[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.

                          ____________________