[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.
____________________