[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 114 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9958-S9962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
S.J. RES 20
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr President, I strongly support S.J. Res. 20, and I
commend Senator Leahy for sponsoring the resolution to block the EPA's
mercury cap and trade rule.
The mercury rule is a rule that only an administration bought and
paid for by big energy could love. It's a shameful rollback of the
Clean Air Act to allow owners of fossil fuel power plants to avoid the
expense of installing new technology to reduce dangerous emissions.
Mercury is an extremely dangerous neurotoxin that accumulates in the
environment. It is particularly harmful to pregnant women, and puts the
fetus at risk of serious developmental disorders.
The Centers for Disease Control has reported that 630,000 of the 4
million infants born in the United States each year--16 percent--are at
risk for mercury-related brain damage. In the Northeast, this figure
translates into over such 84,000 newborns per year.
Last week, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine Center for Children's
Health and the Environment reported that the cost to the Nation of the
impact of mercury on children's brain development is $2 billion a year.
These newborns are being poisoned by the mercury which coal-fired
power plants spew into the air and eventually pollutes the water, and
enters the food chain. Mercury advisories now apply to nearly a third
of the area of America's lakes and 22 percent of the length of our
rivers.
Incredible as it seems, however, EPA--the agency charged with
protecting the environment--has issued a rule that would actually lead
to more of this toxin in the water we drink and the air we breathe.
Obviously, it's important to have adequate power to keep the lights
on. But we also need to protect our children's health. We can do both
by requiring that power plants use the best technology to control
mercury emissions.
I urge my colleagues to vote for passage on this needed resolution to
restore a sensible anti-mercury policy for the Nation.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to give my
reasons for voting against the so-called Leahy-Collins resolution.
I believe mercury pollution is a real problem, particularly for
vulnerable populations, including children. Given these concerns, I
support efforts to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants, which account for 42 percent of U.S. emissions. This is in line
with my support for many years for clean coal technologies, which will
allow our Nation to utilize our most abundant natural resource in a
cleaner, more efficient manner.
Debate on this resolution has revolved around two regulatory
approaches--a maximum available control technology, MACT, rule or a
cap-and-trade rule. I suggest that there is a third option that
combines elements of both. A MACT system is enormously expensive on its
own, costing up to $358 billion according to the Energy Information
Administration, compared to $2 billion estimated by EPA for a cap-and-
trade approach. However, a cap-and-trade-only system is inadequate on
reducing pollution levels around specific plants, referred to as ``hot
spots.'' The Leahy-Collins resolution would tie EPA's hands by
restricting it to a MACT-only approach.
Under a third option, EPA could set a national emissions level, based
on the best available science to protect public health and the
environment, and implement a cap-and-trade system to meet this goal
with the addition of measures to take care of hot spots, EPA could
require reductions at specific plants. To this end, I have written the
Administrator of the EPA urging this hybrid approach, which would meet
environmental goals while balancing the implementation costs faced by
consumers.
I ask unanimous consent that my letter to EPA Administrator Johnson
be printed in the Record.
[[Page S9959]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2005.
Hon. Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Administrator Johnson: I am writing regarding the
Clean Air Mercury Rule announced by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on March 29, 2005 and urge that you
reconsider this rule.
Mercury pollution is of great concern to me. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is party to a suit in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which seeks to overturn
the mercury rule.
As you reconsider this rule, I propose that the most
reasonable approach to reducing U.S. mercury emissions from
power plants would include a national cap with plant-specific
reductions for those facilities found to be responsible for
high levels of local mercury deposition, as some call ``hot
spots.'' This would provide the flexibility needed by utility
companies to make decisions on the appropriate mercury
reductions at their plants, while avoiding the potentially
inevitable problem of fuel switching to natural gas under a
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard.
