[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1548-1553]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
return to the consideration of H.J. Res. 2, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Edwards amendment No. 67, to require a study of the final 
     rule relating to prevention of significant deterioration and 
     nonattainment new source review to determine the effects of 
     the final rule on air pollution and human health.
       Dodd amendment No. 71, to provide additional funding for 
     part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       Gregg amendment No. 78, to provide additional funding for 
     special education programs.
       Dayton amendment No. 80, to amend the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) to provide that waivers of 
     certain prohibitions on contracts with corporate expatriates 
     shall apply only if the waiver is essential to the national 
     security.
       Inhofe amendment No. 86 (to amendment No. 67) to provide 
     for a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
       Reed amendment No. 40, to expand the Temporary Extended 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.
       Nelson (Fl.) amendment No. 97, to make additional 
     appropriations for emergency relief activities.


                     amendment no. 86, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of amendment No. 86, with 10 minutes for debate to 
be equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Under the previous order, that amendment is modified to become a 
first-degree amendment.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

       ``  . (a) Cooperative Agreement.--As soon as practicable 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Sciences 
     to evaluate the impact of the final rule relating to 
     prevention of significant deterioration and nonattainment new 
     source review, published at 67 Fed. Reg. 80186 (December 31, 
     2002). The study shall include--
       (1) increases or decreases in emissions of pollutants 
     regulated under the New Source Review program;
       (2) impacts on human health;
       (3) pollution control and prevention technologies installed 
     after the effective date of the rule at facilities covered 
     under the rulemaking;
       (4) increases or decreases in efficiency of operations, 
     including energy efficiency, at covered facilities; and
       (5) other relevant data.
       (b) Deadline.--The NAS shall submit an interim report to 
     Congress no later than March 3, 2004, and shall submit a 
     final report on implementation of the rules.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me acknowledge this is a little different than it was 
yesterday. Yesterday, it was a second-degree amendment. To accommodate 
both sides, we will have two first-degree amendments that we will 
consider today.
  Our leader talked about the unfinished business from last year. This 
first amendment falls into that category. It actually was unfinished 
business from the Clinton administration. I have a letter from Bob 
Perciasepe, the clean air man, director for the Clinton administration, 
saying at the last minute they were unable to get this completed. What 
we are trying to do now is to complete this effort.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of my time so we can hear from the 
Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, first, I yield a minute and a half to my 
friend from Vermont, who has worked so hard on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Inhofe amendment and for the Edwards amendment. The Inhofe amendment 
might appear to be a step in the right direction. It demonstrates our 
legitimate concern that these NSR changes are bad for the environment, 
bad for public health. It shows that these impacts deserve better 
study.
  Unfortunately, for that one step forward, the Inhofe amendment takes 
two steps backward. The Inhofe amendment requires a study that should 
have been completed long before the rules were finalized and certainly 
before they become effective.
  That is the whole point of Executive Order 12866. The Agency should 
have done a comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of this 
deregulation, because of the tremendous potential loss in health 
benefits.
  Instead, the Agency issued a warmed over version of its report to the 
White House energy task force and called it analysis. That report is 
simply propaganda to justify deregulating vast numbers of major sources 
of pollution.
  These final NSR rules are very different from the reforms proposed by 
the Clinton administration. The differences warrant longer review and 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed his minute and a 
half.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield the Senator another 30 seconds.

[[Page 1549]]


  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have tried to do that. But this 
administration has fought us at every turn on this matter. They refuse 
to share information that is our right to have.
  The Inhofe amendment doesn't work. It would bar the door after the 
horse has already left the barn. We need real public health and air 
quality information before the rules take effect, not later, after the 
damage is done.
  That damage could be severe. Independent analysis for just a few 
states--Florida, Virginia and Colorado--suggests that the rules would 
allow new emissions of thousands of tons annually of smog or acid rain 
causing pollutants.
