[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 113 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9922-S9924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise this evening to express 
opposition to the resolution that we are going to be voting on tomorrow 
morning. First, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to 
explain that to be effective the resolution must be passed by the 
Senate and the House and signed by the President. While the act 
provides for expedited and privileged procedures in the Senate, there 
are not such rules in the House. I have every reason to believe this 
resolution will not be considered by the House, and even if it is 
considered by the House and passed, the President has announced today 
that he would veto this legislation. So it is clear where this is 
going.
  What are we talking about? On March 15 of this year, 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. That is the first in the world. We know we have coal-fired 
powerplants all over the world--China, India, all over. Through two 
phases in a program called cap and trade, mercury emissions will be 
reduced by 70 percent. The program is modeled after the Nation's most 
successful clean air program, the Acid Rain Program. There were not any 
lawsuits filed, and it went through and made a big difference in terms 
of reducing acid rain.
  Modeling by the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent 
nonprofit research organization, shows that the rule is going to reduce 
mercury in every State. This is quite amazing given the nature of 
mercury.
  Let us talk about mercury and where it comes from because the debate 
earlier this evening gave the impression that all of the mercury that 
people are experiencing today in the United States comes from the 
United States. Not so. Mercury travels hundreds and thousands of miles. 
About 55 percent of worldwide mercury emissions come from natural 
sources such as oceans and volcanoes. So it is already in the 
environment. Only 1 percent of worldwide emissions come from U.S. 
powerplants, which is what we are talking about today.
  From 1990 to 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 
U.S. emissions of mercury were reduced by nearly half. So we have been 
doing some real good, and that has been completely offset by increases 
in emissions from Asia.
  As many of my colleagues know, throughout my career I have focused a 
lot of my time and energy on the Great Lakes. In a report published 
after a workshop sponsored by the International Air Quality Advisory 
Board of the International Joint Commission--the International Joint 
Commission is made up of U.S. and Canadian representatives and the 
Commission for Environmental Cooperation--I learned that as much as 45 
percent of the mercury disposition in the Great Lakes is believed to 
come from Asia.
  We have had some discussion today about mercury control technology. I 
would like to share with my colleagues that the testing performed by 
the Department of Energy, EPA, and the electric utility industry has 
demonstrated that existing control equipment for sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter can reduce mercury emissions by 
approximately 40 percent. In other words, if we do a better job of 
reducing NOX and SOX, we will have a real impact 
on the reduction of mercury in the United States.
  According to the DOE's national environmental technology laboratory, 
the ability of these existing pollution controls to reduce mercury can 
vary from zero levels approaching 90 percent. In fact, some 
combinations of control technologies for reasons unexplained show an 
increase in mercury emissions.
  So the status of the technology is really fuzzy. If mercury 
technology is so settled, as my colleagues would lead many to believe, 
then why is the Department of Energy supporting 36 mercury control 
projects located in 12 States--California, Washington, Alabama, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, West Virginia, Colorado, North Dakota, 
North Carolina, and Iowa.
  Additionally, Green Wire published an article, by the way, that was 
referenced by the Senator from Delaware, where the first sentence 
reads: A leading technology for removing mercury from the coal 
combustion process will be fully applied for the first time to a 
commercial scale powerplant. So this is proven technology of one or two 
out of more than a thousand coal-fired units are going to install it.
  In other words, we have a couple of plants that they are talking 
about doing something in terms of this mercury technology. The vendor 
that is going to install this technology on two plants in the Midwest 
has said their target is 80 percent.
  Those who are promoting the resolution want a 90-percent reduction 
within 3 years. Now, here is somebody who is out there in front on 
technology, and they are talking about their target being 80 percent. 
The President's regulation, EPA regulation, is a reduction of 70 
percent.
  So let us look at this. Two plants out of more than 1,000 coal-fired 
plants. I am not sure that one could argue with a straight face that 
the technology is out there to do what the sponsors of this resolution 
would say that they could do.
  According to the DOE, currently no single technology exists that can 
uniformly control mercury from all powerplant gas emissions. For that 
reason, the EPA concluded that mercury-specific control technologies 
are not yet commercially available and does not believe widely 
applicable technologies can be developed and broadly applied over the 
next 5 years.
  The sponsors of this resolution, as I mentioned, are for something 
called the Maximum Available Control Technology. They want a 90-percent 
reduction in 3 to 4 years. First of all, the technology is not there, 
but let's say what would happen if it were there. EPA's cap-and-trade 
program, the one that is reflected in the regulation that EPA promoted 
on mercury, is going to cost $2 billion, while the regulation of the 
sponsors of this regulation would cost $358 billion. That is not 
million; we are talking about $2 billion versus $358 billion.
  Utilities will be forced to increase their use of natural gas by 
almost 30 percent because natural gas is the only means available at 
the present time to achieve significant mercury reductions within such 
a short timeframe. Natural gas prices will increase by over 20 percent. 
National average electricity prices will increase by 20 percent. Some 
regions of the United States, especially those that rely on coal, are 
projected to experience electricity price increases as much as 45 
percent.
  I have to say that I come from the State of Ohio. I live in 
Cleveland, OH. We have seen our natural gas prices increase almost 100 
percent since 2001. In fact, I believe that is when the recession 
started in my State. This is impacting dramatically on those people who 
are the least able to pay. It is impacting dramatically on the 
businesses in my State and, frankly, throughout the United States of 
America. I suspect it is also impacting on those people in the 
Northeastern part of the United States, the home of many of those who 
are sponsoring this resolution to overturn the EPA rule on mercury.
  Let's talk about natural gas prices. According to the independent 
Energy

