[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20905-20906]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 20905]]

THE ACID DEPOSITION AND OZONE CONTROL ACT OF 1999 AND EPA'S ANALYSIS OF 
                                 S. 172

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express concern and 
dismay over the unwarranted delay of a critical analysis of S. 172, the 
Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act. This analysis thoroughly 
documents the substantial benefits to be achieved, at comparatively 
insignificant costs, by passing S. 172. Unfortunately, we have received 
this information only after it is too late to coordinate the bill's 
passage this year.
  I first asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to analyze 
the impacts of S. 172 in 1998. Specifically, EPA was asked to calculate 
the costs and benefits of the legislation with regard to effects on 
human health, environment and the business community. EPA completed the 
report in March, 2000 and submitted it to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for their review. Unfortunately, OMB withheld the analysis 
for six months despite the fact that co-sponsors in both the House and 
Senate requested the report's release in letters to Director Jacob Lew. 
We have EPA's report today because Representative Dan Burton, Chairman 
of the House Committee on Government Reform, was willing to subpoena 
the report. I am disappointed that this course of events had to occur.
  Nonetheless, I am quite pleased with the results of EPA's analysis. 
Not only would S. 172 significantly improve visibility and the state of 
ecosystems sensitive to acid rain and nitrogen loading, but it would 
produce approximately $60 billion in public health benefits annually 
and save 10,000 lives each year. All this for an additional cost to 
utilities of $3.3 billion. What a tremendous service we could do to 
society by simply passing this legislation. If we don't, an epidemic 
could ensue. For example, according to EPA an DGAO, 43% of the lakes in 
New York's Adirondack Park will become acidified by 2040 even with the 
reductions mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Amendments.
  As far back as the 1960s, fisherman in the Adirondacks began to 
complain about more than ``the big one that got away.'' Fish, once 
abundant in the pristine, remote Adirondack lakes, were not just 
getting harder to catch--they were gone.
  When I entered the Senate in 1977, there was much we needed to learn 
about acid rain. So I introduced the first Federal legislation to 
address our ``knowledge deficit'' about acid rain--the Acid 
Precipitation Act of 1979. My bill was enacted into law as Title VII of 
the energy Security Act, which Congress passed in June 1980. Title VII 
established the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), 
an interagency program charged with assessing the causes and damages of 
acid deposition, and reporting its findings to Congress. NAPAP spawned 
tremendous academic interest in the subject of acid deposition, and our 
understanding of the subject has since developed substantially.
  In 1990, I helped write Title IV of Clean Air Act Amendments, which 
established a ``Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Program.'' Its creation 
represented a radical departure from the traditional ``command and 
control'' approach to environmental regulation, common at the time. 
This program was the first national, statutorily-mandated, market-based 
approach to pollution control. It has been immensely successful.
  We can be proud of these accomplishments, but we have a long way to 
go yet. Since 1990 we have learned, for instance, that the sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) emissions reductions required under the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990 are insufficient to prevent continued damage 
to human health and sensitive ecosystems. NAPAP has reported that 
forests, streams, and rivers in the Front Range of Colorado, the Great 
Smoky Mountains of Tennessee, the San Gabriel and San Bernardino 
Mountains of California are also now showing the effects of 
acidification and nitrogen saturation. We have learned that nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), which we largely ignored nine years ago, are 
significant contributors to our nation's air quality deficiencies. And 
finally, we have demonstrated that legislation containing regulatory 
flexibility and market incentives is highly effective.
  S. 172, which I first introduced with Senator D'Amato in 1997, seeks 
to build upon this new body of knowledge, combining the best and most 
current scientific evaluation of our environmental needs with the most 
effective and efficient regulatory framework. Today, S. 172 is 
cosponsored by Senators Schumer, Jeffords, Lieberman, Reed, Dodd, 
Kerry, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Boxer, and Wyden. In the House, 
the bill is sponsored by Representatives Boehlert and Sweeney, and co-
sponsored by 48 House Members.
  These are my final days in this great legislative body, and I will 
surely cherish the accomplishments we have made through the years. 
Today, I ask my friends and colleagues to continue the push to protect 
our nation's public health and environment from critical pollutants 
such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. It 
is my understanding that the able Chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Senator Bob Smith, has indeed made this 
commitment and I commend him for it.
  As I mentioned before, I am disappointed that the release of 
important information regarding the effects of S. 172 was withheld for 
so long. However, now that we have this information, we must act upon 
it and pass legislation that goes beyond our clean air achievements so 
far. The SO2 Allowance Program established by the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 has achieved extraordinary benefits at costs 
less than half of initial projections. The efficacy of the approach is 
proven. The science indicates that we did not go far enough. The Acid 
Deposition and Ozone Control Act endeavors to build upon our 
accomplishments, and to begin the work which remains to be done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and two recent 
articles on this issue be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Poughkeepsie Journal, Sept. 20, 2000]