  There is one final note for Senators to consider--the potentially 
large increases in pollution from these so-called NSR ``improvements'' 
will come back to haunt them. Other sources and sectors in 
nonattainment areas, such as transportation, for instance, will have to 
make up the difference in emissions that is necessary to achieve air 
quality standards. It's a zero sum game.
  Senators should first vote against the Inhofe amendment and then 
support the Edwards-Lieberman-Jeffords amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make one point. The analysis that 
was referred to by the Senator from Vermont as not being complete is 
right here. It is 180 pages of analysis of all data that was available. 
If they were to try to have the NAS do a further analysis, they would 
have to go back and use this same data. This job has been done. This 
has been delayed now for 10 years.
  At this point I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. 
Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the administration's New Source Review, or 
NSR review, will benefit the environment. Right now companies face an 
average delay of 8 months, sometimes as long as 18 months, to get an 
NSR permit. Therefore, many companies avoid the process altogether. 
That means that there are environmental losses because companies stick 
with old, outdated technologies instead of the most modern, efficient 
pollution control measures.
  There is a specific example. EPA has done a plantwide application 
limits, or PALS, test and the results are striking. Many companies have 
multiple emissions from many different sources, including big to 
extremely small pipes. If you tried to do it under the existing 
framework, you would have to have a permit for each one. As a facility 
wants to upgrade or modernize, they have go through a time-consuming 
process but PALS allows a plant to calculate its total emissions from 
all sources. As long as they stay below the plantwide total, they can 
do it.
  A striking example is at the DaimlerChrysler plant in Newark, DE, 
where they make Dodge Durango trucks. They needed to upgrade their 
process. They did it. PALS allowed them to make over 90 changes.
  The environment was benefited. An amazing thing happened. With the 
new flexibility, the plant was able to cut pollution in its painting 
process, cut smog-forming volatile organic compounds and hazardous 
plant pollutants. Plant managers cut 400 tons of air pollution from the 
clean air process and cut paint odors by 50 percent.
  We have auto assembly plants in Missouri. We make light trucks and 
vans. I would love for my constituents to breathe cleaner air because 
of the PALS program reforms. That is why the Clinton administration's 
EPA, led by Carol Browner, supported the NSR reforms. We should and I 
urge support for the Inhofe amendment and the defeat of the Edwards 
amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. We reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this administration has made new rules 
that are the biggest rollback of clean air protections in history. The 
amendment from me, Senator Lieberman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Reid, 
Senator Daschle, and others says: Before the administration puts kids 
with asthma and seniors with respiratory problems at risk, we ought to 
take at least 6 months to see what effect it is going to have on their 
health. In other words, what we are saying is let's look before we 
leap.
  The amendment from my friend from Oklahoma says exactly the opposite. 
It says let's leap and then later we will look. What are we going to 
say when the study that he is proposing is completed if, in fact, it 
shows what all of us believe it is going to show now, which is that 
this change will cause pollution, it is going to put kids with asthma 
at risk, it is going to put senior citizens with serious respiratory 
problems at risk? What are we going to say to them, those kids who have 
had asthma attacks, seniors who have had serious heart or respiratory 
problems as a result of these changes in the rules?
  In other words, what the Inhofe amendment is suggesting is let's 
pollute more now, study it, and when we find out we are wrong we will 
go back and do something about it.
  The responsible thing to do is to conduct a serious, quantitative 
analysis so we can determine what impact this will have on kids and 
what impact it will have on seniors' health before it has the force of 
law.
  This study that is referred to by my friend from Oklahoma could well 
have been bought and paid for by the administration's own people. It is 
called ``qualitative,'' which means it is guessing by political 
appointees as opposed to serious analysis. The career officials within 
the EPA itself have said that it is self-selecting and misleading. One 
of the key States that is cited in the study has actually disavowed it.
  The bottom line is this: The EPA has never scientifically studied and 
modeled this issue. The one analysis that did do that, by private 
consultants that the EPA has used in the past, says that these new 
rules will cause 120 tons more pollution at just two factories.
