warning pregnant 
women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in these 
waters. While this advisory is bad enough for the many anglers who love 
to fish in Maine's beautiful waters, it is especially difficult for 
indigenous people, like those of the Penobscot Nation, for whom 
subsistence fishing is an important part of their culture.
  Mercury is dangerous not only to people--and particularly children--
but also to wildlife. Let me cite one study conducted by researchers in 
my own State. The Biodiversity Research Institute in Falmouth, ME, 
found that mercury concentration in loon eggs increased from Western to 
Eastern United States. They found that mercury concentration in loon 
eggs in Maine was dangerously--nearly four times--higher than those 
found in Alaska where there is not the exposure to mercury from 
powerplants that we experience in Maine due to the prevailing winds.
  Despite the overwhelming hazards of mercury pollution and the fact 
that coal-fired powerplants are the single largest source of mercury 
emissions in our country, the EPA inexplicably decided to remove 
powerplants from the list of mercury sources that must be regulated 
under the strictest provisions of the Clean Air Act. Instead, the EPA 
rule would regulate mercury emissions under a much weaker cap-and-trade 
program and would give the industry an extra decade to meet even this 
weaker emissions level. If this rule is allowed to go into effect, 
powerplants will be free to continue spewing unlimited amounts of toxic 
mercury into our air until the year 2018.
  Both the EPA inspector general and the GAO have severely criticized 
the EPA rule. The IG found that the EPA conducted analyses in order to 
justify a predetermined conclusion, did not adequately analyze the 
impact of this rule on the health of our children, and the EPA was 
found by the inspector general not to have conducted the appropriate 
cost-benefit analysis of regulatory alternatives. The GAO found that 
their cost-effective mercury controls would make it possible to achieve 
far greater mercury emissions reductions than the EPA rule calls for.
  I call on our colleagues to join me--Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Snowe, and many others--in sending this flawed rule back to the 
drawing board. EPA's mercury rule is not based on sound science. It 
does not employ the proper cost-benefit analysis. It will harm human 
health and the health of our environment, and it simply should not be 
allowed to go into effect. Our resolution, the Leahy-Collins 
resolution, would give the EPA the chance to fix these flaws and come 
back with a rule that would better protect the American people and our 
Nation's streams, rivers, lakes, air, and wildlife.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maine, my friend and neighbor, for her statement.
  I see the other Senator from Maine on the floor. I believe she sought 
4 minutes. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership, 
as well as Senator Collins and Senator Jeffords and so many others in 
bringing forward this resolution of disapproval.
  I am here because I happen to believe that the air in Maine, or any 
part of this country, should not be for sale to the lowest bidder when 
it comes to our air. Given that the EPA spent over a decade developing 
the scientific and technological basis for regulating major sources of 
mercury--dangerous mercury--I am confounded by the failure of its rule 
to meet either the letter or the intent of the law.
  The proposed EPA rule represents a missed opportunity to incorporate 
the recent research into the health effects of mercury or the recent 
technological innovations that significantly reduce the levels of 
mercury emissions. If enacted, the resolution will suspend the first 
EPA rule that overturns its own

[[Page S9914]]

2000 decision and allows powerplants to be delisted as a source of 
mercury pollution.
  Since 2000, research has determined that mercury pollution is more 
widespread, its effect more pronounced, and methods to reduce it 
improved. However, the EPA proposal fails to reflect the severity of 
the situation and allows a weak cap-and-trade system. Under this cap-
and-trade rule, many plants will never have to install controls if they 
choose to simply buy their way out by purchasing allowances from other 
plants.

  The issue of mercury toxins is beyond dollars and cents. Mercury, 
contained in coal emitted through smokestacks into the atmosphere as 
the coal is burned, is transported to the air and carried downward for 
hundreds and hundreds of miles. It is carried by snow and rain back 
down to Earth into our communities, onto our streets, and around our 
schools. Inevitably, these toxins pollute our lakes, rivers, and 
streams. The mercury is then ingested by the fish and, in turn, 
consumers who eat fish harvested from these freshwater sources. The 
growing concentration of the amount of mercury has caused a significant 
problem, not only for Maine's seafood industry but our Nation's.
  The EPA issued an advisory about mercury and seafood sales in our 
country, and since March 2004 sales of tuna, for example, in America 
have declined by 10 percent. This has resulted in the revenue loss of 
more than $150 million to the industry. However, we cannot fault the 
consumers but, rather, our own failed Government policy.
  If EPA had followed the Clean Air Act and retained its 2000 decision, 
each utility unit would have been required to reduce mercury pollutants 
by 70 to 90 percent in 2008. I should point out that powerplants are 
the largest remaining unregulated source of mercury pollution in the 
United States--accounting for the 90,000 pounds of airborne mercury a 
year.
  EPA's own considerable research on the sources and effects of manmade 
mercury pollution confirms that mercury emissions are getting worse. To 
my dismay, the less stringent EPA approach will inevitably fail to 
protect either the health of our children or Maine's natural resources 
and the economies that depend on them.
  The EPA proposal, at its fundamental level, clearly is delinquent in 
protecting all Americans equally from the hazards of mercury pollution. 
Under these guidelines, a powerplant can buy its way out of mercury 
restrictions and continue to plague the surrounding population. Our 
commitment to our communities in America should be uniform, and thus 
our restriction of this neurotoxin should be consistent.
  We know for a fact that human ingestion of mercury causes grave 
neurological damage to young children, infants, and the unborn. 
Methylmercury is a known neurotoxin and development inhibitor in unborn 
babies. Children and fetuses are most susceptible because mercury can 
have a damaging effect on developing brains. Reports tell us that 
nearly 4.9 million women of childbearing age have elevated levels of 
mercury and that approximately 630,000 children born each year are at 
risk from mercury-related learning and developmental problems. I find 
these figures unacceptable. In fact, we all should.
  Neurotoxins are not commodities; neurotoxins are poison. I believe 
that these pollutants and poisons should not be traded in our society 
but, rather, should be significantly restricted and reduced. It is our 
duty to enact such a rule.
  I hope we will adopt the mercury resolution of disapproval.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to yield 8 minutes to 
probably the Senator who knows more about air quality and the Clean Air 
Act than any of the rest of us, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. This represents a continuing saga that started out in 2001 
by those of us from the midwestern part of the United States of America 
with our respected friends from the northeastern part of the United 
States. I believe everyone should put what we are doing tonight in 
context; that is, to be effective, this resolution must be passed by 
the Senate and House and signed by the President.
  While the act provides for expedited and privileged procedures in the 
Senate, there is no such rule in the House. The House will not consider 
this. The President announced today, if the resolution is passed, that 
he would veto it. That is where we are.
  On March 15, the EPA finalized the Clean Air Mercury Rule and made 
the United States the first nation in the world to regulate mercury 
emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants--the first in the world. 
Through two phases in a ``cap-and-trade'' program, mercury emissions 
will be reduced by 70 percent. This is modeled after the Nation's most 
successful clean air program, the Acid Rain Program. Modeling by the 
Electric Power Research Institute, an independent nonprofit research 
organization, shows that the rule will reduce mercury in every State. 
This is quite amazing, given the nature of mercury.

