[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17002-17016]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
  RELATING TO THE MITIGATION BY STATES OF CROSS-BORDER AIR POLLUTION 
               UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 27.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
resolution by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint 
     resolution (S.J. Res. 27) disapproving a rule submitted by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the 
     mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution under the 
     Clean Air Act.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the 
two leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of clean air, clean 
water, electricity, and jobs. I think we can have a clean environment 
and jobs, but not if we let this administration continue to pass job-
killing regulations. These new regulations will cost over $2 billion, 
and over the course of a decade or more may well exceed $100 billion. 
We add these new regulations to over $2 trillion worth of regulations 
already on the books. The President is adding $10 billion worth of 
regulations every month, and we wonder--we have 14 million people out 
of work, 2 million new people out of work since this President took 
office. Yet we continue to add regulation upon regulation.
  So far this year President Obama has added $80 billion worth of new 
regulations. If this President is serious about job creation, he needs 
to cease and desist from adding new job-killing regulations. The vote 
today has nothing to do with repealing the Clean Air Act. I am sure we 
will hear hysterics on the other side. We will hear from environmental 
extremists. But this has nothing to do with repealing the Clean Air 
Act. We have rules in place to control emissions from our utility 
plants. We are not arguing against that. In fact, we are arguing for 
continuing the same rules that have been in place for some time.
  Over the decades our environment has become cleaner and cleaner. 
Emissions have gone down with each successive decade. We are simply 
asking that the clean air regulations already on the books stay in 
place and that we do not make the regulations so onerous that we put 
utility plants out of business so we have an inability to supply 
electricity to this country.
  Over 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal-fired plants. If 
we shut down the coal-fired plants or if we bankrupt them--as the 
President explicitly said in his campaign, that would be the desire of 
his policies--if that should occur, be prepared for brownouts in our 
big cities, be prepared for days when there will not be electricity, 
but also be prepared for rising unemployment as these job-killing 
regulations put a stranglehold on the economy.
  The question is, Can we have clean air and jobs? Absolutely. But to 
have clean air and jobs we must have balance. We are at the point of 
becoming

[[Page 17003]]

so overzealous and of overreaching to such a great extent that we are 
killing jobs. We are killing industry. We are going backwards in time.
  Before we add new regulations we must ask, Are the current 
regulations working? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Emissions from 
utility plants have been declining for decades. In fact, while coal-
based power has nearly doubled in the last several decades, emissions 
have been reduced by 60 percent.
  I need to repeat that because if we listen to the hysterics, we would 
think otherwise. We would think the Statue of Liberty will shortly be 
underwater and the polar bears are all drowning and that we are dying 
from pollution. It is absolutely and utterly untrue. All of the 
statistics--and these are statistics from the EPA--all of the 
statistics from government, from the EPA, show declining pollution. 
Everything about this argument shows that the environment has been 
improving for decades. In fact, John Stossel has done a program on 
this, and he asked fifth graders: Do you think the environment is 
cleaner now or 30 years ago? All of our schoolchildren have been 
brainwashed by these environmental hysterics who say, oh, it is a lot 
worse now. It is actually much better now.
  Here are some statistics. We are talking about regulating two 
emissions that come from utility plants. The first is sulfur dioxide. 
We can see in the midst of the range, the average has been going down 
every decade. We have reduced sulfur dioxide just in the last 6 years 
by 45 percent under the current regulations.
  If we look at the nitrous oxides, which are also regulated under this 
series of regulations, we can also see they have been in decline. The 
existing rules are working. Nitrous oxides, which can create ozone, are 
down 45 percent in the last 5 years. The existing rules are working. 
All we are arguing for is that we not become overzealous, that we not 
overreach, that the regulators and the regulations not become job-
killing regulations. That is where we are headed.
  This administration has proposed a series of radical changes to our 
environmental law. These are regulations that are being written by 
unelected bureaucrats in which we in Congress are not having a say. 
What I am asking for today is that Congress vote approval or 
disapproval of these radical, extremist regulations, these job-killing 
regulations that are coming down the pike.
  If we look at jobs and look at what will happen to jobs, we will see 
that these regulations--simply this regulation alone--could cost as 
much as 50,000 jobs. Indirectly, the people who work for them who would 
be losing their jobs. As much as 250,000 indirect jobs could be lost.
  We do need to ask the important question: Are the existing 
regulations working or do we need to make the regulations more strict? 
This is a balancing act. On the one hand we have our environment, which 
we all care about. No matter what the other side will say, Republicans 
do believe in clean air and clean water. But we also believe in jobs. 
It is a balancing act in our country and in all of our communities to 
try to have both jobs and a clean environment. But we have to look at 
the facts. We cannot become hysterical and say the other side is for 
pollution. That is the kind of stuff we are hearing.
  We are all for clean air, we are all for clean water, and we are 
all--or we should all be for jobs. My concern is that the President has 
allowed radicals to take over the administration. He has allowed 
environmental extremists to take over policy. As a consequence, we are 
losing jobs.
  It is important to note that people think they will plug their 
electric cars into the wall and that has nothing to do with coal. Fifty 
percent of our electricity comes from coal. Does that mean it is 
perfect? No. But we have to look at the emissions from coal-fired 
utilities. The emissions have been declining decade after decade.
  While coal-fired power has nearly doubled in the last several 
decades--we are having to produce more electricity from coal in the 
last several decades--emissions have declined 60 percent. We are doing 
a good job with the current rules. Let's not kill off industry. Let's 
not kill off jobs. Let's not put our citizens at risk during the height 
of the summer and the height of a heat wave of not having electricity 
or during the height of cold waves in the winter of not having 
electricity to heat their homes.
  The alarmists, such as Al Gore and others, would have us believe 
everything is worse and the world is on the edge of some sort of 
cataclysm. If we allow them to control our debate, if we do not talk 
reasonably and rationally about the facts, if we do not look at the 
statistics of what has been occurring to control emissions, we are not 
going to get anywhere. I am asking we base our discussion on rational 
facts and not on emissions.
  To give an idea of where some of these extremists are coming from, 
there is one of them who is a prominent extremist in this debate. She 
has called for a planetary law, whatever that is. She wants a planetary 
law of one child per family because she is worried about the carbon 
footprint of the worst polluters in the whole world.
  But who do we think the worst polluters in the world are? Humans, for 
breathing. She says we have far too many breathers on the planet and 
the way we reduce breathers on the planet is we will have one child per 
family mandated worldwide. We know how China does that.
  I don't think we can let the debate get out of control. Today's 
debate is about overreach. I would like to give an example. Think about 
what cities looked like in 1900. We have a picture of Pittsburgh, where 
I was born, in 1905, and then a picture of Pittsburgh today. You may 
not be able to see the picture from the distance, but we can get an 
idea.
  Throughout Pittsburgh it was smog and pollution. It was heavy. They 
say at noon on a day in Pittsburgh you could go out and your white 
shirt would become black. They say at noon in Pittsburgh the street 
lanterns were on because you could not see through the smog and the 
smoke.
  Here is Pittsburgh today. We are not arguing for no rules. The rules 
we have in place have been working. What we are arguing is not to let 
the rules become so overzealous, so onerous, that we kill jobs and we 
kill industry.
  We want a clean environment and jobs. We have to have a balanced 
approach, and we cannot let hysteria and environmental extremism take 
over our country. The West led the industrial revolution. Life 
expectancy has doubled since the discovery of electricity. Childhood 
infectious mortality has become one-hundredth of what it was before 
electricity. For all the advances of civilization, there are advantages 
and there are disadvantages. As we have advanced from an industrial 
society, there have been problems, but we have been ironing out those 
problems for 100 years now. We are doing a good job at that, and we 
should not allow the regulations to become so onerous that we begin to 
lose jobs.
  One of the other things people argue about and one of the big health 
concerns they have with pollution is with regard to asthma. The 
interesting thing is, if we look at all the statistics on all the 
emissions from our powerplants, all these declining lines are 
emissions. Emissions have been going down decade upon decade. The 
incidence of asthma has been rising. If we were looking at this chart, 
we would say maybe emissions declining is inversely proportional to 
asthma. The other argument could be maybe they are not related at all, 
but they definitely are not proportional. We are not seeing rising 
incidents of asthma because we are having increased pollution. We have 
decreased pollution and rising incidents of asthma. Either they are 
inversely proportional or not related at all.
  This is an important point because what comes out of the hysteria of 
the environmental extremists is--we will hear people stand and say half 
a million people are going to die if this goes through. The Vice 
President recently said Republicans, because they didn't vote for his 
jobs plan, were for murder and rape. The ridiculousness of these 
statistics that are trotted out as truth

[[Page 17004]]