[[Page S9923]]

Information Administration, a maximum 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.
  One of the things my colleagues need to understand is that we are the 
Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 250 years' worth of coal here in the 
United States. There are some people, frankly, who would like to see 
coal put out of business. In fact, the lawyer for the Sierra Club 
indicated about a year ago that it is their goal to make sure that we 
no longer have any coal-fired facilities, energy plants in the United 
States.
  Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will add 
to the cost, as we have already seen. We have the highest natural gas 
prices in the developed world today. Increased costs have diminished 
our businesses' competitive position in the global marketplace.
  I was saying earlier today, some of my colleagues are living in a 
cocoon. The biggest threat to the United States, and we don't recognize 
it, is that we have the most fierce competition this country has ever 
confronted in my memory today, and we still go about dealing with our 
problems the way we did 25 or 15 years ago. We have to understand that 
decisions we make not only impact on the people in our Nation, but they 
also impact on the competitive position of the United States in the 
global marketplace.
  The Energy Information Agency, which is part of the Department of 
Energy, estimates that natural gas prices may go up as much as 71 
percent in some parts this fall. Did you hear me? That is 71 percent. 
Talk to the people in Cleveland or in Columbus or other parts of the 
United States who have had it up to here with their natural gas costs. 
It will place a burden on the poor and elderly and on American 
businesses both large and small. EIA finds that the use of natural gas 
for electricity generation may increase up to 10 percent by 2025, with 
nationwide electricity prices expected to rise by as much as 22 
percent.
  The repercussions of high natural gas prices do not end with higher 
energy prices for individuals and businesses. What we forget about is 
natural gas--this is something I think the American people have to 
understand--is a vital feedstock for many industries in the United 
States. Since 1999, 21 nitrogen fertilizer production facilities have 
closed, 16 of them permanently. As a result, farmers are paying up to 
70 percent more for nitrogen fertilizer materials than they did before, 
and that is reflected of course in the price we pay for corn and for 
other crops that use fertilizer.
  The chemical industry had an eight-decade run as a major exporter; 
that is, we exported chemical products all over the world. That ended 
in 2003. With a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997--that is $19 billion 
we are selling--it went to a $9.6 billion deficit. That means today we 
are importing chemical products into the United States. More than 
90,000 U.S. chemical industry jobs have been lost since 2000. Of the 
125 large-scale chemical production plants under construction 
worldwide, 50 are in China, while only 1 is in the United States.
  This is another example, because of our policy, of jobs shifting out 
of this country to other countries.

  Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this resolution for me is that 
it completely circumvents the Environment and Public Works Committee 
and the subcommittee I chair. That subcommittee is the Clean Air 
Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee Climate 
Control and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Disregarding our 
committee's jurisdiction and extensive work on this matter, with a 
total of 24 hearings held on emissions issues since 1998, S.J. Res. 20 
was discharged from the EPA Commission by a petition, not by a vote of 
its members. In fact, the committee worked hard during the first few 
months of this year to pass the Clear Skies Act to reduce emissions of 
mercury, NOx and sulfur dioxide. Unfortunately, several of my 
colleagues simply did not want a bill and were unable to compromise so 
we would be able to move the bill out of committee.
  It is astounding that many of the Members who are now supporters of 
this resolution on which we will vote tomorrow--if Members want to 
reduce emissions sooner or even through a different mechanism, then 
let's work together and pass a multi-emissions bill that deals with 
SOX, NOX, and mercury, as proposed in the 
President's Clear Skies Initiative on which we agreed to compromise and 
now we are dealing with one part of it.
  Instead, proponents of this resolution are taking a step backward. At 
the least, passage of this resolution means that the Clean Air Mercury 
Rule would be repealed and there would be years of delay before a new 
regulation would be developed, proposed, finalized, and then 
implemented after resolving the inevitable litigation.
  I want to point out the beginning of this rule--in other words coming 
up with a mercury rule--started in the Clinton administration 15 years 
ago.
  Some arguments have also been advanced that the resolution would 
eliminate any legal requirement that EPA even promulgate a regulation 
to control mercury emissions from powerplants. This resolution is not 
the right way to get actual reductions. EPW Committee Chairman Jim 
Inhofe and I showed earlier this year that we are willing, as I 
mentioned, to sit down at the table and work through a multi-emissions 
bill. We made changes in the committee to address every concern raised 
and we are willing to do more, but frankly no member of the opposing 
side told us what is wrong with our proposal and what would be needed 
for them to support our bill. We got nowhere.
  Our managers' amendment to Clear Skies is stronger on mercury than 
the Rule. We move up the second phase from 2018 to 2016, and create a 
hotspot program to address concerns that people have with our cap-and-
trade program.
  The last thing I would like to get at is there are being represented 
all kinds of statistics on how mercury is impacting the population of 
the United States, particularly women of childbearing age.
  I want to point out the major sponsors of this resolution live up in 
this area of the United States. The disposition of mercury in 
micrograms per square meter is less than 1 in this area, where they are 
complaining about all the mercury and how it is impacting on their 
lakes and streams and on their population. The people who have the 
problem are in Pennsylvania and Ohio--this blue area on the map. They 
are the ones who have the mercury problem. As I mentioned before, a lot 
of it has to do with mercury that is coming from other places in the 
world. The Clear Skies legislation that we put together was going to 
deal with this problem. But, oh, no, it is our way or no way; we have 
to have something that is perfect.
  The thing we do here so often in the Senate is we allow the perfect 
to get in the way of the good. We better realize we are going to need 
more compromising if we are going to do the things we want to do, to 
reduce emissions in the air and at the same time stay competitive in 
the global marketplace.
  I am going to finish with a little information on the risks of 
mercury. We have heard all of the gloom and doom and how terrible it is 
and we can't eat the fish and we can't do this and we can't do that.
  EPA's reference dose for methylmercury is the basis for regulating 
mercury because methylmercury poses the greatest risks of exposure to 
people, including women of childbearing age. Understand that. EPA's 
reference dose for methylmercury is very conservative. It is more than 
twice as stringent as that of the World Health Organization; twice as 
stringent as Health Canada; three times more stringent than the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
  In other words, the rule that we have is more stringent. First of 
all, it is the first real rule we have in terms of the world dealing 
with mercury. But compared to the one some of these other organizations 
have stated, it is so much better than what they have put out as being 
the goal. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that EPA's 
reference dose is a ``scientifically justifiable level for the 
protection of public health.'' EPA's analysis

[[Page S9924]]

concluded that, as a result--we are talking about the Environmental 
Protection Agency. We keep hearing that the inspector general of the 
EPA does not like this. The agency the inspector general works for 
disagrees with the inspector general.
  As I said, the National Academy of Science scientists concluded that 
EPA's reference dose is ``a scientifically justifiable level for the 
protection of public health.'' EPA's analysis concluded that as a 
result of the cap-and-trade program:

     . . . the overwhelming majority of the general public and 
     those who consume large quantities of fish--

  And I consume large quantities of fish because Lake Erie is one of 
the best fisheries in the United States of America. We eat a lot of 
perch in the Voinovich household--

     are not expected to be exposed above the methylmercury 
     reference dose.

  Additionally, while several of my colleagues and groups claim that 
there is an urgent need to dramatically reduce mercury emissions 
because many are at serious risk, this is simply not the case. Two 
months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released 
their ``Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental 
Chemicals,'' stating that all women of childbearing age--16 to 49 years 
of age--had blood mercury levels below that associated with the neuro-
developmental effects in the fetus.
  We have been hearing lots of information and statistics about this 
issue. The fact of the matter is that the EPA rule on mercury is 
reasonable. It will cost $2 billion, versus $385 billion.
  It has been shown, if we went with what the sponsors of this 
resolution want to do--that is, overturn the mercury rule of EPA--if 
they got everything they wanted, we would have a 2-percent reduction 
below what we are going to get with this 70 percent rule that has been 
promulgated by the EPA.
  I hope my colleagues spend a little time looking at this situation 
and its impact and tomorrow vote no on the proposed resolution to 
overturn the EPA's mercury rule.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________