  We should not leap before we look. We need to see what impact this 
will have on the health of kids and seniors. And all we are asking is 6 
months.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from North Carolina 
time has expired. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time remains for both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls a minute 
and a half. The time has expired for the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. INHOFE. First, let me comment that this amendment enjoys the 
embrace and the support of virtually every organization of business or 
labor unions in America. It was unanimously approved by the National 
Governors Association, the Environmental Council of the States, the 
National Black Chamber of Commerce, et cetera, and virtually every 
labor union in America.
  At this time I recognize the chairman of the clean air subcommittee, 
the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I think the arguments have been made 
that this is about delaying something that has been looked at for over 
the last 10 years. I hope my colleagues will decide this issue today on 
a bipartisan basis, as was the letter that we sent to Administrator 
Whitman, asking that she move forward with the new regulations to end 
some 4 or 5 years of uncertainty by businesses throughout this country, 
in terms of routine maintenance and repair of their facilities. This 
vote for the Inhofe amendment is a vote for the environment. It will 
allow us to move forward quickly, to do what should have been done 
several years ago so these repairs and the maintenance can be done. We 
can reduce the emissions and we can make these facilities more 
efficient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given an additional minute.
  Mr. STEVENS. I object. I am going to object to all requests for 
extension of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page 1550]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second. There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
  The amendment (No. 86), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 67

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. Under the 
previous order, there will be a 10-minute rollcall vote. The Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given 1 minute prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the administration has proposed some of 
the most dramatic changes in the Clean Air Act that have been made in 
our history. All this amendment says is before we make these 
significant changes, we take a serious look at a quantitative study of 
what effect it is going to have on human health, particularly kids with 
asthma and seniors with cardiorespiratory problems. Look before we 
leap. It is that simple.
  The studies that have been done have not been serious scientific 
studies. There has not been any serious scientific study done to 
support this rule. The only serious scientific studies say this rule 
will cause significantly more pollution.
  In addition to that, the Governors, although they support some kind 
of reform, specifically do not support this reform, and so it is 
critically important that Senators support this amendment for the sake 
of our kids and for the sake of our seniors. Six months just to 
determine what effect this will have on the health of our kids and our 
seniors is a perfectly reasonable, responsible thing to do. I ask my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of all those who 
breathe and I want to thank the sponsors of this amendment for their 
efforts. I say that half in jest, because I get the feeling that those 
who are trying to weaken our clean air laws often forget why we passed 
them in the first place--so we all can breathe cleaner, healthier air. 
I certainly support the most efficient and effective regulations we can 
devise to curb pollution, and I agree with the statement that the New 
Source Review Program could use some reform, but we must not lose sight 
of the fact that these rules are designed first and foremost to protect 
public health.
  The Bush administration has shifted priorities from protecting the 
public to protecting polluters from doing their best. The Bush 
administration is protecting special interests, rather than protecting 
our environment and the public health. That is unacceptable and 
threatens to reverse the progress we have made as a nation to protect 
our citizens from health threats in the workplace and environment.
  This is a serious issue for the people in my State of Delaware. We 
live in a region that is in non-attainment with the Federal ozone 
standard. Bottom line, we don't meet the current health-based 
standards. But not all of our air pollution comes from industry in 
Delaware. We could do everything right and still not be in compliance. 
What our neighbors do and what industries do in other parts of the 
country affects us and our ability to breathe clean air. If power 
plants in Pennsylvania, Maryland or even West Virginia and Ohio aren't 
required to do all they can to reduce harmful emissions, we pay the 
price in higher respiratory illnesses and premature deaths, 
particularly among children and the elderly. To me, that is all the 
more reason that we should be tightening the rules, reducing emissions 
from coal-fired power plants, instead of making it easier for the 
utility companies.