should be spurned. We should think about things calmly and rationally 
and decide: Can we have clean air and jobs? When we hear these 
statistics, let's be very careful not to get carried away.
  Joel Schwartz has written about asthma and the environment and 
pollution and he notes that: As air pollution declines, the asthma 
prevalence continues to rise. One possible conclusion is that air 
pollution is not a cause of asthma or not even related. Every pollutant 
we measure has been dropping for decades pretty much everywhere while 
asthma prevalence has been rising pretty much everywhere.
  The other side will say, but the American Lung Association says 
pollution is making asthma worse. You know what. The EPA actually gave 
the American Lung Association $5 million, so I think their objectivity 
has been somewhat tainted.
  If we look at asthma incidence and we say: Where is asthma the worst, 
interestingly, asthma is worse in the countries that have the lowest 
incidence of pollution and asthma is actually lowest in the countries 
that have the highest evidence of pollution.
  As we look through these statistics, we need to be concerned about 
the costs of these new regulations. We need to be concerned about 
having balance between job creation and job-killing regulations. I am 
afraid what happened is we have opened the White House and this 
administration to environmental extremists, the kind of people who say: 
The polar bears are drowning. The whole thing on the polar bears 
drowning was based on the sighting of two polar bears on an iceberg and 
they all of a sudden maintain this. Once we start counting the polar 
bears, apparently they are not in decline.
  So the statistics and hysteria over whether within 50 years the 
Statue of Liberty will be underwater, this is the kind of hysteria we 
don't want to drive policy. It is the kind of hysteria that when our 
brother-in-law is out of work and when 2 million new people are out of 
work since this administration came into power, we need to be concerned 
about regulatory overreach.
  Another issue we are concerned about is what will happen with these 
new regulations with electricity rates. We have a map that shows across 
the United States what will happen. When we think about our electricity 
rates going up and the expense to this, think about who gets hit worse, 
the working class and senior citizens on fixed incomes. They are the 
ones who will suffer from rising electricity rates. It is the person 
who depends only on their Social Security check and has no other means 
of supporting themselves and is trying to pay for their electricity.
  In some regions, electricity could go up almost 20 percent with this 
series of regulations this administration is proposing. This is 
throughout the country. It is more in some areas than others, but it 
will go up dramatically, and that is the danger of allowing these new 
regulations--what will happen to electric rates and will poor people in 
the winter or heat of the summer be able to afford their electricity? 
The cost of these regulations is real. The cost of these regulations 
will be passed on to the consumer and there are significant dangers of 
there being periods of times in large cities where there is not enough 
electricity to go around and the electrical grid is overwhelmed.
  As we go forward and as we begin to hear some of the hysteria that 
will occur from the other side, be aware that what we are arguing for 
is not the elimination of regulations. We are arguing for continuing 
the existing regulations, with the two emissions we are talking about 
have declined significantly over decades. Sulfur dioxide has declined 
over 70 percent over the last three decades. Nitrous oxide has declined 
over 50 percent over the last several decades. So the question is, if 
we are doing an adequate job, if we are doing a good job, if emissions 
are going down, why would we want to impose new rules that will cause 
loss of jobs and will cause an increase in rate of electrical costs?
  If one is cynical, one of the reasons might be because the President 
wants to reward some of his campaign contributors; for example, 
Solyndra. The owners of Solyndra, which makes solar panels--or did. 
They have now gone bankrupt after they ate up $500 million worth of our 
money. Perhaps this is more of a political argument that he doesn't 
like certain industry but he likes other industry. So he is willing to 
spend our money, $500 million worth, on one company.
  Solyndra went bankrupt recently, and $500 million is still a 
considerable amount of money. I will put that in perspective. In 
Kentucky, we get over about $420 million to pave our roads annually out 
of the gas tax that we pay. There are 35 States that get about the same 
amount, somewhere under $500 million. Yet the President saw fit--
because he has been consumed with this environmental extremism--to give 
$500 million. That is more than 35 States get for their highway funds. 
He saw fit to take that money and give it to one political contributor 
because he has decided he wants more expensive electricity. He wants 
electricity that comes and is produced by people who have been his 
campaign contributors.
  As we look at adding these new regulations, these need to be put in 
context. We need to look at and seriously think about whether we want 
our country to be taken over by environmental extremists, whether we 
want or care about can we have a clean environment and jobs. I think we 
can have both. I think we can have clean air, clean water, and jobs, 
but it will require a balanced approach. My fear is, if these 
regulations go forward, the balance will become imbalanced, that there 
will be job-killing regulations that cause electrical rates to go up 
and cause us to have significantly more economic problems than we are 
already in.
  At this time, I call on my colleagues to consider supporting this 
resolution, which will be a disapproval of these new and onerous 
regulations, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, would the Chair let me know when I have 
used 5 minutes, and then I am going to yield to Senator Reed for up to 
8 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to be clear about this. If the Paul 
resolution passes--which I don't think it will, it is so extreme--
people in 38 States, 248 million people, will be adversely impacted 
with filthy, dirty air.
  In the Senator's own State of Kentucky, the prediction is, based on 
science, that between 530 people and 1,400 people will succumb to 
premature death. So we are not talking about some political argument. 
We are talking about the very life and death of the people we 
represent. I wish to thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, 
Shaheen, and Ayotte for already speaking out on the floor against the 
Paul resolution.
  I hope we will have a big vote because we are dealing with the health 
of the people, with the health of the children, with the ability of 
people to work--because if we cannot breathe, we cannot work--and we 
are dealing with jobs, many jobs, over 1 million jobs that are created 
as a result of clean technology.
  Senator Paul insulted the people of America. There was a poll just 
taken last month where 67 percent of voters support the cross-state air 
pollution rule. That is 85 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of 
Independents, and 48 percent of Republicans. Are they extremists? No. 
They are mainstream. Are the groups who support this rule extremists?
  I think the Senator owes an apology to the American Lung Association 
for making it sound as if they are for air pollution rules because they 
are getting some kind of payoff. It is an outrage, a complete outrage. 
Does he think the National Association of County Health Officials is 
extremist? He said the American Lung Association. He already attacked 
them. How about the American Nurses Association, does he think they are 
extremists? Does he think President Richard Nixon was an extremist when 
he signed the Clean Air Act and he said: ``Clean

[[Page 17005]]

air, clean water, open spaces--these should once again be the 
birthright of every American.'' Does he think Richard Nixon was an 
extremist?
  Let's talk about what he wants to do. He wants to repeal a very 
important rule that is going to clean up the air, that is going to 
reduce toxic poison soot and smog-forming air pollution that impacts 
air quality for over 240 million people.
  Let me say this. I know all 100 of us in this Chamber would condemn 
it if somebody took all their garbage and put it on the lawn of the 
next-door neighbor. That is what this cross-air pollution rule is 
about. It is about States that don't crack down on pollution. They have 
smokestacks that blow the pollution into other States and they say: 
Isn't it wonderful? We don't have any problem here; it is your problem.
  When I made this analogy, Senator Carper corrected me. He said: The 
Senator is right. It is a good analogy as far as it goes, but garbage 
is not usually poison. I will amend my analogy to say this: If we knew 
that someone had garbage that included poison and they took that 
garbage that included poison and put it on someone else's front lawn, 
that would be a terrible thing to do, and it would be the moral 
responsibility of that party to clean it up and not do it again. That 
is what this rule is about.
  I wish to talk about specifics rather than be vague. This rule that 
Senator Paul seeks to cancel and repeal prevents up to 34,000 cases of 
premature death, 19,000 emergency room and hospital visits, 400,000 
cases of aggravated asthma attacks, and 1.8 million lost work and 
schooldays. It is estimated to provide up to $280 billion in annual 
benefits by 2014.
  So all this flailing around of arms and calling people extremists 
simply cannot erase the fact that what Senator Paul is doing is extreme 
and is hurtful to our people.
  How many people feel good when they look at a child such as this who 
is desperately seeking air? Here is the exhaler, this plant, and here 
is her inhaler. Exhale from these dirty plants and inhale clean air.
  It reminds me of a story I just read in the New York Times that talks 
about China.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute, and then I will 
yield 8 minutes to Senator Reed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. In China, the leaders there are arrogant and they are 
elitists and they surround themselves with air purifiers in their 
offices, in their homes, in the great hall of the people where they 
work, which is opulent, but the rest of the people in China have to 
breathe filthy, dirty air. In a recent trip there, our group did not 
see the sun for 7 days.
  ``Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing's famously foul 
air.'' That is the story in the Times. ``The privileges of China's 
elites include purified air.'' Well, I don't think anybody ought to be 
able to insulate themselves from the quality of the air. We have to 
clean up the air for everybody, not just an elite few. So I think 
Senator Paul's resolution under the CRA should be soundly defeated.
  At this time, I yield 8 minutes to Senator Jack Reed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator yielding, 
but I think the custom is that we are going back and forth, if the 
Senator from California would like to finish her statement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to address that, if I could for a 
moment, for the benefit of Senator Coats. I was going to speak for a 
much longer block, but I didn't. I yielded the time to Senator Reed, 
and I retain the time I have. So I only did it because he was trapped 
in a hearing. But it is up to the Senators, however they want to 
proceed.
  Mr. REED. I think if the Senator from California wishes to finish her 
statement and then recognize Senator Coats, that would be appropriate. 
That is the procedure. I think it is appropriate to alternate back and 
forth.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that. I will retain my time and yield to 
the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from California. I agree with the 
Senator from Rhode Island. If the Senator from California wants to 
finish her time, I am happy to----
  Mrs. BOXER. I am retaining my time.
  Mr. COATS. My understanding is that we are going back and forth, and 
I think we should stay with that order. So I appreciate the support of 
the Senator from Rhode Island for that agreed-upon procedure.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Paul's 
resolution. The word ``extreme'' has gotten thrown around here an awful 
lot. I just walked on the floor.
  What is being sought here is not extreme. Under the Clean Air Act, 
there have been extraordinary gains in terms of air pollution controls, 
and there have been hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the last 
couple of decades to provide some much needed and much appreciated 
clean air all across the country. Are we 100 percent there yet? No. Are 
we a long way toward getting there? Yes. The issue before us today is, 
can we allow sufficient time for utilities that are spending these 
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to continue the 
process of retrofitting their plants and providing energy to consumers 
and businesses at a reasonable rate.
  In the Midwest where a lot of these plants exist--although this 
covers 27 States--we make big stuff. We make cars and we make trains 
and we make automobiles and heavy machinery. It takes electricity to do 
that. Our economy is not based on maple syrup or wine from Napa Valley, 
it is based on major, huge industries producing what America needs to 
move people around and to create the kind of economy all of us have 
enjoyed. It also provides a lot of jobs. We have spent literally 
hundreds of billions of dollars in complying with Clean Air Act 
regulations, and we have come a long way.
  There is nothing extreme to talk about here on either side, I 
believe, because the record speaks for itself. The question is, Do 
these utilities that produce this energy needed to run this economy 
have time to finish what they have started? Senator Paul has basically 
said: Look, this EPA rule basically says companies have until January 
1, and that is it.
  I have a plant down on the Ohio River that is spending hundreds of 
millions of dollars in retrofit, but they can't meet this deadline. 
They are now in a position of having to decide whether to throw this 
money away and to waste everything they have already put in when they 
are halfway through the process or close the plant down completely.
  Six plants will close down in Indiana, it is projected, with an 
increase in utility rates not just to consumers but to our 
manufacturers at the level of 20 to 25 to 30 percent. At a time when 
our economy is struggling, is this something we want to add, 
particularly for an industry that is committed to going forward but 
just needs a little bit more time?
  That is the purpose of this resolution before us, and I am hoping we 
will take a reasonable view of the gains we have achieved over the 
decades we have been at work, the clean air we have achieved, the 
commitment to the final goal of the Clean Air Act but doing it in a 
reasonable timeframe in a cost-effective way that doesn't throw our 
economy into a further level of distress in terms of the number of jobs 
we need and the amount of money that has to be spent to achieve that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the proposal 
by Senator Paul to preempt the implementation of the cross-state air 
pollution rule.
  We recognize throughout this country our extraordinary employment

