[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17790-17791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CLEAN AIR PLANNING ACT

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want my Senate colleagues to know I 
have decided to join Senators Carper, Chafee, and Gregg as cosponsors 
of the Clean Air Planning Act. I have studied major clean air proposals 
before the Senate and have concluded that this legislation is the best 
balanced proposal because it would reduce pollution emitted by 
powerplants while permitting the maximum possible economic growth and 
energy efficiency. I hope other colleagues will come to the same 
conclusion as the debate about how to clean America's air becomes front 
and center.
  Cleaner air should be the urgent business before the Senate. The 
condition of the air in my State of Tennessee is completely 
unacceptable to me and ought to be completely unacceptable to every 
Tennessee citizen.
  My home is 2 miles from the boundary of the Great Smokey Mountains 
National Park, which has also become the Nation's most polluted 
national park. Only Los Angeles and Houston have higher ozone levels 
than the Great Smokies. Only a few miles away from the Great Smokies is 
Knoxville, which is on the American Lung Association's list of top 10 
cities with the dirtiest air. Memphis and Nashville--our two largest 
cities--are on the top 20 list. Chattanooga barely escapes the top 25 
list.
  This polluted air is damaging to health, especially that of the 
elderly, small children, and the disabled. It ruins the scenic beauty 
of our State, which is what most of us who grew up in Tennessee are 
proudest of. And it is damaging to our economic growth.
  Clean air is the No. 1 priority of the Pigeon Forge Chamber of 
Commerce. Business leaders there at the foot of the Smokies know that 
visitors are not going to drive 300 miles and spend their tourism 
dollars to see smoggy mountains.
  The mayors of our major cities in Tennessee also understand that 
cleaner air means better jobs. They know that if our metropolitan areas 
are not able to meet Federal standards for clean air, new restrictions 
will make it harder for auto parts suppliers and other industries to 
expand and bring good new jobs into our State. The mayors also know our 
cities cannot comply with the Federal standards without some help. 
Tennessee's clean air problem requires a national solution.
  Much of our air pollution is our State's own doing--specifically, 
that which comes from emissions from cars and trucks and from the coal 
powerplants of the Tennessee Valley Authority. But as much as a third 
of our air pollution comes from outside Tennessee. Winds blow pollution 
south from the industrial Midwest and north from the South toward the 
highest mountain range in the eastern United States, the Great Smokies. 
And when the wind gets to the mountains, the pollution just hangs 
there, which is an additional reason the Great Smokies and the 
Knoxville metropolitan area have such a problem.
  There are three major clean air proposals before the Senate. I have 
studied each to determine which would be the best for Tennessee and for 
our Nation.
  The most important of these is President Bush's Clear Skies 
legislation. The President deserves great credit for putting clean air 
at the top of the agenda, as only a President can do, because his 
proposal relies upon market forces instead of excessive regulation. It 
limits costly litigation and creates certainty.
  In addition, the President's proposal would take significant steps 
forward in reducing sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants.
  Last year, during my campaign for the Senate, I made clean air a 
priority and often said the President's proposal is an excellent 
framework upon which to build meaningful clean air legislation but that 
it does not go far enough, fast enough to solve Tennessee's problems. 
The Clear Skies legislation is a good start, but it does not go far 
enough, fast enough in my back yard.
  I believe the Clean Air Planning Act, which I am cosponsoring, is the 
best proposal for Tennessee and for our Nation. Here are the reasons:
  First, the Clean Air Planning Act adopts the market-based framework 
of the President's proposal so that it also reduces regulation, 
litigation, and creates certainty.
  Second, it would take our country farther faster in reducing three 
major pollutants: sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury.
  Third, it extends its market-based framework of regulation to carbon 
dioxide with a modest requirement that by 2013 the carbon emitted by 
powerplants would be at 2001 levels, causing a 3- to 5-percent 
reduction in the overall United States projected level in 2013.
  Fourth, the Clean Air Planning Act, of which I am a cosponsor, does 
not weaken existing laws in important ways that the Clear Skies 
proposal would. Here are the two ways the Clear Skies proposal does 
that:
  First, Clear Skies would prevent Tennessee, for 10 years, from going 
in to court to force another State to meet the Federal clean air 
standards. Since pollutants blowing in from other States is one of our 
greatest problems, this is a legal right we do not want to give up.
  Second, the Clear Skies proposals would remove the right of the 
National Park Service to comment on the effect of powerplant emissions 
more than 30 miles away from a national park. Again, since much of the 
pollution in the Smokies is blown in from more than 30 miles away, this 
is a review that ought to be considered.
  While the President's proposal, in my judgment, does not go far 
enough, the other major proposal before this Senate goes too far too 
fast. It is a proposal by Senator Jeffords, the Clean Power Act, which 
requires carbon emissions of the utilities sector to be at 1990 levels 
by the time we reach the year 2009.
  I believe this proposal would cost so much to implement that it would 
drive up the cost of electricity and drive offshore thousands of good 
jobs. It would significantly damage our economy and our future.
  There is also the Climate Stewardship Act sponsored by Senators 
McCain and Lieberman which would regulate carbon emissions produced by 
the entire economy and does so on a very rapid timetable.
  I would not support these two proposals because I am not convinced 
they are based upon good science. It would be foolish to take huge, 
expensive steps

