[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________