[[Page 17006]]

 challenges--in Rhode Island particularly but in every State. These are 
challenging times. But our focus should not be on undermining 
protections for the public health, rather our focus should be on job 
creation, as the President has suggested through his jobs act. That is 
what we should be doing.
  This is one of a series of proposals--and I have seen many of them as 
the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior--to 
essentially eviscerate the ability of the EPA to protect the health of 
the country and its people.
  What has struck me during these debates is that we are, in a way, 
victims of our success. I am old enough to remember when the Cuyahoga 
River in Cleveland was on fire because there was no control, 
effectively, of what was being dumped into rivers and streams 
throughout this country, and when clean air was something that was a 
sought-after goal, not a reality, in so many parts of the country.
  We can look at the experience of the State of California, Senator 
Boxer's State. In 1976, there were regular health advisories because of 
the poor air. But a combination of EPA regulations and California 
regulations has seen the average of these health alert days in which 
the frail and elderly couldn't go outside, young children were advised 
not to play outside, and it was very difficult to put up with the smog 
and the congestion, fall from an average of 173 days a year--half the 
year--in the 1970s to about 6 days per year in the late 2000s. That 
wasn't an accident; that was because of effective implementation of the 
Clean Air Act, which, as Senator Boxer pointed out, was spearheaded by 
President Nixon in the 1970s. This attempt by Senator Paul is one of 
many attempts to reverse that progress on the assumption that things 
will stay the same. No, they will get much worse, actually.
  This rule has been carefully evaluated. It has been through several 
different procedures and rulemaking processes. It has been estimated 
effectively and carefully that between 13,000 and 34,000 lives would be 
saved that would otherwise be affected and shortened because of smog 
and soot pollution. This rule would help avoid 15,000 heart attacks, 
400,000 more asthma attacks, 19,000 hospital emergency room visits, all 
of that tremendous health cost. And indeed the estimated yearly costs 
to industry of about $2 billion to $3 billion pales in comparison to 
the estimates of the benefits of between $120 billion to $280 billion 
if this rule goes into effect.
  The essence of this rule effectively, though, as Senator Boxer also 
suggests, makes us all better neighbors. We have a 10-percent 
unemployment rate in Rhode Island, and we do not specialize in wine or 
maple syrup. We used to be a manufacturing center. Manufacturing 
requires electricity. We have very high electricity costs. Why? Because 
our State has to compensate for the pollution coming from these other 
States. This is a tax. The present situation, without this rule, is a 
tax on small business, and particularly manufacturing, in Rhode Island. 
We want a rule that requires the polluters to pay the full cost of 
their pollution, so if it is emanating from the Midwest and being 
transported to Rhode Island, those people creating it should be paying 
for it. That is the way the market should work. We are paying for it. 
We are effectively subsidizing lower electricity rates in parts of this 
country that are taking jobs from Rhode Island. It is not only unfair, 
it is bad policy.
  In Rhode Island specifically, only 5 percent of ozone pollution is 
from local or instate sources--5 percent. Ninety-five percent comes 
from outside of our borders, particularly the Midwest. It is 
transported. That is at the heart of this rule--to give us a chance not 
only to protect ourselves and to control our own pollution but to not 
be subject to the additional cost as this pollution moves across the 
country.
  We are in a situation where we are essentially being imposed upon 
dramatically, and this rule will try to strike the proper balance. It 
will try to incentivize those producers of pollution to prevent the 
pollution. It will let us be more competitive. It will allow us to go 
ahead and essentially have a much more level playing field when it 
comes to what we are all talking about: creating jobs.
  It is awfully tough to go up to Rhode Island and look at businesses 
that are making progress and being told that one of the key costs is 
electricity and one of the key factors driving up those costs is all of 
the pollution control that we have to put in place, not because of what 
we are generating, but because 95 percent of our pollution is coming 
from other States.
  This rule makes sense in every dimension, and I think to undercut 
this rule would do a great injustice to the health of the American 
public and the economic potential of States throughout this country.
  Let me say something else too. I think we often see this erroneously 
as a one-sided cost: Oh, these polluters, these utilities are going to 
have to put all of these controls on. Well, guess what, they are hiring 
skilled American workers to put in place products that I hope are 
produced in America. All that contributes to our economy.
  So for many different reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
resolution. The rule is efficient. It is effective. It will actually 
help our economy. It will certainly help the quality of life for 
Americans in those States that are suffering from the pollution of 
other States, and that are essentially paying for the pollution of 
States throughout the country. If the winds were blowing another way, I 
daresay many of my colleagues would be standing up and arguing exactly 
the opposite.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator Paul's 
work to avail himself of and make use of the Congressional Review Act 
which establishes a process for Congress to review and nullify 
unwarranted Federal regulations.
  The Congressional Review Act process is rarely used--only 
successfully on one other occasion since it was created in 1996--but it 
is a legitimate process, and it is of increasing importance today. This 
is an opportunity for Members of Congress, who are concerned that 
regulations are taking over the country, to try to see some of those 
unwarranted regulations pulled back. It is an opportunity for people to 
prove they mean what they say when they say that.
  The Heritage Foundation published a chart identifying the ``Obama 
Regulation Tsunami.'' Heritage identified 144 new regulations that were 
pending in 2011--this year. All of those were expected to cost more 
than $100 million--all of them. In 2006, there were 69 such regulations 
pending. The average number of rules over $100 million pending during 
2001 through 2006 was about 72. Now, during this administration, the 
average number is not 72; it is about 130. That is an 80-percent 
increase in the number of pending regulations with costs over $100 
million. So this is a tsunami of costly regulations falling on our 
economy.
  Senator Paul's resolution seeks to nullify just one of the EPA rules 
aimed at reducing the use of affordable coal-fired powerplants in 27 
specific States, including my State of Alabama.
  The rule will increase power bills for people and businesses. There 
is a range of other new EPA rules that will raise the price of 
electricity in addition to that rule. This increases the cost of doing 
business, and it makes our businesses less competitive and results in 
job losses.
  Higher energy costs make American businesses less competitive and 
less able to create jobs and more likely to invest in other countries 
than in this country. In an EPW hearing--the Environment and Public 
Works Committee--last month, we heard testimony that over 180,000 jobs 
will be lost each year--each year, 180,000 jobs--from 2012 through 2020 
as a result of just 4 EPA rules that impact the electric utility 
sector--just the electric utility sector. One of those four rules is 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that Senator Paul's resolution 
addresses. This is net jobs lost. The evaluation takes into account 
alleged job gains from the four rules.

[[Page 17007]]

  Together, the four rules would result in $21 billion in annual 
compliance costs and raise residential energy prices by 12 percent in 
Alabama and even more in other States. A 12-percent increase in 
residential energy costs is significant. These are working people. If 
your bill is $150 a month, it is now going to be $168 a month. If it is 
a $200 bill, it is going to be $224 a month. That is real money and for 
gaining not one thing that adds to the productivity of a business or a 
residence. It is a really significant cost.
  Do not think it does not fall on people. We have gotten our mind set 
in Washington that we can impose a rule and it has costs on businesses 
but it does not cost us. But in truth, it is the equivalent of a tax. 
For example, if the government wanted to clean up the air, we could tax 
the American people, use that money to go to all the powerplants, add 
extra costly techniques to it, and clean up the air that way. That 
would be a tax. We would have to defend that to the American people. We 
would have to justify that this cost we have extracted from them 
through increased taxes was worth the benefit. But we can wash our 
hands of it, the way we do business today. We simply pass a law that 
mandates that these businesses do that, and we pretend it does not 
impose costs. But the experts say these rules will result in a 12-
percent increase in utility rates in Alabama alone. Those are my 
people--working-class people, middle-class people, poor people who have 
to have electricity.
  An analysis of all the new EPA rules impacting the electric utility 
sector is even more astounding. Southern Company, which operates in the 
Southeast, estimates that the capital costs of complying with the full 
range of proposed EPA rules for coal-fired electric generation would be 
between $12 billion and $15 billion. Costs for Alabama Power, which 
provides electric power for much of our State, are estimated to be 
between $5 billion and $7 billion. Alabama's general fund budget, not 
counting education, is $2 billion. This adds to one power company $5 
billion to $7 billion in costs. The President and Senate Democrats like 
to talk about raising taxes on the rich, but their regulations are, in 
effect, a huge tax increase on everyone, poor and rich alike, in the 
form of higher energy prices and fewer job opportunities. With 
unemployment at 9 percent, we need to ask ourselves, Can we afford this 
kind of increase now?
  Nucor Steel pointed out in recent testimony that a 1 cent per 
kilowatt hour increase in the electricity they buy to make steel would 
add $120 million in costs to their company. That was the testimony they 
gave a few weeks ago at an EPW hearing.
  But let's talk for a moment about the specific rule Senator Paul's 
resolution would nullify. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule mandates 
that 27 States reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 
2012 and nitrogen oxide, NOX, emissions by 50 percent by 
2014. Remember, we already brought down emissions of NOX and 
sulfur dioxide significantly. Our air is cleaner in virtually every 
city in America than it was just a few years ago and much cleaner than 
it was 20 or 30 years ago. We can be thankful that Congress mandated 
that. And there certainly were objections raised at that time. It did 
impose costs, as said, but it also has helped clean our air. That is a 
fact. But I would just say this to you: The lower hanging fruit has 
already been achieved. America's electric utility industry is operating 
more efficiently and more effectively today than ever. But a 50-percent 
reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by 2014? An additional 20-percent 
reduction of sulfur dioxide by next year? Utilities will be forced to 
either install expensive technologies such as scrubbers or shut down 
their units.
  This rule, in combination with other new EPA rules, will be the nail 
in the coffin for a lot of coal-fired powerplants. They will just 
close. It will also close coal mines where we produce American energy--
not imported energy, American energy. In Texas, one of the State's 
largest power producers, Luminant, has said the rule would result in 
500 job losses due to the closing of units at one of its coal-fired 
plants and the closing of three nearby coal mines.
  There are serious concerns about the new Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule. Over 70 parties have challenged it in Federal court, including 
Alabama's attorney general, Luther Strange, a fine attorney general who 
works hard every day for the people of Alabama. So have his colleagues 
in Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 
Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 
Many labor unions are opposing the rule. They know it will hurt jobs.
  Before concluding, let me say this: EPA is too often using scare 
tactics and statistics to push its regulatory agenda. I think that is 
dangerous. One reason we have seen such a surge in EPA regulations is 
because in 1 year they got a 35-percent increase in their budget--more 
than virtually any other agency in Washington.
  EPA claims their Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, for example, is 
necessary to prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths per year--34,000. 
EPA is actually claiming that without this rule, 34,000 people would 
die each year. But EPA's basis for this assertion is fundamentally 
flawed.
  First, EPA assumes in its baseline that existing rules are not in 
place to protect public health. That is absolutely not true. The Bush 
administration issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule that requires 
reductions in the same emissions targeted by this new rule. I am told 
sulfur dioxide emissions are already down more than 40 percent over the 
last decade. The same is true for NOX emissions. This new 
Cross-State Rule would add even more layers of requirements on top of 
existing protections and rules, but EPA does not acknowledge that when 
they do their analysis of the casualties they find. That is the first 
way they overstate the benefits.
  Second, EPA assumes in its baseline that 320,000 deaths per year in 
the United States are attributed to particulate matter pollution from 
sources like powerplants. That would be more than 10 percent of all 
deaths in the United States in a year. Are we to believe that 10 
percent of all U.S. deaths are attributable to pollution from 
powerplants? We have taken extensive testimony in the EPW Committee on 
this topic, and it is clear that EPA is playing fast and loose, and 
they are manipulating data, it seems to me pretty clearly. EPA is 
overstating the benefits of their rules.
  Third, EPA does not seem concerned about establishing any direct 
cause-and-effect relationship; they just rely on statistical 
relationships. A simple statistical correlation alone does not support 
a causal connection. For instance, a statistical correlation between 
ice cream sales and heatstroke does not mean there is a causal 
connection between them. On hot days, more ice cream is consumed. More 
people have heatstrokes on hot days. That does not mean there is a 
cause-and-effect relationship between the two.
  So let me conclude by saying this: This administration is 
overregulating our economy. It is raising the price of energy. These 
costs and regulations are costing us jobs.
  They are using scare tactics to justify their rules with dubious 
statistics. I know my colleagues will say these statistics are 
accurate, but I do not believe that these statistics that are coming 
out of EPA, our government environment and protection agency--the 
agency we depend on for honesty and integrity--can be defended as 
accurate. They are exaggerated, and it will be shown sooner or later 
that is a fact.
  I know we want to have cleaner air. We are on a path to having 
cleaner air. We have been reducing NOX and SOX 
and particulates for years. We can continue to do that. But to talk 
about a 50-percent reduction in NOX by 2014 and a 20-percent 
reduction in SOX by next year--these are huge changes. After 
the low-hanging fruit has already been achieved, I do not believe that 
is justified, and I do not believe it should be pressed down on the 
brow of an economy that is struggling mightily to get off the mat and 
begin to grow again.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 17008]]


  Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if my colleague would withhold for just 50 
seconds.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  I would like to make a quick point before my colleague, Senator 
Sessions, leaves the floor.
  I want to first of all thank the Senator very much for working with 
us in the EPW Committee. As I said to the Senator privately, in our 
committee, when it comes to infrastructure, we are all very closely 
tied, and we support each other. When it comes to the environment, we 
see things differently.
  I want to say to my friend who is very wise in many ways, I do not 
know why he would question--he has a total right to question the EPA's 
assertion--that if we pass the Rand Paul repeal, it would result in 
34,000 premature deaths. I want to point out he is not a cardiovascular 
specialist or a lung specialist. Neither am I. But I think it is 
important to rely on those who are, such as the American Association of 
Cardiovascular Pulmonary Rehab, the American Association of Respiratory 
Care, the College of Preventive Medicine, the Lung Association, the 
Nurses Association, and I will not go on because I only have 1 minute. 
But I will list these. I would hope we would look to these groups 
because I do not know of anyone in this body who is a specialist in 
cardiovascular or lung conditions. And these groups oppose the Paul 
resolution because they think people will get ill and they will die 
prematurely.
  I yield 8 minutes to Senator Alexander.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BROWN of Ohio). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Senator Boxer has done a great job of moving the 
legislation in committee. I have enjoyed her leadership in committee 
and the collegial way she has conducted the committee.
  I will say to Senator Boxer that the 320,000 number is not correct. 
EPA should not be using it. We will challenge that. I intend to look at 
that more, and if they are wrong, I will expect them to acknowledge 
they are wrong. I believe they are wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe I have 8 minutes. I would ask 
the Chair to let me know when I have 1 minute remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Kentucky wants to overturn a clean 
air rule which would limit the amount of soot and ozone, the pollution 
that causes smog, from blowing from Kentucky and other states into 
Tennessee or that blows from Tennessee into North Carolina. This is no 
solution to a serious problem.
  I want to give the four reasons why I am going to vote no, and why I 
believe Senator Pryor of Arkansas and I have a better solution, which 
is to put the rule into law and give the utilities enough time to 
comply with it.
  Reason No. 1, auto jobs. The first thing Nissan did when it came to 
Tennessee 30 years ago was to go down to the Air Quality Board and get 
an air quality permit so it could operate its paint plant. Fortunately, 
our air was clean enough to allow that to happen. Nissan came, and so 
did tens of thousands of jobs. If it had not gotten the permit, the 
jobs would not be there.
  Volkswagen has come to Tennessee. We want to make sure its suppliers 
can get an air quality permit so they do not have to go to other 
States. So the first reason we need to stop air from blowing into 
Tennessee from other States is auto jobs.
  Second, the Sevier County Chamber of Commerce, right next to the 
Great Smoky Mountains--that is where Dolly Parton grew up--I walk in to 
see them, and they say their No. 1 goal is clean air. That is because 9 
million tourists come to see the Great Smoky Mountains, not the Great 
Smoggy Mountains. This is not a group or a hotbed of liberal 
regulators. These are the most Republican counties in Tennessee. Where 
I come from, which is the next county over, we have not elected a 
Democrat to Congress since Abraham Lincoln was President, but we like 
to breathe clean air. Our tourists do as well.
  Tourist jobs are the second reason I am going to vote against the 
Paul amendment and why I support the Alexander-Pryor amendment.
  Three, the American Lung Association tells us that dirty air blowing 
into Tennessee makes us unhealthier. It causes some of us to die, 
especially children and our older citizens. No. 4, this is no solution. 
It has no chance of succeeding. It will not pass the Senate. The 
President will veto it if it does. And what will it do? It will throw 
it back to bureaucrats and lawyers and bureaucracy and uncertainty and 
delay. That is not a solution. So the only reason for it is as a 
political message. What kind of message is it, that we favor dirty air 
blowing from Kentucky into Tennessee or Tennessee into North Carolina? 
That we favor not doing our job, but turning it back to bureaucrats, 
lawyers, uncertainty and delay? That is not a solution.
  If we want a message amendment, there are many better choices. The 
Obama administration, particularly the EPA, is a happy hunting ground 
of unreasonable regulations. There is the boiler MACT rule, which must 
have been created on another planet. There is the cement MACT rule, 
which would increase the amount of pollution in the air. There is the 
ozone rule, which the President himself had to withdraw. There is the 
power plants coolant rule, which seems to have no benefits. There is 
even talk of a farm dust rule, which Senator Johanns is talking about. 
So why aren't we talking about those rules instead of a proposal to 
make it easier for dirty air to blow into our State, make us 
unhealthier, drive away tourists, and cost us auto jobs? The Senator 
from Kentucky says it will cost. His sources say 2 percent. The 
Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest public utility in the country, 
says it is $1 to $2 a month--$1 to $2 a month. That is a reasonable 
cost for what we are getting.
  TVA has said they are closing 18 coal-fired units, but will continue 
to operate 38 coal-fired units. They are putting pollution control 
equipment on all of them. That means we are healthier, that means more 
jobs, that means more tourists. The Senator from Kentucky says 
emissions are declining. That is true, except in Kentucky they are not 
declining. Soot went up by 20,000 tons in Kentucky, according to the 
EPA, between 2009 and 2010. Some of that might blow into Tennessee, 
drive away jobs, drive away tourists, and make us unhealthy.
  The Bush administration had a similar rule to this in 2005. That rule 
required nearly identical reductions in these two pollutants. Utilities 
have known since that time--for 6 years--these reduction were coming. 
Most utilities, like TVA, have complied with it or are beginning to 
comply with it. If we overturn the rule, it is no solution at all. I am 
ready for Congress to step up and accept its responsibility and do its 
job.
  Someone said to me: Is that part of your new independence? No. I have 
had bipartisan clean air legislation in this Congress every year since 
I have been here, because I think it is our job, not the bureaucrats' 
job. I was elected to work on jobs and health, not pass the buck to the 
bureaucrats and lawyers. So I invite my colleagues to join Senator 
Pryor and me. Let's put the rule into law. Let's give utilities enough 
time to comply. They do not have to comply on January 1, 2012. They 
have to comply 15 months after that in March 2013. We would extend it 
that time another year giving them two years to comply.
  We are going to have a President elected next year. Whoever it is, 
his or her EPA will write new rules for communities across the country 
about how clean their air needs to be. If we make it harder for them to 
do their job, by

[[Page 17009]]

allowing dirty air to blow into Nashville and Chattanooga and Memphis 
and Knoxville from other States, then when Volkswagen suppliers come to 
the State office to get their clean air permit, they will not get it, 
and those jobs will go somewhere else.
  There is a lot I admire about our neighbors in Kentucky, including 
their two distinguished Senators. But I do not want their dirty air 
blowing into Tennessee. And I know North Carolina does not want our 
dirty air blowing into North Carolina, because they have been suing us 
for several years about it.
  The American people are tired of messaging. I want to see the Great 
Smoky Mountains, not the Great Smoggy Mountains. I want tourists to 
come to Tennessee, admire the mountains, and leave their money. I want 
the Volkswagen suppliers to be able to locate their plants in 
Tennessee. I want all Tennesseans to be able to grow up healthy and not 
have to worry about dirty air blowing in from other parts of the 
country.
  The Alexander-Pryor amendment would limit that dirty air. It would 
help our communities. It would make us healthier. It will create jobs. 
Let's do our job. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Paul amendment 
and become a cosponsor of the Alexander-Pryor amendment to clean up the 
air and do it in a way that helps utilities provide electricity at the 
lowest possible cost to the ratepayer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Menendez go for 5 minutes and Senator Blunt for 10 minutes following 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to support the cross-State 
air pollution rule that protects downwind eastern States such as New 
Jersey from upwind power pollution plants' dirty air, and I rise in 
defense of the lives and the breathable air of the people of New 
Jersey, all 9 million plus.
  Last week I asked the Governor of my State to join this fight. After 
all, this rule is supported by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and 
our largest utility, because it is good for business. They know it is 
only fair to level the playing field for New Jersey businesses, since 
we have already substantially cleaned up our electric generation 
facilities. We are meeting our obligations.
  The rule is supported by just about everyone in the public health 
community because it will save an estimated 1,200 lives per year in New 
Jersey beginning in 2014. Nationally, it will save up to 34,000 lives, 
prevent 400,000 asthma attacks, and avoid 1.8 million lost sick days 
per year starting in 2014.
  The economic benefits of this rule are estimated to reach anywhere 
from $120 billion to $280 billion each year. We are all focused like a 
laser beam on the economy, as we should be, on jobs and their creation, 
as we should be, on reducing deficits and looking at the bottom line. 
But this rule does not create or force a choice between trying to grow 
this economy, creating jobs, and reducing deficits. It is a good rule 
for the economy. It is a good rule for the health and well-being of 
Americans, particularly those downwind from the toxic emissions of 
powerplants.
  Let's be clear. Corporate coal powerplants enjoy an enormous subsidy 
that we are trying to repeal with this rule. Those polluters can 
prematurely end 34,000 lives per year and not have to pay anything for 
that loss, not have to pay anything for the health care costs of all of 
those who are afflicted at the end of the day by this dirty air. But 
yet that cost is borne by all of us at the end of the day. To put 
34,000 lives in perspective, that is almost as many American lives as 
are claimed by breast cancer every year. So I ask my colleagues to join 
with me and others in voting against the Paul resolution. It is a vote 
for saving 34,000 lives per year. There are few times in this Chamber 
where you can actually cast a vote that will save a life. This is one 
of those moments.
  Vote for over $120 billion in economic benefits. Vote for cleaner 
air. Let us bequeath to future generations of Americans not air in our 
Nation that is dirty but air that is cleaner. Vote for keeping our 
children healthy. You know, the number of asthma attacks growing in 
this country is enormous. Certainly in my home State, respiratory 
ailments are on the rise. The last thing we need to do is to nullify 
the ability to create cleaner air at the end of the day. It is time for 
us to all see this as an opportunity to ultimately make a difference. 
It is a time for us all to see this disapproval resolution for what it 
is, a path for polluting industries that make us sick without paying 
for the cost it creates. To me, that is the ultimate corporate welfare. 
Let us join together in defeating this short-sighted resolution.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
California, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there was a time when strong bipartisan 
majorities in Congress sided with the interests and views of the 
American people about curbing pollution to safeguard the public's right 
to a clean and healthy environment. Citizens placed their trust in the 
government to act on their behalf, to set science-based health 
standards to protect the air we breathe. On both sides of the aisle, 
there was an understanding that a healthy environment was critical to 
our families, our livelihoods, our economy, and our Nation. To improve 
the Nation's air quality, Congress almost unanimously passed the Clean 
Air Act in 1970, under President Richard Nixon. Congress then passed 
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, again with overwhelming majorities 
in both Chambers, under President George H.W. Bush.
  As part of the 1990 Amendments, Congress specifically required the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to address emissions that 
interfere with another State's ability to protect public health through 
air quality requirements. Yet today we still lack the appropriate 
pollution limits necessary to protect each and every American from 
drifting smog and soot pollutants, and to protect States from bearing 
the health and economic costs of distant polluters who are far beyond 
their purview. With the cross-State air pollution rule, the EPA is 
doing exactly what we in Congress asked them to do. This is also 
exactly what the courts told them to do, and exactly what they should 
do to protect the American public from the hundreds of thousands of 
tons of pollutants emitted each year from coal-fired powerplants.
  These pollutants all too often reach unsafe levels, resulting in air 
quality alerts and dangerous health consequences--all the more so for 
young children, the elderly, and those who already have respiratory 
problems. My own wife Marcelle is a nurse, and she knows from 
experience how harmful air pollution can be in contributing to asthma, 
bronchitis, heart attacks, and even death.
  This cross-State rule will protect the American people from dangerous 
air pollution pumped into our air by the largest polluters. These are 
sensible, workable limits that would tangibly improve Americans' lives. 
These are improvements that would foster a better economy by annually 
preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, 19,000 
emergency room visits, 400,000 aggravated asthma cases and 1.8 million 
sick days.
  By 2014, in Vermont alone, the health benefits will add up to $360 
million each year from these improvements. These changes are literally 
a matter of life and death for many Americans. For example, studies 
show that in our state, curbing smog and soot pollution will allow 44 
Vermonters to celebrate another birthday and live to see the next 
generation of children and grandchildren thrive. In States like 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the cross-State 
rule will save as many as 1,400 to 3,200 lives each year. That is a lot 
of parents, children, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
  However, S.J. Res. 27 would void the life-saving, health-promoting 
cross-State air pollution rule and prohibit

