[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 114 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9955-S9958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      DISAPPROVING A RULE PROMULGATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:10 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of S.J. 
Res. 20, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S.J. Res. 20) disapproving a rule promulgated 
     by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     to delist coal and oil-direct utility users from the source 
     category under the Clean Air Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes equally divided for debate between the Senator from Oklahoma, 
Mr. Inhofe, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think we have now agreed by UC that we 
will begin our equally divided 20 minutes at 20 minutes past the hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. That being the case, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask Senator Inhofe and Senator Leahy 
if we could start the 20 minutes now.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes evenly divided for debate between the Senator from Oklahoma, 
Mr. Inhofe, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, or their 
designees.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I discussed this with the distinguished 
Senator from Oklahoma. I yield 3 minutes, first, to the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, very quickly, we are about to vote on 
an issue that really has to touch every one of us in some form or 
fashion, if one is a parent or one is a grandparent or if one has any 
contact with children, as to the kind of issue we are discussing.
  I will start off by seeking unanimous consent that letters and other 
material in support of this resolution from environmental, sportsmen, 
fishing, and religious groups be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The list is long. They talk about the health community having grave 
concerns about the threat of mercury pollution to the public health, 
about potent neurotoxins that can affect the brain, heart, and immune 
system. There are almost 40 organizations cited in this one letter. 
They include organizations such as the American Academy of Child and 
Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association on Mental Retardation. 
A lot of these groups are focused on the thought process--Cure Autism 
Now, Learning Disabilities Association, the National Autism 
Association, the Society of Pediatric Nurses, and United Cerebral 
Palsy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these materials be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suspect most Americans are going to 
be shocked to learn the administration wants to allow more poisonous 
mercury into the environment. But that is exactly what they are trying 
to do. We should not permit this vote to take place as it is.
  I hear the arguments that are being made that reducing toxic 
emissions from coal-fired plants may in fact increase the cost of 
energy, that it would be terrible. People are being shocked by the cost 
of fuel and energy generally.
  But if you want to look at a bunch of children and say, ``No, we are 
going to risk these children having learning disabilities and to not be 
able to function properly, not be able to be an integral part of their 
school body as would be planned,'' as opposed to perhaps--perhaps--the 
energy we use costing a couple more cents, there cannot be any 
justification for this resolution not to pass.
  I hope our colleagues in the Senate will look very closely at the 
decision they are making, between children and a little extra cost for 
energy.

                                                    July 27, 2005.

                               Exhibit 1

       Dear Senator: As leading national health organizations, we 
     are writing to ask that you vote to protect the public's 
     health, especially children's health, from the threat of 
     mercury pollution. The upcoming vote on the Collins-Leahy 
     joint resolution to stop EPA from implementing its new 
     Mercury Clean Air Rule is an opportunity to put children's 
     health first. Since EPA unfortunately ignored the calls from 
     health professionals, scientists, a number of states, our 
     organizations and the public when it finalized the mercury 
     rule earlier this year, we now turn to Congress to ask for 
     your intervention.
       The health community has grave concerns about the threat of 
     mercury pollution to public health. Mercury is a potent

[[Page S9956]]

