[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1253-S1254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lee, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 638. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act with respect to exceptional 
event demonstrations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thought I would rise to discuss 
legislation designed to address the bureaucratic overreach in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's air regulations.
  Since I last introduced these bills in June of 2014, EPA's failures 
in this area have become even more glaring. At present, air regulations 
are stifling to both businesses and private citizens, and they are 
negatively impacting our economy.
  Let me say from the outset, we all want clean air. We are always in 
favor of protecting the environment and the air we breathe. I think we 
are not in favor of an EPA that places real regulations over common 
sense.
  Today I am introducing S. 638, S. 639, and S. 640, the CLEER Act, the 
ORDEAL Act, and the Agency PAYGO for greenhouse gases.
  The CLEER Act eases the regulatory burden on States, including desert 
States such as Arizona that are home to so-called exceptional events 
such as dust storms.
  Dust storms in Arizona are not caused by man. They are naturally 
occurring events, just like tornadoes or blizzards in other parts of 
the country. When these dust storms occur in Arizona, they can cause a 
spike in the dust, or the PM-10 level. This is nothing the State can 
control. Yet this blip can cause Arizona and other affected States to 
fall out of compliance with Federal air quality standards. Again, this 
is through no fault of their own. It can lead to a loss of 
transportation dollars, even from the Federal Government.
  Thanks to EPA rules, States end up wasting vast amounts of manpower, 
countless work hours, and lots of taxpayer dollars on reviews and 
appeals for events they cannot control or avoid.
  For example, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the 
Maricopa Air Quality Department, and the Maricopa Association of 
Governments in 2011 and 2012 spent $675,000 and 790 staff hours just to 
prove a spike in PM-10 levels was caused by a dust storm, not 
pollution.
  These EPA reviews are arbitrary, cumbersome, and costly. They lack an 
appeals process that further defies common sense. The EPA has 
continually assured me it would issue a rule to help ease the burdens 
on States, all the States that have to weather forces of nature such as 
this. Yet despite these promises, the EPA has continued to backtrack 
and shift deadlines, and to date has not issued a workable proposed 
rule.
  My legislation on the CLEER Act would require the EPA to move forward 
with a rulemaking, and it would require decisions on such events be 
based on a preponderance of evidence, and will accord deference to 
States' own findings of when such events happen.
  It would also require the EPA to review the States' exceptional-event 
documentation within a reasonable time period of 90 days instead of 
dragging

[[Page S1254]]

out the process. Part of the cost is due to the fact that the EPA drags 
out the process. These practical fixes will alleviate the undue 
hardship States are having to deal with and when we have to deal with 
the effects of these natural events.
  Secondly, the ORDEAL Act is an attempt to overhaul the EPA's 
unnecessary ozone standard reduction until 2018. When the EPA reduced 
permitted ozone standards in 2008, counties across the country that 
were in nonattainment were forced to enact expensive and complicated 
compliance plans.
  Relying on a dubious scientific basis, the EPA has proposed lowering 
the ozone emissions standards even further to 65 parts per billion, 
while accepting comments on lowering it to 60 parts per billion. By 
some estimates, this proposal to lower the ozone level may be the most 
expensive regulation in EPA history--and that is saying something--
costing as much as $1.7 trillion. Lowering ozone standards from 75 
parts per billion to 65 parts per billion will cost a whopping $140 
billion annually. Yet EPA's own science advisers disagree on the very 
basis upon which this regulation is built.
  The ORDEAL Act will stop shaky facts and assumptions from being used 
as a basis for long-term public policy, and will give States the 
flexibility and the time to implement their own innovative and 
proactive measures.
  The bill would also extend air quality standards reviews, including 
ozone, to a 10-year timeline instead of the current 5 years.
  Third, Agency PAYGO. This administration has set its sights on 
reducing carbon emissions, most recently putting draconian regulations 
on existing powerplants, despite the inevitable job losses and spikes 
in energy costs. It has placed a mandate on Arizona to reduce 52 
percent of its carbon emissions by 2030. This is unattainable, unless 
Arizonans are forced to greatly reduce their standard of living.
  The Agency PAYGO Act I am introducing would simply give the EPA a 
taste of its own medicine by requiring the Agency to offset the Federal 
cost of any greenhouse gas rules to an equivalent reduction in Agency 
spending. If the EPA proceeds without offsetting these costs from its 
own budget, the final greenhouse gas rule must be approved by Congress, 
simply saying if you cannot do this as an offset within your own 
budget, bring it to Congress and let's approve it. This bill 
specifically forbids the EPA from denying costs to Federal agencies by 
passing on costs to the Federal agency's ratepayers. If capital costs 
are imposed by a greenhouse gas rule, the EPA must offset those costs 
or get Congress's approval.

  The EPA has a history of implementing costly and stringent standards 
for negligible and even questionable benefit. All three of these 
bills--the CLEER Act, ORDEAL Act, and Agency PAYGO Act--provide more 
certainty than presently exists to States and counties and businesses 
that have to deal with the EPA and will hold the Agency accountable for 
its decisionmaking process.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these measures.

                          ____________________