[[Page 17010]]

any future attempt by the EPA to limit unsafe levels of air pollutants 
that drift across state boundaries--making it one of the all-time most 
harmful and egregious attacks on the Clean Air Act and on the health of 
the people we represent. If passed, this resolution would force the EPA 
to ignore dangerous, drifting emissions forever, compelling Americans 
to accept shorter lives, to accept the risk of heart attacks and 
strokes, to suffer with asthma and other serious illnesses, and to 
accept the degraded quality of the Nation's parks, waterways, and 
forests. Those are not things that I am willing to accept and no Member 
of the Senate should support.
  Powerful special interests and their allies who want to overturn the 
cross-State rule are asking Americans to suffer to save the economy, 
but their economic arguments fall flat in the face of the evidence. The 
truth is, nothing will sink the economy more than degrading our 
environment and poisoning our workforce. Pollution regulations help to 
lower health care costs, maintain worker productivity, and support 
local economies through recreational industries. The cross-State rule 
will have national benefits of up to $280 billion annually. This dwarfs 
the annual compliance costs of about $800 million in 2014, which helps 
explain why most Americans believe that health-based pollution 
standards are essential in safeguarding our families and our economy.
  For decades, evidence has shown that pollution limits fuel spending 
and create jobs in producing, installing and monitoring control 
technology and emissions. In fact, utilities have already spent $1.6 
billion installing pollution controls to meet current air quality 
requirements and anticipated requirements under the cross-State rule. 
Furthermore, powerplants have already achieved more than two-thirds of 
the pollution reductions necessary to comply with the cross-State 
standards that go into full effect in 2014. Studies already show that 
the EPA's proposed air toxics rule and cross-State rule combined will 
create almost 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years.
  Undoing this rule now will nullify, or potentially even reverse, 
these important pollution reductions. It will also harm the many 
businesses that have made investments in clean air technologies, while 
perversely rewarding those plants that refused to make the sensible, 
long-term investments required by a rule that is nearly a decade in the 
making.
  Vermont has no coal-fired powerplants, but we do have people 
suffering with asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and we do have 
an economy that depends on the health of our environment. In Vermont, 
we have made, and continue to make, decisions to invest in clean fuels 
and technologies. We do this because we value good health and family, 
friends, and the outdoors. We do this to preserve the quality of life a 
healthy environment provides us. We do this so that future generations 
have access to clean air and all the benefits that come with healthy, 
vibrant communities. But without the cross-State rule, we are powerless 
to fully protect our Green Mountain State.
  Reckless decisions regarding public health policy, especially in such 
a broad manner as this resolution, should not be fast-tracked through 
the Congressional Review Act process. This resolution goes much too 
far, putting people permanently at risk by rolling back decades of 
progress to make the air we breathe safer for each and every American, 
especially for our children and seniors. The Clean Air Act has a proven 
record of improving public health, the environment, and our economy. 
The cross-State air pollution rule is in keeping with that impressive 
record: These standards are conservatively estimated to produce net 
benefits exceeding $100 billion a year. With today's spiraling health 
care costs, this is a cost-effective way to help control harmful 
pollution, save lives and foster a healthy environment and economy for 
future generations. I oppose S.J. Res. 27 and encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose Senator Paul's resolution 
of disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, cross-
State air pollution rule because I believe that it is an extreme 
measure that is anti-clean air and water, anti-jobs and business, anti-
public health, and could potentially prevent EPA from protecting the 
public from cross-state pollution indefinitely.
  EPA finalized the cross-State air pollution rule on July 2011, 
establishing a cost effective program to reduce sulfur dioxide and 
nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired powerplants that negatively 
affect citizens in downwind States. The rule updates a 1997 Clean Air 
Act standard and replaces a 2008 standard that was struck down by the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Because this rule replaces the vacated rule from the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals, if this resolution succeeds, by law EPA will not be 
able to issue a ``substantially similar'' rule, which means that 
supporting this resolution could prohibit EPA indefinitely from 
promulgating any rule to control cross state air pollution. This would 
be an enormous step backwards.
  Contrary to what those who support this Resolution would like you to 
believe, the cross-State air pollution rule is a very reasonable 
regulation. By 2014, EPA estimates this Rule will yield up to $280 
billion in annual health and environmental benefits, far outweighing 
the $800 million in annual projected costs. EPA worked closely with 
industry and specifically designed this rule to give powerplants 
maximum flexibility and keep compliance costs low. Not implementing 
this rule would mean that local businesses in many Eastern States would 
have to turn to more expensive, less cost efficient controls to meet 
air pollution standards.
  Also contrary to what those who support this resolution are saying, 
the cross-State rule would mean more certainty, not less, for business. 
Powerplants have known this rule was coming for years, and getting rid 
of it would create serious uncertainly by throwing the issue back to 
the courts and reopening it to lawsuits. This could mean years of 
continued uncertainty for companies who won't know what standards they 
will be held to. The cross-State rule gives power plants the certainty 
they need.
  The cross-State air pollution rule also creates jobs. The University 
of Massachusetts's Political Economy Research Institute estimates that 
this rule and EPA's other recent clean air rule--the Air Toxics MACT--
together will create nearly 300,000 jobs a year on average over the 
next 5 years. In fact, thanks to environmental regulations under the 
Clean Air Act, since 1970, we have created millions of jobs in 
pollution control and environmental technologies industries, and the 
United States exports tens of billions of dollars of pollution control 
technologies annually. Using a term often thrown around these days, 
Senator Paul's resolution would be ``job killing.''
  Most importantly, nullifying this rule will have significant and 
immediate negative public health effects, especially for our children, 
seniors, and other vulnerable populations. In Massachusetts alone, the 
cross-State rule it is expected to avoid up to 390 deaths each year and 
result in up to $3.2 billion of annual health and environmental 
benefits. Nationally, by 2014, each year it will prevent up to 34,000 
premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 hospital and 
emergency room visits, 1.8 million days of missed work or school, 
400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and the list goes on.
  These are not just statistics; these are real children who have to 
sit on the sidelines during a soccer game or are up wheezing late at 
night and making emergency trips to the hospital; laborers who can't 
finish a shift because of respiratory problems; senior citizens whose 
quality of life is dramatically diminished because they must be 
attached to a respirator 24 hours a day; and so many more. I recently 
heard the story of 6-year-old Mia Murphy in Massachusetts whose mother, 
Rachael Murphy, lives in fear of her daughter's next asthma attack. 
Only 6 years old, Mia can have coughing fits that last for hours. It is 
terrifying for both Mia and her mother when Mia can't

[[Page 17011]]