Reducing mercury pollution is extremely important to the
nation. Beyond that, there are specific concerns the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has, which concern this rule and
the problems Pennsylvania faces with mercury-contamination
fish advisories for every water body in the state.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward
to your response to these concerns.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Mr. SPECTER. I assure my colleagues and my constituents that I will
be monitoring this situation as the current mercury rule is litigated
in the court system and as EPA considers further mercury emission
control options.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I will vote against S.J. Res. 20, the
joint resolution of disapproval concerning the mercury emissions rules
that were promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, on March 15, 2005. At the same time, I have
some significant reservations about the sometimes questionable
decisions that the administration made to revise the regulations and
achieve the final result. In short, I cannot condone this rule making
process; I remain very concerned about the possible impacts these new
regulations could have on eastern coal; and I urge the administration
to increase its commitment to funding important mercury control
technology programs.
On one hand, coal, electric utility, and other industry interests are
concerned that returning to the more stringent mercury control
standards proposed by the Clinton administration would lead to negative
economic impacts, including fuel switching to natural gas. They believe
that the intent of S.J. Res. 20 would be to force the EPA to require a
90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from each coal-fired
powerplant, and this would also directly impact West Virginia's
chemical, agricultural, and industrial uses of natural gas. I am
therefore concerned that a vote for S.J. Res. 20 would support
regulations that are more draconian and costly than could be borne by
the economy at this time.
However, like the United Mine Workers, I remain concerned about the
potential impacts that the clean air mercury rule could have on eastern
coal. Time and again, eastern coals have sustained the brunt of the
clean air regulations at the expense of western coals. Since the
passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, western coal production
has continued to climb at a steady pace while eastern and interior
basin coal production, and important union mining jobs, have suffered
significantly. I am troubled by evidence that, in making changes to
these regulations, the Bush EPA was swayed by and, in some cases,
simply copied recommendations by western coal industry interests.
Furthermore, it is important to bring to light several important
reviews of these regulations by the Government Accountability Office,
GAO, and the EPA inspector general. The GAO as well as the EPA
inspector general criticized the EPA for ignoring critical information.
Based on these reviews, the administration did a very poor job of
analyzing the mercury emissions data, the economic analysis, and other
critical health-based factors. It appears that the administration
already had reached a predetermined answer and then worked backwards to
achieve that end.
Finally, I have been very concerned about this administration's
commitment to funding fossil energy research. The industry argues that
there is not a sufficient, reliable suite of technologies to meet these
mercury emissions standards for some years to come. Because I believe
that there are negative health impacts to pregnant mothers and young
children from exposure to mercury, we should take economically and
environmentally sound actions to achieve these reductions. However,
this administration has not increased the critical funding required to
find the mercury control technologies that would enable the U.S. to
meet these emission reductions sooner. The administration could do a
lot more to get these technologies in place by increasing funding for
these important programs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on a measure
that has a direct impact on the lives of thousands of people in
Connecticut and around the country. By voting yes today on the
bipartisan S.J. Res. 20, Congress can reverse the EPA decision to not
regulate mercury emissions under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Under Section 112, powerplants would be required to reduce emissions of
mercury and other pollutants by the maximum achievable level of control
by installing stringent pollution control equipment. In March 2005, EPA
issued a rule rescinding an earlier 2000 finding that it is appropriate
and necessary to regulate mercury from power plants. Instead, EPA
advocates a cap-and-trade system over plant-specific controls.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that affects the heart, brain, and
immune system. By putting forth this irresponsible rule, EPA is putting
the lives of millions of people at risk, especially those of children
and pregnant women. Scientists have well-documented evidence of mercury
toxicity. In the Northeast, a public health crisis is looming as there
are estimates that over 84,000 newborns each year will be at-risk for
irreversible neurological problems and cardiovascular abnormalities.
While mercury is prevalent in many household, medical, and industrial
products, the largest U.S. source of mercury emissions are powerplants.
The mercury is carried by the wind from powerplants and settles in the
lakes and rivers hundreds of miles from the source of pollution. The
pollution knows no boundary and that is the problem facing Connecticut.
We do have a few less-than-perfect powerplants, but the majority of our
mercury pollution comes from sources outside the State and region.
So prevalent is the pollution that 44 States have issued fish
consumption advisories. In some States, no lake or river is habitable.