  But you know what is so surprising to me, what I just can't 
understand--the administration has no data to even suggest that these 
changes will improve air quality, nor have they conducted any analysis, 
studies, anything. Show me that the changes will not cause a 
deterioration in the quality of our air. Show me that children and the 
elderly will not have to worry about being outside in the summer. Show 
me that states like Delaware will benefit. And we, my colleagues in the 
Senate and I, have asked * * * repeatedly!
  That is why this amendment is so important. This amendment does two 
things. First, it would prevent the implementation of the rule changes 
prior to September 15, 2003. Second, it simply asks for a rigorous 
analysis of the air pollution and public health impacts of the proposed 
rule changes. The National Academy of Sciences would be tasked with 
completing this study by August 15, 2003. Sure, it would have made 
sense to do the analysis before the changes were published in the 
Federal Register, but it is not too late.
  I want to share briefly a success story from my State of Delaware 
where we helped pioneer the Plantwide Applicability Limit, or so-called 
PAL permit. PAL is an innovative approach where separate process 
permitting requirements are consolidated in exchange for greater 
pollution reductions. This allows flexibility for plant process 
expansion and modification while saving businesses time and money. And 
it works.
  One permit Delaware helped pioneer was at DaimlerChrysler's Newark 
Delaware Assembly Plant, where the Dodge Durango is manufactured. The 
plant focuses primarily on vehicle coating--painting--and assembly of 
parts produced at other DaimierChrysler facilities to produce finished 
vehicles. Years ago, when it wanted to start producing the Durango, the 
plant had to build a new state-of-the-art paint shop in a new building. 
Permit applications for this new process triggered New Source Review 
requirements for non-attainment areas. Working with the EPA, one of the 
first ever PAL permits was issued to the plant in 1996. And, the 
permit, the first of its kind for the automotive industry, was issued 
in 99 days. The plant continues to operate under this flexible permit 
and, as an added benefit, has saved Chrysler $13 million in increased 
productivity and pollution prevention. This was a win-win situation. 
Chrysler won with a permit that gave them flexibility to meet

[[Page 1551]]

production needs and Delaware citizens won through reduced air 
pollution. Not surprising, Delaware does not believe it could repeat 
the pollution prevention performance of the PAL permit it issued under 
the new rule and is opposing the reform proposal.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Give us 6 months to 
find out. Send the right message. Let's not forget that these rules are 
designed to protect public health, not to protect industry from 
fulfilling its civic duty. Let's not reverse the progress we have made 
over the past three decades.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted in favor of the Edwards 
amendment requiring a 6-month delay in four New Source Review, NSR, 
rules so that a study by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, could 
be carried out. I support a commonsense approach to making air quality 
improvements while also increasing our economic growth. I have long 
been a supporter of the steel, coal, chemical, forestry, and other 
interests in my State. Still, the Edwards amendment, requiring a short 
6-month delay with a study regarding the health and environmental 
impacts of these four rules, was imperative in my mind. Evidence of 
this administration's intransigence is ubiquitous across the many 
agencies. Congress has the right and responsibility to get important 
information in order to make more informed decisions. A better 
understanding of the health and environmental impacts of these new 
rules is an important part of that decisionmaking process.
  When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1977, Congress established the 
NSR program to prevent serious deterioration in the Nation's air 
quality. The intention of this program was to strike a delicate balance 
between making important improvements in the Nation's air quality while 
also allowing existing factories, powerplants, and other facilities to 
meet our changing energy, economic, and social needs.
  Over the years, it has become evident that these NSR regulations are 
very complicated requiring many thousands of pages of guidance. This 
red tape has led to much industry uncertainty and litigation. For a 
number of years, the EPA has been examining and documenting these 
problems, and the NSR program is in need of reform. Even as we must 
maintain our air quality, NSR should not be an impediment to making 
commonsense improvements at industrial facilities.