breathe. Mia needs to take daily medication to control her asthma, but 
when she has a flare up, only a 5-day course of high dosage steroids 
can relieve her symptoms. While these steroid courses help, they also 
cause Mia to have nightmares and emotional outbursts. For Mia, a normal 
cold can cause a flareup for weeks. As Mia's mother says, ``Children 
rely on us to keep them safe.'' All children have a right to clean air. 
With other citizens in Massachusetts, Rachael has bravely spoken out to 
support efforts like the cross-State rule to improve the air quality in 
Massachusetts to help keep her children healthy. Without this rule, 
Massachusetts and other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States will not be 
able to control air pollution in the region at a level that protects 
the public health of our citizens.
  Forty years of the Clean Air Act have proven that environmental 
protection and economic growth go hand in hand. The American people 
support the Clean Air Act because they know it has improved our 
Nation's air quality and protected public health. S.J. Res. 27 would 
undermine this progress at the expense of America's most vulnerable 
populations. We cannot in good conscious let it pass.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to 
Senator Rand Paul's resolution that would disapprove of the cross-State 
air pollution rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  EPA's cross-State air pollution rule, also known as ``CSAPR,'' 
requires reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that 
contribute to smog and fine particle pollution in downwind areas. To 
minimize costs, EPA allows trading of air pollution permits and also 
provides flexibility to States for implementing the rule.
  The State of Michigan, in particular west Michigan, has air quality 
problems due to pollution from areas such as Chicago, Milwaukee, and 
Gary. Poor air quality not only causes a variety of health problems, 
such as asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments, but also has 
a detrimental impact on economic development and job creation. It 
simply makes no sense for a region to be penalized with pollution and 
requirements that could limit economic growth when the source of 
pollution comes from outside of that region. For that reason, I support 
the goal of the EPA rule.
  I am pleased that EPA's cross-State air pollution rule is expected to 
help some Michigan counties meet the national air quality standards for 
smog and fine particulate matter. However, I am concerned that the rule 
does not appear to adequately address a number of air pollution 
problems in west Michigan caused by out of State sources. In 2014, 
Allegan County is projected to not be able to meet the national air 
quality standard for smog, even though Allegan County is not the source 
of the pollution. In fact, a 2009 EPA study concluded that smog levels 
in Allegan County and other areas in west Michigan are primarily due to 
transport of smog and smog-forming emissions from other major urban 
areas outside of Michigan. It is unfair for Allegan County--or any 
other county--to be penalized due to pollution sources outside of their 
control. This rule fails to remedy the kind of unfair situation Allegan 
County finds itself in.
  The Rand Paul disapproval resolution would not only overturn the EPA 
regulation but any substantially similar rule. The rule can be 
improved, e.g., establishing better linkages between the source of 
pollution and downwind poor air quality, and adjusting the upwind 
emission requirements accordingly, but enactment of this resolution 
would prevent that from occurring.
  For these reasons, I will oppose the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BLUNT. I rise in support of this resolution, a resolution that 
would allow the Congress to say this is a rule we should not go forward 
with, the EPA cross-border air pollution resolution of disapproval or 
the so-called transport rule, which places mandates on powerplants in 
certain States in order to spare neighboring States from emissions.
  The compliance date for this rule is around the corner. It is January 
1, 2012. It is an extraordinary time to comply with a rule that the EPA 
just issued in July. Six months to look at so much of the electric 
transmission capacity of the country does not make sense to me, and I 
think will not make sense to utility bill payers once they get their 
utility bills.
  The Clean Air Act says that States are usually left to decide how 
best to meet new EPA rules, including decisions about compliance time.
  By mandating this arbitrary deadline, the EPA will only put more 
pressure on job creators who are struggling to make ends meet as it is.
  Another upcoming mandate from the EPA is the so-called utility MACT 
rule, a rule that deals with mercury. The combination of this transport 
rule and utility MACT rule will be devastating for our economy.
  In fact, the combined effect of these two rules will cost Americans 
1.4 million jobs by 2020, according to a NERA Economic Consulting 
study--1.4 million jobs. Where will those jobs go? They will go to some 
country that cares a lot less about what comes out of the smokestack 
than we do. The problem gets worse, not better.
  These two rules will cause electricity rates to skyrocket over 20 
percent in some regions of the country, according to the same study. We 
all remember the President's comments to the San Francisco Chronicle in 
2008, where he said that under his policies electricity rates would 
necessarily skyrocket. The plan appears to be working. But is that the 
right plan for a country with 9 percent unemployment? Is that the right 
plan for a country where the No. 1 priority in the private sector is 
job creation? I don't think so.
  Congress roundly and soundly rejected the House-passed--at least the 
Senate rejected it, and this Congress would reject the House-passed 
cap-and-trade idea that came from the administration. Now the EPA is 
trying to circumvent the will of the legislature by imposing cap-and-
trade results with things such as the transport rule and the utility 
MACT rule. Unfortunately, these burdensome regulations will have the 
impact the President predicted; they will raise utility bills.
  Higher electricity rates mean a higher cost of doing business. There 
is no doubt the higher costs will be passed down to families across 
America. There is no doubt the higher costs will cost jobs.
  If we stand by and allow the EPA to impose these job-destroying 
regulations, job creators, families, seniors, and small business owners 
will be hit by a costly tax hike that comes in the utility bill. We 
should not allow this to happen.
  I intend to vote for this proposal that would say this is not going 
to be a rule that becomes law, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.


                        Remembering Mel Hancock

  Mr. President, I wish to talk about a champion for a better and 
smaller government and an opponent of all job-killing regulations, and, 
in addition, a good friend and adviser of mine, someone whom many of us 
served with in the House, Mel Hancock, who was my predecessor in the 
House, where he served four terms because that was his pledge--that was 
the most he would serve.
  He was much more than a politician. Mel Hancock was truly the 
``citizen legislator,'' the individual who got into government only to 
make government better. Mel learned the ins and outs of the political 
system and developed a philosophy about taxes and government long 
before he came to Congress and, frankly, long before that philosophy 
became the philosophy that is so prevalent today.
  Living in rural Stone County, MO, Mel Hancock had a profound 
influence from his father, John Hancock, and John Hancock spoke about 
his concerns about a growing and intrusive Federal Government. ``The 
power to tax is the power to destroy,'' Mel remembered hearing his 
father say.
  Mel didn't hold public office until 1989. He sold farm equipment 
while in college and spent 10 years in the insurance business, where he 
became well

[[Page 17012]]

known to many small business owners. In 1969, he started his own 
business called Federal Protection, Inc.
  In 1977, when proposition 13 passed in California, he became the 
person who drove that issue in our State. One year later, in 1978, Mel 
and his wife Sug joined a small group around their kitchen table and 
formed a group that began to fight the idea of an overregulating, 
overtaxing government.
  In 1980, in our State, voters passed what was called the Hancock 
amendment. That was one of the first State tax limitation amendments in 
the United States. Mel Hancock developed this amendment using a formula 
that limits total State revenue and expenses in Missouri to a 
percentage of personal income of residents in the State. It also 
required new local taxes, licenses or fees to be approved by voters in 
political subdivisions.
  His public service didn't stop there. He ran for Congress when our 
local Congressman retired. He announced his candidacy and won in a 
crowded primary. As part of that campaign, Mel declared his intention 
to serve only a brief amount of time. In fact, he went on to be an 
advocate for term limits for the Missouri State legislature as well.
  During his first three terms in the Congress, he served in the 
minority. But a sea change in 1994 took him to the majority, but it 
didn't change his pledge to be there only four terms. He got exactly 
what he wanted in the new Congress--a seat on the Ways and Means 
Committee. He walked away from that 2 years later, keeping his pledge 
to Missourians.
  As a lifelong Republican, Mel built a reputation that reminded many 
of another Missourian, as his campaign theme became ``Give 'em Mel.''
  Through his work in Washington and Missouri, he was decidedly ahead 
of his time. He rolled up his sleeves and went to work, taking the 
initiative to protect citizens and taxpayers from unrestricted taxes 
and the power of government, and he always remembered where he came 
from.
  Mel was, first and foremost, devoted to his family, his wife Sug, 
whom he always called the boss, and his greatest pride was his 
children--Lee, Lu Ann, and Kim--and later grandchildren. He went right 
to work here. Mel became part of Washington. He often said that every 
day in America we decide between more government and less freedom or 
more freedom and less government. Mel Hancock could be counted on to 
always be on the side of more freedom.
  I didn't go to his memorial service today because I decided the best 
way to recognize his legacy was to be here and vote against these two 
rules that he certainly would oppose if he was still in the Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on the Republican side and on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes 50 seconds on the 
Republican side, 28 minutes 15 seconds on the Democratic side.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I will use some time on our side until we have 
another speaker, which will probably about be 5 minutes. I know Senator 
Reid will want to have the floor.
  Mr. President, this is a very important vote that is coming up. I 
wish to put into perspective what we are talking about. In 1997--by my 
calculation, that is 14 years ago--several States went to the EPA and 
said their people were suffering because certain States were producing 
horrible pollution--toxic, dirty pollution--and it was floating right 
over to their States and then their States had to face the impact of 
that pollution, which was causing asthma attacks, heart attacks, 
cardiovascular problems, all sorts of problems and that their State, 
the recipient of the dirty air, was then expected to clean it up.
  I liken that to this: If you had toxic garbage in your house and went 
and dumped it on your neighbor's front lawn and said now it is your 
problem. That is not what we believe in America. We believe in 
responsibility.
  But the Paul amendment would say, no, we cannot ask those States that 
are producing pollution that is floating to other States and harming 
their people to do anything about it. That is what this rule is about. 
It is the cross-State air pollution rule. The pollution goes across one 
State into another. I believe 38 States would be adversely impacted if 
the Paul resolution were to pass.
  Let's look at this. I am not just being rhetorical. The scientists 
have looked at this. They said that if the Paul amendment were to pass 
and we repeal this cross-State air pollution rule and States could feel 
very fine about dumping their pollution in another State, there would 
be 34,000 cases of premature death, there would be 19,000 emergency 
room and hospital visits, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, 
and 1.8 million lost work and schooldays, and we would lose up to $280 
billion in annual benefits by 2014.
  So anyone who stands in this Chamber and tells us that by voting for 
the Paul resolution we are helping people, don't fall for it. It is 
wrong. If anyone comes to this floor and says: Oh, this is about jobs, 
it is wrong--because if we cannot breathe, we cannot work. Lost days at 
work are an economic burden. If we turn the clock back, all this great 
clean-tech economy we have, which is exported to the rest of the 
world--and it is huge; it employs more than 1 million people--we hurt 
those jobs. So the Paul resolution, which would cancel out a very 
important protective air pollution rule that helps our people--that 
resolution is one of the worst things to come before this Senate.
  Let me tell you who backs me on this: The American Association of 
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehab, the American Association of 
Respiratory Care, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the 
American Lung Association, the American Nurses Association, the 
American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the 
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the National Association of 
Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, the National Association of 
County and City Health Officials, the National Home Oxygen Patients 
Association--which sees people gasping for air.
  Have you ever seen a child gasp for air? It is something you don't 
forget. I will show a photo of a beautiful child who is forced to wear 
one of these inhalers too often because she cannot breathe. We hear 
lots of things: Oh, we need more time for this. How about the polluters 
knew about this since 1997? How about since 2005, when they learned the 
Bush administration rule was too weak--how about that?
  I see Senator Carper. Since we are going back and forth, this would 
be a good time for Senator Lee to speak. How much time is Senator Lee 
going to need?
  Mr. LEE. About 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes for 
Senator Lee, followed by 8 minutes for Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The junior Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand in support of this resolution. I do 
so for the following reason. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution 
makes abundantly clear that the legislative power of the United States 
shall be vested in Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and House 
of Representatives.
  Legislative power is the power to make rules carrying the force of 
generally applicable law--in this instance, generally applicable 
Federal law. It was with wise reason that our Founding Fathers 
entrusted this power to those people entrusted by the citizens of the 
respective States for a limited time to make law because they 
understood that those who have the power to make law have the power to 
infringe on the individual liberties of the American people, such that 
whenever they exceed those powers, they can be held accountable to 
those they represent and on whose behalf they will be legislating.
  Every single time we act, we have an effect on the American people. 
We need to be held accountable at regular intervals for those 
decisions--every 6 years in the case of Senators, every 2 years in the 
case of Members of the House of Representatives.