  It is important for my colleagues to understand that all the mercury 
that is being deposited in the United States doesn't come from the 
United States. Only 1 percent of the mercury in the world comes from 
our powerplants in this country. Mercury pollution is a global issue 
because it travels hundreds of thousands of miles. About 5 percent of 
worldwide mercury emissions comes from natural sources, such as oceans 
and volcanoes. From 1990 to 1999, EPA estimates that U.S. emissions of 
mercury were reduced by nearly a half, which has been completely offset 
by increases in emissions from Asia.
  The fact is that U.S. powerplants account for a small percentage of 
worldwide emissions, and most of the mercury deposited in our Nation 
comes from outside the country and natural sources. Still, the 
administration has decided to lead with the first-ever Federal 
regulation of powerplant mercury emissions in the world.
  By using the Congressional Review Act, the Senator from Vermont and 
the resolution's supporters are seeking to topple this regulation that 
has been nearly 15 years in the making--starting in the Clinton 
administration--and represents one of the most extensive rulemakings 
ever conducted for a clean air regulation.
  The broader intent of the resolution seems to force EPA to impose a 
very costly and potentially devastating regulation. Several of the 
sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 20 have expressed support for 
maximum available control technology--called a MACT standard--to reduce 
mercury emissions from every powerplant by 90 percent within 3 years. 
Proponents of this approach claim that each powerplant should be able 
to reduce mercury emissions by at least 90 percent. However, this level 
of reduction is not currently achievable, and no controlled technology 
vendor can guarantee the performance of mercury removal technology at 
this or any other specific level in the future.
  According to the independent Energy Information Administration, a 
MACT standard would have a devastating impact on our Nation because 
coal plants unable to attain it would be forced to fuel-switch away 
from coal, which is our most abundant and least costly energy source, 
to natural gas.
  Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will add 
to the already obscene increase in natural gas costs that our 
businesses and families are exposed to, including those people who live 
in the northeastern part of the United States. We have the highest 
natural gas prices in the developed world, and increased costs have 
diminished our businesses' competitive position in the global 
marketplace. We don't live in a cocoon; we live in a global 
marketplace. The chemical industry's eight-decade run as a major 
exporter ended in 2003 with a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997 
becoming a $9.6 billion deficit. These are real jobs.
  The impact of a MACT standard has led many groups to express 
opposition to this resolution, including the American Chemistry 
Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Edison Electric Institute, 
National Mining Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and 
United Mine Workers of America. It just can't be justified from a cost-
benefit point of view.

[[Page S9915]]

  This is very important. While EPA estimates the cost of its cap-and-
trade rule at about $2 billion, EIA has projected costs as high as $358 
billion for a 90-percent MACT standard.
  The public's return for such a regulation is an average increase in 
national electricity and natural gas prices by 20 percent and 
additional reduction in U.S. mercury disposition of 2 percent, an 
almost immeasurable decline in people's exposure to mercury.
  I don't understand why people in this country are so bent on doing 
the ``perfect,'' when you have something that is good and makes sense 
from a cost-benefit point of view. Given the state of technology and 
cost of various proposals, the best way to reduce emissions now is by 
reducing sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides and getting cost-benefit 
reductions. Obtaining reductions cost effectively is very important; 
otherwise, companies may not be able to move forward with other 
pollution benefits such as integrated gasification combined cycle.
  We are moving ahead with the Energy bill and by reducing 
SOX and NOX we will do more to reduce mercury 
than any other proposal out there. I hope my colleagues understand what 
we are talking about tonight. Whatever happens tonight, it is going 
nowhere because the President has said he will veto this resolution if 
it passes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose there are Members who think we 
are in great shape, the air is clean, no problems whatsoever. The fact 
is, of course, we have significant mercury in the air that is created 
in the United States. It tends to occur disproportionately in one part 
of the United States, the Northeast, making the waters, fish, and air 
unsafe for children and for pregnant mothers. I will speak more on that 
as we go along. If this rule would actually help, I would be all for 
it.
  Let's be serious. If we ever wondered what a mercury pollution rule 
written by the polluters would look like, now we know. This is pretty 
much it. Some of this rule was copied verbatim, we now find out from 
some very brave people. It was copied verbatim from the sheets given by 
the companies most involved in the pollution.
  Most Americans have a great deal of trust in the Environmental 
Protection Agency since it was created during President Nixon's 
administration. It is very sad, very appalling to see how they have 
been captured by special interests. It is regrettable the American 
people and many of their representatives in Congress have been forced 
to the conclusion that mercury rules have been so mishandled and so co-
opted by special interests that this rare effort to override is 
necessary.
  We have a simple choice on mercury pollution. Do we follow the 
administration and the well-funded special interests who are creating 
most of the mercury pollution and take several steps backward and thus 
force the American people to wait at least another decade before 
cleaning up the toxic mercury spewing out of old powerplants across 
this country? Do we allow this new rule to allow toxic mercury? So 
everyone understands what we are talking about, this does not just make 
the skies darker. This is a substance so harmful that it causes birth 
defects, IQ loss, and mental retardation. Do we continue to let it 
poison children and pregnant women, while costing taxpayers billions in 
health care costs?
  Shouldn't we heed the proliferation of warnings our States and the 
Federal Government have had to give to anglers and women, to the 
general public, about the consumption of fish--fish caught not from 
outside our country but in streams and lakes and rivers all across 
America? Shouldn't that be enough to shame our Government into action?
  Should we allow this rule to move forward, the Bush administration's 
own inspector general says it does not comply with EPA Executive order 
requirements. Their own inspector general says it does not comply. The 
Government Accountability Office has said there are major shortcomings 
in the economic analysis. Or should we uphold the bipartisan work of 
Republicans and Democrats alike that produced the Clean Air Act, thus 
protecting the health of pregnant women and children?
  The Clean Air Act requires EPA to control each powerplant emission by 
2008 at the latest. That is the law of the land. Anything less is more 
pollution. Instead, the administration has turned the Clean Air Act on 
its head. And this notwithstanding the two previous administrations, 
Republican and Democrat, that sought to enforce it.
  Now they have revoked an earlier EPA finding that is necessary and 
appropriate to require these powerplants apply technology to reduce 
mercury emissions. By revoking the earlier EPA finding and deciding 
instead to coddle the biggest mercury polluters, the administration is 
saying it is no longer necessary or appropriate to adequately control 
mercury emissions. It is an audacious disregard for the health of the 
American people.