  However, Members of Congress have made numerous requests of the 
administration regarding its justifications for promulgating these new 
rules. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has not 
adequately responded to these congressional requests for information on 
the potential impacts of these NSR reforms. While I do not support 
efforts to halt this important reform effort, I believe that this 
administration must be more responsive to the interests of Congress so 
that the public has a more complete understanding of these issues and 
their effect on our Nation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I joined Senators Edwards and Lieberman 
as a cosponsor of their amendment to delay implementation of the Bush 
administration's proposed weakening of the Clean Air Act. This 
amendment would delay implementation of the regulations for 6 months 
while the National Academy of Sciences conducts an analysis on the 
effects of the rules on public health and the environment.
  On December 31, 2002, the Bush administration finalized the most 
significant weakening of the clean air protections since the Clean Air 
Act was adopted 30 years ago. These changes would allow increased 
levels of pollution at 17,000 industrial facilities across the Nation. 
More than 170 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air 
quality. Air pollution is a serious public health problem, particularly 
among children and senior citizens.
  Mounting medical evidence shows that air pollution causes asthma 
attacks, heart and lung disease, and premature death. More than 1,000 
physicians from across the Nation urged the administration to halt its 
proposed weakening of the Clean Air Act. In a September 27, 2002 letter 
to the administration, the physicians said, ``It is irresponsible for 
the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward and finalize new 
regulations that could have a negative impact on human health.''
  For 2 years, the Environment and Public Works Committee, Judiciary 
Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee have 
issued more than a dozen requests for documents and an analysis from 
the administration on the public health impacts of the clean air 
changes. The administration ignored these requests.
  Many states have objected to the clean air changes. The State and 
Territorial Air Pollution Program administrators have asked for a 1-
year delay to assess the new regulations. Twelve States, including my 
State of South Dakota, face a March 3 deadline to comply with the new 
regulations. We hear so much from the administration about working with 
states but in this case the administration turned its back on South 
Dakota and 11 other States, that are simply asking for more time to 
understand these regulations. In a January 16, 2003 letter to EPA 
Administrator Christine Whitman, the State and local air administrators 
said, ``State and local air pollution control agencies have been 
working vigorously to study the new rule. However, gaining full command 
of the many intricacies of the regulation, as well as complete 
understanding of the impacts and implications, will take time and, we 
firmly believe, cannot be accomplished in the next 45 days.''
  This amendment makes a very simple requirement: before these sweeping 
regulations are put into place, the National Academy of Sciences should 
conduct an objective study of the effects these rules would have on 
public health and the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I was pleased today to vote in support 
of the Edwards-Lieberman amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor with 
my colleague Senator Jeffords and others. Unfortunately, this effort to 
temporarily halt the Bush administration's weakening of the Clean Air 
Act was narrowly defeated. Although we were simply trying to obtain an 
independent, scientific analysis of the impact of these Clean Air Act 
changes before they went into effect, rather than after, the amendment 
was opposed by half of the Senate.
  Just shy of passage, this vote was a very strong showing of 
bipartisan support of protecting clean air and ensuring healthy 
communities, and against any backsliding on the Clean Air Act. And it 
was not by any means the end of this debate. We will not give up this 
fight to stop any weakening of existing Clean Air Act protections and 
to ensure that all Americans have clean, healthy air to breathe.
  Many believe that the Clean Air Act changes the Bush administration 
has made, and which go into effect in less than 6 weeks, will allow 
more pollution into our air, not less. More pollution that is known, 
scientifically and medically proven, to cause or contribute to asthma 
attacks, heart attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, cancer, and even 
premature death. More pollution that is making people sick, especially 
children and the elderly.
  That is why my colleagues and I were seeking 6 months for the 
National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent, scientific 
analysis of the Bush administration's changes to the New Source Review, 
NSR, provisions of the Clean Air Act before they went into effect, to 
ensure that they would not negatively impact air quality or public 
health. The reason we are seeking such a study is simple, it's a matter 
of public health and, in some cases, life and death.
  Just last week, The New York Times reported the findings of a study 
by scientists at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. 