In Connecticut, pregnant women and small children are advised to eat no
more than one meal of freshwater fish per month. All others are advised
to eat no more than one meal of fish per week. With statistics like
this, it is clear to see that in addition to the public health
consequences, there are clear economic challenges as well. Fishing is a
big contributor to our local economies, contributing nearly $116
billion to the national economy.
In 2002, Connecticut took the first step in reducing mercury from the
waste stream and by prohibiting the sale of many mercury products.
Further, the State has implemented a comprehensive public education,
outreach and assistance program. But individual States cannot address
the problem of mercury emissions on their own because emissions travel
far and wide. The EPA has dropped the ball and we will all suffer for
it.
The EPA had a chance to take a stand for the public health and
economic well-being of citizens across this country. Under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act, a nearly 90 percent reduction in mercury
emissions by 2008 could have been achieved. Instead, the EPA chose to
pursue an emissions cap-and-trade program that will likely achieve only
a 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2018--ten years later. Because
the cap-and-trade system does not require plant-specific controls,
there are even some estimates that the reductions may not occur until
20 years out. We can simply not afford the delay. The Northeast States
for Coordinated
[[Page S9960]]
Air Use Management, NESCAUM, have determined that cost-effective
technologies to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent or greater are
already commercially available.
Today, we have a chance to undo what the EPA is championing and stand
up for the people of this country. There is widespread opposition to
the EPA rule from states, localities, health professionals, groups of
faith, and many sportsmen and women. I urge my colleagues to vote for
S.J. Res. 20.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I offer my full support of the
resolution and wish to thank Senator Leahy, Senator Collins and the
other cosponsors of this resolution who joined Senator Leahy, Senator
Collins and me in bringing it forward.
One in 12 American women of childbearing age have mercury blood
levels that put their fetuses at risk for developmental delays.
Developmental delays are a human tragedy, often denying children their
full intellectual and psychological potential. This human tragedy means
that our schools and educational system face costs and burdens borne in
meeting the special needs of these children, burdens that make it that
much harder for our schools to achieve their overall mission of
delivering the highest quality education to all Americans. At a time of
increasing global economic competition in which human capital may be
our most precious resource, we simply cannot afford to squander our
people or divert the resources of our schools when we can prevent the
problem in the first place.
That is why in 1990, Congress passed and President George H.W. Bush
signed, comprehensive clean air legislation that, among other things,
put in place a mechanism for dealing with power plant mercury emissions
aggressively.
Unfortunately, the EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule defies that clear
intent of Congress and the first President Bush by failing to achieve
anywhere near the full level of cost-effective and timely reductions in
the emission of mercury from power plants, one of the critical sources
of mercury in the environment.
The EPA's mercury rule depends on the agency's decision to undercut
the Clean Air Act's mechanism for addressing mercury emissions from
power plants. This resolution explicitly disapproves that undercutting
decision.
The resolution should be adopted because the EPA must engage in a new
rulemaking that is sound and that yields the proper level of reductions
that the Clean Air Act contemplates and public health and economics
demand.
Findings from both the Government Accountability Office and the EPA's
Inspector General suggest that the EPA has much to repair in the
rulemaking that led to the current rule. The GAO found that the EPA did
not adequately evaluate the health benefits that would be achieved from
requiring more aggressive mercury reductions than called for under the
current rule. The EPA Inspector General determined that the agency did
not evaluate what level of emissions reductions were technologically
achievable, as required by the Clean Air Act. In addition, the EPA
ignored an EPA-funded study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
pointing to substantial additional cardiovascular-related heath
benefits associated with mercury reduction.
The Clean Air Mercury Rule was developed and promulgated at the same
time that the Clean Air Interstate Rule was. The levels of mercury
reduction expected to occur as a collateral result of reductions in
sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen under the Interstate Rule are
almost exactly those required by the Mercury Rule. This seeming
coincidence raises the strong suspicion the EPA suborned its entire
analysis of the Mercury Rule to the preordained goal of requiring under
the Mercury Rule to effect no additional reductions in mercury than
would be achieved as a collateral effect of the Interstate Rule. The
flagrant flaws in the EPA's Mercury Rule rulemaking that both the GAO
and the Inspector General exposed only reinforce that suspicion.
