[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2213-2214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CLEAR SKIES LEGISLATION

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, during his State of the Union speech, 
President Bush said that he has,

       sent to us [Congress] his Clear Skies legislation that 
     mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants 
     over the next 15 years.

  What he did not say is that the present Clean Air Act, according to 
EPA, will do a better and faster job of reducing emissions than his 
proposal. It will do all that without eliminating vital air quality 
protections as proposed in the President's Clear Skies bill.
  What he did not say is that the proposal's timeline does not work 
with the Clean Air Act's. It stalls and delays present State and 
general efforts to achieve air quality standards and it also ignores 
global warming.
  Worse yet, the President's proposal would contribute to the premature 
death of tens of thousands of people who we could otherwise save by 
full and faithful implementation of the present Clean Air Act. Under 
his plan, there will be more areas struggling longer to achieve 
attainment of air quality standards.
  In 2001, large power plants were responsible for emissions of 10.6 
million tons of sulfur dioxide, SOX and 4.1 million tons of 
nitrogen oxides, NOX. That is 33 percent and 25 percent 
less, respectively, from 1990 levels. But that is still far too much 
pollution going into our air, our lungs and falling onto our land.
  These acid rain and smog causing pollutants contribute heavily to 
premature mortality, asthma and lung disease. They also continue the 
acidification of ecosystems in New England and elsewhere.
  In 2001, EPA advised industry that the Clean Air Act at full 
implementation would likely require an 80 percent reduction in 
SOX and a 70 percent reduction in NOX from 
today's pollution levels. EPA also said that mercury, a potent 
neurotoxic pollutant, would have to be reduced by 90 percent.
  EPA said these reductions would have to occur in 2008 for mercury, 
2010 for NOX, and 2012 for SOX. The President's 
proposal hits none of these marks, and still takes 6 more years to even 
get close to the necessary reductions.
  The proposal falls significantly short of Clean Air Act requirements. 
Senators can see a comparison outlined in this chart.
  The President's proposal also falls short by approximately 1.4 
billion tons of carbon dioxide. That's the amount that should be 
reduced by the electric utility sector under our treaty commitment to 
try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Clearly, we have 
failed.
  Perhaps these shortfalls are why no Senators cosponsored the 
President's Clear Skies proposal when it was finally introduced last 
year. Perhaps the elimination of important State and local air 
protection authorities kept senators from supporting it.
  Whatever the reason, the President's proposal had little or no public 
support. Yet, since January 20, 2001, the administration has had every 
opportunity to constructively engage with us and promote his Clear 
Skies proposal.
  But, they did little or nothing. They certainly did not respond in a 
timely, helpful way to legitimate inquiries on its effects.
  Instead, they spent their time figuring out ways to deregulate and to 
rollback air quality protections under the cloak and shadow of their 
three-pollutant initiative.
  Perhaps now, as the 2004 elections get nearer and the administration 
as yet has no tangible and positive environmental achievements of its 
own, we can work together, I urge us to work together to make progress.
  But, unless the Administration agrees to cooperate on information 
sharing and problem solving, we are going to get nowhere even faster. 
We cannot afford to change and we should not change the Clean Air Act 
without knowing the likely outcome of our actions.
  Let's assume for a moment that we all want the same things. We want 
to stop acid rain. We want to reduce mercury-related fish contamination 
and birth defects. We want to start dealing with manmade global 
warming. Most importantly, we want cleaner, clearer air as soon as we 
can get it.

[[Page 2214]]

  We can achieve all those goals in a four-pollutant bill. We can do 
even better than the Clean Air Act at full implementation if we have 
the will and the courage. But doing less than the Clean Air Act would 
provide is simply backsliding.
  I will soon be introducing an alternative to the President's proposal 
with Senators Collins, Lieberman and others. This legislation is a 
better and much more accurate response to the environmental and public 
health problems that our Nation faces.
  In the coming days and weeks, I will take to the floor to discuss the 
need for strong legislation.
  I will continue my efforts to obtain information that the 
administration continues to withhold. This regards the legal, public 
health and environmental effects of their deregulation efforts as well 
as their three-pollutant approach.
  A detailed chronology of correspondence on our New Source Review 
requests appears in the Record of January 21st.
  On Tuesday evening, the EPA Administrator called to tell me the 
President would speak on the Clear Skies proposal in the State of the 
Union. She said she hopes we can work together. I don't doubt Governor 
Whitman's sincerity. But, so far, ``working together'' on environmental 
policy has been an alien concept for this White House. Instead, they 
have left Congress, the States, the environmentalists, and the people, 
in a public relations haze.
  Progress will be much easier and swifter if we can really work 
together honestly and without all the smoke and mirrors. That is the 
only way to approach these severe public health and environmental 
problems. That is why a four-pollutant bill is necessary.
  I point to the chart and urge people to look at this chart which 
demonstrates very clearly what would happen if we leave things the way 
we are or if we put the ``Clear Skies'' in. We are much better off to 
leave the Clean Air Act where it is than we are to do anything. But we 
will be producing and bringing forward at a future time our four-
pollutant bill, again, which will do even more than the present Clean 
Air Act and does not degrade or lessen the Clean Air Act.
  I urge everyone to be very alert about what is going on in the 
environmental legislation because it could get better and save lives or 
it could knock it out.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________