[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 172 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7309-S7310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CROSS-BORDER AIR POLLUTION
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and their implementing a
cap-and-trade program for what is called cross-State air pollution. I
oppose this new regulation and I support the resolution of disapproval
that we will be voting on later today.
Led by the EPA, Washington bureaucrats are tying up America with
redtape. They are tying up our Nation and they are tying up the
American people. This year alone, the EPA has issued over 400 final
rules. These are rules that do have the effect of law. Well, that is
over two rules per day so far this year for each day the Federal
Register has been open for business in 2011.
Imagine any business in the United States, in our home communities--
businesses having to comply with two new EPA rules each day you are
open for business. And, of course, if you don't comply, then you face
thousands of dollars in fines. This is business as usual for the EPA.
Thousands of rules are filling the Federal Register, 70,000 pages this
year alone. The costs of rules issued this year are estimated to
eclipse the $100 billion mark. It is time to stop Washington
bureaucrats. They are issuing excessive rules without considering their
impact on our economy.
The problem is that this administration does not believe there is a
regulations problem. They think more regulations actually create jobs
rather than harm jobs. Fortunately, a previous Congress passed, and
President Clinton signed into law, what is called the Congressional
Review Act. This law gives us our best tool to dismantle bad
regulations, and we should use it when appropriate.
Majority Leader Reid, one of the authors of this Congressional Review
Act, described the process as a reasonable, sensible approach to
regulatory reform. I believe the Senate should use it here today. The
Senate should take back some responsibility, instead of letting
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats continue to harm our economy.
I am standing here today to support Senator Rand Paul's resolution to
nullify the EPA's cross-State air pollution rule. The EPA's cross-State
air pollution rule was finalized approximately 3 months ago. It is
already costing Americans jobs. Over the summer, officials at a Texas
utility threw up their hands and said they can't comply. They said it
was too costly, too burdensome, and 500 jobs in Texas were lost as a
result. The EPA's own estimates say another 2,500 jobs will be lost
because of this very regulation. Private sector analysis puts the job
and cost numbers much higher.
The cross-State air pollution rule puts limits on electricity
generation for over half the country. It forces Washington's heavy hand
on over 1,000 coal, gas, and oil-fired facilities across 28 States.
Originally designed for States in the East, the EPA now continues to
expand the rule to capture more and more States in the West. The newest
version of the rule imposes new requirements for Kansas, Oklahoma,
Nebraska, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The compliance costs
are very high. By the EPA's own estimate, the rule will cost over $2.4
billion.
The EPA also notes that part of these costs will be passed on to U.S.
households in the form of higher electricity rates. The cross-State air
pollution rule demonstrates how bureaucrats simply do not understand
how job creators work and operate their businesses all across this
country.
The implementation timeline the EPA has proposed is nearly impossible
to follow. The rule was finalized on August 8, which leaves less than 6
months for companies and States to act and meet the new mandates by
January of 2012. The Office of Management and Budget even warned that
there would be consequences of such a drastic change in such a short
amount of time.
In conclusion, this resolution of disapproval will tell the
bureaucrats to do their job but do it following the rules of the road.
We all want clean air, and we want it done in a responsible way. This
EPA is rushing through rules, causing a train wreck in our economy, our
jobs, and our competitiveness as a nation will suffer as a result.
Senator Paul's resolution will save at least 3,000 American jobs and
also prevent a rise in electricity costs for American families. By
adopting this resolution today, we will help our job creators, and help
them be more competitive in the global marketplace. It is common sense
to rein in the EPA.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleague who
just spoke but disagree with him, and I urge my colleagues to take a
careful look at the Rand Paul resolution of disapproval when it comes
to this issue of air pollution. I would commend the remarks of our
colleague Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire who spoke this Tuesday
on the floor of the Senate, urging the same opposition to Rand Paul's
resolution. She said she could not support that resolution. I quote
from Senator Ayotte's floor statement:
The cross-State air pollution rule is designed to control
emissions of air pollution that cause air quality problems in
downwind States, and New Hampshire is a downwind State.
She went on to argue that this rule, which was first implemented 6
years ago--this is not a new idea coming through this administration;
it has been here for years--is simple justice. Why in the world should
the people downwind of a polluting State have their lifestyle and
opportunity to expand businesses affected? Shouldn't we have reasonable
standards that, if the air pollution you put in the air is going to
cross over the border--which it naturally will--and affect the air
quality in a neighboring State, you have a responsibility? Well, of
course you do. But, unfortunately, the position Senator Paul is taking
is that we shouldn't have any standards, we shouldn't have any rules.
I would also suggest that there are utility companies--one that
visited my offices yesterday--that agree with my position. They want to
have a good rule when it comes to this cross-State air pollution.
John Rowe is the executive of a company named Exelon. Exelon,
Commonwealth Edison, has been around for a number of years. They have
acquired plants in many different locations. He was here on the Hill
yesterday as a utility executive lobbying against Rand Paul's
resolution of disapproval. If you believe the earlier statements made
by my colleague and friend Senator Barrasso, you would assume the power
industry is opposed to the EPA in this position. Not true. Many
forward-looking utility executives have made decisions to lessen air
pollution. If the Paul resolution is enacted, all of their investment
will have been for nothing other than their own self-satisfaction. They
have tried to live up to a standard in the law which Senator Paul now
wants to eliminate. That is a mistake. And it is a mistake because it
rewards bad conduct.