In contrast, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to make a
determination, after careful economic, technological, environmental,
and public health analysis whether it was ``necessary and appropriate''
to regulate utilities' mercury emissions as a hazardous air pollutant
under section 112. In December of 2000, the EPA, following the Clean
Air Act's requirements, determined that power plant mercury indeed was
a hazardous air pollutant, meaning that regulations under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act were ``necessary and appropriate.'' Once that
determination was made EPA was required to put in place new technology-
based regulations of mercury emissions from power plants, regulations
that would call on each electric generating unit in the country to take
technologically feasible actions to reduce its harmful emissions.
In contrast to the clear letter and spirit of the law, the new
mercury rule leaves hundreds of large coal-fired power plants with
absolutely no mercury controls until after 2020--if ever. In fact, the
Congressional Research Service estimated that only 4 percent of
installed power plant capacity is projected to require control by 2020
under this rule.
In addition, overall reduction levels under the new rule would be far
below what can be achieved cost-effectively. In June, the GAO reported
that the technologies exist for capturing 30-95 percent of mercury from
coal. Recent tests have shown average removal rates of 70-95 percent
for all coals, with those technologies applicable to the coals that
account for 90 percent of power production showing mercury capture in
excess of 90 percent. Currently, drastic reductions are underway in the
State of Massachusetts, with mercury technology vendors working to meet
a State-mandated 85 percent control level. Many, including vendors,
state that 70-90 percent control can be achieved by the end of this
decade. Associated costs to electricity consumers would increase by a
mere 1-5 percent, according to the GAO report. These findings strongly
suggest that the technology to control mercury is available now. By
turning its back on a regulatory program that would achieve this level
of control, the current EPA mercury rule turns its back on tens of
thousands of children who will continue to be exposed unnecessarily to
the development risks of mercury.
The EPA puts great stock in the use of cap-and-trade in its rule,
and, as my colleagues in the Senate know, I, too, believe that cap-and-
trade is a valuable tool for emissions control programs. In this case,
I believe that cap-and-trade is the wrong tool to use, at least without
specific technology requirements and much more stringent reduction
requirements. Connecticut suffers from deposition of mercury emitted
from upwind sources, and many highly populated areas within range of
power plants are seeing significant deposition. To deal with mercury
emissions, the case is strong, and the Clean Air Act reflects this, for
requiring plant-by-plant controls.
At the same time, the EPA did next to nothing in its rulemaking to
refute this case and to demonstrate that power plants' mercury
emissions were only widely dispersed and yielded no local deposition.
Instead, the EPA used an atmospheric model that masked, rather than
revealed, whether mercury emissions have local deposition impacts. The
EPA's model divided the Nation's atmosphere into a hypothetical grid of
individual parcels that, at 500 square miles each, were so big that the
model simply could not detect local emissions plumes and deposition
even if it were occurring. When the model is run, the emissions of any
large power plant within any of the model's grids are immediately
dispersed by the model throughout the entire volume of that 500 square
mile grid; the model simply cannot detect localized deposition
occurring in any area smaller than 500 square miles! Thus, this
technique cannot possibly reveal local effects occurring downwind of a
large source. In effect, the model design itself created a self-
fulfilling prophecy, which could only show the result that EPA wanted--
that power plants emissions were dispersed, with no local deposition.
In these circumstances, EPA has failed to make its case that cap and
trade is the right tool to achieve both overall reductions and prevent
harmful local effects.
Lastly, there is reason to believe that EPA overstated the role of
global mercury emissions in high-deposition areas. If so, the case for
plant-specific reduction requirements is even stronger. At the same
time, even if one of the
[[Page S9961]]
keys to addressing mercury deposition in the U.S. is inducing other
countries to reduce their emissions, there can be no more effective way
to accomplish that than if the U.S. itself adopts stringent controls on
its own power plants and thus stimulates the development and widespread
use of the technologies to achieve those reductions. If we want other
Nations to follow our policies and use our technologies then we must
act first.