     neurotoxin that can affect the brain, heart, and immune 
     system. Developing fetuses and children are especially at 
     risk; even low-level exposure to mercury can cause learning 
     disabilities, developmental delays, lowered IQ, and problems 
     with attention and memory. EPA scientists estimate that one 
     in six women of child-bearing age has enough mercury in her 
     body to put her child at risk should she become pregnant. 
     Mounting evidence also indicates that mercury increases the 
     risk of cardiovascular diseases in adult men.
       As organizations representing medical, nursing and public 
     health professionals, women, and advocates of children and 
     families, we are concerned that the American public is not 
     adequately protected from exposure to mercury in the 
     environment. Many of our members (most notably physicians, 
     nurses, and health scientists) contributed their clinical and 
     research expertise in commenting on the EPA's rule; nearly 
     700,000 comments, including the attached mercury health 
     consensus statement, were submitted to the EPA docket in 
     overwhelming opposition to this flawed proposal. Of 
     particular note:
       The EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory 
     Committee (CHPAC) advised the Agency that the rule ``does not 
     go as far as is feasible to reduce mercury emissions from 
     power plants and thereby does not sufficiently protect our 
     nation's children,'' writing four letters to the Agency 
     raising significant children's health concerns about the 
     rule;
       Important new research that EPA failed to consider from the 
     Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and the Mount Sinai School 
     of Medicine reinforces the National Academy of Sciences' 
     (NAS) determination that methylmercury exacts serious, 
     adverse effects on public health, and provides new evidence 
     that mercury pollution inflicts neurocognitive impacts on 
     developing children that affect our nation's economic 
     productivity;
       Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and EPA's 
     own Inspector General documented widespread discounting of 
     scientific and public health evidence as EPA developed and 
     finalized the mercury rule.
       As a nation we can do better. EPA articulated a sound 
     scientific basis for its decision in 2000 to list mercury 
     emissions from power plants as a ``hazardous air pollutant,'' 
     ensuring regulation under the maximum achievable control 
     technology (MACT) section of the Clear Air Act. The 
     scientific evidence of harm has only grown in the last 5 
     years, adding significant additional weight to EPA's earlier 
     determination. Moreover, substantial evidence exists that 
     power plants can affordably install the necessary 
     technologies by 2008. Yet remarkably, the mercury rule 
     finalized in March 2005 is even weaker than the rule 
     initially proposed by EPA in 2003.
       We urge you to protect women and children from toxic 
     mercury by supporting the joint resolution, sponsored by 
     Senators Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins under the 
     Congressional Review Act (S.J. Res. 20), to disallow the 
     EPA's flawed mercury rule. In some important respects, 
     mercury pollution is the lead of our generation and it 
     deserves to be treated as a serious threat to public health. 
     We strongly urge you to protect Americans from mercury 
     pollution by supporting the Leahy-Collins resolution.
           Sincerely,
       American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
       American Academy of Pediatrics.
       American Association on Mental Retardation.
       American College of Nurse-Midwives.
       American College of Preventive Medicine.
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees.
       American Nurses Association.
       American Psychiatric Association.
       American Public Health Association.
       Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
       Association of Universities on Disabilities.
       Breast Cancer Fund.
       Center for Children's Health and the Environment, Mount 
     Sinai School of Medicine.
       Children's Environmental Health Network.
       Commonweal.
       Cure Autism Now.
       Easter Seals.
       Families USA.
       Healthcare Without Harm.
       Institute for Children's Environmental Health.
       Learning Disabilities Association.
       March of Dimes.
       National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's 
     Health.
       National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners.
       National Association of School Nurses.
       National Autism Association.
       National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
       Natonal Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties.
       National Partnership for Women and Families.
       National Research Center for Women & Families.
       NoMercury.
       Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       SafeMinds.
       Saratoga Foundation for Women WorldWide, Inc.
       Science and Environmental Health Network.
       Society of Pediatric Nurses.
       The Arc of the United States.
       United Cerebral Palsy.
                                  ____

                                                September 9, 2005.
       Dear Senators: As organizations that represent millions of 
     sportsmen and women nationwide, we write to ask for your 
     support of an effort underway in the U.S. Senate to require 
     the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to revisit its 
     recently finalized mercury rule for coal-fired power plants.
       Hunting and fishing is more than a pastime in the United 
     States. It is a way of life, a tradition that is passed down 
     from one generation to the next. It's what shapes young 
     children's relationship and connection to their natural 
     world. Fishing also is a big contributor to our local 
     economies, contributing $116 billion annually to the national 
     economy.
       Last year, many of our members expressed concern about 
     mercury's impacts on people and wildlife and urged then 
     Administrator Leavitt to strengthen its mercury rule for 
     coal-fired power plants. Unfortunately, the final rule fails 
     to adequately protect people and wildlife and delays mercury 
     controls for another decade.
       Mercury pollution poses a threat to fisheries and to the 
     people, wildlife, and businesses that depend on clean water 
     and safe fish. Recently published research found that 
     mercury's impact on wildlife is greater than initially 
     believed. The reproduction of fish, birds, and fish-eating 
     mammals are all harmed due to mercury's toxic properties.
       You have a unique opportunity under the Congressional 
     Review Act to send the mercury power plant rule back to the 
     EPA for a thorough review. Our members want to share the 
     experience of hunting and fishing in our nation's waters for 
     generations to come. Your leadership in reversing mercury 
     contamination in the U.S. will make this possible and help 
     ensure that our natural resources are protected for our 
     children.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Lyon,
       Senior Vice President for Conservation, National Wildlife 
     Federation.
     Tom Franklin,
       Conservation Director, Izaak Walton League of America.
     Steve Moyer,
       Vice President for Government Affairs & Volunteer 
     Operations, Trout Unlimited.
                                  ____