  Let's do the rule over. Let's get it right. Look what we have. EPA 
rules are in orange on the chart and do not meet the clean air 
requirements. The Clean Air Act is in blue on the chart. That shows how 
badly they miss it.
  This rule is going to allow more mercury into our environment than 
even the current law. If we leave the current law alone, there would be 
less mercury in our environment. Instead, the rule gives more pollution 
for longer than the Clean Air Act allows.
  The rule is all the more shameful because of the health damage. EPA's 
own estimate of the number of newborns at risk of elevated mercury 
exposure has doubled to 630,000. They also found that one in six 
pregnant women has mercury levels in her blood above the EPA-safe 
threshold. I love to have people stand up and say we are family 
friendly around here. Family friendly with 630,000 newborns at risk? 
One in six pregnant women at risk, that is family friendly?
  Also, mercury emissions contaminate 10 million acres of lakes and 
400,000 miles of streams, which triggers advisories in 45 States 
warning America's 41 million recreational anglers the fish they catch 
may not be safe to eat.
  One reason the administration has such a lack of candor is the fact 
we discovered this rule has the polluting industries' fingerprints all 
over it. Their first proposal for these rules lifted exact text 
provided by the utility industry lobbyists. Of course, when the 
lobbyists are shut in and the public is shut out, when the scientific 
and economic analysis was manipulated and where the public's health was 
ignored, we get a rule like this.
  The Bush administration's own inspector general and the Government 
Accountability Office criticized almost every aspect of how EPA drafted 
this rule. Their recommendations to improve it were ignored. So were 
more than 680,000 public comments, a record for EPA. They produce a 
rule that will do nothing for at least a decade.
  They punted, and in the meantime, the grandfathered powerplants keep 
putting mercury into our water, into our fish, putting a generation of 
women at risk. We tell them their health is not important. We are told 
it is not a family value to put another generation of young kids at 
risk of learning disabilities. That is what the mercury rules do.
  People in the United States will watch what we do in the Senate, how 
we vote. Will we side with the American people or the big polluters?
  The administration's mercury rule is a danger to America's women and 
children. It is time to do it over and do it right. Listen to the Bush 
administration's own inspector general. Do it right. I hope we do go 
with the motion to proceed.
  The distinguished Senator from New Jersey is in the Senate and was 
seeking 2 minutes. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey.
  I am sorry, I withhold.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let him go ahead.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the time is short but certainly the 
alarm is real.
  As I look at this, I am bewildered. I have three daughters. I have 
been fortunate enough to have 10 grandchildren. I have one son. The 
most precious assets I have in this world are these 10 little kids. I 
cannot believe that any Member here, in a face-to-face discussion, 
would say, We have to protect the ability of the coal powerplant

[[Page S9916]]

to continue to emit more mercury into the atmosphere. I cannot believe 
anyone would take that as a fair exchange. Would you rather make sure 
our coal-fired powerplants have the right to increase the emissions of 
mercury or would you rather know that this child who may be in utero 
has a lesser chance of being affected by the scourge of mercury?
  Stated in a publication put out by the National Education 
Association, small doses of mercury can impair the brain and the 
developing nervous system. Infants who appear normal during the first 
few months of life may later display subtle effects, shorter attention 
span, poorer motor skills, slow language development, problems with 
visual-spatial ability such as drawing and memory. These children will 
likely need extra help to keep up in school, possibly remedial classes 
or special education.
  I hope all of our colleagues, who I know feel as strongly about the 
protection of our people as I do, but for goodness sake, do not ignore 
those protections by saying we have to make sure that the powerplants 
do not have to do their part and reduce the emission of more mercury.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri, Senator Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our committee.
  I rise to ask my colleagues in the Senate to think about raising 
energy costs on American families and workers when we are suffering a 
significant energy problem. The American people already are struggling 
with high gasoline prices. The natural gas prices are going to go even 
higher. Winter is approaching, with heating bills regrettably expected 
to go through the roof.
  This, in my view, is no time to hit our families with even more 
energy price hikes. To borrow a slogan from the other side, those are 
not family friendly.
  Supporters of using the Congressional Review Act to overturn EPA's 
new mercury regulation will not mention the higher energy costs they 
will bring. The problem is, voting for this motion requires an 
impossible solution. The technology does not exist to accomplish what 
proponents want. They want to reduce mercury from coal emissions by 90 
percent. The administration wants to reduce it by 70 percent. If I had 
a magic wand, I would be happy to wave it and support a 90-percent 
reduction. But I don't. And the hard-working workers and vulnerable 
families in Missouri and all the other States represented here would 
not be able to take the higher costs that would come with this.
  Sponsors claim the technology exists and is used in Europe. But they 
might not mention the technology is used on municipal waste. The last 
time I checked, orange peels and coffee grinds were a little different 
from coal. Sponsors may say the technology is starting to be pilot 
tested in the United States. What they are testing it on is Eastern 
coal, Appalachian coal, not Western coal, which is a different chemical 
makeup. It may still seem like coal to you and me, but it makes 
extracting tiny amounts of mercury very difficult. Western coal is used 
overwhelmingly in Missouri, and many of our Western States do not 
respond to the same technologies pursued by the motion's sponsors.
  Therefore, generators serving my State of Missouri and many other 
Western coal States would be forced to shut down their coal plants and 
switch to natural gas to make electricity.
  Natural gas prices are three times what they were just a few years 
ago. Using it to make electricity, one Nobel laureate scientist said, 
is like burning your antique furniture in your fireplace to heat your 
home.
  Manufacturers and employers who depend upon natural gas for a raw 
material are outsourcing their operations to China and other low-cost 
natural gas areas. That means Missouri workers and workers in States of 
my colleagues who make plastics, automobiles, chemicals, and metals 
will be losing jobs. Do we want to see even more workers hurt?
  Farmers everywhere are already facing high prices for natural-gas-
dependent fertilizer. Terrible drought has struck the Midwest's corn 
and soybean crops. On top of this, the Midwestern barge traffic is 
crippled by Hurricane Katrina. Do we want to put more burden on the 
agricultural sector?
  Fixed-income seniors have little room in their monthly expenses for 
higher air-conditioning, power, and heating bills. Do we want to hurt 
these seniors even more?
  Our low-income breadwinners must drive long distances from rural or 
urban low-cost housing to get to their good-paying jobs. Their gasoline 
bills have imposed a heavy tax. Do we want to hurt these vulnerable 
families more?
  We all deserve clean air. We need waters free from contamination. We 
must have food safety. That is why this President imposed the first 
mercury emissions cuts in our Nation's history. The last administration 
had to be sued to take action on mercury. Now President Bush is 
requiring mercury cuts--70 percent cuts for acid-rain-causing sulfur 
dioxide, 70 percent for smog-causing nitrogen oxides, and 70 percent 
for mercury.
  Under the President's Clear Skies plan imposed by regulation, nearly 
every American city will return to clean and healthy air. They will 
achieve Federal air quality standards without having to impose their 
own State or local regulations, killing jobs and hassling citizens.
  We all care about the environment. Together, by defeating this 
motion, we can protect the environment, protect family budgets, and 
protect workers' jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying resolution. We do 
not need to disapprove this regulation that would move our 
environmental cause significantly forward.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. President, mercury contamination is a critical 
environmental health issue. This is why I could not be more 
disappointed about the Environmental Protection Agency's so-called 
``Utility Mercury Reductions Rule'' which was finalized in March of 
this year. The rule jeopardizes the health of our citizens, which is 
why I have cosponsored Senate Joint Resolution 20, a resolution that 
disapproves of the Administration's fatally flawed mercury rule. I will 
include for the Record a letter signed by 15 States, including 
Wisconsin, which urges passage of S.J. Res. 20.
  The need for stringent mercury controls has never been more urgent. 
We know that mercury is a neurotoxin and that mercury exposure can 
cause a wide range of neurological problems and developmental delays. 
EPA's own scientists have discovered that twice as many American 
children are born at risk from mercury exposure than previously thought 
and the EPA has reported that 1 out of every 6 women of child-bearing 
age has so much mercury in her blood that it poses a risk to a 
developing fetus. These risks should not be overlooked. We are talking 
about the increased potential for developmental delays, lowered IQ, and 
attention and memory problems, as well as learning disabilities. In 
addition to the obvious and enormous emotional and psychological toll 
of such problems, a recently released peer-reviewed Mount Sinai School 
of Medicine study found that mercury-related brain development problems 
in children cost the United States more than $2 billion annually. 
Despite the well-documented health risks posed by mercury emissions, 
especially to women and children, the administration has moved forward 
with this flawed rule.
  Thirteen million acres of lakes and 760,000 miles of rivers across 
the country have been contaminated by mercury emissions. In fact, in an 
attempt to protect their citizens, 45 States across the country have 
issued fish consumption advisories related to mercury. Anglers are 
warned against eating the very fish they catch because of widespread 
mercury contamination. Sadly, every one of the 15,057 lakes in my home 
State of Wisconsin is under a mercury-related warning, so I understand 
this problem all too well. And even if Wisconsinites didn't eat the 
fish they caught inside our State, many of them would still be at risk, 
according to EPA and Food and Drug Administration warnings, if they 
decided to consume saltwater species like tuna, shellfish, or 
swordfish. Given the situation in Wisconsin, I was not surprised when 
the State joined nine other States earlier this year in a lawsuit to 
force the