The study, to be published next month in the journal Environmental 
Health Perspectives, finds that ``pollutants in the air in Upper 
Manhattan and the South Bronx have been linked to lower birth weights 
and smaller skulls in African-American babies.'' The study's findings

[[Page 1552]]

are particularly troubling because lower birth weights and smaller 
skulls have been linked to poor physical and mental health later in 
life, including lower IQs and poor cognitive function.
  This particular study is being conducted at the Center for Children's 
Environmental Health, which is currently being funded by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences. Unfortunately, the EPA wants to reduce 
funding for these Children's Environmental Health Centers around the 
country. But that is another matter.
  The point is that air pollution is scientifically proven to have 
negative health impacts--particularly on children. Other studies show 
that children who play sports in communities with high average air 
pollution levels have a higher risk of developing respiratory illness, 
and that children who live in polluted areas have a 10 percent lower 
lung function growth rate compared to those who live in less polluted 
areas.
  Pound for pound, children breathe more air than adults, which makes 
them more susceptible to air pollution. But we are all at risk.
  That is why we need to be doing more--not less--to clean up our air, 
protect children's health, and provide for safe and health communities. 
Today, about 175 million Americans live in areas violating health 
standards for smog or soot. That is unacceptable. And that is why we 
need to be applying the Clean Air Act to its utmost and keeping it as 
strong an environmental statute as possible.
  We offered this amendment today because we are concerned that the 
changes the Administration has made to the NSR provisions of the Clean 
Air Act will do the exact opposite. We believe, as do many others, that 
these changes will allow more pollution into our air, not less.
  That is why 1,000 doctors, nurses, and public health professional 
from all over the country wrote to John Graham, Director of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House, last 
September to ask him to block these changes that they believed would 
weaken the Clean Air Act. In their letter, these health professionals 
said, ``Pollution . . . regulated under NSR touches the lives of 
millions of Americans across the Nation. This pollution is harmful to 
human health and sends thousands of individuals to hospital emergency 
rooms each month. Study after study shows a link between exposure to 
air pollution and health conditions such as respiratory diseases, 
asthma attacks, cardiopulmanory disease, cancer, and even death. No 
changes to NSR should occur without the public being provided with a 
comprehensive analysis demonstrating that the proposed changes to NSR 
will improve air quality and human health.''
  That is essentially what this amendment called for--an independent, 
scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences to determine 
whether the Administration's changes to NSR could result in any 
increase in air pollution or any adverse effect on human health. By 
waiting just a few months, we could make certain that these rule 
changes would not increase pollution or negatively impact human health.
  We are saying, ``Don't take us at our word. Don't take the words of 
these thousand health care providers. Let's let the scientists tell us 
what the impacts of these changes will be.'' Unfortunately, some of our 
colleagues would rather allow the Bush Administration changes to go 
forward, and then do the study after the fact to see what impacts we 
experience on air quality and human health. If there are negative 
impacts, which we think there will be, we may be able to pull back the 
rule at a later date. But we will not be able to pull back any air 
pollution that is released, or any hospitalizations, asthma attacks, 
heart attacks, or other health impacts that occur as a result.
  This is not the way the process is supposed to work. We are supposed 
to know, before we go forward with any rulemaking, what the impacts of 
that rulemaking will be. And we have asked, repeatedly, for such 
information from the administration, to no avail. Which is why we 
offered this amendment today.
  When the Congress passed the Clean Air Act and President Nixon signed 
the Act into law back in 1970, the intent was to reduce air pollution 
and protect public health. As section 101(b) of the Clean Air Act 
states, one of the purposes of the Act is ``to protect and enhance the 
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public 
health and welfare.''
  All we were trying to do today, and what we will be continuing to 
fight for, is to ensure that the purpose of the Clean Air Act is 
upheld. I don't think this is too much to ask.
  Especially when in testimony before the Senate, former EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner stated, ``There is no guarantee, and more 
importantly, no evidence or disclosure demonstrating that the 
administration's announced final or proposed changes will make the air 
cleaner. In fact they will allow the air to become dirtier.''