                                                    July 21, 2005.
       Dear Senator: We urge you to protect women and children 
     from toxic mercury by supporting a joint resolution, 
     sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins under 
     the Congressional Review Act (S.J. Res. 20), to reject the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent rule to delay 
     reductions in mercury emissions from power plants for years 
     to come. In particular, the resolution would disapprove a 
     rule that removes power plants from the sources required by 
     law to install strict controls to reduce their toxic 
     pollution, including mercury.
       Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can affect the brain, 
     heart, and immune system. Developing fetuses and children are 
     especially at risk; even low-level exposure to mercury can 
     cause learning disabilities, developmental delays, lowered 
     IQ, and problems with attention and memory. EPA scientists 
     estimate that one in six women has enough mercury in her body 
     to put her child at risk should she become pregnant. Mounting 
     evidence also indicates that mercury increases the risk of 
     heart attacks in adult men. People of color are particularly 
     at risk from the effects of mercury pollution. Research shows 
     minorities consume fish more frequently than other 
     populations and are less likely to be aware of fish 
     consumption advisories.
       Mercury pollution is so pervasive that 44 states have 
     posted fish consumption advisories due to mercury 
     contamination. In half of these states, the advisories cover 
     every lake and/or river in the state.
       In addition to human impacts, mercury also significantly 
     threatens wildlife. For instance, recent studies have 
     revealed widespread contamination of aquatic ecosystems. New 
     research also shows that many animals--including forest 
     songbirds and salamanders in national parks--have elevated 
     mercury burdens.
       Power plants are the largest U.S. source of mercury 
     emissions. Yet, rather than enforce the Clean Air Act, which 
     requires each power plant to achieve the maximum degree of 
     reduction in mercury pollution (on the order of 90 percent) 
     by 2008, EPA has finalized new rules that allow significantly 
     more mercury pollution from power plants and even then delay 
     the weaker required reductions until after 2026.
       The Leahy-Collins resolution would reject EPA's categorical 
     exemption of power plants from the highly protective emission 
     standards mandated by the Clean Air Act's hazardous air 
     pollution control program and would instead require EPA to 
     establish clean air standards that comply with the law and 
     protect public health. We strongly urge you

[[Page S9957]]