[[Page S9917]]

administration to scrap the mercury emissions rule. And still, even in 
the face of widespread mercury contamination of our streams, rivers, 
lakes, and even oceans, and outcry from many States, the administration 
refused to reconsider.
  Unless Congress acts to disapprove the administration's rule, 
reduction in the amount of mercury emitted will be substantially 
delayed. Under the Clean Air Act, utilities are required to use the 
maximum available control technology to reduce mercury emissions by 
2008. The rule we debate today--and that I hope we void--would turn 
that clock back by 10 years to 2018 and then wouldn't even achieve a 
target reduction of 70 percent. A 70 percent reduction would not be met 
until 12 years later. Clean air and water are critical to every 
individual's health and we cannot put off meeting our original 
deadline. Cost effective pollution control technology exists to limit 
mercury emissions and companies are already moving forward on 
installing such equipment. We should encourage this innovation and move 
forward to quickly reduce the health risks we know to be associated 
with this neurotoxin.
  The administration's final mercury rule, with its cap and trade 
emissions proposal, also falls far short of what the Clean Air Act 
requires to protect people all across the country. This is in part 
because, as noted by a National Academy of Sciences study, ``hot 
spots'' of mercury are the inevitable result of such a cap and trade 
program. Companies wouldn't be required to control emissions at their 
source and could instead simply buy their way out of compliance. 
Although trading programs may work with other pollutants, it will not 
work with mercury. This flawed approach will lead to highly toxic areas 
peppered throughout each state instead of across-the-board emissions 
reduction at each site.
  I am not only disturbed by the substance of the EPA's mercury rule 
but also by investigations that have determined that the process by 
which the rule was drafted was badly flawed and by the failure of EPA 
to consider all available data. First, in conducting its investigation 
of the mercury rule making process and prior to finalization of the 
rule, the EPA's Inspector General reported the rule's development was 
``compromised and, therefore, may not represent the lowest emissions 
level that could be achieved.'' Second, and before the rule was 
finalized, the Governmental Accountability Office issued a report that 
severely criticized the EPA's rulemaking process, finding that it 
violated the Agency's own policy, as well as OMB guidance and 
presidential executive orders. Finally, the EPA chose to ignore a 
Harvard study, which had been commissioned by the EPA, that 
demonstrated substantial public health benefits to a more stringent 
mercury rule. Taken together, the three process problems are 
unacceptable and cause for serious concern. Discouragingly, even in the 
face of these reports and data, the administration forged ahead with 
its flawed rule.
  Senate Joint Resolution 20 is the first step in protecting our 
citizens and the environment from the harm we know follows from mercury 
emissions. I am saddened that we must take this step, but I hope that 
we can quickly reverse the administration's rule. Swift action by this 
body and the House will reassure Americans that we are acting with 
their well-being in mind, and I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this important resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Attorneys General and Chief Environmental Officers for 
           the States of New Jersey, California, Connecticut, 
           Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
           New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, 
           Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin,
                                                September 8, 2005.
     Dear Senator: As chief legal and/or environmental enforcement 
     officers for our states, we are writing to express our grave 
     concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') 
     rulemaking regarding mercury emissions from power plants. We 
     urge you to support a bi-partisan joint resolution sponsored 
     by Senators Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins under the 
     Congressional Review Act (S.J. Res. 20), disapproving EPA's 
     attempt to exempt power plants from the stringent control 
     requirements of the hazardous air pollutants section of the 
     Clean Air Act.
       In our view, the mercury rules fail to adequately protect 
     the public from harmful mercury emissions from coal-fired 
     power plants, which threaten the health of our nation's 
     children. Significantly, the rules fail to meet the minimum 
     requirements of the Clean Air Act at a time when the threat 
     posed by mercury to public health and the environment is 
     clear. Mercury pollution in our waterways has forced states 
     to issue fish advisories covering more than 13 million acres 
     of our lakes, and 760,000 miles of our rivers. The scope of 
     mercury exposure has led scientists to estimate that up to 
     600,000 children may be born annually in the United States 
     with neurological problems. These problems require swift and 
     effective regulatory action to limit mercury emissions in the 
     United States.
       Section 112 of the Clean Air Act provides the framework for 
     such regulatory action by requiring the maximum achievable 
     level of pollution control on the sources of hazardous air 
     pollutants such as mercury in an expeditious time frame. 
     Unfortunately, EPA's recent rules regulating mercury seek to 
     exempt the single largest U.S. source of mercury, coal-fired 
     power plants from the requirements of section 112. Instead, 
     EPA has promulgated rules that will allow many power plants 
     to avoid any reductions in their mercury emissions, and will 
     prolong the problem of ``hot spots'' of mercury contamination 
     throughout our nation. The new rules would do little to 
     reduce mercury emissions for decades leaving our most 
     vulnerable citizens, our children, at risk.
       The Leahy-Collins resolution is an opportunity for Congress 
     to protect our children and environment by rejecting EPA's 
     attempt to exempt power plants, and their estimated 48 tons 
     of annual mercury emissions, from the clear requirements of 
     the Clean Air Act. EPA's failure to address the threat of 
     mercury as required by the Clean Air Act has forced our 
     states to challenge the new rules in court. In light of the 
     mounting impacts of mercury emissions on public health and 
     the environment, EPA's failure also compels us to request 
     immediate Congressional action on this critical issue. We 
     strongly urge you to vote in support of the Leahy-Collins 
     resolution to require EPA to establish clean air standards 
     that comply with the law and protect public health.
           Respectfully submitted,
         Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, for the State of New 
           Jersey, and on behalf of the State of California: Bill 
           Lockyer, Attorney General; the State of Connecticut: 
           Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General; the State of 
           Delaware: M. Jane Brady, Attorney General; the State of 
           Illinois: Lisa Madigan, Attorney General; the State of 
           Maine: G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General; the 
           Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Thomas F. Reilly, 
           Attorney General; the State of Minnesota: Mike Hatch, 
           Attorney General; the State of New Hampshire: Kelly A. 
           Ayotte, Attorney General; the State of New Mexico: 
           Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General; the State of New 
           York: Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General; the Commonwealth 
           of Pennsylvania: Department of Environmental 
           Protection, Susan Shinkman, Chief Counsel; the State of 
           Rhode Island: Patrick Lynch, Attorney General; the 
           State of Vermont: William H. Sorrell, Attorney General; 
           the State of Wisconsin: Peggy A. Lautenschlager, 
           Attorney General.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my outrage that 
my colleagues and I have to fend off yet another attack on the 
environment by the Bush administration. I am appalled that instead of 
taking steps toward improving air quality by implementing stricter CAFE 
standards, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and other positive 
measures, the Bush rule takes a giant step backward.
  Indeed, the mercury rule put forth by the Bush administration takes 
American environmental policy back at least 5 years. In 2000, the 
Environmental Protection Agency determined that powerplants must be 
regulated under the Clean Air Act because they are the largest 
remaining sources of mercury pollution and are, therefore, a public 
health risk. Up until the spring of 2003, EPA was working toward 
finalizing an effective regulatory policy to reduce mercury emissions 
from powerplants by over 90 percent beginning in 2008. But in 2003, the 
Bush administration reversed course by developing this new rule that 
exempts powerplants from any regulation under the Clean Air Act. Bowing 
to industry pressure, the Bush rule will do nothing to reduce emissions 
for at least a decade and once implemented, will only reduce mercury 
emissions to approximately one-third of what the Clean Air Act 
requires. This decision is irresponsible in light of all of the 
evidence about the dangers of mercury emissions. Mr. President, mercury 
emissions are continuing to grow and are endangering