For these reasons, Congress must adopt this resolution and the EPA
must go back to the drawing board and produce a mercury program that
will truly protect the American people.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier today I was necessarily detained
from voting on S.J. Res. 20, ``A Joint Resolution disapproving a rule
promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
to delist coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category
list under the Clean Air Act.''
Mercury emissions and rulings by Federal agencies concerning the
environment are extremely important. Although my vote would not have
changed the outcome, I respectfully request that the Record show that
had I been able to cast my vote, I would have joined with the majority
of Senators who voted to uphold the administration's rulings and
against the resolution of disapproval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we make a mistake when we say this is a
matter of cap and trade. It is not. We are talking about a toxic waste,
one that causes birth defects, IQ loss, mental retardation, and
continues to poison children and pregnant women. One-sixth of pregnant
women are affected. That is not cap and trade. This idea that we are
only talking about 1 percent, of course, is not the case. Forty percent
of the mercury comes from the United States. We are talking about the
40 percent that is affecting our rivers, our streams, our children. Do
we simply ignore the proliferation of warnings all over the country
that fish caught in our streams and lakes and rivers are unsafe to eat?
Do we allow this rule to move forward when it has been harshly
criticized by the Bush administration's own EPA inspector general? When
the Government Accountability Office has said there are major
shortcomings in the analysis? Or do we uphold the bipartisan work that
produced the Clean Air Act that protects the health of pregnant women
and children and try and clean this up now?
Every one of us will give speeches about how family friendly we are.
We are talking about children. We are talking about pregnant women. I
can't think of anything more family friendly than to remove this threat
of mercury from them. If we vote this down, we are telling a whole
generation of women and children their health is less important than
energy company profits. We are going to tell them, rather than go to
the scientists, rather than go with what the Bush administration's own
inspector general said, instead we will take the regulations that were
written, in many parts, verbatim by the industry.
What are we going to say to the families who live in the hotspots of
today or tomorrow? This rule is a danger to America's women and
children. It is time to do it over and do it right. I hope my
colleagues will support the resolution. This is not a moot point. If we
pass this resolution, maybe it will be enough of a signal to have
people go back and do what the inspector general of the EPA said, what
the Government Accountability Office has said, and actually do it
right, actually follow their own procedures.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me address a couple things that were
stated. First, let me inquire as to the time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 30 seconds
remaining. The Senator from Vermont has no time remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. First, it is the Energy Information Administration that
came out and did the study on this. They said that there would be fuel
switching. I only have to ask the question, if you are not able to use
coal-fired plants, what are you going to switch to? Is it going to be
windmills? There would be fuel switching, and it would have a
devastating effect in terms of the problems that already exist in terms
of the cost of natural gas.
The Senator from Vermont is passionate on this subject, and I don't
want to be critical. But in talking about hotspots, that is the same
thing that they said about acid rain--there are going to be hotspots--
and it didn't happen. Thirdly, the point that was brought up on being
family friendly. When you look at the fact that they say studies show
that not a single woman or child has a blood mercury level approaching
the level at which even the smallest affect was observed in any study,
where is the real problem there? If you want to be family friendly,
let's be a little concerned about the cost of fertilizer, about the
cost of heating our homes when winter comes.
This is an exercise in futility. The President has already announced
if this thing should pass--they will feel good and rejoice--he will
veto it, and you can't override a veto. It is a done deal. The current
rule regulates mercury for the first time. The current rule's cost is
$2 billion, as opposed to $358 billion, a huge difference. A vote for
this rule is a vote to drive the remaining chemical plants overseas. A
vote for this rule is going to be a vote to increase the cost of
fertilizer for every farmer in America. The cap and trade worked on
acid rain, and it will work accurately now. All the talk about U.S.
powerplants. They only contribute 1 percent of the mercury that is in
the system now globally.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time
has expired.
Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to a vote on
passage of the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question
is, Shall it pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Akaka
Alexander
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Wyden
NAYS--51
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Hatch
Rockefeller
The joint resolution was rejected.
[[Page S9962]]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________