  Especially when EPA, in its own Supplemental Analysis of the 
Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules, dated 
November 21, 2002, states ``. . . the EPA cannot quantify with 
specificity the emissions changes for a given pollutant or pollutants, 
if any, that result from the NSR rule changes now being adopted, nor 
can we reliably determine the anticipated locations of any emissions 
changes.''
  Especially when, despite numerous requests from the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and from more than 40 of our colleagues in the 
Senate, the EPA has failed to provide us with definitive evidence that 
shows that these final changes to the NSR provisions of the Clean Air 
Act will not have a negative impact on air quality or on human health.
  A few months for independent, scientific certainty that these rule 
changes will improve air quality and not adversely effect human health. 
It is not too much to ask.
  In fact, just last week, the State and Territorial Air Pollution 
Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution 
Control Officials wrote to EPA Administrator Whitman and asked that the 
effective date of the final NSR rule revision be delayed by a whole 
year. Their letter reads, ``As you are aware, the State and Territorial 
Air Pollution Program Administrators, STAPPA, and the Association of 
Local Air Pollution Control Officials, ALAPCO, have serious concerns 
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA's, recently 
promulgated final rule affecting changes to the New Source Review, NSR, 
program, 67 FR 80186, and with the adverse impact these changes would 
likely have on the ability of States and localities to achieve and 
sustain clean, healthful air. These concerns are further compounded by 
the fact that, for a number of States across the country, the revised 
NSR program is scheduled to take effect on March 3, 2003. Accordingly, 
we write to you today, on behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, to request that 
EPA extend by 1 year the effective date of the final NSR rule 
revisions.''
  These same State, territorial, and local air officials, which have 
gone on record in support of changes to NSR, believe that ``the 
administration has gone too far in revamping the program'' and that 
``because the reforms are mandatory, they will impede, or even 
preclude, the ability of States and localities all across the country 
to retain or adopt programs that are more protective than the Federal 
requirements.''
  That is in part why the Attorneys General from nine States are suing 
the Federal Government over these changes. Whereas the existing NSR 
program was the foundation for a series of lawsuits brought by the 
States, the Federal Government and environment groups against dozens of 
old, coal-fired powerplants and other industrial sources, the tables 
are now turned.
  Now, the Attorneys General from nine States, New York, Connecticut, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont, have had to file a lawsuit against the Federal 
Government, challenging these new regulations. The very regulations 
that the States had been using in conjunction with the

[[Page 1553]]

Federal Government to go after bad actors and improve air quality.
  Some of us will join in that lawsuit, because we, too, are convinced 
that the Bush administration is violating the Clean Air Act and going 
against the intent of Congress. But again, that is a separate matter.
  Again, as I already stated, this vote was a very strong showing of 
bipartisan support for protecting clean air and ensuring healthy 
communities, and against any backsliding on the Clean Air Act. And it 
was by no means the end of this debate. We will not give up this fight 
to stop any weakening of existing Clean Air Act protections and to 
ensure that all Americans have clean, healthy air to breathe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to clear up a couple things, first, this 
does not apply to coal-fired plants. The Senator from North Carolina 
has been talking about that. I have a letter from the administrator 
saying that. Second, this is not something that came out of the Bush 
administration. It is something that came out of the Clinton 
administration. In listening to some of the comments made by some of 
the Senators on the other side, I think they have lost sight of that 
fact.
  Third, it is hard to find anyone who is not supporting this. People 
want these plants to be able to go ahead, make the improvements, clean 
up the air, and do a better job for the environment. We have the 
National Conference of State Legislators, Governors, the environmental 
councils of the States, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, 
virtually every labor union; they are all listed. The list is on the 
desks. I would encourage Members not to delay this effort. All this 
amendment would do is delay it for 6 more months. It has already been 
delayed for 10 years. It is time to go ahead. I urge Members to vote 
against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) 
are necessary absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Are there any 
other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
  The amendment (No. 67) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________