     to protect Americans from mercury pollution by supporting the 
     Leahy-Collins resolution.
           Sincerely,
         Andy Imparato, President & CEO, American Association of 
           People with Disabilities; S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Vice 
           President for Government Affairs, American Rivers; 
           Wendi Hammond, Executive Director, Blue Skies Alliance; 
           Glenn Wiser, Senior Attorney, Center for International 
           Environmental Law; Kim Coble, Maryland Executive 
           Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Conrad G. 
           Schneider, Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task Force; 
           Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water 
           Action; Linda Sherry, Director of National Priorities, 
           Consumer Action; Marty Hayden, Legislative Director, 
           Earthjustice; Josh Irwin, Director, Environmental 
           Action; Elizabeth Thompson, Legislative Director, 
           Environmental Defense; Ilan Levin, Counsel, 
           Environmental Integrity Project; John Passacantando, 
           Executive Director, Greenpeace USA; Gabriela Lemus, 
           Director of Policy and Legislation, League of United 
           Latin American Citizens; Kay J. Maxwell, President, 
           League of Women Voters of the United States; Hilary 
           Shelton, Director of Washington Bureau, National 
           Association for the Advancement of Colored People;
         Betsy Loyless, Senior Vice President, National Audubon 
           Society; John Stanton, Vice President, National 
           Environmental Trust; Roger Rivera, President & Founder, 
           National Hispanic Environmental Council; Mark Wenzler, 
           Director, Clean Air Program, National Parks 
           Conservation Association; Kimberly Barnes-O'Connor, 
           Deputy Executive Director, National PTA; Manuel 
           Mirabal, President & CEO, National Puerto Rican 
           Coalition; Karen Wayland, Legislative Director, Natural 
           Resources Defense Council; Debbie Sease, Legislative, 
           Director Sierra Club; Stephen Smith, Executive 
           Director, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Anna 
           Aurilio, Legislative Director, U.S. Public Interest 
           Research Group (PIRG); Roxanne D. Brown, Legislative 
           Representative, United Steelworkers; and Tom Z. 
           Collina, Executive Director, 20/20 Vision.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be brief but concise.
  This is not a vote about reducing mercury by 90 percent by 2009 or 
even 70 percent by the year 2030. That is a red herring.
  This is not a vote about the opponents' wildly outdated claims on the 
potential cost or the availability of mercury controls.
  This is not even a vote about the well-documented and devastating 
effects of toxic mercury on future generations of children or the 
Nation's environmental health.
  Mr. President and Senators, this is a vote about whether the 
administration failed to comply with the law. We cannot afford to get 
it wrong now. There will be no going back.
  After careful review, I have concluded that there was such a failure 
that this was an intentional and illegal effort to circumvent the law, 
and that it was designed to benefit big energy companies at the expense 
of the public health.
  This failure has been documented in reports by GAO, the Inspector 
General, in the press, and in testimony before the Environment 
Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee.
  Our resolution sends the agency back to the drawing board to get it 
right and to comply with the law.
  Mr. President and Senators, it is this simple: Should the 
administration comply with the Clean Air Act? I think so and will vote 
yes. If you think so, vote yes on this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me make 10 points and 
make them very succinctly and very quickly. I timed myself, and I can 
do it in this time.
  So I start off with, in reality, this is a political exercise in 
futility. Every Senator in this Chamber knows it. Who in this Chamber 
would truly believe the President would sign legislation to repeal his 
own administration's rule? It is not going to happen. Yesterday, the 
President said he would veto it. That is a done deal. That is a no-
brainer. We understand that.
  Now, if you want political points with some of the far left 
environmentalist groups, sure, this might be your opportunity to get 
it. But you know it is not going to happen.
  Secondly, overturning this rule would delay the rule that is already 
in effect right now. This President has a good rule. It is a cap-and-
trade rule. Prior to this, nobody else was able to do it. But he is 
doing it.
  Third--this is very important--the Senator from Vermont was 
commenting about some people giving false financial information. I 
think we know from the Energy Information Administration that the cap-
and-trade rule--this approach to it--would cost about $2 billion. This 
is what is in place right now. This is what the President has done.
  In the event they should substitute that for a MACT rule, the Energy 
Information Administration said it would cost $358 billion. Now, that 
is how much it would cost. But I think there is a lot more than that. 
You have to keep in mind if you pass this rule, if this were to take 
place today, that would have the effect of shutting down coal-fired 
plants. You would have to replace them with natural gas. That natural 
gas has already gone up in price.
  I have here today, from Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Farmers Union. They 
can tell you, the cost of fertilizer has gone up 70 percent just in the 
last short period of time. If you start using natural gas in the 
plants, there is going to be far less of it available. We have driven 
90,000 chemical manufacturing jobs overseas because of the problems 
they have been having with natural gas right now. So it would be that 
much worse.
  The fourth thing is, they say this is not going to work. It has 
already been said. It was said yesterday and this morning that the cap 
and trade does not work. This is patterned after the Acid Rain Program. 
The Acid Rain Program is considered to be a success. Many Senators--and 
I do not blame them--have resisted the idea of a cap-and-trade program. 
They said all kinds of things were going to happen with acid rain, and 
it did not happen. Even the senior Senator from Vermont said--this is 
in 1999 when we had the acid rain proposal--

       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 [to do it].