[[Page 17013]]

  Occasionally, Congress has chosen to delegate that power. For 
instance, Congress might say we hereby enact the Clean Air Act and give 
power to the EPA to implement rules and enforce those rules, to make 
sure we have clean air. To the extent that we do that, particularly 
where the EPA or some other agency acts in a way that might have a very 
significant impact on our economy, I think we are selling the American 
people short of their birthright, which is the guarantee that laws will 
not be made on their behalf, particularly significant ones such as the 
one we are addressing today, without those who voted for them being 
held accountable.
  There are great people at the EPA, as there are in every branch and 
office of our Federal Government. But it is only those people in 
Congress who are constitutionally authorized to make generally 
applicable Federal law. It is only these people who stand at regular 
intervals for reelection, accountable to their people. This is what the 
Congressional Review Act does. This is why this approach, this 
resolution under the Congressional Review Act, is so important.
  I have heard some of my colleagues suggest this somehow represents an 
attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process. What I am saying 
is, this is the normal legislative process. When we are looking at a 
rule that by the EPA's own estimates could cost as many 3,000 energy 
sector jobs and could cost the American people $2.4 billion in 
compliance costs annually, we need to look seriously at the fact that 
we need to hold ourselves accountable.
  If this rule is a good idea, if in fact this is necessary to protect 
the American people, if in fact the benefits of this outweigh the 
costs, then we should be confident. We should be comfortable discussing 
it, debating it, and passing it into law. That is what we are doing.
  I am supporting this resolution because I support the legislative 
process envisioned and mandated by the Constitution, and I urge each of 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am compelled to rise in opposition to 
this resolution which would block the EPA's ``good neighbor'' clean air 
rule from being implemented.
  Before I talk about the real-world impacts that would result if we 
block this new clean air rule, I would like to go back in time 21 years 
ago when this body debated the last major update to the Clean Air Act.
  That day, we weren't debating how to weaken or delay our clean air 
laws, we were considering bipartisan legislation that would improve our 
clean air laws and make them stronger. Eighty-nine Senators approved 
the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, a Republican President, George 
Herbert Walker Bush, signed them into law, and we are all the better 
for it.
  I believe we can protect our environment and grow our economy at the 
same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The Clean Air Act 
amendments of 1990 are great examples of just that. For every dollar we 
have spent installing new pollution controls and cleaning up our air, 
we have seen a $30 return in reduced health care costs, better 
workplace productivity, and saved lives. In other words, for four 
decades fewer people have gotten sick and missed work because of the 
Clean Air Act.
  Just last year, it is estimated that 160,000 lives were saved from 
the Clean Air Act protections in place today. Here is some more good 
news. Our economy didn't take a slide because of these protections 
either. Quite the opposite. Since former President Bush signed the 
bipartisan Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 into law, electricity rates 
have stayed constant, and our economy has grown by 60 percent.
  Despite the successes, more needs to be done. We know more today than 
we did 20 or 30 years ago about how pollution impairs our health. We 
know even more about how pollution travels from one State to another. 
We know more about how to curb that pollution in ways that make sense 
and are cost effective.
  My State of Delaware has made great strides in cleaning up its own 
air pollution--investing millions in clean air technology. 
Unfortunately, air pollution knows no State boundaries and easily 
drifts from State to State. Delaware, like many east coast States, sits 
at the end of what I call America's tailpipe. That means most of the 
pollution in Delaware isn't caused by sources in my State. It is caused 
mainly by sources in Ohio, Indiana, or other States in the Midwest. In 
fact, 90 percent of Delaware's air pollution comes from beyond our 
borders.
  As Governor of Delaware, I could have shut down our entire State 
economy, and we would still have been out of attainment of public 
health standards. This is pollution we need our neighbors to clean up. 
Unfortunately, that hasn't always happened.
  Sadly, many of our upwind neighbors have not invested heavily enough 
in new clean air technologies. Some States have even built taller 
smokestacks so the pollution would fall on neighboring States, keeping 
their air clean and making our air dirty. At the end of the day, 
downwind States can spend millions of dollars to clean up their act, 
but unless we require upwind States to make serious reductions, States 
like mine would not get much healthier and people will continue to get 
sick and die.
  For all Delawareans and all the others who are living at the end of 
that tailpipe, I say enough is enough. The EPA and the courts agree. 
This is why the EPA has implemented this cross-State air pollution 
rule. This rule follows the intent and the direction of the Clean Air 
Act amendments of 1990. It ensures that all of us do our fair share to 
reduce air pollution.
  That is the way it ought to be. Like my colleagues, I try to live my 
life by the Golden Rule, to treat other people the way I want to be 
treated. That is why this rule is fair. My State and neighboring States 
shouldn't have to suffer because other States aren't required to clean 
up their act at our expense.
  Furthermore, even if we ignore the fairness and equity arguments for 
the cross-State air pollution rule, it is still a no-brainer because 
the cost-to-benefit ratio of these new protections is overwhelming. 
This rule will save up to 34,000 lives every year. That is roughly the 
number of people who fit into Fenway Park for a Red Sox game. All these 
great benefits will be negated if this resolution passes.
  To my friends who are thinking about voting for this resolution, let 
me ask you this: What if the prevailing winds in this country blew 
instead of west to east, from east to west? What if those of us who 
live along the east coast, from Virginia to Maine, chose to operate 
older, dirty coal-fired electric plants? What if we built tall 
smokestacks that sent the harmful emissions coming from our plants 
upward into the air to be carried away by the winds from our regions 
only to end up in the air and breathed by people living in areas to our 
west? What if by operating these older, dirtier powerplants we lowered 
the cost of electricity along the east coast while raising it for our 
neighbors in the Midwest? What if by operating these older, dirtier 
powerplants we decreased the health care costs associated with dirty 
air for Americans living along the east coast while increasing health 
care costs for Americans living in the Midwest?
  I will tell you what they would say. They would say it is unfair. 
They would say we shouldn't be able to get away with polluting their 
communities year after year. They would say somebody should right this 
wrong. They would say: Haven't you heard about the Golden Rule; that we 
should treat all others the way we want to be treated? They would say 
enough is enough.
  Here are the facts. The technology exists to end this scourge of 
pollution. Utilities all around the country have already installed it. 
In doing so, they have put tens of thousands of people to work, 
including hundreds in my own State of Delaware. The utilities have the 
money. We have a trained workforce that wants to go to work. We just 
need to act.
  A clean environment and a strong economy can go hand in hand. We 
don't

[[Page 17014]]

have to choose between one or the other. Join me in defeating this 
proposal. Give your neighbors who live in our part of the country--give 
their kids and their grandparents--air to breathe that would not send 
them home from school or work or off to the emergency room and into a 
hospital or worse yet, take their lives.
  Please join me and vote no against this motion to proceed to this 
resolution.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Texas has some of the most highly 
industrialized and populated areas in the Nation, and air quality in 
these and other areas of the State is improving. We are actually taking 
very positive steps toward reduction of pollutants. For example, ozone 
has been reduced by 27 percent across our State since 2000, and 
nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone formation, has been reduced by 58 
percent over roughly the same period of time.
  But I rise in support of this resolution because it represents 
regulatory overreach and an abuse of power. This rule, when it takes 
effect January 1, will significantly harm grid reliability, destroy 
jobs, and raise electricity prices for consumers living on a fixed 
income and for businesses we are depending upon to create jobs in our 
country.
  The reason this rule is an abuse of power as regards to the State of 
Texas is that we were not included in the rule when the Environmental 
Protection Agency first proposed it. Suddenly, miraculously, we were 
included in the final rule. Having less than a year ago concluded that 
Texas emissions have no significant downwind effects, the EPA has 
reversed course and included us in this rule without the opportunity to 
challenge the claim.
  Without fair notice, the EPA has mandated that Texas slash its 
SO2 emissions by half and greatly reduce NOX 
emissions in less than 5 months--an unprecedented and impossible 
timetable with which to comply. The standard timeframe for permitting 
and constructing and installing new emissions controls is several 
years. But as a result of this abuse of power by the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and without due process and fair notice and the 
opportunity to be heard, this rule is being imposed on my State.
  Already, one power producer has announced that 500 jobs will be lost. 
The integrity of our State grid is at risk. Our grid operator has said 
as a result of the unprecedented heat wave and the historic drought 
Texas has been experiencing, if we had had these rules in place last 
summer we would have experienced rolling outages during August, when 
people were relying on their air conditioners to deal with triple-digit 
temperatures. This would have meant rolling blackouts, businesses 
forced to cut back, hardships--even to the threat of safety--for many 
of our senior citizens.
  I visited some of those seniors in Houston, TX, recently, and, of 
course, many of them are on a fixed income. They can't afford to pay 
more for their electricity bills. They are struggling to pay their 
bills right now, and they sure don't want to have to experience the 
potential hardship or public safety hazard of having a brownout or a 
blackout or outage should they need their heat during the winter or 
their air-conditioning during the summer.
  The EPA has said: Well, we got it approximately right, but we are 
going to make some revisions. But revisions are not enough. The EPA 
recently corrected errors from modeling assumptions and corresponding 
emissions budgets for several of the States under the rule, but other 
mistakes remain.
  Haste makes waste, Mr. President. We know that is true. Why can't the 
EPA do it the right way? Give us some time, notice, and opportunity to 
be heard so we can get this done right.
  The EPA overestimates base generation capacity for our grid by 20,000 
megawatts. This includes 100 percent of the installed wind generation 
in Texas--as though wind power is always available. Our electric grid 
derates wind generation to 8.7 percent due to its unpredictability and 
reliability as a generation source. Put, simply, the wind does not blow 
24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This estimate also includes 
powerplants that are currently retired and mothballed.
  So the EPA got it wrong. But when we say: Please, give us a chance to 
show you the facts and to show you the science that would help make our 
air more clean but not kill jobs and create hardship for our senior 
citizens and those on fixed incomes, their answer is, tough luck, tough 
luck.
  Our only recourse, Mr. President, is to support a resolution such as 
this one because we cannot get fundamental fairness from this agency of 
the Federal Government when it comes to my State. So I support the 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 1\1/2\ minutes, and the 
Democratic side has 16 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have heard the same theme over and over 
from our Republican friends: We need time, give us time. The EPA is 
rushing this.
  Well, how much time do they need to fix a problem that is forcing 
children to put on these inhalers? How much time do they need to 
enforce a rule that is keeping people from dying prematurely; that is 
keeping them from getting heart attacks?
  Here is the deal. In 1997, several States went to the EPA and said: 
Something is really wrong. We have kids like this gasping for air, and 
the air pollution isn't coming from our State. It is coming from the 
States to the west of us.
  Now, I want to make it clear that my State of California doesn't have 
a dog in this fight. We are not involved in this. We don't pollute. We 
don't have a lot of coal-powered plants. And we are in the far west. 
Frankly, having that ocean along our State helps us. We have plenty of 
air pollution, but we are not getting it from another State to our 
west. So I stand here speaking, frankly, as a Senator who cares about 
clean air, who cares about the public health, and who also sees this as 
a moral issue.
  I have said this every way I can say it. It is immoral to take poison 
and put it on someone else's front yard. It is immoral to walk away 
from your responsibility, particularly if you have a truck to put it in 
and take it away.
  Well, we have the technology to make cleaner utilities, to make 
cleaner power. And as my friend Tom Carper so eloquently stated, clean 
tech creates jobs.
  We have the technology. We have the ability to create jobs cleaning 
up the environment. We have an ability to make sure fewer children, 
such as this beautiful child, don't have to resort to inhalers if we 
clean up our powerplants, and we have the ability to do that. The other 
side is crying, We need time. That is all we need, we need time. Well, 
I think 14 years is enough time.
  Then in 2005, the courts said again how important it was to do this. 
So they knew about this in 1997, they knew about it in 2005, and now 
they are crying bitter tears and they want to continue to dump poison 
in States next door. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the 
Republican Party's desire to repeal important health and safety 
regulations. The American people do not agree with it.
  Let me show you a poll that was taken last month in terms of where 
people stand. This cross-State air pollution rule is very popular with 
the people of this country because they see very clearly. I think when 
we were kids our moms always said, clean up your room. You know, you 
owe it to the rest of the family, clean up your room. Polluters have to 
clean up their room. Polluters can't pollute at will and, as Senator 
Carper said, build these big