                       Release Study on Acid Rain

       Why is the government withholding documents that could shed 
     light on how best to deal with the ravages of acid rain?
       Remarkably, that's the case now involving a federal Office 
     of Management and Budget report. The report likely shows a 
     remedy put forth by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan won't be too 
     financially onerous on the utility industry, a leading cause 
     of acid rain, according to the Adirondack Council. But it 
     would better protect the environment, the environmental group 
     states.
       Acid rain occurs, in part, when polluting emissions from 
     utility plants are carried in the wind hundreds of miles from 
     their origin, often causing smog. They also can mix with 
     water vapor, falling as the acid rain that kills lakes and 
     aquatic life in the Adirondack and Catskill regions and 
     elsewhere.
       Council officials express concern the White House is 
     putting the lid on the OMB study because it could show just 
     how ineffective government efforts to curb acid rain have 
     been. It also might demonstrate why more environmental 
     regulations must be imposed on Midwestern utilities in 
     particular, something that won't play well in those states 
     right before the national presidential election.
       ``OMB is stonewalling while Adirondack lakes continue to 
     die,'' said Timothy Burke, executive director of the council.
       At issue are Moynihan's suggested changes to a federal 
     program intended to convince power producers to run cleaner 
     generating plants. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency program gives utilities a 
     financial incentive by allowing them to sell pollution 
     credits to other companies. The program has been fairly 
     successful in New York, allowing utilities here to reduce 
     pollution below the federal maximums and then sell unused 
     pollution credits to out-of-state utilities. By purchasing 
     the credits, some utilities can stay within EPA pollution 
     guidelines and avoid huge fines. Thus it's more cost-
     effective for them to continue to buy the credits rather than 
     make expensive alterations to their plants to cut emissions.
       Problem is, many of these utilities are located in the 
     Midwest and are believed to be major contributors to acid 
     rain. This year, New York lawmakers took it upon themselves 
     to close the loophole by passing a law prohibiting utilities 
     in this state from selling credits to utilities in the 
     Midwest. But that will only go so far to fight acid rain, 
     unless other Northeastern states follow suit.

[[Page 20906]]



                     solution can't wait any longer

       And it's clear dramatic changes are needed soon. Hundreds 
     of Adirondack lakes and streams have been killed by acid 
     rain, and they'll never recover. And for years, 
     environmentalists have projected that 40 percent of the lakes 
     will be dead within 50 years. Most recently, the U.S. General 
     Accounting Office, the independent investigative arm of 
     Congress, said the Adirondacks have been socked with so much 
     acid rain, the fragile mountain soil can no longer soak up 
     the pollutant nitrogen oxide. And that means the nitrogen 
     oxide is flowing into Adirondack lakes at a more rapid rate 
     than previously believed.
       Moynihan and the rest of the state's congressional 
     delegation are proposing a 50-percent cut in emissions beyond 
     what's called for under the credit allowance program. They 
     would do so by halving the amount of sulfur dioxide that can 
     be produced through the purchase of one pollution credit. 
     Before congressional leaders are willing to consider the 
     measure further, however, they want to know the potential 
     costs of the legislation. Fair enough. The Adirondack Council 
     says the study will show the costs won't be astronomical to 
     the utilities, pointing out they were greatly off base on 
     their projections of how much the original allowance program 
     would cost their businesses.
       The Office of Management and Budget could shed light on 
     this important matter. But the only way that will happen is 
     if President Clinton shows sufficient political courage to 
     order the study to be released. He should do so immediately.
                                  ____


         [From the Albany, New York, Times Union, Oct. 4, 2000]

Acid Rain Bottom Line--A New EPA Study Shows Just How Affordable It Is 
                           To Fight Pollution

       How much would it cost to keep Adirondack lakes from dying 
     from acid rain? How much to spare thousands of Americans who 
     suffer respiratory illnesses caused by the smokestack 
     pollutants that contribute to acid rain? New York Sen. Daniel 
     Patrick Moynihan put those questions to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency two years ago, as he and Rep. Sherwood 
     Boehlert, R-Utica, struggled to push through strict new 
     federal limits on emissions of nitrogen and sulfur that drift 
     from power plants in the Mid-west and South and descend on 
     the Northeast, causing health problems in populated areas and 
     killings trees and aquatic life in the Adirondacks and other 
     pristine regions.
       Now, after an unjustified delay by the Clinton 
     administration that some critics are attributing to election-
     year politics, the EPA report is finally public, thanks to a 
     subpoena issued by the House Government Reform Committee. And 
     the price tag turns out to be so affordable that any further 
     delay in reducing smokestack pollution is indefensible. The 
     bottom line: $1. That is how little the average household 
     monthly utility bill would rise if the Moynihan-Boehlert bill 
     were law.
       But time is running short, Congress has only a few days 
     left to conclude its business this year, and there are no 
     encouraging signs that lawmakers will give the Moynihan-
     Boehlert bill the prompt attention it deserves.
       But they should. The EPA report not only makes a convincing 
     case for stricter pollution controls, but it also spells out 
     the benefits that the nation--not just the Northeast--stands 
     to reap in return. In a cost-benefit analysis sought by Mr. 
     Moynihan, the EPA pegs the benefits of reducing acid rain at 
     $60 billion, compared with $5 billion that power plants would 
     have to pay to meet the tighter emissions standards. That's a 
     $55 billion payback, as represented in savings on treating 
     chronic bronchitis, reducing emergency room visits for asthma 
     and eliminating 1.5 billion days of lost work each year 
     because of respiratory illnesses. There would be scenic 
     improvements as well as the atmosphere cleared over national 
     treasures like the Adirondacks and the Shenandoah and Great 
     Smoky Mountains national parks.
       In the Adirondacks, the struggle is a life-and-death one. A 
     recent Times Union series found that without sharp new curbs 
     on acid rain, half of the Adirondack lakes will no longer be 
     able to support aquatic life in 40 years. Already it is too 
     late to save some ponds and lakes that have been contaminated 
     by nitrogen oxide. The pattern will continue unless prompt 
     action is taken. As our series noted, state leaders and the 
     New York congressional delegation have made a strong 
     bipartisan effort to combat the problem. Now it is Congress' 
     turn. No one state can stop acid rain on its own. But 
     Congress can, and should, provide the necessary federal 
     remedy. The EPA has just given 55 billion reasons to act now.

                          ____________________