  That is exactly what happened. That is what is going to happen in 
this case.
  The fifth thing is that the sponsors of this resolution talk about 
the fact that a MACT program would give a 90-percent reduction in 3 
years. I think it might be very interesting for these people to go back 
and research that 2 years ago, when we were developing the cap-and-
trade proposal for mercury, they considered at the same time a MACT 
approach. Their modeling showed they could only cut mercury by 29 
percent, not the 90 percent we are talking about now. It is all in the 
record. It is all there in the EPA. They have that information.
  So it is not 90 percent. Even if you were to take this, it would be 
29 percent as opposed to the mandated 70-percent reduction that is in 
the cap-and-trade proposal by the President.
  The sixth thing is that U.S. powerplants contribute but 1 percent to 
the global total of mercury emissions. This is kind of interesting. 
Everyone is talking about powerplants now, that we have to do something 
about powerplants, when in fact powerplants are not the contributors. 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Norwegian Institute of 
Air Research did a long, involved study on this issue. They said, of 
all the release--you can see it in this chart right here--only 1 
percent comes from U.S. powerplants. So we are talking about 1 percent 
of the mercury that is released. That is all, just 1 percent.
  The next thing I would like to mention--I will use two charts for 
this--if we were to use, right now, the computer modeling, the first 
map shows the mercury deposits from all sources in 2001. That is where 
it is right now. We can see it over here in this area, I say to my good 
friends, Senator Jeffords and Senator Leahy. It is over 20

[[Page S9958]]

micrograms per square meter. That is what is happening today.
  Now, the next chart shows what would happen if you did away with all 
powerplants by the year 2020. You can see it really is not that 
different. So it gets right back to that chart that only 1 percent is 
affected to begin with.
  The seventh reason is that repealing the rule would be a rollback in 
the first ever mercury regulation to control powerplants. I hope 
everybody understands that powerplants have never been regulated for 
mercury.
  It hasn't happened. It has never happened. They tried it in the 
Carter administration. Many of us wanted that to happen. I wasn't here 
at that time, but the Carter administration punted it to the Reagan 
administration. The Reagan administration didn't do it. They didn't 
regulate mercury. They punted it to the Bush 1 administration. He 
didn't do it. He punted it to President Clinton. The Clinton 
administration did nothing toward regulation of mercury. He punted it 
to the current administration and they are doing it. We are now 
regulating mercury for the first time in the history of this country. 
It is this administration that is doing it.
  The eighth reason is, of the 144 tons of mercury deposited yearly in 
the United States, only 11 tons come from U.S. powerplants. With the 
new rule, that amount will drop down to 3.4 tons.
  Then, No. 9, it is easy to scare people. We are really good at that, 
talking about how many people are going to die. It is very interesting. 
I want people who are scared because they have heard politicians 
talking about the doom and gloom of this thing to look at the NHANES 
study which shows that not a single woman or child has a blood mercury 
level approaching the level at which even the smallest effect was 
observed by the study.
  Lastly, even if it worked, the technology is not there. If we should 
adopt this, the technology is not there.
  I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 5 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Oklahoma has 2 minutes 37 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Let me be clear: Similar to everybody else, I want to 
minimize fuel switching which could drive up the cost of natural gas 
even further. I, too, want coal to continue to be the backbone of our 
electricity-generating sector. Adopting a strong mercury rule is not 
inconsistent with either of those goals. It is consistent with 
protecting the health of pregnant women and children, among the most 
vulnerable members of our society.
  The fears about the impacts of a strong mercury rule on coal and 
natural gas are unfounded. I am not aware of credible evidence that 
shows that powerplants will switch from coal to natural gas in order to 
comply with a more stringent mercury rule. The Energy Information 
Administration tried to say that fuel switching will occur. But listen 
to some of the assumptions they adopted to reach that conclusion.
  First, they had to assume that natural gas prices would fall to $3.50 
per thousand cubic feet 5 years from now in order to show that it would 
make economic sense for powerplants to switch from coal to natural gas. 
Let me tell you how much natural gas cost last week: $12. The week 
before Katrina hit, it was $9.50. I don't think there is any way 
natural gas prices are going to be $3.50 5 years from now. I hope I am 
wrong, but the odds are I am not.
  Second, the Energy Information Administration had to assume that 
technology to control mercury does not exist. It does exist. There are 
already powerplants in the Northeast that have been reducing their 
mercury pollution by more than 80 percent for the last 5 years. Last 
month, Colorado-based ADA-Environmental Solutions was awarded another 
contract to install new mercury control technologies on two new 
powerplants being built in the Midwest.
  The technology has been developed. The technology is being 
implemented. We can do better than the Bush rule. We can do better than 
that and we should. We have an obligation to our constituents, and we 
can do it in a way that balances our needs to preserve coal and to 
protect the most vulnerable among us.

                          ____________________