[[Page 17015]]

smokestacks and blow that pollution over to, in this case, 38 other 
States and hurt the people in those States. That is not the American 
way. What Senator Paul is doing is the height of irresponsibility.
  I want to put back the picture of that child again.
  How is it responsible to allow the pollution to go on and on and on 
when you have the technology developed to stop it, and when it is 
moving out of your State and going to another State and harming 
children?
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, I wish to thank the Senator for her leadership on 
this issue, and I wish to direct a question through the Chair.
  I noticed earlier that Senator Paul, who is asking for us to 
basically eliminate the standard of protection when it comes to air 
pollution that crosses State boundaries, if I am not mistaken, his 
resolution would eliminate the standard.
  Mrs. BOXER. It would.
  Mr. DURBIN. There would be none. And if I am not mistaken as well, he 
has said on the floor this has no direct impact on asthma and pulmonary 
disease, even producing a chart to that effect.
  I wish to ask the Senator from California--because I visited an 
emergency room hospital, one of the children's hospitals in Chicago, 
and the emergency room physician said to me, Do you know what the No. 1 
reason is that children show up in emergency rooms? And I said, Fall 
off their bicycles? Trauma? No. Asthma. Asthma.
  She said, Senator, I will have young people come into this emergency 
room who are fighting for breath, saying, I am asthmatic and I can't 
breathe, and I watch as they die in front of me. That is the reality of 
asthma. This isn't just an inconvenience; it is life threatening.
  I wish to ask the Senator from California on what basis could any 
Senator say there is no connection between air pollution, soot, and the 
particles in the air, and pulmonary disease and asthma?
  Mr. PAUL. Senator, I would be happy to answer that question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I directed the question to the Senator from California. I 
don't know what the timeframe is, but I am happy to have her response.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will respond on my time; the Senator can respond on 
his.
  Let me tell you something. As far as I know, we do not have one 
person in this Senate who is a physician with a degree in lung 
specialty, thoracic specialty, cardiovascular specialty; therefore, we 
need to look to those people.
  You are right. When you go to the hospital and talk to physicians, 
they will tell you about children dying in their arms. I have seen that 
testimony, I have heard it in front of our committee. The fact is, this 
rule will prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks and 1.8 
million lost work and school days. This is factual.
  I want to say that hearing people come on this floor questioning 
whether there is an association between soot in the air and asthma 
attacks, frankly, is to me unimaginable. And we have all of the health 
organizations that disagree with Senator Paul on that.
  Mr. DURBIN. I wish to ask another question through the Chair of the 
Senator from California.
  Two weeks ago, I went to the University of Illinois Children's 
Hospital. A woman came there who had been suffering from asthma her 
entire life and talked to me about how there were days when the air was 
so bad, she couldn't go outside, children there with their parents and 
doctors telling me exactly the same thing. Yet those who are trying to 
repeal this air safety rule--Senator Paul and those who support him--
are arguing these doctors and patients are wrong. So I wish to ask the 
Senator, because she was alluding to it here, what kind of medical 
support do you have for your position that Senator Paul's amendment, if 
it passes, will endanger the lives of those who are currently suffering 
from asthma, pulmonary disease, and maybe cardiovascular disease? And 
tell me what medical groups have come forward on one side or the other, 
please.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. I don't know of any medical groups that 
support the Paul resolution. But I do have in my hand a letter signed 
by many groups, which I wish to quote from.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this important 
letter Senator Durbin is speaking of.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 November 4, 2011.
       Dear Senator: Our organizations write to express our strong 
     opposition to S.J. Res. 27, a resolution by Senator Rand Paul 
     that employs the Congressional Review Act to reverse the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final Cross-State Air 
     Pollution Rule (CSAPR). If enacted, S.J. Res. 27 would vacate 
     CSAPR and the lifesaving protections it provides to the 
     public and bar EPA from reissuing any substantially similar 
     clean air protections without express Congressional 
     authorization.
       CSAPR requires power plants to substantially reduce 
     emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that 
     contribute to life-threatening particulate matter and ozone 
     air pollution in downwind states. Ozone and particulate 
     matter are associated with numerous adverse health effects, 
     including lung disease, irreversible reductions in lung 
     function, asthma attacks, aggravation of other respiratory 
     and cardiovascular diseases, and premature death. EPA 
     estimates that CSAPR will prevent up to 34,000 premature 
     deaths, 400,000 asthma attacks, 15,000 heart attacks, and 
     19,000 hospital visits each year starting in 2014.
       The rule covers emission sources in 28 states. It was 
     developed after an earlier rule, known as the Clean Air 
     Interstate Rule was deemed illegal and an insufficient 
     response to the health threats posed by cross-state 
     pollution. CSAPR provides much-needed public health benefits 
     by reducing upwind air pollution that significantly 
     contributes to ozone or particle pollution in downwind areas. 
     Blocking CSAPR, S.J. Res. 27 would force people living in 
     downwind states to continue to suffer from high levels of 
     unhealthy pollution from out-of-state power plants.
       A vast majority of the public opposes Congressional 
     interference with EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act. 
     According to a nationwide, bipartisan study conducted for the 
     American Lung Association, seventy-two percent of voters 
     oppose Congressional action blocking EPA from updating clean 
     air standards. Sixty-six percent of voters think the EPA 
     should set pollution standards, not Members of Congress.
       We urge you to vote ``No'' on S.J. Res. 27 and similar 
     attacks on CSAPR. The public health benefits of CSAPR are 
     long overdue. We hope your constituents can count on you to 
     protect their health in the face of efforts to block, delay 
     and weaken these lifesaving protections.
           Sincerely,
         American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary 
           Rehabilitation, American Association of Respiratory 
           Care, American College of Preventive Medicine, American 
           Lung Association, American Nurses Association, American 
           Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, 
           Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National 
           Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, 
           National Association of County and City Health 
           Officials, National Home Oxygen Patients Association 
           Trust for America's Health.

  Mrs. BOXER. Blocking the cross-air pollution rule, cross-State 
pollution rule would force people living in downwind States to continue 
to suffer from high levels of unhealthy pollution from out-of-State 
powerplants. They say they express their strong opposition. They say 
ozone and particulate matter are associated with numerous adverse 
health effects, including lung disease, irreversible reductions in lung 
function--irreversible.
  So it is not as though you have a bad day and you are gasping for 
air, and suddenly the next day it comes back. Irreversible reduction in 
lung function. Asthma attacks. And, by the way, we are told there will 
be 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if we go back on this 
rule. Aggravation of other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. 
And, I would say to the Senator, they add premature death. Here they 
are saying 34,000 cases of premature death. I will give you a few of 
the names of the people who signed this.
  I am so glad the Senator came down here. He has been such a great 
leader on these issues and, I want to say for the record, led me and so 
many others, the majority of the House, in saying no more smoking on 
airplanes. And, boy, we remembered how it was in those days, and I know 
the Senator's personal experience with lack of lung

[[Page 17016]]

function and his own dad. So the Senator coming over here today is very 
appreciated. I will give you the names of some of these organizations.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am glad the Senator entered it in the Record. If the 
Senator will yield for one more question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will.
  Mr. DURBIN. It seems to me that the Republican argument from Senator 
Paul comes along two lines. First, air pollution doesn't hurt, so don't 
be worried if there is more of it. And what we have is medical evidence 
and testimony from the experts he is wrong. I don't know if he 
presented any doctors--I would love to know--who support that position, 
that air pollution doesn't cause problems. We know it does. It stands 
to reason it does. Medical and human experience tells us.
  The second argument that he is making, if you can get past the first, 
is this is how we are going to create jobs in America. On 168 separate 
occasions, the Republican-led House of Representatives has sought to 
repeal those environmental protections of our air and the safety of the 
water we drink, and they have bragged about it, saying when we get rid 
of all of these standards on air and water pollution, more Americans 
will go to work.
  I wish to ask the Senator from California to respond, because the way 
I see it, if the Paul resolution passes, sadly, the people who will go 
to work are those who work in emergency rooms, those who work to make 
nebulizers for those suffering from asthma, and people who make oxygen 
tanks. I am sorry to say this but that is the reality. If you ignore 
the health consequences, the jobs created will be to treat those who 
are going to be afflicted by pulmonary disease because of this 
eradication of a standard.
  I wish to ask the Senator from California, talk to me about job 
creation and pollution.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. Well, first of all, I want people to know 
that since the Clean Air Act passed and there were all these 
predictions of a horrible recession, there has been a huge number of 
jobs created and it is all documented on one of these charts here. I 
can tell you, our GDP rose more than any other industrialized nation in 
the world as we cleaned up the air.
  The Senator and I were on a trip to China. We did not see the Sun for 
days and days and days. I don't know if you missed this or caught this 
story in the New York Times. The Chinese elites in the government--many 
of whom we met with there to try to push our agenda, which is trade 
with China and all the other things we want and making sure their 
currency is floating--this is what we learned:

       Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing's 
     famously foul air.

  In the Great Hall there they have all these fabulous clean air 
devices. In their homes they are protected, in their cars they are 
protected. But guess what. The people are suffering and struggling. 
They don't even get to see the Sun shine there. If I could say, I don't 
want to see elitism here. Every single person in our country deserves 
to have a chance to breathe clean air.
  To get specifically to the point, to talk about the economy--because 
I think that is critical--Senator Paul's resolution is bad for this 
economy. It is bad for jobs. It is bad for our families. That is why it 
is opposed by every health professional.
  Let me say this. We are talking about 400,000 cases of aggravated 
asthma attacks if this resolution passes. We are talking about 34,000 
cases of premature death.
  I want to make a point here. If you are the head of household and you 
die prematurely because of filthy, polluted, poisonous air that is 
floating in from another State, you can't work and your family is in 
deep trouble. I will tell you this, the annual benefits by 2014--
annual, of this rule--are estimated to be $280 billion a year. So if 
anyone stands up here and says we are fighting for jobs, we are 
fighting for the people, we are fighting for the economy by rolling 
back clean air rules, don't believe it for a minute. If you don't want 
to listen to me or Senator Durbin, listen to the people I know you 
respect, from the American Association of Cardiovascular 
Rehabilitation, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the 
American Lung Association, the American Nurses Association. Those 
nurses have held those babies.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I hope we vote down this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time? The junior Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise in support of clean air, clean water, 
electricity, and jobs.
  Interestingly, the other side hasn't read the EPA v. North Carolina 
opinion that says the regulations were not overturned. We are arguing 
for keeping in the current regulations. We are just arguing that we not 
be overzealous and that we not add $2 billion in new regulations on top 
of the current regulations.
  We have $2 trillion worth of regulations heaped on our economy, 14 
million people out of work--2 million new people out of work since this 
President came into power. We cannot allow this administration to 
continue with its job-killing regulations.
  We can have a clean environment and we can have jobs. We are arguing 
for the existing regulations. We are arguing against placing additional 
burdens. We are arguing for the existing regulations. They don't seem 
to get it, so they make up all these numbers. All of their numbers are 
completely fictitious because they don't account for the current 
regulations that would still be in place if we don't increase these 
regulations.
  This is about whether we can have a balanced approach in our society, 
whether we can have a clean environment and have jobs. What I am 
arguing for here is some reasonableness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

                          ____________________