When we come up with new standards to make America healthier and
safer, it is interesting, the reaction. Some corporate leaders, when
they hear of a new standard that might make the air cleaner or water
purer, say, That is it, we have heard from the government, we have got
to go out and hire a lawyer and a lobbyist to fight it. Others say,
That is it, we believe the standard is reasonable, we are going to hire
the engineers to make it work.
The second approach is one we should reward. The first approach will
be rewarded if Senator Paul has his way and eliminates this air
pollution standard.
Yesterday, Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, came in my office and I talked to her. I said that
many times
[[Page S7310]]
we speak about air pollution in the most general and theoretical terms.
To me, it is a very personal thing. I invited her and every one of my
colleagues, including my colleagues from Wyoming and Idaho and other
States, to step forward the next time they visit a classroom in a
school and ask a simple question to the students assembled there, a
question I ask every time I visit a school. I ask the students: How
many of you know someone who is suffering from asthma? Without fail,
half of the students or more will raise their hand.
It is a mistake for us to ignore this epidemic of pulmonary disease
which is literally claiming lives every single day in our country. It
is a mistake for us to ignore the fact that this public health hazard
of air pollution makes asthma sufferers suffer even more.
Two weeks ago, I was at the University of Illinois Children's
Hospital and met with some of the parents of asthmatic children. It is
a heartbreaking situation. I cannot imagine what it is like to be
sitting there on the bedside of your daughter or son when they say, I
can't breathe. That is the reality of asthma in its worst situation.
Maybe that is not the worst situation. I can recall visiting
emergency rooms at children's hospitals in Chicago and having emergency
room physicians say, I have had teenagers walk in here and say, I have
asthma, I can't breathe, and I sat there and watched them die. There
was nothing I could do about it. That is the reality of asthma and
pulmonary disease. That is the reality of pollution. And if Senator
Paul and his followers have their way, we will reduce the standards for
clean air in America, we will endanger more people with asthma and
pulmonary conditions, and we will pay a heavy price--not just in the
human suffering and death but in the health care costs associated with
it.
Why is it, when the Republicans are asked to come up with a way to
create jobs in America, their first stop is to eliminate the EPA? Why
is it that the House of Representatives, Republican-dominated House,
boasts that they have a jobs bill, and you look and find they on 168
separate occasions this year tried to take away the authority of the
Environmental Protection Agency to protect the air and the water that
we drink? Is that the path to economic prosperity in America? The
filthy skies we see in some cities around the United States and the
smog that is attendant to it? And of course, if you go overseas to
China, you can cut the air with a knife 24/7. That is the reality of an
unregulated business environment. It is a reality we can change. We can
change it with thoughtful regulation, we can change it by dedicating
ourselves to public health and safety, and we can change it by
supporting those rules which are consistent with improving public
health.
I want to salute Senator Ayotte for her statement on the floor.
Senator Alexander of Tennessee joined her. We believe there will be a
handful of stalwart Republicans who will step forward with us today to
defeat the Paul amendment. They believe, as we do, this is not a
partisan issue. It does our country no good to declare war on the
Environmental Protection Agency and to leave ourselves vulnerable to
all the death and disease that will follow if we don't do something
meaningful to deal with air pollution. I think we can, and I think we
should, and I hope we can do it on a bipartisan basis.
When I listen to the suggestions about creating jobs, I think many on
the other side overlook the obvious. When we are looking for more
energy efficiency and cleaner energy, we are pushing the envelope on
technology. We are asking for innovation, entrepreneurship, and new
employment to reach it. It is an exciting opportunity for us across
this country.
Two weeks ago I visited a new coal-fired plant in southern Illinois
near my home area where I was born. It is across the road from a coal
mine, and they have put on that plant $1 billion worth of scrubbers and
cleaning devices to reduce air pollution dramatically from where it
otherwise would have been in a coal-fired plant. They made the
investment because it was the right thing to do, and it is a standard
that is moving us forward as a country so we can say to the American
people we can produce the energy we need for our economy to create jobs
and grow, but do it in a sensible fashion.
If the Republican leadership in the House has its way, the
Environmental Protection Agency will all but disappear. Maybe that is
their way to expand the economy, but it is not mine. I would rather be
creating jobs for energy efficiency and new energy technology right
here in the United States, so that we end up with cleaner air and purer
water. I would rather do that than watch the Rand Paul approach pass,
and find ourselves creating jobs, sadly, on the backs of those who are
suffering from asthma. I don't doubt, if there are more asthmatics,
there will be need for more medical professionals, more emergency
rooms, more nebulizers, more medical treatment. Those aren't the kinds
of jobs we should pointedly try to create. We need those folks, but we
shouldn't make their tasks any harder or more difficult by increasing
the number of children and young people in America who are suffering
from asthma that is the direct consequence of watering down the air
pollution laws in a way that Senator Paul will try to do later today on
the floor of the Senate.
Let's have respect for the people who live in this country and the
health of their children. Let's vote down this Rand Paul resolution.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________