[[Page S9918]]

the health of American families across the country.
  I am proud to say that my State, New Jersey, has taken the helm on 
reducing its own instate emissions. Last year, New Jersey adopted 
stringent rules on mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants, iron 
and steel melters, and municipal solid waste incinerators. New Jersey's 
rules set the goal of reducing emissions from instate coal-fired plants 
by 90 percent by the year 2007. By taking this hard line on mercury, my 
State will reduce its mercury emissions by over 1,500 pounds of mercury 
each year.
  While New Jersey has implemented this aggressive strategy in the 
fight to protect the public from mercury exposure, the new Bush 
administration rule undermines these efforts. More than one-third of 
mercury deposition in New Jersey comes from out-of-state sources. 
Instead of allowing more mercury emissions from coal-fired plants, 
shouldn't the Federal Government be strengthening its laws by requiring 
States to adopt strict rules similar to New Jersey's? Instead, it is 
removing powerplants from the list of pollution sources subject to 
stringent pollution controls under the Federal Clean Air Act. Why does 
the administration want to undercut States, such as New Jersey, that 
are making the right decision?
  Thankfully, New Jersey has not backed down, and stands by its goal to 
reduce mercury emissions. In fact, New Jersey spearheaded a multistate 
lawsuit challenging the EPA's rule delisting powerplants as a source of 
mercury pollution. Fourteen States have joined New Jersey's challenge 
to this rule because it violates the Clean Air Act and fails to protect 
the public adequately from the harmful mercury emissions from coal-
fired powerplants.

  The health effects of mercury are no secret. Mercury is a known 
neurotoxin that can cause severe neurological and developmental 
problems. Developing fetuses and children are the most vulnerable to 
the effects of mercury contamination. The threat is so severe that the 
National Academy of Sciences recommends that pregnant and nursing 
mothers not eat more than 6 ounces of fish per month. Even by EPA's own 
estimates, more than 600,000 infants are born each year with blood 
mercury levels higher than 5.8 parts per billion, the EPA level of 
concern. That is 600,000 children who are at risk of harmful impacts on 
cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and 
visual spatial skills. Some studies indicate that mercury could even be 
linked to the skyrocketing number of autism cases across the country.
  The numbers continue to astonish. Fish from waters in 45 of our 50 
States have been declared unsafe to eat as a result of poisoning from 
mercury. In New Jersey alone, there are mercury consumption advisories 
for at least one species of fish in almost every body of water in the 
State.
  Knowing these health risks, we cannot be complacent about this new 
rule. How can we sit back and let powerplants, the Nation's worst 
mercury polluters, reduce their mercury emissions by such a drastically 
different rate than what the Clean Air Act requires? This is morally 
repugnant, irresponsible and just plain wrong.
  We have the technology to control mercury emissions--that is not the 
problem. The problem is that industry does not want to be accountable 
for the costs of polluting, and the Bush administration is letting them 
get away with that. Instead, the public will incur the health costs of 
not reducing emissions. Once again, it is clear that the administration 
has no problem letting big industry off the hook at the expense of the 
public's health.
  The science is behind us and the technology available to reduce human 
exposure to mercury. We cannot retreat; we must move forward and 
protect our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to support the 
resolution.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just over 5 short months ago, the Bush 
administration finalized a rule that weakens and delays required 
controls on emissions of mercury from coal- and oil-fired powerplants. 
We should overturn this rule today.
  This vote presents a clear choice: does the United States Senate 
support protecting the health of millions of children in our nation, or 
does it support protecting the profits of industries that emit mercury, 
which poisons our children and environment?
  The Bush administration supports the interests of polluting 
industries. The administration's rule saves the electric industry 
money, but at a severe cost to public health. The administration has--
once again--used the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to protect 
polluters.
  Mercury is a potent poison. Studies show that it may damage the human 
cardiovascular, endocrine, immune, and respiratory systems. It also 
harms the nervous systems of developing fetuses. Low levels of mercury 
exposure in utero can damage a fetus's brain and create long-term 
injuries, including learning disabilities, poor academic performance, 
and reduced capacity to do everyday activities like drawing and 
learning to speak.
  Up to 637,000 children are born each year having already been exposed 
to levels of mercury associated with brain damage.
  Just last week, on Sept. 8, 2005, the Center for Children's Health 
and the Environment, located at Mount Sinai Medical Center, found that 
more than 1,500 babies suffer from metal retardation due to mercury 
exposure in utero. In addition to the life-long personal impacts, the 
study found that the nation loses $2 billion annually from such 
injuries.
  Forty-five States warn people to reduce or avoid consumption of fish 
from waterbodies that contain mercury due to the risk associated with 
eating these fish. Mercury levels become concentrated in some fish, 
reaching more than one million times the level of mercury in the water.
  Where does this mercury come from? Powerplants are the single largest 
source of U.S. emissions of mercury, accounting for 44 percent of all 
such emissions. These powerplants emit 30 percent of the mercury that 
currently pollutes U.S. waters. Fish contaminated with mercury is the 
main source of exposure for people in our nation.
  The Clean Air Act requires reductions in mercury emissions that are 
crucial to protect public health. But, the Bush administration has 
decided to ignore the law.
  EPA's rule on coal- and oil-fired powerplants implements slower and 
weaker requirements than under the Clean Air Act. This ill-advised rule 
delays reductions for 10 years and allows higher emissions of mercury, 
compared to the Clean Air Act's requirements. EPA's projected 
reductions in emissions under the rule do not meet the reductions 
required by the Clean Air Act. And, in fact, this chart shows the 
reductions do not even meet what the rule itself calls for.
  Why did the EPA get it so wrong?
  Well, for starters, EPA used language from utility-industry lawyers--
almost word for word--to create the rule.
  On September 22, 2004, the Washington Posted reported that:

       For the third time, environmental advocates discovered 
     passages in the Bush administration's proposal for regulating 
     mercury pollution from power plants that mirror almost word 
     for word portions of memos written by a law firm representing 
     coal-fired power plants. . . . The EPA used nearly identical 
     language in its rule, changing just eight words. In a 
     separate section, the agency used the same italics [the law 
     firm] used in their memo  . . .

  Let me repeat the last part. The industry memo and the rule that EPA 
proposed even used the same italics.
  What else did EPA do wrong?
  The EPA's own inspector general found that senior EPA officials told 
career EPA staff to produce a rule that allowed 34 tons of annual 
mercury emissions, rather than to produce a rule that complied with the 
law.
  Let me quote from a 2005 EPA inspector general report that examined 
EPA's mercury rule:

       Evidence indicates that EPA senior management instructed 
     EPA staff to develop a Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
     (MACT) standard for mercury that would result in national 
     emissions of 34 tons annually, instead of basing the standard 
     on an unbiased determination of what the top performing units 
     were achieving in practice.

  Again, this bears repeating: Senior EPA officials rigged the 
rulemaking to allow the power industry to emit a heavy metal that can 
poison children.
  But, it doesn't end there.
  Both EPA's inspector general and Congress's Government Accountability 
Office found that EPA failed to assess all of the public health 
benefits of reducing mercury. EPA ignored demands

[[Page S9919]]

from its own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee and other 
public health groups to asses such injuries.
  Let me quote from a January 4, 2005 letter that the Advisory 
Committee wrote to the EPA:

       While we are pleased to see that EPA is considering 
     additional external analyses, we note that EPA has not 
     conducted the analysis recommended by [the Children's Health 
     Protection Advisory Committee] . . . Specially, we asked the 
     Agency to develop `an integrated analysis with respect to 
     whether emissions reductions under either of these proposals 
     are the most child-protective, timely, and cost-effective,' 
     using existing available data. . . . The [Children's Health 
     Protection Advisory Committee] notes that none of the [EPA's] 
     Principle questions for consideration [of the rule] addresses 
     the importance of healthy child development in assessing a 
     country's economic competitiveness.

  The Advisory Committee wrote four letters admonishing the EPA to 
conduct the needed analysis and increase protections for children.
  Did EPA listen? No. EPA unlawfully allowed industry to emit poison, 
and then turned a blind eye to the injuries suffered by the children 
who will be hurt most from this decision.
  In this rule, EPA chose not to require coal and oil-fired powerplants 
to make the same types of reductions that medical and municipal waste 
incinerators have made. These facilities, which emit mercury, have 
reduced their emissions by 90 percent using the maximum achievable 
control technologies.
  EPA got it wrong by cooking the books, using industry-supplied 
language, willfully ignoring the most severe public health impacts, and 
simply refusing to make powerful industries comply with the same rules 
as other entities.
  We must reject EPA's rule to delist these facilities as emitters of 
hazardous air pollutants. The Senate must join with the religious 
community, public health advocates, fishermen and hunters, 
environmental groups and more than a dozen states in opposing this 
rule.
  We must vote to protect public health, not the profits of the power 
industry.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I regret having to miss the vote on the 
Collins-Leahy mercury resolution on the floor today; however, I am in 
Louisiana delivering supplies to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It 
is my understanding that my absence will not affect the outcome of this 
vote.
  The scientific evidence regarding the role that mercury contamination 
plays in public health and the environment speaks to the importance of 
this issue. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin harmful to fetuses' and 
infants' nervous systems. Frighteningly, one in six women of 
childbearing age in the United States carries enough accumulated 
mercury in her body to pose risks of adverse health effects to her 
children should she become pregnant. But it doesn't end there. A recent 
study found links between mercury and childhood developmental 
disabilities such as autism. Forty-five States have fish advisories for 
mercury warning pregnant women and children to limit their consumption 
of many fish caught in freshwater. And researchers have warned that 
mercury is associated with cardiovascular disease in adult men.
  Facing this threat to the environment and our public health, the Bush 
EPA has failed. Whether through effort or error, it has repeatedly 
taken its lead from regulated industries, overlooked sound science, and 
put the demands of the special interest ahead of the public interest. 
EPA has indefensibly purported to overturn its obligation under the 
Clean Air Act to adopt far more protective mercury regulations by 2008. 
Simultaneously the Agency has substituted far weaker measures that do 
not require any specific mercury reductions before 2018, and even then 
delay the ultimate reductions for an additional decade.
  As Members of the Senate, we have a unique opportunity under the 
Congressional Review Act to send the mercury powerplant rule back to 
the EPA for a thorough review. Only through a new rulemaking can we 
hope to develop a scientifically sound proposal that will protect the 
public health, protect the economy and give the public any confidence 
in the regulatory process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use leader time, not to use the 
remaining time Senator Leahy has.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we do not have a lot of rivers in Nevada. We 
have very few. The little river we love a great deal is called the 
Carson River. It is a wonderful place to fly fish. But there are signs 
posted in various places on the Carson River warning of the danger of 
mercury.
  Mercury in Nevada is a problem, as it is in 44 other States. Forty-
four States, including Nevada, have warnings urging residents to avoid 
eating mercury-laden fish caught in lakes, rivers, and streams.
  I first want to thank Senators Leahy and Collins for bringing the 
mercury pollution rule resolution of disapproval to the floor today.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can affect the brain, heart, and 
immune system. Developing fetuses and children are especially at risk, 
and even low-level exposure to mercury can cause learning disabilities, 
developmental delays, and other problems.
  Mercury's impact on public health has been well documented. EPA 
scientists estimate that one in six pregnant women in the United States 
has enough mercury in her body to put her child at risk. That is too 
bad.
  The Food and Drug Administration has recommended that children and 
women of childbearing age eat no more than two meals of fish per week 
and to avoid eating certain fish altogether.
  Powerplants are the largest emitter of mercury in the United States, 
emitting over 40 percent of the total mercury emissions.
  On March 29, 2005, the Bush administration issued the final rules 
that give powerplants a pass on mercury emissions for years, delaying 
modest reductions until the year 2018.
  Every time I hear the Clear Skies Initiative, it reminds me of the 
book ``1984.'' That is Orwellian. That legislation does everything 
except clean the air. The American people want air they can breathe 
that is safe. They want water they can drink. Delaying these reductions 
until 2018 does not do that.
  Earlier this year, the EPA Inspector General and the Government 
Accountability Office found that the EPA failed to analyze the health 
impact and ignored scientific evidence to establish a predetermined and 
less protective mercury rule favored by the Bush administration 
political appointees.
  This is not some partisan harangue. This is from the Inspector 
General of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Government 
Accountability Office, the watchdog of this body, the Congress.
  Ten States have filed lawsuits against the EPA saying the rules 
certainly do not go far enough. In addition, thousands of sportsmen's 
groups--thousands of sportsmen's groups--public health groups, 
environmental groups, and religious organizations oppose the Bush 
administration mercury rule.
  EPA rules that allow mercury emissions to continue are a danger to 
public health. This great Nation cannot compromise health simply to 
protect the financial interests of utilities. That is why we should 
reject the administration's mercury rules and send the EPA back to the 
drawing board to write a rule that complies with the law and protects 
our health.
  So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Leahy-Collins 
mercury rule disapproval resolution. Forty-four States have warnings 
urging residents to avoid eating mercury-laden fish caught in their 
rivers, lakes, and streams. Mr. President, that says it all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Delaware is in the 
Chamber. If he would like to go ahead, it would be acceptable.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is still available to the 
Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 3 minutes. The 
Senator from Oklahoma has 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.