[[Page 17791]]

to solve problems which we do not know exist. But it is also unwise to 
completely ignore what we do know.
  My reading of the Report of the National Academy of Sciences on 
Global Warming and my discussion with scientists, especially those at 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have persuaded me that some additional 
steps must be taken to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
  The Senate is working on clean air legislation that will likely 
govern our production of energy and the accompanying pollution for the 
next 10 to 15 years. It would be unwise to do nothing, just as it would 
be unwise to do too much.
  The President himself has recognized the seriousness of problems with 
carbon emissions and has initiated a voluntary program of emission 
reduction which is having some success. But for the next 10 to 15 
years, I believe we should take the next step and institute modest, 
market-based caps.
  It is important to recognize that our Clean Air Planning Act applies 
only to carbon produced by powerplants, not that produced by the entire 
economy. In fact, it would permit powerplants to purchase credits from 
other sectors of the economy which can prove to be a substantial 
benefit and income for agriculture.
  There is still much to learn about the effect of human activity on 
global warming, specifically that caused by the production of carbon 
dioxide. I will continue to monitor the science as it is presented and 
make my judgment at the time based upon what I believe to be good 
science.
  Senator Carper has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to 
review our proposed legislation to determine its effect on the health 
of Americans, and its cost. According to the EPA analysis prepared in 
November of 2002--last year--the Clear Skies Act would prevent 11,900 
premature deaths, 7,400 chronic bronchitis cases, and 10,400 hospital 
visits. Our Clean Air Planning Act would prevent 17,800 premature 
deaths from air pollution, 5,900 more people annually than under Clear 
Skies, and save $140 billion in health care costs, $50 billion more 
than Clear Skies.
  The EPA internal analysis from November of 2002 also estimates that 
Clear Skies would cost electric utilities $84.1 billion in the year 
2010, while our legislation would cost $86.2 billion in the year 2010. 
In 2020, Clear Skies would cost $100.9 billion. Our legislation would 
cost $103.4 billion. In short, according to that EPA internal analysis, 
our legislation does a better job of improving health and reducing 
health care costs and would cost only slightly more.
  Last week, before the Senate Energy Committee, we discussed again the 
emergency that is being caused by a shortage of natural gas and the 
consequence of higher prices. Chemical companies in America are 
reducing salaries and pushing jobs overseas. Americans living in homes 
heated by natural gas should expect a 30-percent increase in their 
bills this winter in our State.
  During the last week in July, the Senate will have the opportunity to 
consider both the natural gas crisis and the urgent need for cleaner 
air. We will be debating the Energy bill which has been reported by our 
committee. The bill's purpose is to encourage a diversity of cleaner, 
newer technologies for producing energy so that we may have a steady 
supply of low-cost energy and, at the same time, a cleaner environment.
  Mr. President, as I said, during the last week in July the Senate 
will have an opportunity to consider both the natural gas crisis and 
the need for cleaner air. We will be debating the Energy bill which has 
been reported by our committee. We have worked hard on that bill, both 
parties. We believe we have a good bill.
  The bill's purpose is to encourage a diversity of cleaner, newer 
technologies for producing energy so that we may have a steady supply 
of low cost energy and at the same time a cleaner environment. But for 
us to avoid facing repeated winters with higher gas prices, to avoid 
keeping jobs from moving overseas, and to keep our air clean and 
healthy, we are going to have to face some tough decisions and make 
different choices than we have so far been willing to make.
  We need to explore for natural gas in Alaska and other offshore areas 
in the United States and build a new pipeline to bring it south. We 
need to shed our reluctance to use nuclear powerplants that we invented 
and join France and Japan and the rest of the world in expanding our 
use of this clean form of energy.
  We need to advance our understanding and use of clean coal 
technologies, especially coal gasification. Coal produces one-half of 
our electricity and will continue to produce much of it for the 
foreseeable future.
  We should increase the use of other renewable forms of energy, 
including solar, ethanol, and wind power. We need to get serious about 
sensible conservation practices, such as using alternatives to idling 
truck engines when truckers are stopped for a break.
  I am proud to be the principal sponsor of President Bush's hydrogen 
car proposal which offers great promise in the long term to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and to clean our air because its fuel uses no 
oil or gasoline and its only emission is water.
  In summary, President Bush has made a good beginning by placing clean 
air on the agenda as only a President can and by offering a framework 
to build a strong proposal. But with respect, he hasn't gone far 
enough, fast enough. On the other hand, my colleagues, Senators McCain, 
Lieberman, and Jeffords, go too far, too fast, relying on unsettled 
science to put controls on our economy that are unjustified and that 
would cost so much that thousands of jobs would go overseas.
  The Clean Air Planning Act, which I cosponsor, is, in my judgment, 
the best balanced solution. It has the advantages of the market-based 
approach suggested by the President. It goes further faster than the 
President's proposal in reducing pollutants from sulfur, from nitrogen, 
and from mercury. It places modest controls on carbon, and it does not 
weaken the existing clean air law.
  Devising a plan for maintaining the proper balance of clean air, 
efficient energy, and good jobs for the next 10 to 15 years deserves 
the urgent attention of the Senate. I look forward to being an active 
participant in the debate.

                          ____________________