[[Page S9920]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, others have spoken this evening of the health threat 
that is posed to our young, the unborn, and to pregnant women. I am not 
going to belabor those points. They have been well made.
  Senator Reid mentioned there is a river in his State where you can't 
eat the fish because of the mercury content. Ironically, last Friday, I 
was on a river that literally flows through Wilmington, DE. If you ever 
come up I-95, through Wilmington, up on the train through Wilmington in 
the Northeast Corridor, you go right by the Christina River. I was out 
on the Christina River this last weekend with one of our former 
Governors, Russell Peterson. You can't eat the fish, or at least you 
shouldn't eat the fish in the Christina River. There are several other 
rivers in my State which have a similar ban in effect. One of the 
problems with the fish is they have mercury in them.
  One of the problems with the rule the President has suggested, a 
strict cap-and-trade approach with respect to mercury--the problem I 
have, the concern I have is, let's say you have a high mercury-emitting 
powerplant here, and you have a lower one here. If the folks who have 
the higher emitting plant want to continue to emit a lot of mercury, 
they can do that under the strict cap-and-trade approach. They can say: 
We will find a way in another part of the country to reduce mercury 
emissions and use that to trade off the high-emitting utility.
  The problem, for me at least, with a strict cap-and-trade approach is 
mercury hot spots. Cap and trade is fine, but I think we would be much 
smarter to have an approach that almost every utility--which is burning 
whatever fuel it is, coal or some other, to create electricity--that 
almost everybody would have to reduce to some extent their mercury 
emissions.

  Is it technically feasible? As it turns out, it is. We had in our 
committee about 2 years ago testimony from companies such as WL Gore 
that they have the ability to reduce mercury emissions by 40, 50, 60, 
70 percent. I just learned from my staff there is an outfit, a 
Colorado-based company, ADA Environmental, that has been awarded 
contracts to install new mercury-control technologies in two 
powerplants being built in the Midwest. I think they are looking for 
mercury emission reductions by as much as 80 percent.
  This is not something we will only be able to do in 2018 or 2017 or 
2016. These are emission reductions that are achievable in the next 
couple of years. It is all well and good we want to reduce emissions in 
2018 by 70 percent. We can do better than that. We ought to do better 
than that.
  There is a balance that is achievable. The balance involves reducing 
the level of mercury emissions and at the same time not causing further 
spikes in the price of natural gas. We can do both, and we need to do 
both.
  The rule this administration submitted to us and has promulgated does 
not do both. We can do better than that. My hope is in our committee we 
will be able to do that before long.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, let me advise everyone where we are right now. We will be 
having a vote at the conclusion of my remarks on the motion to proceed. 
Tomorrow there will be actually a vote on the resolution. And tomorrow 
is the significant vote. There has been a lot of talk about today's 
motion, but tomorrow's is very significant.
  I have to say it appears to me this is highly politically charged, 
that we would be talking about this at this time. Of course, we have 
the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, as the Senator from 
Vermont knows. He is very diligently involved in that confirmation 
process. We have the catastrophe down in Alabama and Mississippi and 
Louisiana. Yet we are taking time to do this.
  I have to ask the question, Is there anyone in this Chamber who 
believes the President would sign legislation to repeal his own 
administration's rule? As the Senator from Ohio pointed out, the 
President has already announced he is going to veto this resolution in 
the event it passes. So we are not really accomplishing anything.
  I have to say, this is hardly the time to discuss overturning an 
existing clean air regulation that relies on an approach that is proven 
to be effective. There were sceptics back when acid rain came along as 
to the cap-and-trade procedure. It has worked; we know that.
  Let's look at the economics for a minute. No one has talked about 
that.
  This resolution is intended to force the Environmental Protection 
Agency to impose a very costly and potentially devastating regulation 
in place of the existing Clean Air Mercury Rule, which relies on an 
already well-proven market-based approach, as I just mentioned. The 
current EPA approach will cut mercury emissions by 70 percent--70 
percent--at an estimated cost of $2 billion. Supporters of this 
resolution prefer a maximum achievable control technology--MACT--
standard which is not nearly as cost effective.
  Supporters also want the MACT standard to cut mercury by 90 percent. 
The independent Energy Information Administration has found that the 
implementation of a 90-percent MACT standard within 3 years would cost 
up to $358 billion. I did not say ``million,'' I said ``billion.''
  The additional $356 billion of the MACT--which is much more than the 
current rule will cost--is projected to only reduce mercury deposition 
in the United States by about 2 percent more than the current 
regulation. As we can see from the chart that is behind us, 22-percent 
higher electricity prices and costs would be $358 billion.
  A 90-percent MACT would have devastating consequences on natural gas 
supplies which are already in a crisis. According to the EIA, the 
Energy Information Administration, it could increase by 10 percent the 
natural gas used by utilities that are forced to fuel switch. The 
Senator from Ohio talked about the fact they would have to switch from 
coal to natural gas. I think everyone understands that would happen.
  This would also cripple industries that rely on natural gas, such as 
the chemical industry, which has already lost 90,000 jobs since the 
year 2000 due in large part to the rising cost of natural gas. We have 
talked about that on the Senate floor. We discussed that in our 
committee, the EPW Committee.
  This last weekend I was in Lawton, Altus, and Frederick, OK. That is 
in the far southwestern part of the State. The farmers down there have 
received through their organizations what would be the increased cost 
of fertilizer. One of the main components of fertilizer is natural gas. 
They really cannot take any more hits. So it goes far beyond just the 
chemical industry.
  The most effective, most flexible, and least burdensome way to 
achieve mercury reduction is to build on the most successful part of 
the Clean Air Act, the acid rain program. Many Senators resisted the 
acid rain program, saying there would be hot spots and compliance 
problems, yet there have been no hot spots and, unlike with most of the 
Clean Air Act, virtually no enforcement problems. As the senior Senator 
from Vermont said in 1999:

       When we were debating controls for acid rain, we heard a 
     lot about the enormous cost of eliminating sulfur dioxide. 
     But what we learned from the acid rain program is that when 
     you give industry a financial incentive to clean up its act, 
     they will find the cheapest way of doing it.

  I think he was correct. That is exactly what the current rule under 
which we are operating does, the cap and trade, similar to the 
successful program that was used in acid rain. Moreover, supporters of 
the resolution that is under consideration assume the cap and trade 
mercury rule would be replaced with a 90-percent MACT rule. When the 
EPA first proposed the cap and trade approach last year, it also 
proposed a MACT approach. The MACT it proposed as complying with the 
law would only cut mercury emissions by 29 percent--not 90 percent, 29 
percent. Yet here we have a rule that cuts mercury by 70 percent, and 
it costs less because it uses cap and trade. Why would the sponsors of 
this resolution want to get only a 29-percent reduction in mercury?
  Actual deposition and its variety of sources are rarely discussed. 
Mercury emissions are not exclusive to powerplants. In fact, U.S. 
powerplants contribute but 1 percent of the global

[[Page S9921]]

total, according to Josef Pacyna of the Norwegian Institute of Air 
Research, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An 
enormous amount originates in Asia. More than half of mercury emissions 
are nationally occurring. Given that statistic, mercury will be present 
in the human bloodstream regardless of whether powerplants are 
regulated by a cap and trade emissions reduction program or the more 
costly but less effective MACT standard--or, for that matter, even if 
all powerplants and manufacturing facilities in the country were to be 
shut down altogether.
  EPA data shows that eliminating U.S. powerplants from the mercury 
deposition equation would have virtually no effect on reducing actual 
deposition. Throughout New England, for example, the range of 
deposition levels would be unchanged. With or without powerplants, 
deposition levels are between 10 and 15 micrograms per square meter in 
the overwhelming majority of the area. Where there is a reduction, the 
amount is negligible.
  These four charts created by the EPA using state-of-the-art computer 
modeling tell the story. As you can see in chart No. 5, throughout the 
country mercury deposition from all sources ranges from as low as 5 to 
10 micrograms, up to more than 20 micrograms per square meter. The next 
chart, in contrast, shows that powerplants contribute less than 1 
microgram per square meter for most of the country, including virtually 
the entire United States. Nonetheless, it is true that in most of the 
East, powerplants are responsible for 1 to 10 micrograms per square 
meter of the deposition. In a small region of the country, they cause 
as much as 10 to 20 micrograms. That is why the EPA has issued its 
regulation.
  The next chart, however, is revealing. With the EPA's rule, 
powerplants will contribute less than 1 microgram in the vast majority 
of the country and less than 5 micrograms anywhere else. Clearly, the 
EPA rule is effective. Yet despite the effectiveness of the EPA rule, 
some are advocating overturning a 70-percent emission reduction in the 
hopes of eking out a slightly greater reduction of 90 percent.
  This last chart, No. 8, completes the story. Even if all powerplants 
in the country were shut down, mercury deposition would be at least 5 
to 10 micrograms; that is, if we shut down all powerplants. All we are 
addressing now is powerplants, and a lot of people are deceived into 
thinking that powerplants is where you get your problem with mercury. 
That is not it. One percent of the total is in powerplants. Even if all 
powerplants in the country were shut down, mercury deposition would be 
at least 5 to 10 micrograms. In half the country, it is 10 to 15 
micrograms. In a significant portion of the country, it ranges from 15 
to more than 20 micrograms.
  Look at this chart. Now go back to chart 3. It is incredible that 
some Senators are willing to roll back EPA's current rule when 
deposition from powerplants will be negligible compared to other 
sources. EPA believes we should act now to reduce emissions of mercury 
from the powerplants so we can achieve the progress you see in chart 
No. 7. Repealing the section 111 rule would be a step backward in our 
efforts to regulate mercury emissions from powerplants. It would create 
enormous uncertainty for the States. Keep in mind that prior to 6 
months ago, when the President came out with a cap and trade 
restriction on mercury, we had no restriction on mercury in 
powerplants. It was nonexistent. In the absence of the mercury rule, 
there will be no Federal regulation of mercury from existing 
powerplants, at least in the foreseeable future. Repealing EPA's rule 
would roll back the 70-percent reductions required by the agency and 
eliminate incentives for the development of new mercury-specific 
control technologies.
  It is not appropriate for Congress to address this issue. The very 
people who claim that EPA acted improperly have asked the DC Circuit 
Court of Appeals to review the EPA's action to determine if their 
actions were proper or improper. The court would thoroughly review the 
legal and factual basis for the EPA's determination. There is no reason 
for Congress to interfere with this process. Congress can take 
affirmative action on mercury emissions by passing the Clear Skies 
legislation.
  We went through this. We have been working for 2 years to get the 
President's Clear Skies legislation passed. Clear Skies legislation 
mandates a 70-percent reduction in SOX, NOX, and 
in mercury. And for some reason those individuals who claim to be 
concerned about the environment would rather have no mandated reduction 
at all. We have the opportunity now to do that. Clear Skies cuts 
mercury emissions from the power section by 70 percent. The President's 
Clear Skies legislation is a more effective, long-term mechanism to 
achieve large scale national reductions of not only mercury but sulfur 
dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Clear Skies legislation applies nationwide 
and is modeled on the highly successful acid rain program, a program 
many people have said was not going to work, was not going to be 
effective. Yet we all now realize it was effective.
  We are not talking about just mercury. We are talking about sulfur 
dioxide, nitrogen oxide. I believe it would be totally irresponsible to 
somehow roll back the first attempt that we have to regulate mercury in 
powerplants. Keep in mind, prior to 6 months ago, it was not regulated 
at all. That is what this is all about.
  Tonight is a vote on the motion to proceed. I don't care about the 
motion to proceed. Let's go ahead and vote in favor of that. Tomorrow 
is the main vote. That is a significant vote. I think we need to 
proceed to that vote tomorrow.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________